1

I would like to clarify my understanding of anisotropic electrons orbitals in the atom of hydrogen - I feel uncomfortable by the mere fact of asymmetry (anisotropy) existing. Clearly, many orbitals ("d" orbitals) point in a specific direction (often called "z" axis). Let me for the moment make a philosophical assumption, that one can think or wave function as of a real object. What is the correct interpretation? :

  1. One should think of a "d-excited" atom (flying now somewhere in my room) as truly pointing to a specific direction: that atom points to window, this one to doors, the other one to the upper corner of the room. The justification may be that the process of formation of a "d-excited" atom is always asymmetric (anisotropic)(is it??) and the atom inherits the asymmetry.

  2. The Schrodinger equation (and it special time-independent form) is linear! Therefore I can make a summation of the same d-orbital over all spatial directions, getting so a spherical symmetry:

$$d_\mathrm{symmetric} = \sum_{i : \text{all directions}} d_{\text{direction }i}$$

Am I missing something in this argument? Such state is time independent (isn't it?) and has well defined energy (the one of the "d" orbital). I must admit I am not sure now about prediction concerning projection on a given axis (well, for a completely symmetric state it has to be $1/2$).

So let me repeat the question: how should I think or "real" hydrogen atoms excited to a $d$ state? Symmetric or asymmetric or "it depends"?

Emilio Pisanty
  • 132,859
  • 33
  • 351
  • 666
F. Jatpil
  • 358

1 Answers1

2

The correct interpretation is the first one. A hydrogen atom in a pure $d$ state, like, say, the $l=2$, $m_{L_z}=0$ state, really does point in a specific direction (i.e. the quantization axis).

There is nothing wrong with anisotropy, and particularly, there is nothing wrong with the existence of anisotropic objects. Not everything in life is a sphere - if you want an anisotropic object, grab the nearest pen.

What you do have, with the hydrogen atom, is an example of isotropic dynamics. This does not preclude the existence of anisotropic solutions of those dynamics: what it does is require that, for every anisotropic solution $S$ that points in direction $\hat{\mathbf n}$ and every arbitrary direction $\hat{\mathbf n}'$, there must exist an equivalent solution $S'$ that points in direction $\hat{\mathbf n}'$. For the specific case of hydrogenic $d$ states, this requires the existence of $d$ states that point in any arbitrary direction, which is of course true.

In terms of the real world, saying that you have "a sample of hydrogen atoms in $d$ states" is not really enough information. In the typical case, you will have excited them into this state using laser radiation, using linear polarization to climb from the $s$ state to the $p_z$ state and from there to the $d_{m_{L_z}}=0$ state. In this case, you'll have a sample of hydrogen atoms all pointing in the same direction; this is of course OK with the isotropy requirement because the initial state was isotropic but the exciting radiation was not.

In some other cases, however, you can think of having a bunch of hydrogen atoms in $d$ states that point in a bunch of different directions. This is a bit of a more contrived experiment, but you could achieve it with e.g. multiple lasers with different polarizations. In this case, however, you do not use a linear superposition to describe the experiment; instead, you use something called a mixed state. Among other things, this is because an even linear superposition of $d_{m_{L_{\hat{\mathbf n}}}}$ states that point in all directions $\hat{\mathbf n}$ actually gives you a wavefunction which is identically zero - it's an interesting calculation, you should try it.

Emilio Pisanty
  • 132,859
  • 33
  • 351
  • 666
  • The argument saying that the summation leads to zero seems a nice one to me. Can one claim this always ? I mean: if I sum arbitraty (not only $d$) anisotropic hydrogen eigenstate (i.e. time independent state) over all directions, do I always get zero? If yes, this seems to me as a final answer to my question. – F. Jatpil Feb 15 '17 at 11:52
  • I would have to think about that one for a bit to build a proof for a general state, but yes, the feature is generic. You could ask that specific aspect separately, to be honest. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 15 '17 at 11:56
  • Let me reply once more. OK: completely symmetric states are excluded. But nothing prevents me from summing "pure" $d$ states over some chosen directions, so that the sum does not vanish. True? Such linear composition is a solution of timeless Schoringer equation with all consequences (e.g. well defined energy). – F. Jatpil Feb 15 '17 at 12:08
  • @F.Jatpil Yes, that is correct. However, if your superposition is any sort of real attempt at isotropy, the sum will vanish. (As a simple example, try summing up $d_{m=0}$ orbitals about the $x$, $y$ and $z$ axes and see what you get.) If the superposition does not vanish, then it will not be an isotropic state. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 15 '17 at 13:21
  • May it be that $d$-states are "closed" w.r.t the addition? I mean: any non-vanishing sum of $d$-states pointing in different directions is a "standard" $d$ state (pointing to some "averaged" direction)? Or can I get really a new shape of wave function by making some non-zero combination of several such states? Maybe too difficult questions... The first option mean than any "real" $d$ state is just "ordinary textbook" $d$-state (so you are fully right in your answer), the second option brings something new: "real" atoms are described by a wave function with "unusual, non-textbook" shape. – F. Jatpil Feb 15 '17 at 13:35
  • $d$ states are indeed closed w.r.t. addition, but not all $d$ states look the same (i.e. not all $d$ states can be rotated into each other). I'm not sure what you mean by "real" atoms - real atoms can look like a number of things, which include the textbook shapes but also other non-textbook shapes as well. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 15 '17 at 13:46
  • By "textbook-shape" I mean any shape that corresponds to all quantum numbers well defined. You say that by combining anyhow these states (directions in space) I fall back to the same sategory. Now I think it is clear for me. By "real atoms" I mean of course general time-independent solution of Sche. equation. Well... maybe oscilattory solutions exists? But that is a different topic (I ll ask later) :) – F. Jatpil Feb 15 '17 at 13:52
  • No, that's not what I'm saying. "All quantum numbers well defined" is not a thing, because "all quantum numbers" includes $l$ but also $m_{L_z}$ as well as $m_{L_x}$ and $m_{L_y}$ and indeed $m$ about any arbitrary axis, and you only get to have well-defined $m$ about a single axis. What I am saying is that by combining $d$ states, with the same $l=2$ but different values of $m_{L_z}$, you can have a $d$ state with well-defined $l=2$ but with no well-defined $m$ about any possible axis. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 15 '17 at 13:57
  • Then real wave function can be different from textbook wave function (see my previous definitions). – F. Jatpil Feb 15 '17 at 14:12
  • Your previous definitions are inconsistent. But yes, it is possible to prepare hydrogen atoms in states that are not normally shown in any textbook. It is also possible to prepare hydrogen atoms in the wavefunctions shown in textbooks. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 15 '17 at 14:13
  • OK, then my personal "judgement" is that there is some truth in the second interpretation (my initial question). Which two definitons are inconsistent? I admit that during th discussion I came to "new" object (not present im my initial question), i. e. "non-symmetric and non-textbook". Well, I was not really precise in my initial question, sorry for that. – F. Jatpil Feb 15 '17 at 14:22
  • No, your second statement in the question is incorrect. You can form any arbitrary superposition of (same-energy) eigenstates and obtain an eigenstate. You cannot use this route to combine $d$ states (of any kind) to obtain an isotropic state; attempting to do this will cause the superposition to vanish, as I explained in the answer. – Emilio Pisanty Feb 15 '17 at 14:25