gib65 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Take a hydrogen atom into consideration. We can say that its frequency is how many times per second (or nanosecond?) its electron orbits the nucleus. This makes sense according to the Rutherford model, but what about in the case of the standard model. As I understanding it, the standard model has electrons surrounding the nucleus as "electron clouds" - that is, they don't literally orbit the nucleus. Therefore, is it still correct to say that the atom has a frequency? Is the electron still undergoing so many ___s per second? And what are those ___s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 The context of frequency is in transitions; if you put an atom in a superposition of 2 states, you can say it's oscillating at the frequency difference between those states. The Bohr model has electrons as standing waves. Even in that flawed picture, one wouldn't necessarily talk about an orbital frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gib65 Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 The context of frequency is in transitions; if you put an atom in a superposition of 2 states, you can say it's oscillating at the frequency difference between those states. The Bohr model has electrons as standing waves. Even in that flawed picture, one wouldn't necessarily talk about an orbital frequency. OK, so let's say the frequencies of the two states were 10 MHz and 13 MHz (I have no idea if this is to scale ), then the atom could be said to be oscillating at 3 MHz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 There's no basis to say a state was at 10 MHz or 13 MHz. You can measure that it takes a 3 MHz photon to induce a transition, and that tells you the separation between the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenTheMan Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 if you put an atom in a superposition of 2 states, you can say it's oscillating at the frequency difference between those states. I agree, I think. As long as the oscillation time is on order of hbar times a few, right? (So, VERY quickly.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I agree, I think. As long as the oscillation time is on order of hbar times a few, right? (So, VERY quickly.) Vey quickly, yes (typically). It's the basis for how atomic clocks work: you let the atoms oscillate between the two states after you've put them in the superposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riogho Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 Uh... let me a find a picture. You need to forget the Bohr Model of the atom, it is inaccurate. Electron orbitals do not orbit in circles. They look like that. First fillign up the 1s level, then the 2s2p then the 3s3p3d etc etc It's called electron configuration, look it up on wiki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordman Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 I still have a lot to learn from you guys, you are brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Here's a related story on Molecular Chords you might enjoy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 the electron cloud can occillate around the nucleus. in fact, if the charge density is uniform, then it will resonate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now