Where does the electron gain its energy from to keep orbiting?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pero2912
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electron Energy Gain
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of how electrons maintain their energy while orbiting the nucleus of an atom, particularly in the context of classical and quantum mechanical models. Participants explore the implications of various atomic models, including Rutherford's and Bohr's, and delve into the nature of electron movement and energy emission.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that Rutherford's model fails to explain how electrons could orbit without spiraling into the nucleus due to energy loss.
  • Others argue that Bohr's model postulates discrete orbits but does not satisfactorily explain the energy retention of electrons in these orbits.
  • A participant suggests that modern quantum mechanics provides an explanation where electrons do not radiate energy unless transitioning to a lower energy state.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of electron movement, with some asserting that the electron's quantum state does not change over time, thus preventing radiation.
  • Some participants express confusion over the concept of the electron moving within a "probability cloud" and its implications for electromagnetic wave creation.
  • One participant introduces the idea of a minimum action principle, suggesting that a particle cannot lose an arbitrary small amount of energy.
  • There is a debate regarding the interpretation of the probability cloud and its reality, with references to the Copenhagen interpretation and wave-function collapse.
  • Participants discuss the distinction between different notions of "moving," including changing probability density, changing position, and nonzero momentum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of electron movement, energy retention, and the validity of different atomic models. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on these complex topics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on interpretations of quantum mechanics, the unresolved nature of the electron's properties when not observed, and the varying definitions of movement in quantum contexts.

pero2912
Messages
15
Reaction score
1
Basic leak in Rutherford's model of atom was that electron would emit energy while orbiting around nucleus and this energy loss would lead to electron's spiraling to the nucleus and collapse of both atom and atom model. Then Niels Bohr came with the idea that electron exists only in discrete orbits, what prevents it from falling. But still, in his model, electron does orbit nucleus and thus radiates energy. My question is - what keeps it standing in the same orbital? How is it possible that electron which stands in ground orbit keeps the energy associated with that orbit if it obviously radiates some energy just by orbiting around?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rahul vaishnav
Physics news on Phys.org
Bohr's model cannot explain that, he just postulated it.
Modern quantum mechanics (well, "modern" - 1925+) can give an explanation - there is nothing "moving" in the way it would lead to radiation.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
The same way an electron parts ways with a proton in a chemical reaction, they can attract each other to form the (instable) atom. Stable Hydrogen is a 2-atomic molecule.
 
mfb said:
... there is nothing "moving" in the way it would lead to radiation.

Uhm, sorry, but I don't get it.. I thought, that electron moves within the "probability cloud" around the nucleus and so creates EM wave...
 
pero2912 said:
But still, in his model, electron does orbit nucleus and thus radiates energy.

No, it doesn't. That's the point: the classical model, which says that an electron must radiate energy while orbiting the nucleus, is *wrong*. The correct model is the quantum model, where the electron does not radiate energy unless there is a lower energy state for it to go to. If the electron is in the lowest energy orbital (the ground state of the atom), there is no lower energy state for it to go to, so it can't radiate any energy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
The electron is not moving in the sense that its quantum state is not changing with time. This is the important sense for EM radiation: if the quantum state is not changing, there is no EM radiation (according to quantum electrodynamics, and in agreement with experiment).

On the other hand, the electron is moving in the sense that, if you measure its velocity (or kinetic energy), you will not get zero.

Weird, isnt't it? That's quantum mechanics! :)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
pero2912 said:
Uhm, sorry, but I don't get it.. I thought, that electron moves within the "probability cloud" around the nucleus and so creates EM wave...

That's a bad analogy - it doesn't move in a cloud etc - in fact what properties it has when not observed is a matter of debate strongly depending on interpretation. Best to simply think of it as not having any properties until observed.

Thanks
Bill
 
Everything depends on what we understand by "moving". The electron in hydrogen does not change position and its wavefunction is stationary, yet it has nonzero momentum.

The analogy I use to visualize it is a circular pipe with circulating water. The pipe does not change position, the water does not change mass distribution, yet it has nonzero momentum.

The important thing is to distinguish the 3 notions of "moving":
- changing (non-stationary) probability density
- changing position
- nonzero momentum or kinetic energy.
 
I think it also has something to do with the with the fact that there is a mimimum action principle at work. A particle cannot loose an arbitrary small amount of energy.
 
  • #10
pero2912 said:
Uhm, sorry, but I don't get it.. I thought, that electron moves within the "probability cloud" around the nucleus and so creates EM wave...

No EM wave is created! What are you reading to get this impression?

And I think your interpretation "electron moves within the probability cloud" is dodgy - though there are so many interpretations these days that I certainly wouldn't be prepared to dismiss it :).

If you are new to this, I'd stick to trying to understand the Copenhagen interpretation for starters!
In the Copenhagen interpretation, there is only the probability cloud to start with. (Another name for the probability cloud is the wave-function for the electron.). The electron only appears when a measurement is made - due to "wave-function collapse". Whether the probability cloud is real or not is a moot point, both positions are taken by different supporters of the Copenhagen interpretation. You can never "see" the probability cloud, if it exists, because a measurement always causes wave function collapse. I like to think there is something there (a fuzzy cloud around the nucleus) that instantaneously collapses into a little electron particle when a measurement is made. But maybe I'm being too committal in thinking this way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Meaning_of_the_wave_function
 
  • #11
Avodyne said:
The electron is not moving in the sense that its quantum state is not changing with time. This is the important sense for EM radiation: if the quantum state is not changing, there is no EM radiation (according to quantum electrodynamics, and in agreement with experiment).

Yes, the probability cloud sits there like fog above London Bridge on a still day.

On the other hand, the electron is moving in the sense that, if you measure its velocity (or kinetic energy), you will not get zero.

What electron?! Until the measurement is a made there is only the probability cloud. Of course the measurement causes the cloud to implode into a electron with an actual velocity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K