Can QT estimate the ionization energy of neutral Helium, He I?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the estimation of the ionization energy of neutral Helium (He I) using quantum theory (QT) and the conceptual understanding of ionization energy in general. Participants explore the theoretical frameworks, experimental methods, and the challenges associated with calculating ionization energies for various atoms and ions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about the definition of ionization energy, questioning why the 'outermost electron' is considered the easiest to remove despite it being described as having the highest energy.
  • There is a proposal that perturbation theory can estimate the ionization energy of neutral Helium to within 10%, and that the Hartree-Fock approximation can yield results within 1% accuracy when correlation energies are accounted for.
  • Participants discuss the complexity of calculations for Helium and other elements, noting that while computers can provide high-precision results, the inclusion of correlation effects complicates the process for heavier elements.
  • One participant describes the experimental determination of ionization energy through photoionization experiments using synchrotron sources and spectrometers, detailing the process involving UV light and detection of charged species.
  • There is a question about the historical methods used for measuring ionization energies, with a participant wondering if earlier techniques differed from modern approaches.
  • Some participants debate the reasoning behind the energy states of electrons, particularly in relation to ground and excited states, and whether it is easier to remove an electron from an excited state compared to a ground state.
  • Concerns are raised about the breakdown of non-relativistic quantum mechanics for heavy elements and its implications for understanding atomic behavior.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the conceptual understanding of ionization energy and the methods for its calculation and measurement. There is no consensus on the interpretation of energy states or the historical context of measurement techniques, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of these topics.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the calculations for ionization energies can become complex due to the need for approximations and the challenges posed by electron correlation, especially in heavier elements. The discussion highlights the limitations of current methods and the intricacies involved in both theoretical and experimental approaches.

  • #31
Sean Torrebadel said:
I'll accept that probability theories have their place, but I refuse to accept that the foundation of my structural being is structured with such uncertainty.

Still you are born because of a totally random egg-activation,
and you had about 50% probability of being structurally a male or a female.

From the rest of you comments on QM, I can also conclude that your training in this field was a bit chaotic ...
... and this influenced considerably (structurally) your way of thinking.

If you just considered all experimental data, your conclusion would be certainly different.
Experimental data would reduce any uncertainty in your understanding of physics.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K