Why don't electrons leave a metal surface?

In summary: The positive changes in the lattice are not spread out and there's a lot more near the nucleus. So adding a negative charge in the form of extra electrons makes the positive charges near the nucleus have a larger impact than the negative charges do in the outer parts of the atom. You may want to ask why the negative charges are able to spread out but the positive charges aren't, and the answer is that the lattice is a crystal and the positive charges are locked in place, while the electrons are free to move.
  • #1
jklfabc
1
1
TL;DR Summary
Why does attraction always prevail over repulsion in keeping electrons from leaving the metal? (Even if the metal surface is negatively charged)
Why don't electrons leave the metal surface? I have searched the internet for the answer and from my teachers they all say that electrons are attracted to the positive ion crystal lattice. I know that, but the problem is why is that attraction so much greater than the repulsion from other free electrons? While obviously, with an electrically neutral surface, that repulsion must balance out the attraction. Even when placing metal in an external electric field or giving it a negative charge, the repulsion from other free electrons can be even greater than the attraction from the ions. But reality proves that the repulsive force is many times smaller than the attraction force(?). Can someone please show why the attraction is greater than the repulsion? This problem bothers me a lot. Hope someone can solve this problem for me
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Welcome to PF.
jklfabc said:
Why don't electrons leave the metal surface?
The free electrons do, until the positive nuclear charge is neutralised, which is how you find it.
jklfabc said:
... my teachers they all say that electrons are attracted to the positive ion crystal lattice.
The fixed count of protons in a stable atomic nucleus define the chemistry of the atoms by attracting about the same number of electrons to that atom's vicinity. Those electrons are shared, which makes the chemical bonds that hold the nuclei together, to form the crystal lattice, that you call a solid metal.

If you remove too many electrons from the surface cloud, the metal crystal will fall apart, as the proton charges of the nucleus repel each other. To remove a "free" electron from the surface of a metal object, you must provide energy. That is called the Photoelectric effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and topsquark
  • #3
jklfabc said:
TL;DR Summary: Why does attraction always prevail over repulsion in keeping electrons from leaving the metal? (Even if the metal surface is negatively charged)

Why don't electrons leave the metal surface? I have searched the internet for the answer and from my teachers they all say that electrons are attracted to the positive ion crystal lattice. I know that, but the problem is why is that attraction so much greater than the repulsion from other free electrons? While obviously, with an electrically neutral surface, that repulsion must balance out the attraction. Even when placing metal in an external electric field or giving it a negative charge, the repulsion from other free electrons can be even greater than the attraction from the ions. But reality proves that the repulsive force is many times smaller than the attraction force(?). Can someone please show why the attraction is greater than the repulsion? This problem bothers me a lot. Hope someone can solve this problem for me
There is no valid model of the atom using classical EM. You need QM to explain atomic structure. The electrons form a bound energy state that satisfies the Schrodinger equation, rather than Maxwell's equations.

Likewise, the reason for chemical bonding is that the two or more atoms form a lower overall energy state.

And, the behavior of free electrons in a metal is governed by QM:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_electron_model
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and berkeman
  • #4
What keeps a Hydrogen atom from collapsing? Why does it take energy ionize a Hyrogen atom? These are simpler systems than chunk of metal but still require Quantum Mechanics to provide the answers. You should be equally confused about these simpler systems.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and russ_watters
  • #5
I think the answer to your exact question is that the charges within the metal are, on average, in equilibrium until we supply energy, when electrons will be emitted. As an example of the action, when we heat tungsten, as with the cathode of a vacuum tube, electrons in the metal acquire sufficient energy to be emitted from the surface. They are then attracted back to the surface because they leave behind a positive charge. We end up with a cloud - a space charge - above the surface. If a positive anode is then introduced, electrons are drawn from the space charge and form a current flowing across the space.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, vanhees71 and Lord Jestocost
  • #6
jklfabc said:
Even when placing metal in an external electric field or giving it a negative charge, the repulsion from other free electrons can be even greater than the attraction from the ions. But reality proves that the repulsive force is many times smaller than the attraction force(?). Can someone please show why the attraction is greater than the repulsion?
There's no mystery here. The positive charges in the lattice attract the electrons very strongly and it takes a very large force to counteract them. The exact 'why' is hard to put into words if that doesn't already make sense. Perhaps remember that the electrons are spread out and able to move in response to adding more electrons. So when you add some extra electrons the extra negative charge alters the distribution slightly, but not much else. The negative charges are spread out and don't entirely 'screen' the positive charge from the nucleus at short ranges. This is also one reason you can add extra electrons to an atom/molecules to get anions.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, vanhees71 and jklfabc
  • #7
jklfabc said:
TL;DR Summary: Why does attraction always prevail over repulsion in keeping electrons from leaving the metal? (Even if the metal surface is negatively charged)

Why don't electrons leave the metal surface?
They do leave.

