Exclusion principle in quantum gasses

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Quant ummm?
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Principle Quantum
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Pauli's exclusion principle as it applies to free electrons in metals, specifically in a 1 cm cube of copper at room temperature. The number of free electrons, calculated as N = 8.45 × 1022, vastly exceeds the number of available quantum states (2 × 1019), leading to a significant number of electrons occupying higher energy states, estimated at around 7 eV. The analysis indicates that the exclusion principle remains valid regardless of the sample size, as the quantum states are filled sequentially, with higher energy states accommodating excess electrons.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Pauli's exclusion principle
  • Familiarity with quantum mechanics concepts, particularly electron states
  • Knowledge of density of states in quantum systems
  • Basic principles of solid-state physics, especially in metals
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the density of states in quantum gases and its implications
  • Explore the concept of electron gas in metals and its thermodynamic properties
  • Learn about the relationship between energy levels and electron wavelengths in solids
  • Investigate the implications of quantum mechanics in large-scale systems, such as metals
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, materials scientists, and students studying quantum mechanics or solid-state physics who seek to deepen their understanding of electron behavior in metals and the implications of the exclusion principle.

Quant ummm?
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi there,

I understand (to a degree) Pauli's exclusion principle in terms of electrons in an atom but I'm a little confused about the scales involved with free electrons, say electron gasses in metals...

My textbook gives an example:

"consider a 1cm cube of copper at room temperature. The number of free electrons N can be found from Table 1.3 to be N = nV = 8.45 × 1028 m−3 × 10−6m = 8.45 × 1022. The total number of quantum states up to energy kT, (found by using the density of states De(E) in a definite integral) has the value 2 × 1019. You can see that this number of states can accommodate only about 0.02% of the free electrons. The rest have to pile up into states of higher energy, a long way above kT. If we ask how far up the energy scale we have to go to accommodate all the free electrons, we obtain the amazing answer of about 7 eV. This is about 300kT at room temperature."

1cm is quite large compared to the de Broglie wavelength of an electron so L doesn't appear to make much difference here. To take it to an extreme, if I regard the hull of a battleship as a block of iron, the surfaces of which contain an electron gas, does the quantum state of an electron in the bow forbid an electron in the stern from having that state? Also, it would seem that with a big enough sample, some electrons would have to occupy unimaginably high states.

I suspect that separation is relevant to exclusion but I can't seem to find a rule, or I have fundamentally misunderstood the whole thing...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Quant ummm? said:
Hi there,

I understand (to a degree) Pauli's exclusion principle in terms of electrons in an atom but I'm a little confused about the scales involved with free electrons, say electron gasses in metals...

My textbook gives an example:

"consider a 1cm cube of copper at room temperature. The number of free electrons N can be found from Table 1.3 to be N = nV = 8.45 × 1028 m−3 × 10−6m = 8.45 × 1022. The total number of quantum states up to energy kT, (found by using the density of states De(E) in a definite integral) has the value 2 × 1019. You can see that this number of states can accommodate only about 0.02% of the free electrons. The rest have to pile up into states of higher energy, a long way above kT. If we ask how far up the energy scale we have to go to accommodate all the free electrons, we obtain the amazing answer of about 7 eV. This is about 300kT at room temperature."

1cm is quite large compared to the de Broglie wavelength of an electron so L doesn't appear to make much difference here. To take it to an extreme, if I regard the hull of a battleship as a block of iron, the surfaces of which contain an electron gas, does the quantum state of an electron in the bow forbid an electron in the stern from having that state? Also, it would seem that with a big enough sample, some electrons would have to occupy unimaginably high states.

I suspect that separation is relevant to exclusion but I can't seem to find a rule, or I have fundamentally misunderstood the whole thing...

I'm going to take a stab at this:

The number of free electrons is approximately the number of copper atoms if you assume that all but one of the electrons in the atom are bound to their own local atom. So you have a block of positive (+1) copper ions in a sea of free electrons.

This is approximately a cubical potential well, which we solve just like the potential wells of first-year physics. The lowest energy state is a standing wave with nodes along the walls of the cube; the subsequent states divide the cube into two, three or more nodal regions.

All these regions are filled by electrons one at a time. Subsequent levels require more and more nodal surfaces, until at the limit, the nodal surfaces virtually coincide with the number of atoms. You can see this must be so by a counting argument where you compare the number of atoms in a cubical lattice to the number of standing wave modes filling the same cubical volume. So the highest energy electrons have a wavelength approximately equal to the distance between two atoms.

And that is where your 7 electron volts comes from. If you just think of the hydrogen atom (-13.6 eV) you will know that a wavelength of atomic dimensions has more or less that much energy.

The initial volume (1 cc) is irrelevant to the shape of this argument, and that is why it applies to a battleship the same way it applies to a penny.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
528
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K