For example, if I take an iron rod (or thread) and cut it in half, could it happen that one side remains with an extra electron or would it balance out too fast? If possible, do the parts simply remain charged or does something else happen?
-
Possible duplicate of http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134119/how-does-a-knife-cut-things-at-the-atomic-level, and http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38021/what-happens-when-we-cut-objects, as per John Rennie's suggestion. – HDE 226868 Dec 03 '14 at 01:53
-
@HDE226868 I'm familiar with those questions and their answers, although I couldn't find anything on the electrons. – 355durch113 Dec 03 '14 at 02:06
-
True, they don't address that. . . And it is your main point. – HDE 226868 Dec 03 '14 at 02:07
3 Answers
The electrons in a metal can be described surprisingly well as a gas of free electrons. So let me rephrase your question as:
If I take a container with a gas in and rapidly partition it into two, will the pressure be the same on both side?
If we look at a gas on the atomic scale it's a mass of atoms/molecules whizzing around at random. So on the large scale the density will be the same everywhere but on the atomic scale we get random pressure variations. So when you partition the container of gas it's very unlikely that the number density of gas molecules will be exactly the same on both sides, and we would expect a random pressure difference. However it's extremely unlikely that the pressure difference will be big enough to be measurable.
The same applies to your metal. The electron motion within it is random, just like molecules in a gas, so when you break the metal there will be a tiny difference in the density of electrons on the two sides of the break. However the difference will be far too small to measure.
- 355,118
Maybe a beginning of answer to your question could be found in Lindhard theory. Considere a fermionic field $$ \Psi(\textbf{x},t)=\frac{1}{\Omega}\sum_{\textbf{k}_1,\textbf{k}_2}e^{\mathrm{i}(\textbf{k}_\alpha-\textbf{k}_\beta)\cdot\textbf{x}+\mathrm{i}(E_{\textbf{k}_\alpha}-E_{\textbf{k}_\beta})t/\hbar}a_{\textbf{k}_\alpha}^\dagger a_{\textbf{k}_\beta} $$ which describe spin-less electrons with indiviual states set as plane waves, i.e. $E_{\textbf{k}_{\alpha,\beta}}=\frac{\hbar^2\textbf{k}_{\alpha,\beta}^2}{2m}$.
The goal of Lindhard theory is to study how does $\Psi(\textbf{x},t)$, or more precisely the particle density $\rho(\textbf{x},t)=\Psi^\dagger(\textbf{x},t)\Psi(\textbf{x},t)$, react to a perturbation using linear response theory.
Let say that for $t<t'$ the electrons system is at thermal equilibrium. Such equilibrium state is characterized by the temperature $T$ and the chemical potential $\mu$, since we are consedering an open system. At $t=t'$ we introduce a local chemical potential perturbation $\delta\mu(\textbf{x},t)$ in the system. It can be anything : adding a particle, induce a defect e.g. by starting to cut your piece of metal, etc... The only condition on $\delta\mu(\textbf{x},t)$ is that it should be small enough so that the associated interaction hamiltonian : $$ \mathcal{H}_i(t)=\int\mathrm{d}\textbf{x}\,\rho(\textbf{x})\delta\mu(\textbf{x},t) $$ can be treated perturbatively compared to the non-perturbed system hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_0$. Then the linear respose theory simply says that such perturbation induces a fluctuation on $\rho$. The associated response function is often given as : $$ \chi(\textbf{x},\textbf{x}',t,t')=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}\langle\left[\rho(\textbf{x},t),\rho(\textbf{x}',t')\right]\rangle_0\;\Theta(t-t') $$ where $\langle\cdot\rangle_0\equiv \mathrm{Tr}(f_0\;\cdot\;)$ with $f_0=\left(e^{\mathcal{H}_0/k_BT}+1\right)^{-1}$ the Fermi-Dirac distribution (particle distribution at thermal equilibrium). $\Theta$ stands for the Heaviside step function and is here to ensure the causality of $\chi$.
