A problem when trying to compare electromagnetism with gravity

In summary: For an electron "hovering at Bohr's radius", escape energy would be E2 = 27.2 eV, but since electron can't stand still and is orbiting with E_orbital = 13.6 eV, It takes another 13.6. eV to kick electron out, if the light hits at correct angle? Is that correct? According to orbital mechanics, E1 angle is the most optimal angle to boost velocity for escape trajectory (picture below).Yes, that's correct.
  • #1
Myslius
120
5
Let's say an object far far away from the Earth free falls in gravitational field. At Earth's surface free falling object gains kinetic energy E_1.
Let's say an electron far away from the proton free falls in electromagnetic field. At Bohr's radius free falling electron gains kinetic energy E_2.
Let's say on object is standing still on the surface of the Earth and it gets an energy equal to E_1, object escapes to infinity.

Now here's the problem, that i don't get. Free falling electron gains E_2=13.6eV when distance to the nucleus is Bohr's radius * 2.
13.6 eV is energy required to strip electron from hydrogen nucleus (confirmed experimentally).
Electron gains 27.2eV at Bohr's radius. Where's this factor of 2 coming from?

Calculations come from a little simulation program that i wrote:


In the case of gravity, program integrates Newton's gravitational law.
8c6ee5510ba3c7d6664775c0e76b53e72468303a

In the case of electromagnetism program integrates coulomb's law
0b8c2423895ea5ac525cea45a0bf80fc2035425d


Everything looks fine in the case of gravity, but in the case of electromagnetism, i get an output:

V1: 3093155.3510288
V2: 1684.5850519587
A1: 9.047093214817E+22
A2: 4.9272009529973E+19
M1: 2.8176738503187E-24
M2: 2.8176738503187E-24
Total Time: 0.06977473942106
Distance: 5.290930084121E-11
Energy1: 4.3577514737836E-18, eV: 27.201084699357
Energy2: 2.3733056247709E-21, eV: 0.01481417370982

V looks fine (velocity m/s)
A looks fine (acceleration m/s^2)
M looks fine (momentum of a proton and momentum of an electron)
Energy and distance have a weird factor of 2. Why?

My initial thought was that Lorentz force is a sum of both forces between the electron and the proton, however that doesn't seem to be the case.

440px-CoulombsLaw.svg.png

F1 is equal to F2 and is equal to k_e * q1 * q2 / (r*r)
and not
F1 + F2 = k_c * q1 * q2 / (r*r)

What is wrong here?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You are not comparing like with like. The correct comparison for a Bohr atom would be with an object in low Earth orbit. For an orbiting object, PE = -2KE and total energy = -KE; escape energy = KE. KE of the orbiting object is half that of an object freely falling from infinity to the orbital radius. Simply dropping an object from infinity won't cause it to go into orbit; you have to lose some of that energy somehow (e.g. the proton-electron system you describe has total energy 0, while a Bohr atom has energy -13.6 eV, PE -27.2, KE +13.6).
 
  • Like
Likes Myslius, nasu, BvU and 1 other person
  • #3
mjc123 said:
You are not comparing like with like. The correct comparison for a Bohr atom would be with an object in low Earth orbit. For an orbiting object, PE = -2KE and total energy = -KE; escape energy = KE. KE of the orbiting object is half that of an object freely falling from infinity to the orbital radius. Simply dropping an object from infinity won't cause it to go into orbit; you have to lose some of that energy somehow (e.g. the proton-electron system you describe has total energy 0, while a Bohr atom has energy -13.6 eV, PE -27.2, KE +13.6).

For an electron "hovering at Bohr's radius", escape energy would be E2 = 27.2 eV, but since electron can't stand still and is orbiting with E_orbital = 13.6 eV, It takes another 13.6. eV to kick electron out, if the light hits at correct angle? Is that correct? According to orbital mechanics, E1 angle is the most optimal angle to boost velocity for escape trajectory (picture below). I have a following question. How does that work with spectral lines? Spectral lines are quite narrow, electron could be in any orientation relative to the photon. And another question is about Compton scattering.
b1b6e8ca5e430737ba11a64be00aea46e8c37149

When a photon hits an electron, only small fraction of energy is transferred to the electron, this is because energy and momentum must be conserved. When a photon with 13.6 eV hits an electron, only 13.6eV/18787=0.000723eV of energy is transferred. The photon bounces with 99.99% of initial energy back.

Now, here's an interesting thought, maybe 13.6eV only looks like 13.6eV, but what would happen if E1 is actually 13.6eV*18787=0.25MeV? from the Compton formula we get, that a photon disappears, because it transfers every bit of energy on perfect collision. E_final - E_initial = electron's mass = 0.25MeV. Electron is emitted. which is not 13.6eV, and we actually see 0.5MeV (electron) outside from the nucleus. (I'm missing 2 somewhere here again, i know i need to contemplate more and to order my thoughts more precise, but if you have any insights corrections let me know)
The case that I'm talking about is when the bottom of Compton scattering formula looks like: 1 + (0.5 * (1+1)), E_final/E_initial=2, and angle is pi. It looks like h in E=hf is a quite off. I know this is far fetched, but that's what i get when i look at Compton scattering and Bohr's model. Also it looks like E1 is facing the opposite direction. I'm not sure h is off, might be c because not in vacuum, might be coulomb's constant, maybe particle masses. Any ideas? How to resolve Compton scattering in the Bohr model?
Screenshot 2021-06-28 at 16.30.05.png
 
Last edited:

Related to A problem when trying to compare electromagnetism with gravity

What is the difference between electromagnetism and gravity?

Electromagnetism and gravity are two fundamental forces in the universe. Electromagnetism is responsible for the interactions between electrically charged particles, while gravity is responsible for the attraction between objects with mass. The main difference between the two is that electromagnetism is a much stronger force than gravity, but it only acts on charged particles, while gravity acts on all objects with mass.

Why is it difficult to compare electromagnetism and gravity?

It is difficult to compare electromagnetism and gravity because they are described by different mathematical equations and have different strengths. Additionally, while electromagnetism can be explained by quantum mechanics, gravity is better described by general relativity. This makes it challenging to directly compare the two forces.

Can electromagnetism and gravity be unified into one theory?

Many scientists have attempted to unify electromagnetism and gravity into one theory, but so far, no successful theory has been proposed. The main challenge is that electromagnetism and gravity have different strengths and behaviors, making it difficult to find a single theory that can explain both forces.

How does the strength of electromagnetism and gravity compare?

The strength of electromagnetism is much greater than that of gravity. For example, the electromagnetic force between two electrons is about 10^42 times stronger than the gravitational force between them. This is why we can experience the effects of electromagnetism in our daily lives, while gravity is only noticeable on a large scale, such as between planets and stars.

Can we use electromagnetism to manipulate gravity?

Currently, there is no known way to use electromagnetism to manipulate gravity. However, some theories propose that gravity may be able to be manipulated through the use of electromagnetic fields or other advanced technologies. This is an area of ongoing research and is still not fully understood.

Similar threads

  • Classical Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
86
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
15
Views
5K
Back
Top