Why does bringing N 1-orbital atoms together yield N levels?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter geologic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atoms Levels Yield
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the phenomenon of energy level formation when multiple 1s orbital atoms, specifically hydrogen atoms, are brought together. It examines the implications of electron interactions, wavefunction behavior, and the resulting energy states in a system of N atoms, with a focus on theoretical models and interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes how bringing N hydrogen atoms together causes the 1s level to fan out into N levels, questioning the behavior of wavefunctions in bonding and anti-bonding scenarios.
  • Another participant hints at the relevance of the Pauli exclusion principle in defining the number of distinct energy levels.
  • A participant agrees that only two distinct energy levels arise for three atoms, but notes that there are two independent wavefunctions corresponding to the upper level.
  • There is a suggestion that in a system with N atoms, the number of distinct energy levels could be (N+1)/2, which contrasts with the idea that N atoms yield N distinct levels.
  • One participant proposes that the electron-electron interactions in a system of closely packed atoms lead to a loss of well-defined 1s states, resulting in new energy levels that are a superposition of the original states.
  • Another participant suggests modeling the system using finite square wells to understand the behavior of bound states as the distance between atoms changes.
  • It is noted that when many atoms are close together, energy levels merge to form bands, complicating the distinction of individual states.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the number of energy levels that arise from bringing N atoms together, with some suggesting (N+1)/2 levels and others asserting that N levels should exist. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact nature of the energy states and the implications of wavefunction behavior.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the definitions of states and the assumptions made about electron interactions and wavefunction shapes. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical steps involved in determining the number of energy levels.

geologic
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
A common example of this is that when bringing N hydrogen atoms together into a ring. Far apart, assume each electron exists in the 1s state. As we bring them together, instead of each electron staying at the original 1s level, or all of them changing by the same amount, the 1s level fans out into N.

For the case of 2 atoms, I can understand this as bonding or anti-bonding of the atoms. i.e., do the wavefunctions add between the protons, meaning each electron can share in the potential of both protons (bonding) or do the wavefunctions destructively interfere between the protons (anti-bonding).

With 3 atoms, I can't find 3 levels. Assuming Gaussian shaped wavefunctions, note that the sign of each wavefunction between any two atoms defines the wavefunction on the rest of the ring. Since the signs of the wavefunction are independent, there should be 2^3=8 possibilities since each wavefunction can be + or -. Yet, there are really only 2 energetically distinct arrangements that I see: all have the same sign (two cases) or 2 of 3 have the same sign (2*(3 choose 2)), to account for both sign cases). So I get 3 atoms yield 2 levels.

Can somebody shed light on what I've done incorrectly? Or is 3 too small to work correctly? Is there an argument about the shape of the orbitals I've neglected?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hint: Pauli exclusion principle.
 
geologic said:
Yet, there are really only 2 energetically distinct arrangements that I see: all have the same sign (two cases) or 2 of 3 have the same sign (2*(3 choose 2)), to account for both sign cases). So I get 3 atoms yield 2 levels.

You are right in that you only get two distinct energy levels. However there are two independent wavefunctions giving the same energy in case of the upper level.
In the case of a ring with N atoms, you get (N+1)/2 distinct energy levels.
 
Simon Bridge said:
Hint: Pauli exclusion principle.

Yeah, I suppose I'm unclear about what defines a state in this context. If I assume all of the electrons remain in the 1s state, while sort of forming a metal, then I have more electrons than available states. So, the creation of more states solves this problem, but isn't obviously the answer.


DrDu said:
You are right in that you only get two distinct energy levels. However there are two independent wavefunctions giving the same energy in case of the upper level.
In the case of a ring with N atoms, you get (N+1)/2 distinct energy levels.

By the two independent wavefunctions in the upper (anti-bonding) level, do you mean the sign of them? Then this should yield 4 total levels since you could argue the same thing for the constructively interfering wavefunctions.

Also, the (N+1)/2 argument seems contrary to what I remember reading in Kittel: N atoms yield N levels. I assumed the levels were distinct.


Thanks for your replies, please follow up!
 
Lets restrict talk to energy eigenstates of the system then.

When you bring a lot of atoms together, the electron-electron interactions mean that there is no longer a well-defined 1s state. The new system has different energy levels. The old 1s state is a superposition of the new system ... and the electrons decay into the new energy levels creating the new ground state.

You can model this by putting two finite square wells at different distances from each other and look what happens to the first few bound states when they are different distances apart. Also start with just one square well, with one particle, and "switch on" a second one.

Another way of thinking about it: no two electrons in the universe are ever in exactly the same discrete state - its just that the energy levels for far-separated wells are so very similar our instruments cannot tell the difference. When the wells get closer, their interactions force the states to split and you can see the difference.

Whatever - once the combined system has formed, the inital 1s states no longer exist and their energy levels may even be forbidden.

When lots of atoms are close together, like in a solid, the energy levels merge to form bands.

Note: I was wondering if DrDu was thinking of molecular energy or, maybe, configuration states.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
1K