By using the expression of $\Psi$, one can compute : $$ \chi(\textbf{x},\textbf{x}',t,t')=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\Omega^2\hbar}\sum_{\textbf{k}_1,\textbf{k}_2}e^{\mathrm{i}(\textbf{k}_\alpha-\textbf{k}_\beta)\cdot(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}')+\mathrm{i}(E_\alpha-E_\beta)(t-t')/\hbar}(f_0(E_\alpha)-f_0(E_\beta)) $$ More interesting features can be extracted if you perform space-time Fourier transform : $$ \chi(\textbf{q},\omega)=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\Omega^2\hbar}\sum_{\textbf{k}}\frac{f_0(E_{\textbf{k}+\textbf{q}})-f_0(E_{\textbf{k}})}{\omega+E_{\textbf{k}+\textbf{q}}-E_{\textbf{k}}+\mathrm{i}0^+} $$ with $\textbf{q}=\textbf{k}_\alpha-\textbf{k}_\beta$. Then, if you are interested in the local response of the electronic system (spatialy local $\textbf{q}\rightarrow 0$ and temporally local $\omega\rightarrow 0$), one can show that : $$ \chi(\textbf{q},\omega\sim 0)\underset{\textbf{q}\rightarrow 0}{\sim}\sum_{\textbf{k}}\frac{\partial f_0}{\partial E_{\textbf{k}}} $$ which is independant from $\textbf{q}$ and $\omega$. That is to say, when coming back in real space and time notations : $$ \chi(\textbf{x},\textbf{x}',t,t')\sim\delta(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}')\delta(t-t') $$ What we get shows that the response of an electronic system to an external perturbation is very fast (the $\delta(t-t')$ part) and very local (the $\delta(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}')$ part) so that there is not really such a thing as typical time to re-distribute density fluctuation in a electronic system. This comes from the fact that Thomas-Fermi screening is very efficient.
- 2,568
In presence of external electric fields, If you cut it fast enough (at a speed faster than the conduction speed, you can have the two alved ending up with different charges. This is because the external field redistributes the charges on the conductor' surface to annulate the field there. so the charges will not be uniformly distributed. In absence of external fields, random noise fluctuations contribute to a non uniform distributions, although much smaller, and the charge difference between the two cuts will be very small instead of macroscopic.
-
Of what dimensions would such a metal thread (theoretically) have to be, so that its cutting would result in a macroscopic charge difference? – 355durch113 Dec 03 '14 at 02:22
-
It doent matter, in the sense that it should be in a dimension such that maximizes the charge difference between the two halves. That will depend on the specific configuration of the external electric field. For instance, the best way would be to have a positive charge close to one of the ends of the rod. Then that extreme will attract negative electrons, and leave a vacant of electrons on the farther half. – Dec 03 '14 at 02:33
-
The idea was to have a cyclic thread from, say, Finland to South Africa, connected by a tiny lamp in South Africa, which would light up when the thread was cut in Finland. – 355durch113 Dec 03 '14 at 02:46
-
In that case you should have the charges on the middle of the path (the wire in one direction positive and the one on the other direction negative, so they will flow when you cut them. That is in theory because the resistance would be so large that the current will be too small to tur on a lamp, it might not even me measurable above termal noise. – Dec 03 '14 at 03:05
-
-
no, it will just redistribute the charges until the lectric field becomes cero again. It will not last long. However you have to give energy to the ystem, this will happen when you switch of the electric field, in some sense it is equivalent to a short lived battery. – Dec 03 '14 at 03:13
-
That's what I thought - the lamp "goes on for a sec", and I believe some of the energy is converted to heat. – 355durch113 Dec 03 '14 at 03:17
-
by charges I meant the external electric charge that you used to generate an electric field to redistribute the charges (or something equivalent, as in the example of the rod, like in my first comment. – Dec 03 '14 at 03:25