When electrons orbit a nucleus, their orbiting continues due to conservation of angular momentum, so I've read. But what causes an electron to orbit a nucleus in the first place? To be more precise, what happens exactly when an atom absorbs an electron?
-
There's a lot of material on the internet explaining how and why electrons orbit a nucleus in detail ranging from casual overview all the way to detailed quantum field theory mathematics. You really need to start by looking at some of this. – StephenG - Help Ukraine Apr 04 '18 at 13:37
-
It sounds to me like you are looking for a somewhat mechanical description, like the electron approaches the atom and slows due to ... Unfortunately, quantum mechanics does not provide a description like that. – garyp Apr 04 '18 at 13:44
-
@garyp So quantum mechanics doesn't explain the cause of electron's orbiting ? – Apr 04 '18 at 13:48
-
1In a variety of different ways, depending on the situation. Or, in other words, the question as currently posed is a good deal too broad. – Emilio Pisanty Apr 04 '18 at 14:04
-
9Electrons do not orbit the nucleus. The electron becomes delocalised and spreads out over a region surrounding the nucleus. Some orbitals, e.g. the $p$ orbitals, have a non-zero angular momentum but this is not due to the electron orbiting the nucleus. The $s$ orbitals have zero angular momentum. – John Rennie Apr 04 '18 at 14:19
-
4Why are people voting to close this? It's a really interesting question. The answer is really nontrivial, and is also very interesting, if someone does a good job of writing it up. – N. Virgo Apr 04 '18 at 14:21
-
2@EmilioPisanty the answer, in short, is "though a variety of different ways, each of which is a time-reverse of a way in which the electron can stop orbiting the nucleus." A good answer doesn't need to go into detail about every possible way this can happen, it just needs to give a good explanation of the underlying principles. In that sense I don't think it's too broad at all. – N. Virgo Apr 04 '18 at 14:24
-
@JohnRennie Don't you think that it is a bit controversial to first say electrons do not ORBIT the nucleus but then talk about ORBITals. – physicopath Apr 04 '18 at 14:27
-
8@physicopath Absolutely not. The term "orbital" means something well defined and very distinct from what is meant by the word "orbit". The properties of the things described by the two words are completely different. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 04 '18 at 14:31
-
Now, one of my hobby horses regard the value of understanding the classical version of questions before attempting the quantum version, and asking about how objects enter (or leave) gravitational orbits is a useful adjunct to a question about quantum systems. Especially as both processes necessarily involve a rejection of energy from the system. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 04 '18 at 14:50
-
@dmckee orbital is one of the misnomers of physics just like atom, centrifugal force, dark matter etc. – physicopath Apr 04 '18 at 14:52
-
@physicopath is a carpet something you put on your floor, or a domesticated automobile? The noun 'orbital' doesn't imply 'orbiting' and more than 'sandwich' implies 'sandy.' Words are whole units: you can't generally cut a string of letters out of a whole word and derive a meaningful connection. The exception is compound words, which means my argument is all but invalid in German because Germans love compound nouns... All of this is just linguistics though. The physics of an orbital and the physics of an orbit are still handled in completely separate theories, after all. – Asher Apr 05 '18 at 15:53
-
In the early years of QM people thought that electrons orbit around nucleus like planets in the solar system (Bohr Model). The word orbital therefore derived from the word orbit (this is no coincidence). We know today that electrons do not orbit around nucleus therefore the word orbital is a misnomer. Similarly, when people discovered what we call atom today, they thought what they found is indivisible and hence the name atom is a misnomer. Is this so hard to understand @Asher? – physicopath Apr 05 '18 at 18:23
-
@physicopath it's not hard to understand, and I'm familiar with the etymology of the name. However, since the Bohr model is outdated by over 90 years, there is no longer any "controversy" concerning the use of 'orbital' as it is used in current physics. If you'd like to discuss the Bohr Model or the etymology of scientific terms, those would be more on topic at the History of Science and Mathematics SE. Here at Physics.SE only current mainstream physics is on-topic. – Asher Apr 05 '18 at 22:44
-
Thank you. @JohnRennie Why do electrons get delocalized? Is it because of electrostatics/magnetic forces only? And why does it spread over a region..? Is it because its moving with a very high speed in which its position isn't well defined so we assume its getting spreaded? Or does it have to do with its particle/wave duality? – Apr 06 '18 at 08:40
-
@ZahraaKhalife electrons are always delocalised. The uncertainty principle guarantees we can never perfectly define an electron's position. The electron doesn't become delocalised when it forms a hydrogen atom - it was always delocalised. – John Rennie Apr 06 '18 at 08:43
-
@JohnRennie why is it always delocalized? Does that mean that we can not find in nature an electron at rest ? – Apr 06 '18 at 09:00
-
2An electron at rest is unphysical: it has zero uncertainty in both its position and its momentum, in violation of the HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). Similarly, an electron cannot have a classical trajectory with a precise position and precise momentum at each point on the trajectory, hence it can't orbit the nucleus like a planet orbiting a star. – PM 2Ring Apr 06 '18 at 16:53
5 Answers
You are describing the Bohr model of the atom, which was able to fit the spectra observed from excited atoms, the lines seen in the hydrogen atom:
In order to explain why the orbits could be stable instead of spiraling down to the nucleus as classical electrodynamics would expect, the model assumes quantization of angular momentum to succeed at a stable atom.
This was a hypothesis that partially fitted the hydrogen atom, and got more impossible for complex nuclei.
Quantum mechanics , as it evolved from the simple solutions of the Schrodinger equation, managed not only to reproduce the partial success in the series solutions for the hydrogen atom, but also to develop into a theory with a much wider scope, which describes all nature at the underlying particle level.
In the quantum mechanical system, there are no orbits, there are solutions of the potential problem which give the probability of finding the electron at an (x,y,z) if one tried to measure its position. These loci are called orbitals. Here are the orbitals calculated for the hydrogen atom:
for the different quantum numbers that characterize the electron occupation of an energy level.
Here is a first experiment that looks at these orbitals:
To be more precise, what happens exactly when an atom absorbs an electron?
Precision needs quantum mechanics.
The electron falls into the potential well of the atom, radiating a photon which carries off angular momentum so that conservation of angular momentum is satisfied, and gets bound in an energy level. If lower energy levels are empty, it will cascade down with more radiation, to the last unfilled energy level.

