Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

122 submissions , 103 unreviewed
3,497 questions , 1,172 unanswered
4,548 answers , 19,352 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
409 active unimported users
More ...

How does QM allow imaging of individual electron orbitals?

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
42 views

Question: Why does the uncertainty principle allow probing of characteristics specific to the electron orbital distribution? If you measure an electron's position/momentum, then after you measure it, it is obviously no longer in that exact same orbital. What's going on?

Recently, a new AFM technique has allowed researchers to distinguish between different types of chemical bonds (paper link). The published results clearly distinguishes information about bonding electrons (specific to benzene structures).

Hexabenzocoronene image

What does quantum mechanics state about variability of measurement of electrons in coherent states? Must the orbitals be excited to get information about it? Do they then give off an emission in order to return to the ground state? If the electrons aren't actively disturbed in these processes, wouldn't that be a blatant violation of the uncertainty principle? What are the statistical limitations of getting information about an electron orbital? Theoretically, could you experimentally map the exact 3D wave function of an orbital?

I want this question to be agnostic to the method like AFM, although AFM seems particularly confusing to me. As I understand the idea, it moves a tip along a surface and detects slight movement as it moves over humps. You can imagine a single electron orbital as a hump and the probe moving over it continuously being pushed up or down due to the electrostatic attraction or repulsion. But this is clearly wrong! Such a process couldn't be smooth.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user AlanSE
asked Sep 18, 2012 in Experimental Physics by AlanSE (20 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Mar 24, 2014 by dimension10
I think the correct theoretical description is that of a 1-particle density matrix. In fact, most localised probes really measure something like that, as opposed to "the wavefunction".

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user genneth
@genneth Yes, I should have said the density matrix.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user AlanSE

2 Answers

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

Molecular orbitals are:

Molecular orbitals (MOs) represent regions in a molecule where an electron is likely to be found

They are not a particle, the electron, they are a locus, thus the Heisenberg Uncertainty is irrelevant because they do not represent a single interaction.

They are probing the collective field of the molecular structure. They are working in the continuum with X rays which are not of the order of the quantum mechanical discrete spectra of the bound to the molecular structure electrons. There is continuum photon- molecule scattering and this is what they are probing.

As an analogue consider a simple potential well describing a system. There are the bound states and there is the continuum. When scattering with positive energy over the well resonances can be seen corresponding to the bound state available energies. The probes are working in a similar way.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user anna v
answered Sep 18, 2012 by anna v (1,710 points) [ no revision ]
I disagree with your statement about x rays, they have been recently used to probe chemical bonds: physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/aug/30/…

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user Shaktyai
@Shaktyai This seems to be a similar technique as AlanSE is discussing. It is continuum scattering and not excitations of specific bound states. Quantum mechanics has elastic scattering and Compton scattering etc which are not discrete bound state transitions.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user anna v
My remark was just about this part of your answer: " They are working in the continuum with X rays which are not of the order of the quantum mechanical discrete spectra of the bound to the molecular structure electrons". In the paper valence electrons interact with Xrays.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user Shaktyai
@Shaktyai They call it a "wave mixing mechanism" and nowhere in the write up are they talking of transitions and/or disruptions of the lattice. It is a complicated scattering where part of the collective crystal energy is transfered to the X-ray beam. Nowhere does it say that the valence electrons change orbits.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user anna v
I have never said it either that electrons change orbitals du to xray absorption....

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user Shaktyai
+ 0 like - 0 dislike

AFM measures a force which is more or less directly linked to the position of electrons or atoms. It does not measure both positions and momemtum, so it does not violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. And keep in mind that all the nice pics we see are computer generated. I can't find the ref, but the interpretation of AFM pics where one sees atoms on a surface has been subjected to some controversy. Scientists were not so sure where to exactly locate the atoms.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user Shaktyai
answered Sep 18, 2012 by Shaktyai (40 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
$\varnothing\hbar$ysicsOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...