There is a characteristic of a given surface called the “work function”. It is the amount of work that is required to remove an electron from the metal surface to the vacuum immediately outside the metal. For copper this is around 4.8 eV.

When electrons have the energy of the work function then they can and do leave the surface. For example, if the metal is heated enough then some of the thermally excited electrons can reach that energy. Or if there are incident photons with enough energy they can exceed work function.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and vanhees71
  • #8
Of course one should stress that one can understand this only using quantum mechanics!
 
  • #9
Do you know if tunneling is involved in this case?
 
  • #10
Sure. The electrons leak out with some probability beyond the limits given by the classical model. A simple toy model is to consider an electron in a finitely deep potential pot. You have a certain finite number of bound states, and the wave functions have support till infinity, exponentially decaying outside of the "classically allowed" region.
 
  • Like
Likes tech99 and PeroK
  • #11
They do, like in photoemission effect. The theoretical description of such phenomena is not yet complete. Not only because metal surface—external probe interactions are many-particle QFT effects; the metal surfaces are restructured over a number of crystal layers, making the metal very difficult to model.

On the other hand, there’s a plethora of experimental, non-evasive techniques, so we know a lot about metals’ surface physics.
 
  • #12
The OP required respect and acceptance, followed by a safe crossing from the classical to the quantum.
Beginners retreat every time they see a statement like; "one can only understand this using quantum mechanics".
Where is the OP now ?
 
  • Like
Likes tech99, russ_watters, apostolosdt and 1 other person
  • #13
Hopefully deciding that she needs to understand Quantum Mechanics.
What was the nature of the "disrespect" and how is it to be ameliorated? Sometimes half-truths are not better.
 
  • #14
Baluncore said:
The OP required respect and acceptance, followed by a safe crossing from the classical to the quantum.
Beginners retreat every time they see a statement like; "one can only understand this using quantum mechanics".
Where is the OP now ?
It's no disrepect giving an honest answer!
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #15
hutchphd said:
What was the nature of the "disrespect" and how is it to be ameliorated?
They get respect from me.
The OP is a critical thinker, who understood and questioned their teachers. They have an existing science foundation and an interest in Physics. Be gentle.

While "one can only understand this using quantum mechanics" may be true, it undermines their existing educational foundation and confidence. In effect, it tells them that they have been misled in their exploration, that they now understand nothing and must start again, or change from STEM to the Arts. I believe it is better to show them the next page, than to tell them that they have been going the wrong way.

The concept of quantum mechanics does not yet exist in the mind of the beginner. Using the as yet meaningless term can only confuse them. We must live our education forwards, but it can only be understood backwards. If they get there, they too will know that "one can only understand this using quantum mechanics".
 
  • Like
  • Skeptical
Likes Bandersnatch, Juanda, Hornbein and 2 others
  • #16
Why is it off-putting to tell them it is a fact that they will understand later should they so desire?
 
  • #17
hutchphd said:
Why is it off-putting to tell them it is a fact that they will understand later should they so desire?
When they are put in their place, and treated like a child, it disrespects and belittles them.
 
  • Like
Likes Hornbein
  • #18
Baluncore said:
The OP required respect and acceptance, followed by a safe crossing from the classical to the quantum.
Beginners retreat every time they see a statement like; "one can only understand this using quantum mechanics".
Where is the OP now ?
I humbly agree with you! My post was even worse than the "quantum-mechanical" ones.
 
  • #19
jklfabc said:
But reality proves that the repulsive force is many times smaller than the attraction force(?).
It doesn’t require quantum mechanics to understand why this can’t be true. The B-level answer is that the metal is in equilibrium, so all the forces must sum to zero. The only thing that changes when we switch to quantum mechanics is that the expectation values of the forces sum to zero. If there were a net force on the metal, it would be changing in some way. If the attractive force were greater, the metal would contract, and if the repulsive force were greater, the metal would expand.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK
  • #20
TeethWhitener said:
The only thing that changes when we switch to quantum mechanics is that the expectation values of the forces sum to zero.
Really?
 
  • #21
Baluncore said:
They get respect from me.
The OP is a critical thinker, who understood and questioned their teachers. They have an existing science foundation and an interest in Physics. Be gentle.

While "one can only understand this using quantum mechanics" may be true, it undermines their existing educational foundation and confidence. In effect, it tells them that they have been misled in their exploration, that they now understand nothing and must start again, or change from STEM to the Arts. I believe it is better to show them the next page, than to tell them that they have been going the wrong way.

