Thanks Fearless, but this is not what I was looking for. I'm happy with the notion that molecules "vibrate/move faster" after an exothermous chemical reaction. It is the energy of the electrons that I want to express in terms of fundamental quantities.
chemisttree said:
You are confusing potential with energy.
Thanks, but I am not confusing potential with energy, I am an engineer with masters in physics-based simulation.
The energy at r=infinity is simply the ionization energy.
Ok, and I was hoping that we express everything in terms of fundamental quantities. I am not convinced that macroscopic quantities like kinetic energy, electrostatic energy, electromagnetic energy, are not defined for subatomic particles. I believe they are defined, and they are conserved. Except in nuclear reactions.
People certainly work in terms of quantum energy levels at the atomic scale (which I guess are implied to be a mixture of electromagnetic and kinetic energy, but you tell me) only because quantum laws make working this way practical.
But do we have any lower level equations, like wavefunctions from which we can derive kinetic and electromagnetic energy, and compare the before and after state, and then match the difference with the heat of the exothermous reaction?
When you use a quantum mechanical explanation, the energy of the particle in a box becomes:
E_n=\frac{\hbar^2\pi^2}{2mL^2}n^2
In this case, 'L' is the distance between the walls of the box.
Sure, but why is the electron of a hydrogen atom, living in a box between potential walls? Are you approximating this way a trough in the curve of the (total) energy of the electron as a function of the distance from the nucleus? If so, wouldn't the width of the trough L be something different from distances of the electron from the nucleus?