-1
$\begingroup$

the further electrons are from the nucleus the higher their energy level, but the further they are the less the electrostatic pull from the protons in the nucleus, hence the less the slower they have to move to prevent being sucked into the nucleus. but looking at an innermost orbital electron, its very close to the nucleus, large attractive force so it needs to move much faster to prevent being sucked into the nucleus, hence doesnt it have a greater energy than the outer shell electron? (i mean kinetic energy. one could possibly argue that the outer shell electron has a greater potential energy hence its able to remain there with little kinetic energy. but this still doesnt show clearly why the outer shell electrons are totally more energetic than the inner shell electrons)

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Firstly, I advise against thinking of the electrons as orbiting the nucleus. Rather, your argument should go as follows: lower energy wave-functions have wider Fourier spectrums and thus larger kinetic energies.

And this is true.

However, the energy of an electron in an atom is dominated by its potential rather than kinetic energy. And the potential energy obviously increases when an electron is excited away from the nucleus.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ At least in a hydrogen atom with a single electron, the kinetic and potential energies of the electron are of the same order (to a first approximation). In particular, the kinetic energy is twice as large (when the potential zero is at infinity). This follows from the virial theorem in quantum mechanics. However it may be that the energies are not of the same order when there are multiple electrons. $\endgroup$ – diracula Aug 11 '17 at 17:25
-1
$\begingroup$

I'd try understand this problem in the classical domain [planets] first, and then consider the quantum system [atoms]. Pluto (or Eris, Ixion, Sedna, ...) is in a higher energy orbit than Mercury, yet Mercury is moving much faster. Zero energy is defined as stationary, "at infinity", with positive energy rocks being unbound from the sun. With that, binding energy is negative--getting from Pluto up to "zero" is much easier than getting there from Mercury.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.