Are there an infinite number of energy levels in an atom?

Cheman
Messages
235
Reaction score
1
Number of energy levels...

I have been told that as were go further away from the nucleus, the energy levels get closer and closer together - do we get to a stage where we get no more? I assume we must because any energy above this causes the substance to ionise (ie the ionisation energy); but are there an infinate number of energy levels before this or some discrete number of them?

I have been told that the way that the levels get closer and closer together is governed by some equation - what I guess I'm asking boils down to is is this an infinate geometric progression with the levels getting closer and closer for infinity (ie - an infinate number of levels), or do we get to a point where an equation would just give the same answer - there are no more levels which exist?

Thanks in advance. :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cheman said:
I have been told that as were go further away from the nucleus, the energy levels get closer and closer together

Yes,that's a physical consequence of Bohr's model/postulates.

Cheman said:
- do we get to a stage where we get no more?
I



As soon as u go past zero,yes,the electron is free,adieu to quantization.



Cheman said:
but are there an infinate number of energy levels before this

Sure,the discrete spectrum contains an infinite # of energy levels.

Cheman said:
I have been told that the way that the levels get closer and closer together is governed by some equation

Yes.This equation
E_{n}=\frac{E_{1}}{n^{2}}

Cheman said:
- what I guess I'm asking boils down to is is this an infinate geometric progression with the levels getting closer and closer for infinity (ie - an infinate number of levels), or do we get to a point where an equation would just give the same answer - there are no more levels which exist?

I've given u the equation,see what it boils down to... :wink:

Daniel.
 
Thanks. Please could someone elaborate further? :smile:
 
In what domain?What do you think it has been answererd too briefly...?

Daniel.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top