Field lines of electrons in an atomic orbital

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the electric field lines of electrons in atomic orbitals, specifically in hydrogen atoms. Participants clarify that classical concepts like electric field lines do not adequately describe quantum mechanical behavior. The electric field from an electron in an orbital cannot be computed as if it were a stationary charge; instead, it requires understanding the electron's wave-like nature and charge distribution. The conversation emphasizes that the electric field near the nucleus drops to zero and that classical interpretations fail to capture the complexities of quantum mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Quantum Mechanics fundamentals
  • Electromagnetic Theory, specifically electric fields
  • Understanding of atomic orbitals and electron density functions
  • Familiarity with the Hartree-Fock method in quantum chemistry
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of quantum mechanics on electric fields in atomic systems
  • Explore the Hartree-Fock method for multi-electron systems
  • Learn about the convolution of charge distributions and electric fields
  • Investigate molecular dynamics simulations and their approach to charge distribution
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on quantum mechanics, atomic physics, and electromagnetic theory. This discussion is beneficial for anyone seeking to understand the limitations of classical physics in describing quantum systems.

  • #31
xortdsc said:
That's what I thought, but after further thinking about it there really IS a problem (merely a computational one): For a traditional point-like charge the field goes to infinity at the position of the charge, independent of its magnitude (which is possibly not 100% correct, but all we have in the classical theory). So, if one would use the charge density as a source and apply that traditional law to the partial charges it would yield infinity everywhere. So for this reason it may really be impossible. :/
That's fine, the integral is still well-defined - even if you would add the magnitudes, the result would be finite, and if you add the directions this region will cancel nearly completely.

sophiecentaur said:
... in all places at all times?
That's a matter of definition and interpretation, but it is not what I meant.
But, if there is a probability density function
It is a probability only if you do measurements. I prefer the term "wave function" here. You can simply treat the electron as a wave and use it as classical object to get a meaningful (!) result.
then how can this be used to produce a map of the expected field around the atom
It is not an expectation value.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Wow, I'm really surprised at the amount of nonsense going around in the earlier parts of this thread...

Vanadium 50 said:
Given an atom in an energy eigenstate, the field is static. ('But what if it isn't?' is beyond the scope of this course, the next course, and the one after that) If the field were changing, there would be radiation, and that takes energy, and then the atom is not in that energy eigenstate any more.

So what's the field? Superposition tells us it's the field of the proton, e/r^2 plus the field of the electron, which QM tells us. It works out to

\frac{+e}{r^3}\vec{r}-e\int \frac{\psi^* \psi d\vec{r}}{r^3}

Once one has the field, one is free to draw field lines, but as has been pointed out, this is not helpful. Note that while, in an energy eigenstate the electron does not have a well-defined position, the electric field is well defined.

That's exactly how I'd calculate the field, although this statement is incorrect,

Vanadium 50 said:
The integral is over all space.

The integral is indeed from zero to r, as the OP originally surmised. Integrating over all space you're removing the position dependence of the field.

It's not clear to me though that on short time-scales there wouldn't be fluctuations in the field, because although the electron is in a stationary state the "standing wave" wave function \Psi(\vec{r},t) is still vibrating about the nucleus. However, I totally agree with Vanadium's calculation for, at the very least, the time-averaged field.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #33
dipole said:
Integrating over all space you're removing the position dependence of the field.

I was sloppy, as I used r as both a position variable and as a variable of integration. If you integrate over "r-integration" (maybe it should be r-prime) you will be left with a function of r. I was also sloppy in that psi itself is a function of r.
 
  • #34
dipole said:
Wow, I'm really surprised at the amount of nonsense going around in the earlier parts of this thread...


.

Where were you when we needed you then? :wink:
 
  • #35
Thank you guys, this was helpful.
So as I quickly did some calculations it seems like for S-orbitals the electric field is always pointing away from the nucleus and decays to zero at infinity (though the falloff is fairly steep and not constant but wavey due to the S-orbital nodes (for n>1)).
For other orbital-shapes there seems to be a slight "polarization". So let's say P-orbitals have slight negative electric charge along the direction of the dumbbell and equal positive charge in the other directions. This is a very subtle and rather short-range effect of course.
Would you say that's conceptually correct ?
 
  • #36
I don't think there should be any polarization because of the spherical symmetry inherent in the problem. The time-averaged field should have no angular dependence.

I think in order to get a time-averaged field you may want to integrate away the angular components.
 
  • #37
S-orbitals have spherically symmetric fields. The other orbitals do have polarizations, yes.
 
  • #38
Cool. Makes sense now I think. Thanks again :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
500
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K