The concept of quantum mechanics does not yet exist in the mind of the beginner. Using the as yet meaningless term can only confuse them. We must live our education forwards, but it can only be understood backwards. If they get there, they too will know that "one can only understand this using quantum mechanics".
What a nonsense! It's not an insult nor should it be discouraging, if somebody tells you that something can't be explained with something you already know. After all, you ask questions to "experts" to learn something you don't yet know, and getting an honest answer, telling you what's needed to answer the question, is just the right answer.

When my teacher (BTW the best teacher of my entire high-school career) told me that there's something, which cannot be understood with what I have learnt so far, it was a motivation for me to learn what's needed to answer my question. Of course, she always helped pointing me to books, where I could find the topic.

We all know very little, and if there's something I don't understand, I just dig through the literature and finally try to understand it myself, working out in my own way, what I read. That's the only way to really understand something in the natural sciences. Just to give some handwaving popular-science answer is simply dishonest.
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd and PeroK
  • #22
PeroK said:
Really?
Why wouldn’t this be true? The only forces in question are Coulombic. Quantum mechanics explains why the electron doesn’t just sit right on top of the nucleus, but that has nothing to do with forces and everything to do with the uncertainty principle.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK
  • #23
Well, classical electrostatics tells you that there cannot be a bound state!
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd
  • #24
TeethWhitener said:
Why wouldn’t this be true? The only forces in question are Coulombic. Quantum mechanics explains why the electron doesn’t just sit right on top of the nucleus, but that has nothing to do with forces and everything to do with the uncertainty principle.
It's more like the Pauli Exclusion Principle! Atoms and molecules in QM are generally in energy eigenstates.

What you're posting is not recognizable to me as QM.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #25
This is the Classical Physics forum.
Should this thread be moved to the Quantum Physics forum?
 
  • #26
No. But the classical physics forum does need to recognize and acknowledge the existence of quantum mechanics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Dale and PeroK
  • #27
PeroK said:
It's more like the Pauli Exclusion Principle!
The Pauli exclusion principle applies to identical fermions. Electrons and nuclei aren’t identical.
PeroK said:
Atoms and molecules in QM are generally in energy eigenstates.
Maybe when you’re studying them in class. But in the real world they’re almost always at the very least going to be in some sort of quasi-thermal distribution.

But none of that has anything to do with the fact that the net force (or expectation value of the force, if you insist on QM language) is zero in a body at equilibrium.
PeroK said:
What you're posting is not recognizable to me as QM.
I said at the outset that it doesn’t require quantum mechanics to understand that saying one force is stronger than the other is incorrect in an equilibrium system.
 
  • #28
PeroK said:
It's more like the Pauli Exclusion Principle! Atoms and molecules in QM are generally in energy eigenstates.

What you're posting is not recognizable to me as QM.
In everyday matter we deal with bound states of particles in or at least close to thermal equilibrium. It's not an energy eigenstate. For that you'd have to cool down your matter to 0K temperature such that it goes into the ground state.
 
  • #29
jklfabc said:
TL;DR Summary: Why does attraction always prevail over repulsion in keeping electrons from leaving the metal? (Even if the metal surface is negatively charged)
You are essentially asking how a negatively charged object can remain charged. Why do the free electrons not escape and make the object neutral. Sometimes there is just no conducting path to drain off the excess electrons. Like when you rub your feet on the carpet, and then a spark flies when you do provide a path by touching a conductor.
 

FAQ: Why don't electrons leave a metal surface?

Why don't electrons leave a metal surface under normal conditions?

Electrons do not leave a metal surface under normal conditions due to the work function, which is the energy required to overcome the attractive forces holding them within the metal. This energy barrier prevents electrons from escaping unless they gain sufficient external energy.

What is the work function in relation to electron behavior in metals?

The work function is the minimum energy needed to remove an electron from the surface of a metal. It represents the energy barrier that electrons must overcome to escape the metal, thus playing a crucial role in keeping electrons bound to the metal surface.

How does temperature affect the likelihood of electrons escaping a metal surface?

As temperature increases, the kinetic energy of electrons also increases. However, unless the temperature is extremely high, it is usually insufficient to provide the electrons with the energy needed to overcome the work function and escape the metal surface.

Can external electric fields cause electrons to leave a metal surface?

Yes, strong external electric fields can reduce the effective work function, making it easier for electrons to escape. This phenomenon is known as field emission. However, the electric field must be significantly strong to have this effect.

What role does the photoelectric effect play in electrons leaving a metal surface?

The photoelectric effect occurs when light of a sufficient frequency shines on a metal surface, providing electrons with the energy needed to overcome the work function. If the photon's energy is high enough, it can cause electrons to be emitted from the metal surface.

Similar threads

Back
Top