ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













The Curious Wavefunction

The Curious Wavefunction


Musings on chemistry and the history and philosophy of science
The Curious Wavefunction Home

What does mercury being liquid at room temperature have to do with Einstein’s theory of relativity?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Image: Wikipedia Commons

One of the great moments in twentieth century science came when Paul Dirac married quantum mechanics with Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity to produce relativistic quantum mechanics. Dirac’s theory did many things – predict electron spin and the positron, analyze atomic collisions, jump-start the revolution in quantum electrodynamics – but it also had very significant repercussions for chemistry. However these repercussions did not become known for another few decades because it turned out that for solving most problems in chemistry you could neglect relativistic effects. Figuring out chemical bonding, predicting the thermodynamic properties of molecules and rates of chemical reactions, understanding the molecular glue that holds proteins together; all these problems succumbed to calculation without chemists worrying about relativity.

All except one problem, that is. And it deals with a question that every child since antiquity has asked: Why is mercury liquid at room temperature? Mercury – the only metal with this property – has beguiled and fascinated men for centuries; a glittering substance that flows with studied gravity, supports the weight of coins, magically seems to dissolve other metals and resists all attempts to scoop it up. A substance that can aid health when calibrated inside a thermometer and can kill when it accumulates in living tissues. But the one quality of mercury that is apparent to everyone who has even the slightest acquaintance with it is its liquid nature.

Why is this so? It turns out that sometimes simple observations in science can have complicated although very interesting explanations, and this is one of those cases. Fortunately the crux of the matter is simple, and it has received its most complete and satisfying treatment in a recent paper published in the journal Angewandte Chemie. But first let’s go back to the basics. Mercury is a metal, which means that it occupies the middle of the periodic table along with other metals like gold, zinc and cadmium. In fact it is in the same group as zinc and cadmium, and yet it couldn’t be more different from them. Zinc and cadmium are not liquids at room temperature and they crystallize in a different form from mercury. In addition mercury is right next to gold, and yet their properties are utterly dissimilar.

Recall from college chemistry that atomic orbitals come in different flavors; s, p, d and f orbitals are distinguished by different quantum numbers and different “shapes”. Metals are characterized by significantly occupied d orbitals. In addition, filled orbitals imply special stability. The singular fact that distinguishes mercury from its neighbors is that it has a filled outermost 6s atomic orbital. This means that the electrons in the orbital are happily paired up with each other and are reluctant to be shared among neighboring mercury atoms. Where the theory of relativity comes in is in accounting for subtle changes in the masses of the electrons in mercury and the atomic radii which nonetheless have profound effects on the physical properties of the metal.

According to special relativity, the apparent mass of an object increases as its velocity approaches the speed of light. From Niels Bohr’s theory of atomic structure we know that the velocity of an electron is proportional to the atomic number of an element. For light elements like hydrogen (atomic number 1) the velocity is insignificant compared to the speed of light so relativity can be essentially ignored. But for the 1s electron of mercury (atomic number 80) this effect becomes significant; the electron approaches about 58% of the speed of light, and its mass increases to 1.23 times its rest mass. Relativity has kicked in. Since the radius of an electron orbit in the Bohr theory (orbital to be precise) goes inversely as the mass, this mass increase results in a 23% decrease in the orbital radius. This shrinkage makes a world of difference since it results in stronger attraction between the nucleus and the electrons, and this effect translates to the outermost 6s orbital as well as to other orbitals. The effect is compounded by the more diffuse d and f orbitals insufficiently shielding the s electrons. Combined with the filled nature of the 6s orbital, the relativistic shrinkage makes mercury very reluctant indeed to share its outermost electrons and form strong bonds with other mercury atoms.

The bonding between mercury atoms in small clusters thus mainly results from weak Van der Waals forces which arise from local charge fluctuations in neighboring atoms rather than the sharing of electrons. But all this was conjecture; someone had to do the rigorous calculations, treating every electron in the element relativistically and calculating the relevant properties. In this case the relevant property is the heat capacity of a substance which dramatically changes during a phase transition, say from solid to liquid. The question was simple; using the most state-of-the-art calculations, could you predict the temperature at which mercury melts as indicated by a sudden change in heat capacity? In a paper published in Angewandte Chemie this month, chemists from New Zealand, Germany and France have provided a result which is the most complete one to date. They actually simulated the melting of mercury using quantum molecular dynamics, solving the Schrodinger equation, calculating forces and velocities from quantum mechanics and allowing the atomic clusters to sample different geometric orientations randomly. They carried out the calculations first by excluding relativity and then by including it, and the results were unambiguous; when relativistic effects were taken into account, the melting point of mercury dropped from 355 kelvin to 250 kelvin, in excellent agreement with experiment and accompanied by a sudden change in the heat capacity.

