Electron shell further away from nucleus higher Energy lvl?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the energy levels of electrons in relation to their distance from the nucleus, specifically addressing whether electrons further from the nucleus have higher energy levels compared to those closer to the nucleus. The conversation touches on concepts from electrical potential energy and Coulomb's law, as well as the nature of electron behavior in atomic structures.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that using electrical potential energy and Coulomb's law, a particle further away from the nucleus has lower magnitude of energy due to weaker attraction, suggesting that electrons closer to the nucleus should have higher energy.
  • Others argue that no energy is needed to maintain an orbit, and that energy is only required to remove an electron from a bound state or to transition it to a higher energy level.
  • A participant acknowledges the clarification regarding the nature of electron orbits and the role of energy in maintaining orbits versus transitioning energy levels.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between electron distance from the nucleus and energy levels, with some asserting that closer electrons have higher energy, while others clarify that maintaining an orbit does not require energy. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these claims.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about electron behavior, the definitions of energy levels, and the implications of Coulomb's law in this context. The conversation does not fully resolve the mathematical or conceptual nuances involved.

Boomzxc
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Using electrical potential energy =1/4πεo Q1Q2/r , a particle further away from nucleus has lower magnitude of energy

Using coulomb's law, a particle further away from nucleus experiences weaker attraction, hence less energy is needed to maintain orbit* around that e-shell compared to a electron shell closerr to nucleus, hence the one closer to nucleus supposedly should have higher energy.

*i know in reality e- does not orbit around a atom, but its position exists as a probability density of radial probability function.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Boomzxc said:
Using coulomb's law, a particle further away from nucleus experiences weaker attraction, hence less energy is needed to maintain orbit* around that e-shell compared to a electron shell closerr to nucleus, hence the one closer to nucleus supposedly should have higher energy.

No energy is needed to "maintain an orbit" regardless of what the energy level is. What requires energy is removing an electron from a bound state.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Boomzxc
Boomzxc said:
Using electrical potential energy =1/4πεo Q1Q2/r , a particle further away from nucleus has lower magnitude of energy

Using coulomb's law, a particle further away from nucleus experiences weaker attraction,
hence less energy is needed to maintain orbit* around that e-shell compared to a electron shell closerr to nucleus, hence the one closer to nucleus supposedly should have higher energy.
*i know in reality e- does not orbit around a atom, but its position exists as a probability density of radial probability function.

[SORRY TYPO] :
It's position exists as a probability density OR* radial probability function
 
Is it possible to edit the contents of the thread?
 
Orodruin said:
No energy is needed to "maintain an orbit" regardless of what the energy level is. What requires energy is removing an electron from a bound state.
Ahh yes ! Okay, i understand better now.
Yes, no energy is needed for an electron to maintain an orbit as acceleration is perpendicular to direction of motion

Removing e- from a atom or transitioning it to a higher energy level requires energy.

Thank you , orodruin !
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K