Electron Configuration After Photoelectric Effect

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the electron configuration changes in an atom, specifically a Zinc atom, following exposure to light in the context of the photoelectric effect. Participants explore the implications of this phenomenon on atomic and collective behavior, as well as the distinction between photoelectric effects in solids versus atoms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses curiosity about the changes in an atom's configuration after photon exposure, specifically asking about the ejection of electrons from 4s and 3d orbitals.
  • Another participant suggests that the surface of the metal (Zinc) is modified and mentions the application of photoelectron spectroscopy for surface analysis.
  • It is noted that the process can lead to Auger electrons and subsequent electron filling, described as a very fast process.
  • One participant points out the vagueness of the original question, highlighting the distinction between the photoelectric effect typically observed in solids and the concept of photoionization in isolated atoms.
  • The same participant emphasizes that in solids, atoms lose individuality and exhibit collective behavior, which complicates the understanding of the photoelectric effect as it relates to individual atoms.
  • A later reply clarifies that the original poster is referring to core-level photoemission and questions the compatibility of collective effects in solids with atomic-level phenomena.
  • Another participant reiterates that atoms do not possess bands or Fermi energy, unlike metals, and questions the expectations from a standard photoionization experiment on atoms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the photoelectric effect in solids versus atoms, with no consensus reached on the compatibility of collective effects and atomic behavior. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these differences.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding due to the vagueness of terms used and the complexity of distinguishing between solid-state effects and atomic phenomena. There are unresolved questions about the definitions and implications of core-level photoemission versus the traditional photoelectric effect.

The_ArtofScience
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
I'm not very well versed in the photoelectric effect, but as it happens, I found a brief description of it in my chem book. I'm really curious to know what really occurs to an atom's configuration right after its exposed to light. Let's say a photon hits a Zinc atom at threshold level and its expected for 2 electrons to be ejected. If it ejects one electron from 4s and one from 3d, what really happens to the atom? How does its behavior change?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i think the surface of the metal (zinc) modifies a bit...The effect is used mainly for surface analysis...photoelectron spectroscopy...
i hope member of this forum would give a more detailed explanation...
 
Also it leads to auger electrons...and subsequent filling of electrons...a very fast process
 
This question is a bit vague, because it is asking about the "photoelectric effect" that normally is done on SOLIDS, ie. metallic surfaces. Yet, it is asking as if it is a "photoionization" problem since it is on "atoms".

Again, in solids, atoms tend to lose their "individuality" and forms properties that are more collective in behavior that aren't found when they are separated. So the photoelectric effect that we are familiar with is a collective effect as the result of electron emission from the conduction band of the solid (individual atoms have no "bands").

Or maybe this person is asking about core-level photoemission? Hard to tell.

So until this issue is cleared up, there's no way to answer this question.

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
This question is a bit vague, because it is asking about the "photoelectric effect" that normally is done on SOLIDS, ie. metallic surfaces. Yet, it is asking as if it is a "photoionization" problem since it is on "atoms".

Again, in solids, atoms tend to lose their "individuality" and forms properties that are more collective in behavior that aren't found when they are separated. So the photoelectric effect that we are familiar with is a collective effect as the result of electron emission from the conduction band of the solid (individual atoms have no "bands").

Or maybe this person is asking about core-level photoemission? Hard to tell.

So until this issue is cleared up, there's no way to answer this question.

Zz.


Sorry for the long wait, I was busy with prepping up for some placement test. Yes, I am talking about core-level photoemission. I did some research on the terms you've used and forgive me for the lack of knowledge I have in solid-state physics, but I don't think there is much of a conflict between the collective effect vs. what happens at the atomic level. Can you tell me why these two aren't compatible?
 
The_ArtofScience said:
Sorry for the long wait, I was busy with prepping up for some placement test. Yes, I am talking about core-level photoemission. I did some research on the terms you've used and forgive me for the lack of knowledge I have in solid-state physics, but I don't think there is much of a conflict between the collective effect vs. what happens at the atomic level. Can you tell me why these two aren't compatible?

I just did. Atoms have no "band". Metals (and band solids) do! Atoms have no "Fermi energy", metals do! If you do a standard photoionization experiment on atoms, do you think you'll get something that looks like my avatar on the left that shows a continuous dispersion curve?

Zz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
11K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K