- #1
davidbenari
- 466
- 18
Bohr assumed angular momentum was quantized as ##L=n\hbar##. But really it is quantized as ##L=\hbar \sqrt{l(l+1)}##.
What he does to derive,e.g., the Bohr radius is consider that the total energy of an electron orbiting a proton is
## E=\frac{L^2}{2mr^2}-\frac{k e^2}{r} ##
and then he makes some clever substitutions. However, Bohr substituted the formula for ##L_z## (##n\hbar##) not the actual ##L## (which is ##h\sqrt{l(l+1)}##). So why then does his procedure work?
Up until now I have considered this a mere accident but I've heard about people considering the so-called "Gravitational Bohr Radius" which is derived using the same procedure.
I don't understand why we asume its validity for the simple system of one particle orbiting another if we've got the wrong formula for angular momentum.
So then:
Why does his procedure work?
Why do we take on the similar (and wrong) derivation to the gravitational case?
What he does to derive,e.g., the Bohr radius is consider that the total energy of an electron orbiting a proton is
## E=\frac{L^2}{2mr^2}-\frac{k e^2}{r} ##
and then he makes some clever substitutions. However, Bohr substituted the formula for ##L_z## (##n\hbar##) not the actual ##L## (which is ##h\sqrt{l(l+1)}##). So why then does his procedure work?
Up until now I have considered this a mere accident but I've heard about people considering the so-called "Gravitational Bohr Radius" which is derived using the same procedure.
I don't understand why we asume its validity for the simple system of one particle orbiting another if we've got the wrong formula for angular momentum.
So then:
Why does his procedure work?
Why do we take on the similar (and wrong) derivation to the gravitational case?