What Happens to Energy When Ionization Matches the Workfunction?

[nobahar]

Hello!
Not sure if this is the right place to post this question.
It concerns ionization energies. A certain amount of energy is needed to eject an electron, if the energy provided exactly matches the workfunction, then the electron has zero kinetic energy. If it is some amount greater than the workfunction, then the kinetic energy of the electron is equal to the difference. This has left me a little confused. What happens to the energy that does not go into kinetic energy? If you provide energy equal to the workfunction then the electron has zero kinetic energy. What has happened to the energy provided? I assume it has to do with the electric (?) attraction between the electron and the nucleus. ince the attraction can be viewed form either the perspective of the elctron or the proton, where does the energy go? I may be wrong about the last part (or all of it!).
Any help appreciated,
Many thanks.

 

[rock.freak667]

The work function is the minimum energy required to liberate the electron from the surface.

 

[nobahar]

Thanks for the response rockfreak. My apologies, I have confused the work function with ionisation energy. They are somewhat similar, I think. Does the same not apply to the ionisation energy? If I supply an amount of energy equal to the ionisation energy, I can remove an electron from an atom. If I supply energy> the I.E., does this provide the electron with kinetic energy, equivalent to the difference between the energy supplied and the I.E.? Where does the ionisation energy go? Does it go to the electron?
Any further help would be appreciated. The sources I have found simply give a 'definition-esque' answer.

 

[rock.freak667]

Thanks for the response rockfreak. My apologies, I have confused the work function with ionisation energy. They are somewhat similar, I think. Does the same not apply to the ionisation energy? If I supply an amount of energy equal to the ionisation energy, I can remove an electron from an atom. If I supply energy> the I.E., does this provide the electron with kinetic energy, equivalent to the difference between the energy supplied and the I.E.? Where does the ionisation energy go? Does it go to the electron?
Any further help would be appreciated. The sources I have found simply give a 'definition-esque' answer.

The work function is specifically for metals, introduced in the photoelectric effect. (these metals are in a solid form)

Ionization energy is the energy needed to move the electron from n=0 to infinity. That energy could be converted to kinetic energy and potential energy as the electron moves away from the nucleus. (This is for free atoms)

 

[nobahar]

Thanks for the quick response.
Potential energy has always been very confusing (as has energy in general). So the electron acquires potential energyas it is ejected from the atom. If it 'joins' another atom, or perhaps the same atom, it then loses this potential energy, presumably as a photon? Furthermore, it could 'fall' closer to the nucleus (if it doesn't join the same atom), and emit more energy, potential energy that it already had and did not acquire through the ionisation process?

 

[rock.freak667]

Thanks for the quick response.
Potential energy has always been very confusing (as has energy in general). So the electron acquires potential energyas it is ejected from the atom. If it 'joins' another atom, or perhaps the same atom, it then loses this potential energy, presumably as a photon? Furthermore, it could 'fall' closer to the nucleus (if it doesn't join the same atom), and emit more energy, potential energy that it already had and did not acquire through the ionisation process?

I am not sure if it is a photon per se, but it emits radiation. I am not sure if I understand your last sentence.

 

[nobahar]

Thanks again for the response.
My last sentence was supposed to be the following scenario. If I liberate an electron from a shell n=4 of atom A,and it joins atom B,in a shell n=2, then it would it would lose energy, more energy than it gained from being liberated from the n=4 shell of atom A. Since it would take x amount of energy to remove the elctron from a subshell in n=4, yet it would take more energy to liberate it from a shell n=2. So if it joins an atom at alower n value, then it must lose more energy than it acquired from being liberated from atom A.
If I had a universe, and it only has an electron it, what would its energy be? Then say I introduced a proton,as the electron approaches the proton it must lose energy. Is this correct? It makes me wonder what potential energy is (or whatever the energy is that the electron has). I do not know if the scenario is valid (i.e. makes sense).
Thanks so far for the responses!

 

[nobahar]

Interestingly, I think this issue may have come up in Stephen Hawking's book, The Grand Design. He talks about positive and negative energy, and vacuum energy. He states that the total energy in the universe must be constant, and a 'base point' to use is zero, so energy 'put in' must also be 'taken out', or used; and that gravitational energy is negative. Does this have anything to do with the negative sign in the electrons energy level when it approaches a nucleus? I'm sure that I read that the electric force between a proton and an electron was also negative.
Is there any relation here?