How Did They Derive Quantized Energy Levels in a 1D Atom?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confused
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the derivation of quantized energy levels for an electron in a one-dimensional atom with a width of 0.1 nm. The formula presented is E_n = n^2 (h^2 / (8ml^2)), where h represents Planck's constant, m is the electron mass, and l is the width of the atom. The conversion factor h*c = 1239.8 eV nm is highlighted as crucial for understanding the derivation, particularly in how it simplifies the expression by combining constants. The discussion clarifies the significance of these constants in quantum mechanics and their application in energy level calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with Planck's constant (h) and electron mass (m)
  • Knowledge of energy quantization in atomic systems
  • Basic algebra skills for manipulating equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Schrödinger equation in one-dimensional systems
  • Explore the implications of quantized energy levels in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about the application of Planck's constant in various physical contexts
  • Investigate the significance of conversion factors in quantum physics calculations
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on quantum mechanics, atomic physics, and energy level calculations. This discussion is beneficial for anyone looking to deepen their understanding of quantized systems and the mathematical foundations behind them.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
The book I am using did a simple little algebra and it is showing the quantized energy levels of an electron in a one-dimensional atom of width 0.1nm.

They did this:

[tex] \begin{array}{l}<br /> E_n = n^2 \frac{{h^2 }}{{8ml^2 }} \\ <br /> E_n = n^2 \frac{{h^2 c^2 }}{{8mc^2 l^2 }} \\ <br /> E_n = n^2 \frac{{(1239.8eV*nm)^2 }}{{(8)(0.511*10^6 eV)(0.1nm)^2 }} \\ <br /> \end{array}[/tex]

But where did the c^2 go on top?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The [tex]c[/tex] has been put with the [tex]h[/tex] to give something with units of [tex][E][T]\frac{[L]}{[T]} = [E][L][/tex], and numerically [tex]h c = 1239.8[/tex] eV nm. This is one of those common estimation factors, although I remember it as [tex]\hbar c \sim 200[/tex] eV nm.
 
Last edited:
Oh ok i get why they did this. They have a conversion at the front of the book for hc = (1239.8eV*nm) that i didn't notice or make the connection to.
 

Similar threads

Replies
46
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K