Discovering Atomic Radii for Isotopes: A Comprehensive Guide

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter elas
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atomic Atomic radii
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the search for atomic radii of isotopes, exploring the relationship between atomic size, mass, and the behavior of electrons in various elements. Participants share methods for estimating atomic radii and express curiosity about the underlying physics, particularly in relation to isotopes and their properties.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about sources for atomic radii specifically for isotopes, noting that existing tables typically do not include this information.
  • One participant suggests a rough method for calculating atomic radii by multiplying known values, while others clarify the distinction between atomic and nuclear radii.
  • There is discussion about the consistency of atomic radii across isotopes of the same element, attributed to the similar charge of the nucleus and electron wave functions.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about the accuracy of formulas for calculating atomic radii, particularly to four decimal places, and seeks confirmation of this uncertainty.
  • Another participant shares insights from the CRC "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics," noting that ionic radii can be related but differ from neutral atomic radii.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of electron interactions and the challenges in calculating wave functions for multi-electron atoms, suggesting that these factors complicate the definition of atomic size.
  • There is mention of the relationship between the number of sub-atomic particles and atomic radius, with some participants questioning why increases in particle number typically lead to a reduction in radius.
  • One participant highlights the variability of ionic sizes depending on the crystal environment, suggesting that experimental measurements may not be stable to more than two digits.
  • Clarifications are sought regarding the different units of measurement used in tables for atomic radii and the relationship between mass and radius.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the accuracy of atomic radius calculations or the relationship between mass and radius. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best methods for determining atomic radii for isotopes and the implications of various factors affecting atomic size.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in existing data and the complexity of accurately defining atomic and ionic sizes due to the nature of electron wave functions and environmental factors. There are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the relationships discussed.

  • #31
So how do you allow for the difference in mass?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
You use the reduced mass, m_e*m_nucleus/(m_e+m_nucleus) . Since the electron is so much lighter than the nucleus, this is a very small correction; and so the correction for different isotopes is a *very*-small second-order effect. Even for say hydrogen vs. tritium, where it will be most noticeable, you get

hydrogen: m_e*(1-0.00054)
tritium: m_e*(1-0.00018)
 
  • #33
I agree the difference is very small, but I found a method of determining the difference in radius caused by this small difference in mass. When I tried to discover if I had something new I was met with several replies stating that there is no change in radius. I still have not had any authoritive reference for this claim.
Meanwhile I am continueing with my work as I hope other structural relationships will come to light, but all replies are much appreciated,
elas
 
  • #34
well, because the difference between psi-function of various isotopes of the same element is in 5-th digit only, make sure that your semi - empirical formula can fetch that far.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by elas

I seek to explain why element 92 is almost 300 times the mass of element 1 but only three times the size,...

Elas; there are several considerations that need to be addressed in trying to develope an empirical formula for atomic size, which make it almost prohibitive.

Ist, element 92, for example, has 92 positive charges accelerating each electron, which, you would think, should actually shrink the orbits. However, there is something else that you forgot to take into account.
There is something called "shielding".

This, in effect, is due to successive 'layers' of electron orbitals at various distances from the nucleus. The innermost electrons actually 'shield' successive outer electrons from the full electrostatic effect of the nucleus. This effect, the combined effect(and its magnitude) is probably the hardest thing to quantify especially at higher atomic numbers.

Creator
 
  • #36
I very much appreciate the advise particularly from those with professional training in Particle Physics. I have taken an amateur interest in cosmology for many years. As a follow on from this I ended up dealing with the question of the structure of fundamental particles; in the belief that the closer one reaches back to the beginning the simpler the problem should be, and the simple problems are all I can manage.
There is a very simple system for finding the radii (if they exist)of elements and isotopes, and I intend to finish finding them and then look to see if I can go any further. In this I am encouraged by the lack of firm reference on the subject matter.
Mant thanks
elas
 
  • #37
I have at last found an authoritive quote-

..."However,the nuclear and atomic properties of isotopes can be different. The electronic energy levels of an atom depend upon the nuclear mass. Thus corresponding atomic levels of isotopes are slightly shifted relative to each other."
(From an ancient science encyclopedia in our ancient library)

My method reveals the amount of shift per nucleon added or removed in terms of mass and radius. If anyone is aware of such a method already in existence I would like to have the details, otherwise you are going to be bored with my amateur version in the near future.
 
  • #38
Please go to "Vacuum force model in "theory Developement
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K