- 233,453
-
Thank you. @anna v. But what is it meant by orbits spiraling down to nucleus? So an electron attains its angular momentum because it radiates a photon that has an angular momentum and in order to have a conservation of angular momentum , the electron then obtains an angular momentum? But why does the photon emitted have an angular momentum, why doesn't it just have a linear momentum? Plus, isn't photon considered to be an interaction, when we say that it has an angular momentum, then we treat it as a particle, and not as an interaction. Excuse me, my information is so limited in this field.. – Apr 06 '18 at 09:08
-
1I did not say "spiral" , that is the classical behavior. I said "falls into the potential", there is no spiraling. Photons are elemenary particles and carry spin so they take away angular momentum. It is an interaction and all the conserved quantities, momentum, angular momentum and energy have to balance, input to output. – anna v Apr 06 '18 at 11:20
-
Does the spin of electron is the one causing the electron to have angular momentum ? – Apr 06 '18 at 11:26
-
1No, spins just have to be taken into account in the conservation of angular momentum budget, and energy , because the energy level splits depending on the spin. – anna v Apr 06 '18 at 11:29
-
When we say that an electron absorbs a photon, doesn't that mean that electron is no longer said to be an elementary particle because it can contain other elementary particle (photon)? – Apr 06 '18 at 13:07
-
You should take a course in quantum mehanics. We do not say an electron absorbs a photon. The whole system "electon -nucleus", i.e. atom, absorbs the energy of the photon if the energy of the photon fits the energy level differences, and the electron occupies a higher energy level within the atom. – anna v Apr 06 '18 at 13:29
At some point in the early history of the universe, protons had to capture free electrons to form neutral hydrogen, but $pe\to H^*$ violates conservation of energy and/or momentum, so it has to be something like $pe\to H^*\gamma $. Any charged bystander (say another nearby proton) could take up the extra momentum, so $ppe\to pH^*$ is also allowed. The asterisk means excited -- not in the ground state. Ordinarily, when an electron is captured, the newborn atom is in a quantum state of high angular momentum, close to the angular momentum predicted by classical mechanics. The excited atom then gives up energy and angular momentum via a sequence of radiative transitions, emitting a photon at each step, until it lands in its ground state.

- 3,079
-
Thank you @Bert .Why does the newborn atom become in a quantum state of high angular momentum after absorbing an electron? Is it because the electron already had an angular momentum before being absorbed? If yes , then why? – Apr 06 '18 at 09:45
-
Yes. According to the correspondence principle, a wave packet representing a linear combination of quantum states can approximate a classical particle. The average angular momentum will be the same. – Bert Barrois Apr 06 '18 at 11:00
The problem I found in this problem is that the questioner is sticking to the old idea that electron is a particle and it got a well defined path (since it orbits around the nucleus). QM prohibits this idea in the first place ( you can't even think of path in the first place). The second point what happens when electron gets absorbed by atom can be thought same as what happens when particle is introduced in a infinite potential well though the case are a bit different in the latter one the question arises how you got the particle inside the well in first place. While in former one the potential reaches up to infinity so no drama over it's existence in first place . Since you are talking about the electron in first place you have to give me it's initial wavefunction and that's the deal to use Schrodinger's equation. Now take the case of hydrogen atom( cause that's what I only know nothing about multi-electron atom) and since we know it's eigenfunction ( radial and spherical harmonic) and they are complete ( they can span whatever you want) so I will decompose initial given wavefunction in terms of this basis and I will be done to tell you about future prediction (only statistically). So we can't just say what happens to electron you really need to tell me it's initial wavefunction. Take a look at Ex. 2.2 Griffiths QM. Further refinement will be given by QFT.

