I Heat energy: statistical mechanics vs atomic orbitals

Click For Summary
Statistical mechanics accounts for heat energy in gases primarily through the kinetic energy of molecules, while atomic orbitals have distinct energy levels that theoretically contribute to heat energy. However, at ordinary temperatures, the thermal excitation of electrons to higher atomic orbitals is minimal, leading to negligible contributions to specific heat from these excited states. Calculations show that the probability of electrons being in excited states is extremely low, approximately 2.6 x 10^-34, reinforcing the dominance of kinetic energy in monatomic gases. Texts like Reif's Statistical Physics emphasize that for ideal monatomic gases, the energy is almost entirely kinetic, neglecting contributions from excited electron states. In contrast, diatomic molecules can exhibit significant contributions to specific heat from rotational and vibrational modes at higher temperatures.
Zebulin
Messages
8
Reaction score
3
Normally, I prefer to do my own research, but I'm drawing a blank on this one. Any help would be appreciated.

My understanding is that statistical mechanics accounts for all of the heat energy in a gas by the kinetic energy of the molecules. I also understand that atomic orbitals have different energy levels, and because of the links between heat, radiation, and orbitals, I assume that the atomic orbitals must contribute to the heat energy of a gas. But this seems to be a contradiction with statistical mechanics where all of the heat energy is in kinetic energy.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The thermal excitation of the electrons out of the ground state to higher atomic orbitals is quite minimal at ordinary temperatures for a gas. Thereby, there is not a significant contribution to the specific heat from the electrons being thermally excited into higher orbitals. ## \\ ## To quantify, a typical electronic transition would be on the order of ## \Delta E=2 eV ##. Statistically, we can determine the ratio of the probability of an electron being in the excited state (at ## \Delta E=2 \, eV ##) vs. the ground state at ## T=300 K ## : That ratio is ## p=e^{-\Delta E/(k_b T)}=e^{-2(1.602E-19)/((1.381 E-23) (300))} ## where ## k_b ## is Boltzmann's constant. ## \\ ## Basically, all of the electrons can be assumed to remain in the ground state in regards to computations of the specific heat. ## \\ ## If we had one mole of a gas, the energy contribution to the above would be ## E=(6.02 E+23)(2)(1.602 E-19)(p) \, Joules ##. The factor ## p ## is so small that this number for the energy ## E ## is miniscule compared to the kinetic energy of the atoms, ## E_{kinetic}=(3/2)nRT ##, where ## R=(4.184)1.987 \, Joules/(mole-degree \, K) ## with ## n=1 ## mole. ## \\ ## Editing note: Initially I had the incorrect exponent on Boltzmann's constant.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Zebulin
Charles Link said:
Statistically, we can determine the ratio of the probability of an electron being in the excited state (at ## \Delta E=2 \, eV ##) vs. the ground state at ## T=300 K ## : That ratio is ## p=e^{-\Delta E/(k_b T)}=e^{-2(1.602E-19)/((1.381 E-23) (300))} ##

Whoa, if my calculations are right, that's about 2.6 x 10^-34. That's really small...
 
  • Like
Likes Charles Link
Drakkith said:
Whoa, if my calculations are right, that's about 2.6 x 10^-34. That's really small...
It really is a good question by the OP @Zebulin, but the specific heat contribution from the excited electron states in a monatomic gas is so small that most Statistical Physics textbooks don't even consider it. In Reif's Statistical Physics book, on p.251 (chapter 7.6 Simple Applications), he states "For an ideal monatomic gas the entire energy is kinetic, so that the mean energy per mole of gas is simply ## \bar{E}=N_a (\frac{3}{2}k T)=\frac{3}{2}RT ## ". ## \\ ## It really is a heads-up question to ask "what about the excited states"? In diatomic molecules the rotational modes are excited states that do come into play, and at very high temperatures even the vibrational modes of diatomic molecules can make a contribution to the specific heat. (The energy of a typical excited rotational state is much much less than 2 eV, so that atoms with excited rotational states are quite abundant and the number increases considerably with an increase in temperature.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Zebulin
Wow. You guys are great. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Likes Charles Link
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...