B For what elements does Born–Oppenheimer approximation fail the most?

Click For Summary
The Born–Oppenheimer approximation is most likely to fail for lighter elements due to their more mobile nuclei, which can significantly influence electron behavior. The discussion highlights that the approximation is primarily applicable to molecules rather than individual atoms. It emphasizes that the common simplification of stating "nuclei don't move" is misleading; instead, it neglects the variations in electronic wave functions related to nuclear motion. Additionally, the approximation can break down in scenarios involving crossing electronic states, such as conical intersections. Understanding these limitations is crucial for accurate molecular modeling.
Lotto
Messages
253
Reaction score
16
TL;DR
We can consider atomic nucleus fixed, so we suppose it doesn't move. But for what elements is Born–Oppenheimer approximation the least accurate (the nucleus moves a "a lot")?
I would say that for the elements with the lowest atomic numbers, because these elements have their nuclei the lightest and so they can move more and their movement influence electrons more than in some heavier elements, whose nuclei move less. Am I right or not?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand the question. The BO approximation applies to molecules, not individual atoms, so I don't understand the consideration of elements.

Also, saying that the BO approximation is "nuclei don't move" is an oversimplification (although it is used often in elementary introductions to the subject). It is more that variations of electronic wave functions with respect to nuclear motion are neglected. In many molecules one will find, for example, crossing electronic states where the BO approximation breaks down. See for instance conical intersection.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby and vanhees71
For the quantum state ##|l,m\rangle= |2,0\rangle## the z-component of angular momentum is zero and ##|L^2|=6 \hbar^2##. According to uncertainty it is impossible to determine the values of ##L_x, L_y, L_z## simultaneously. However, we know that ##L_x## and ## L_y##, like ##L_z##, get the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. In other words, for the state ##|2,0\rangle## we have ##\vec{L}=(L_x, L_y,0)## with ##L_x## and ## L_y## one of the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. But none of these...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K