Difference in Physics and Chemistry Text regarding Wavenumber

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences in the definition of "wavenumber" as used in physics and chemistry, particularly in the context of Bohr's Theory. Participants explore the implications of these definitions and their applications in different scientific contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Vivek notes that in chemistry, the wavenumber is defined as \(\frac{1}{\lambda}\), while in physics, it is defined as \(\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}\), questioning the rationale behind this distinction.
  • One participant suggests that the difference arises because Planck's constant \(h\) is involved in Rydberg's constant, and physicists typically use \(\hbar = \frac{h}{2\pi}\), leading to the need to divide by \(2\pi\) when using Rydberg's constant in physics.
  • Another participant points out that physicists often use angular frequency \(\omega = 2\pi f\) instead of regular frequency \(f\), which contributes to the preference for the \(\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}\) form.
  • Vivek later clarifies that the wavenumber defined by the Ritz Formula is simply the reciprocal of the wavelength, but emphasizes the need to distinguish between the two definitions based on context, particularly when discussing stationary waves in Bohr's model.
  • A final contribution states that either definition can be used as long as the correct units are provided, with \(m^{-1}\) for \(\frac{1}{\lambda}\) and rad/m for \(\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}\).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and applications of wavenumber in physics and chemistry, indicating that no consensus has been reached regarding the necessity or implications of the distinction.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the importance of context in defining wavenumber, with references to different formulas and their applications in various scientific fields. There are unresolved nuances regarding the implications of using one definition over the other.

maverick280857
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
5
Hi

Those of you who have read Bohr's Theory in Chemistry may have encountered the relation,

[tex] \frac{1}{\lambda} = RhcZ^{2}(\frac{1}{n_{1}^{2}}-\frac{1}{n_{2}^{2}})[/tex]

for the wavelength of radiation emitted when an electron goes from a higher energy level [tex]n_{2}[/tex] to a lower energy level [tex]n_{1}[/tex], R is the Rydberg Constant, c is the speed of light and Z is the atomic number of the one-electron (hydrogen-like) species being considered.

Now some books refer to the fraction [tex]\frac{1}{\lambda}[/tex] as the "wavenumber", whereas in physics, the fraction [tex]\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}[/tex] is called the wavenumber. Why should this difference exist at all?

I was told by my teachers to make a distinction when answering questions on physics (use the second formula) and chemistry (use the first one) but that to me seems hardly convincing.

Cheers
Vivek
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
maverick280857 said:
Hi

Those of you who have read Bohr's Theory in Chemistry may have encountered the relation,

[tex] \frac{1}{\lambda} = RhcZ^{2}(\frac{1}{n_{1}^{2}}-\frac{1}{n_{2}^{2}})[/tex]

for the wavelength of radiation emitted when an electron goes from a higher energy level [tex]n_{2}[/tex] to a lower energy level [tex]n_{1}[/tex], R is the Rydberg Constant, c is the speed of light and Z is the atomic number of the one-electron (hydrogen-like) species being considered.

Now some books refer to the fraction [tex]\frac{1}{\lambda}[/tex] as the "wavenumber", whereas in physics, the fraction [tex]\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}[/tex] is called the wavenumber. Why should this difference exist at all?

I was told by my teachers to make a distinction when answering questions on physics (use the second formula) and chemistry (use the first one) but that to me seems hardly convincing.

Cheers
Vivek

I believe it's because Planck's constant h comes into Rydberg's constant and in its original form. But physicists are accustomed to use [tex]\hbar = h/{2\pi}[/tex]. So when physicists use Rydberg's constant, they have to divide it by [tex]2\pi[/tex].
 
Also, physicists use the angular frequency [tex]\omega = 2 \pi f[/tex] more often than the regular frequency, f.

So [tex]~\omega = 2\pi f = 2 \pi \frac {c} {\lambda} = c \frac {2\pi} {\lambda}[/tex]

Hence the popularity of that form among physicists.
 
Thanks selfAdjoint and Gokul43201

I guess I do have to make this distinction while doing physics and chemistry :-D

Cheers
Vivek
 
Just to add to what I posted earlier, I learned the following from my teacher very recently:

The wavenumber as defined by the Ritz Formula, which is,

[tex]\frac{1}{\lambda} = RZ^{2}(\frac{1}{n_{1}^{2}}-\frac{1}{n_{2}^{2}}) \qquad (n_{2} > n_{1})[/tex]

(and not what I had mentioned in my first mail)

is just the reciprocal of the wavelength (which should mean in physical terms, the number of oscillations per unit length) but in Bohr's terms, when the wave is "fit" into the "orbit", the wavenumber concerned with the stationary wave is indeed the one that comes from physics, that is [tex]\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}[/tex].

So its just that these two quantities with similar names must be distinguished in the context of their usage. If they ask you for the wavenumber of the alpha line in the Balmer spectral series of an unielectron species then you have to use the Ritz relationship setting [tex]n_{1} = 2[/tex] and [tex]n_{2} = 3[/tex], but if the wavenumber is referred to in terms of the stationary wave that fits into the Bohr Orbit (the so called "de-Broglie wave") then you have to use [tex]\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}[/tex].

Cheers
Vivek
 
Last edited:
You can write down either [tex]1/ \lambda ~~or~~2\pi / \lambda[/tex] as long as you provide the correct units to avoid confusion - m^-1 for the former and rad/m for the latter.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
16K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
12K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K