The liquid nature of mercury is not the only thing that the special theory explains. It also explains why gold is yellow while silver is white. In this case, the splitting of orbitals and the lower energy of the 6s orbital results in gold absorbing blue light and emitting yellow and red. Since the 6s level is higher in silver, the energy required to excite an electron corresponds to the UV region instead of the visible region; consequently silver appears devoid of colors from the visible region of the spectrum.

I always feel a twang of pleasure when I come across studies like this. There are few things more satisfying than the successful application of our most cherished and accurate theories to explaining life’s most humdrum and yet fascinating phenomena. That’s what science is about.

References:

1. Evidence for Low-Temperature Melting of Mercury owing to Relativity; F. Calvo et al. Angew. Chem. Intl. Ed. Engl. 2013, 10.1002/anie.201302742

2. Why is Mercury Liquid? L. Norrby, J. Chem. Ed. 1991, p. 110.

3. Relativistic Effects in Chemistry, D. McKelvey, J. Chem. Ed. 1983, p. 112

Ashutosh Jogalekar About the Author: Ashutosh (Ash) Jogalekar is a chemist interested in the history and philosophy of science. He considers science to be a seamless and all-encompassing part of the human experience. Follow on Twitter @curiouswavefn.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 14 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Wayne Williamson 5:26 pm 07/31/2013

    Very nice write up. Thanks!

    Link to this
  2. 2. M Tucker 6:25 pm 07/31/2013

    Thanks for the post Ash. Really wonderful explanation of why mercury is the liquid metal.

    Link to this
  3. 3. sunspot 7:08 pm 07/31/2013

    Ash,
    What a pleasure to see a real science blog on SciAm, rather than unsupported opinions of writers. This is the most fascinating post that I’ve seen here in some time. The authors of the paper on Angewandte Chemie seemed motivated by the high superconducting temp of Mercury (>4K). I must read more about this. Thanks for the excellent writing. I’ll always look for your posts in the future.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Chryses 7:31 pm 07/31/2013

    What sunspot said! Good reading Science again at SciAm!

    Link to this
  5. 5. lennongirl909 9:22 pm 07/31/2013

    Great post, if only the original study was so expensive to read!!

    Link to this
  6. 6. curiouswavefunction 9:42 pm 07/31/2013

    Thanks all for reading. I agree that it would have been nice if the paper had been open access.

    Link to this
  7. 7. cybernetichero 4:40 am 08/1/2013

    I always wondered why gold jewellery looked gauche compared to nice, restrained silver :P

    Link to this
  8. 8. Samuel Ashworth 9:26 am 08/1/2013

    I like your blog. I’m a chemical engineer and mathematician and have worked on these equations. They are difficult even time independent let alone including relativity. It’s real amazing how this makes somuch difference. Dirac was a genious. I remember reading about Richard Feynmann, they said about him “he’s like Dirac only human”. I don’t use quantum theory a lot but explains so many things. In fact, Feynmann demonstrated that classical physics including relativity is a special case derived from quantum mechanics! Think about that for a femto second.

    Link to this
  9. 9. timurlane 10:05 am 08/1/2013

    What sunspot and Chryses both said. Thanks for a real science article.
    Fascinating piece.

    Link to this
  10. 10. bluzol 5:10 pm 08/1/2013

    I’ve been led to believe that (bound) electrons cannot be regarded as massive objects, and thus the notion of an electron whizzing around a mercury nucleus at “58% of the speed of light” is difficult to reconcile with the concept of orbitals rather than orbits.

    Link to this
  11. 11. karlchwe 7:13 pm 08/2/2013

    I love the piece, but you didn’t quite say what the link between low melting point, heat capacity and interatomic bonds were. I think I know that already, but that step was left out.

    Link to this
  12. 12. gmperkins 1:48 pm 08/3/2013

    That was a great read, it makes me wonder why more heavy elements don’t act like mercury? Or maybe some do and I don’t know about them?

    Link to this
  13. 13. Crocodile Chuck 7:39 pm 08/4/2013

    A lucid explanation of a non trivial phenomenon. Outstanding. Thank you, Ash.

    Link to this
  14. 14. Mohammad Shafiq KhaN 8:50 am 09/20/2013

    Read & circulate http://phys.org/news/2013-09-gravity-variations-bigger-previously-thought.html#jCp .

    This confirms the alternative theory of gravity. The very space-time concept, on which theories of relativity are founded, has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally proved as baseless and openly challenged on the basis of published scientific articles. Since the very space-time concept has been proved as baseless the question of curvature of space-time being correct does not arise. Gravity has been shown to be an electromagnetic force as foreseen by Maxwell due to the curl/vortices of aether (the electric dipoles) in the published article ‘Revised Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things’ (www.indjst.org; Sep 2010) Revised version of this article is available on vixra & General Science Journal in my profile. Standing open challenge could be seen at http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2 and http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4018.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Give a Gift &
Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now! >

X

Email this Article

X