De Broglie wavelength and energy levels

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the limitations of the early planetary model of the atom, which failed to explain discrete energy levels due to continuous energy loss from orbiting charges. It introduces the de Broglie wavelength, linking momentum and energy, with the equation p = h/L. The participants explore how to derive a relationship between kinetic energy and wavelength, ultimately arriving at h^2/2mL^2. The concept of standing waves in circular orbits is emphasized as essential for achieving discrete energy levels, as they prevent destructive interference and ensure continuous solutions. Understanding these principles is crucial for constructing a viable model of atomic structure.
rohanlol7
Messages
66
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


In the earliest circular planetary model of the atom the electron and proton orbited a common centre. The electrostatic forces alone provided the force field. However an accelerating charged body will send out electromagnetic waves and the orbiting charges would consequently lose energy continuously. The model did not, as it stood, predict the existence of discrete energy levels that were known to be a consequence of the discrete system of spectral lines. In the wave particle model the de Broglie wavelength, L, is related to the momentum p ( p = mv) by p =h/L. Assume v < c the speed of light in free space.

i)Use this to find a relationship between the KE of a body and its wavelength. (ii) How, using the de Broglie result, can a discrete energy level model be constructed?
Why are neutrons used to investigate the nature of certain crystals ?

Homework Equations



Equations are given in the question
Ek=mv^2/2
Fc=mv^2/R

The Attempt at a Solution


The first part is fine, i got h^2/2mL^2
for the second part i thought about using electrostatic forces and relate that to Fc but i do not see how this would introduce only discrete values in the model.
I looked online a bit and I found something about standing waves and that it would imply 2*pi*r=nL but i don't understand where this comes from
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rohanlol7 said:
I looked online a bit and I found something about standing waves and that it would imply 2*pi*r=nL but i don't understand where this comes from
Remember that you are considering circular orbits. If that condition is not met, then you can't have a standing wave (you have the wave destructively interfering with itself).
 
DrClaude said:
Remember that you are considering circular orbits. If that condition is not met, then you can't have a standing wave (you have the wave destructively interfering with itself).
but why should i want standing waves in this situation?
 
rohanlol7 said:
but why should i want standing waves in this situation?
Because otherwise you get no solution! The wave will interfere with itself and, on average, you get zero everywhere.

Another way to see it is that the solution should be single valued and continuous at every point along the trajectory.
 
  • Like
Likes rohanlol7
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Back
Top