- #36
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 29,105
- 6,976
Only in a fluid.
can't get what you meansophiecentaur said:Only in a fluid.
In a solid, the ions are locked in place; in a fluid they can move.feynman1 said:can't get what you mean
Very well! In a physics textbook with point charges (+ and -), should we always regard + to be ions and - to be electrons? Then if the context is a solid, + point charges can't move, but there's no such restriction on physics textbooks, why?sophiecentaur said:In a solid, the ions are locked in place; in a fluid they can move.
The Physics books that I have read all tell us that charge is carried in metals (and other solids) by negative charges (electrons). Can you find anywhere that the "restriction" is relaxed? By definition, if the positive ion cores in solids could move then why wouldn't the 'solid' flow and be a liquid? Or are you just trying to wind me up?feynman1 said:Very well! In a physics textbook with point charges (+ and -), should we always regard + to be ions and - to be electrons? Then if the context is a solid, + point charges can't move, but there's no such restriction on physics textbooks, why?
A pair of + and + charges could be initially in the interior of a metal. Afterwards both charges will be repelled and move in the metal. If this appears in a textbook, that'll look quite normal and none doubts about whether + charges are supposed to move?sophiecentaur said:The Physics books that I have read all tell us that charge is carried in metals (and other solids) by negative charges (electrons). Can you find anywhere that the "restriction" is relaxed? By definition, if the positive ion cores in solids could move then why wouldn't the 'solid' flow and be a liquid? Or are you just trying to wind me up?
I challenge you to find this idea in a textbook. Ions (+ and -) are held in place in a solid and that is what defines the solid phase. If they could move around then would the solid be solid? In a solution (e.g. water) the theory describes the simple situation of a Salt (NaCl) Solution as mobile Na+ and Cl- having been separated from each other (in their solid state).feynman1 said:If this appears in a textbook,
Do you mean this pic in a textbook can only be correct if it implies that this happens in a fluid or free space?sophiecentaur said:I challenge you to find this idea in a textbook.
feynman1 said:what will happen to electrons when they hit a conductor wall
What's the correct way of describing this without using 'hit'?Vanadium 50 said:You are (still) describing a classical path. Electrons behave quantum-mechanically, not classically.
Did you look at the link to the wiki about Friedel oscillations?feynman1 said:What's the correct way of describing this without using 'hit'?
Thanks for the suggestion. I did, but don't get what it implies. Could you give any qualitative result?f95toli said:Did you look at the link to the wiki about Friedel oscillations?
A defect and a surface is not exactly the same thing, but both will break the periodicity of the lattice. The Friedel oscillation model should give you some idea of how this works.
I am not sure that would help since I would just be repeating what is on the wiki page. Do you understand the bit about describing the electrons using a plane wave-like wavefunction with a specific Fermi wave vector?feynman1 said:Thanks for the suggestion. I did, but don't get what it implies. Could you give any qualitative result?
Thank you. Not knowing much about solid state, so looking for a layman's/Newtonian description.f95toli said:I am not sure that would help since I would just be repeating what is on the wiki page. Do you understand the bit about describing the electrons using a plane wave-like wavefunction with a specific Fermi wave vector?
If not, you need to start by reading more about solid state physics. There is now way you can understand what happens at a surface unless you have some idea of what happens inside a solid.
Newtonian mechanics is not of much use in solid state systems.feynman1 said:Thank you. Not knowing much about solid state, so looking for a layman's/Newtonian description.
What happens to the wave probability function of an electron when getting close to the boundary?f95toli said:Newtonian mechanics is not of much use in solid state systems.
Since the electrons in the case of Friedel oscillations (and in many other cases) are described as plane waves you will find that wave mechanics (interference/diffraction) is more relevant if you insist on using some parts of classical physics. However, that still won't help you e.g. explain scattering between different k-states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_wellfeynman1 said:What happens to the wave probability function of an electron when getting close to the boundary?
Is it likely or unlikely to appear outside the surface? There's a clue about the probability function at points near the 'boundary'. That's really a tautology because that is what defines a boundary.feynman1 said:What happens to the wave probability function of an electron when getting close to the boundary?
Take 1D. An electron is put in a 1D conductor with a potential V=0 -1<x<1 and very high elsewhere. Schrodinger's solution suggests the prob distribution on the well boundaries -1 and 1 is the least (and 0 for an infinite well). Why does this result contradict charges staying on the boundary of a conductor?berkeman said:
The probability distribution has to go to zero at some stage, past a notional boundary. Any model must include this, surely?feynman1 said:Why does this result contradict charges staying on the boundary of a conductor?
If electrons must stay on the boundary under electrostatic equilibrium, shouldn't the prob function collapse to 1 on the boundary?sophiecentaur said:The probability distribution has to go to zero at some stage, past a notional boundary. Any model must include this, surely?
Friedel oscillationsfeynman1 said:Thanks for the suggestion. I did, but don't get what it implies. Could you give any qualitative result?
A single electron does not model the situation in a metal which is not neutral. You need to take into account the interaction between electrons. This is what makes the extra charge to go on the surface. Maybe if you put two electrons in a potential well you get some of the features you are looking at.feynman1 said:Take 1D. An electron is put in a 1D conductor with a potential V=0 -1<x<1 and very high elsewhere. Schrodinger's solution suggests the prob distribution on the well boundaries -1 and 1 is the least (and 0 for an infinite well). Why does this result contradict charges staying on the boundary of a conductor?
I think you will get the answer you're seeking if, instead of looking at single electrons, you look at collections of electrons. Imagine a differential element of charge ##dq##. It is a collection of electrons that is macroscopically small enough to be treated as a differential element, but it is microscopically large enough to contain a large number of electrons.feynman1 said:Let's speak in the classical context (non quantum). We assume that point charges move in a conductor following Newtonian mechanics. How do point charges move along the boundary of the conductor and how do they stop (equilibrium) in the end?
Thanks but can the differential element treatment show if electrons will stay on or bounce off the boundary before equilibrium?Mister T said:I think you will get the answer you're seeking if, instead of looking at single electrons, you look at collections of electrons. Imagine a differential element of charge ##dq##. It is a collection of electrons that is macroscopically small enough to be treated as a differential element, but it is microscopically large enough to contain a large number of electrons.
Loosely speaking, the differential elements ##dq## repel each other until they get as far apart from each other as they possibly can. Then the net force on each element is zero.
Suppose there are infinitely many electrons in the 1D conductor so that the conductor is already equipotential V=0. Then put another electron in subject to a potential V=0 -1<=x<=1 and very high elsewhere. Would the result differ? The prob function on the boundary would still be small.nasu said:A single electron does not model the situation in a metal which is not neutral. You need to take into account the interaction between electrons. This is what makes the extra charge to go on the surface. Maybe if you put two electrons in a potential well you get some of the features you are looking at.
Yes.feynman1 said:Thanks but can the differential element treatment show if electrons will stay on or bounce off the boundary before equilibrium?
how?Mister T said:Yes.