- 2,973
-
Using the term "orbiting" must have been a mistake, but my real question is that I need to know why the electron keeps moving in an atom, why doesn't it just come to rest? What causes it to move they way it does in the first place? – Apr 06 '18 at 09:36
Normally physicists use a limited set of equations to describe the specific situation of an electron orbiting a nucleus, i.e. an electron trapped in a potential well. They might use something simple like the time independent Shrödinger equation for simple systems, or something more realistic like Dirac's equation to examine relativistic effects, which lead to things like antiparticles and magnetism. However all these equations describe the situation of an electron stuck in a potential well, not things like ionization or the motion of free electrons that become captured.
For those situations you really need the full quantum field theory of quantum electrodynamics. This describes the electron and photon field and includes such things as creation and annihilation of particles and particle interactions and motions through extended space. The quantum field theories can include any number of particles existing at the same time and moving every which way, and interacting with virtual particles in the vacuum.
However the simple models are normally used in physics or chemistry on a day to day basis and they have well known solutions for common cases.
Solving QED or the full Lagrangian of the standard model of physics, even for very simple systems is very hard. However these advanced field theory models can show precisely how wave functions for the electrons and other particles interact over time during something like electron capture.
Edited, because of comments below.
However I believe the original poster is particularly asking about the description of electron capture, not steady state orbits, and I wanted to point out that to show exactly what happens requires more than a description using steady state orbital equations. As another poster has said, the electron falls down through a cascade of energy levels with photons emitted at each transition. But since the electron can come in from infinity from any direction there is the question of what happens to the original linear momentum, and I was trying to say in the original deleted point, that linear momentum is interpretable as angular momentum around the center of the atom, even when the electron is far away.

- 355
-
1Your last paragraph is wildly incorrect - there's simply no sense in which it is anywhere near right. The rest isn't particularly incorrect but it is also not particularly useful or helpful. – Emilio Pisanty Apr 04 '18 at 14:45
-
1Emilio, while I believe you're entirely correct, I would point out that I did specifically indicate in the answer that I was not sure about the statement in my last paragraph (now deleted). But it's frustrating that in your response here you only take the time to be critical of my answer. You provide no useful information about physics, nor say anything to educate me, or other people why my statement was incorrect, or even address the original poster's question. So I'm not sure how your comment is to be seen as "particularly useful or helpful", other than as pure criticism. No? – Robotbugs Apr 06 '18 at 06:18
-
Thank you.... you are right about detecting my real confusion. So in order for me to understand the properties that an electron has during its capture , I must refer to QED? I have also another question, why is the linear moemntum interpretable as angular moemntum around the center of the atom? Is it because the electron before being captured is seen(relativley) with respect to the atom as somehow circulating about it ? – Apr 06 '18 at 11:34
-
When an electron is moving slowly enough there is a chance that it can fall into the potential well of a positively charged ionized atom. After that, to lose energy and momentum within that potential well, it has to give off photons in discrete steps. QED is the complete theory that describes the dynamics of photons and electrons and the process of photon creation as this whole process happens. The Schrödinger equation for example only gives solutions for allowed orbitals, and says nothing about photons, or transitions between free and bound electron states. – Robotbugs Apr 07 '18 at 02:04
-
Orbital angular momentum about any arbitrary point can always be written in terms of linear momentum as $\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{r}\times\mathbf{p}$ where r and p are quantum mechanical operators for position and momentum acting on the particle wavefunction. I don't want to say anything further about this however because I don't want to get dinged again by people who know more than me. :) – Robotbugs Apr 07 '18 at 02:06
But what causes an electron to orbit a nucleus in the first place?
Nothing. At least not in the sense you're asking. Let's explore this with a classical example.
Consider an asteroid moving through empty space. It has some trajectory and some mass, so we can calculate its momentum.
Ok, now let's consider that same asteroid in orbit around Jupiter. Now it also has an angular momentum, it's orbital angular momentum, which is a sort of made-up value from it's trajectory and distance from Jupiter.
Ok, now imagine the case where the asteroid is flying by Jupiter. Maybe it's going fast enough that it just keeps on going, like most comets. But maybe it ends up in just the right place at the right time with just the right speed and it begins orbiting, like the Trojans.
So what "happened" to make it "began orbiting". Nothing! Jupiter's gravity is pulling on it all along, nothing changed.
what happens exactly when an atom absorbs an electron
It doesn't! If there's an electron going on it's merry way that just happens to have the right trajectory (for lack of a better word) then it will start "orbiting". If it doesn't, it will keep going, on some modified trajectory. Nothing "happens" when it enters orbit, it's the exact same physics it experienced when it didn't enter orbit, or when it was far away from the atom and never even noticed it.
There are major differences between the physics of the two cases. For instance, in the case of the asteroid, it's "internal" spin has no effect, but that is not the case for the electron. But from a high level, they're pretty similar.

- 8,201
-
This is very good.. But what if an electron at rest(doesn't have a previous trajectory; just found at a distance from an atom) was attracted by an atom, then could it have an angular momentum after being a part of the atom? – Apr 06 '18 at 09:55
-
Absolutely, and this is one of the differences that I glossed over. The force between the electron and nucleus is carried out by photons being exchanged, and those photons carry angular momentum. It's very complex, but in the end, yes. – Maury Markowitz Apr 06 '18 at 12:59