Bohr-Sommerfeld model question "Old" Quantum Theory

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on applying the Bohr-Sommerfeld model to calculate the orbit radius and energy of Earth satellites. A satellite with a mass of 1000 kg in a circular orbit of 7000 km corresponds to a quantum number n of approximately 5.0106 x 1047. The participants derive relevant equations, including angular momentum (L = mvr = n(h/2π)) and energy (En = 1/2 mv2 - GMm/r), and discuss the legitimacy of treating n as a continuous variable for differentiation purposes. The conversation emphasizes the importance of integrating the radial momentum over one orbital period to establish these relationships.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Bohr-Sommerfeld model
  • Familiarity with orbital mechanics and gravitational forces
  • Knowledge of angular momentum and energy equations
  • Basic calculus for differentiation and integration
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Bohr-Sommerfeld model equations
  • Learn about Taylor series expansions in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the implications of treating quantum numbers as continuous variables
  • Investigate the application of classical mechanics in quantum contexts
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on quantum mechanics and orbital dynamics, as well as educators seeking to clarify the Bohr-Sommerfeld model's applications in real-world scenarios.

RJLiberator
Gold Member
Messages
1,094
Reaction score
63

Homework Statement


In analogy to the Bohr theory of the hydrogen atom, develop a quantum theory of Earth satellites, obtaining expressions for the orbit radius, r_n, and the energy, E_n in terms of the quantum number n and other relevant parameters. Use the "Old" Quantum Theory. A satellite of mass 1000kg is in a circular orbit of radius 7000 km. To what value of n does this correspond? What is the satellite energy? Determine the differences in the radius, Δr_n, and in the energy ΔE_n, for successive orbits at this radius. (Hint: Differentiate with respect to n and set Δn = 1. Why is this legitimate since n is not a continuous variable?)

Homework Equations



V_{Sat} = \sqrt{\frac{GM_e}{r}}

L=angular momentum of satelite:
L_{sat} = rm_{sat}v_{sat}

T = period
T = 2*\pi\sqrt{\frac{r^3}{GM_e}}

Bohr–Sommerfeld model,

\int_0^T p_rdq_r\ =nh
h = Planck's constant = 6.626*10^(-34) J*s

The Attempt at a Solution

So, based on the above equations and m = 1000kg, r = 7000km, I can find V_s = 7548.6 m/s and the period, T = 5826.6 s.

If I have angular momentum correctly, then that is equal to 5.284*10^(13) kg*m^2/s .

I can easily set up the bounds of integration from 0 to the period, T.
But I've never used the Bohr-Sommerfeld model. I don't know what is meant by the wiki's description of "where p_r is the radial momentum canonically conjugate to the coordinate q which is the radial position and T is one full orbital period."

Once I am able to calculate the integral, it will be easy to solve for n, and thus should be easy to find the Energy.

I believe that we are allowed to treat n like a continuous variable due to how minute it will be compared to the other numbers. n will likely be so small, that it will act like a continuous variable, thus we can differentiate it.

Any help on how to get started with the Bohr-Sommerfeld model in relation to this problem? What is "dq" ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A simpler form of the Bohr model might be helpful: The results are the same: ## \\ ## 1) ## L=mvr=n \frac{h}{2 \pi} ## (Angular momentum is an integer number times ## h/(2 \pi) ##). ## \\ ## 2) ## \frac{mv^2}{r}=\frac{GMm}{r^2} ## (centripetal force=gravitational force) ## \\ ## 3) ## E_n=\frac{1}{2}mv^2-\frac{GMm}{r} ## (Energy is the sum of the kinetic energy plus the potential energy). ## \\ ## These are 3 equations, and 3 unknowns (##v ##, ##r ##, and ## E_n ##). ## \\ ## You can solve for the unknowns and then compute the required quantities. ## \\ ## Note: The integral ## \int\limits_{0}^{T} p \, dq=mv(2 \pi r)=n h ##, which is the same as ## mvr=n \frac{h}{2 \pi} ##. And you also have ## v=2 \pi r/T ##, but I don't think you need to solve for ## T ##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: RJLiberator
Hi Charles, thank you kindly for helping me.

I have some follow up questions.

1. Are you sure r is an unknown? The question states that radius = 7000km. I am finding "n", E_n, and v as my unknowns.

2. So, the bohr-sommerfeld statement (that integral) comes down to be simply nh = mv(2*pi*r)?

3. How do you type latex in the middle of the sentence on PhysicsForums like you did? :)

Thank you.
 
1) ## r ## will be a function of ## n ## and the other constants. They then give you ## r ## so that will tell you what ## n ## is. In these 3 equations, you might not need ## v ##, but you need to solve for ## r ## and ##E_n ## (I could have called it ## r_n ##, and the ## v ## I could have called ## v_n ##). ## \\ ## 2) The answer is yes. ## \\ ## 3) just type ## on both sides of the Latex expression.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: RJLiberator
Ah, I see. That makes sense, so using the first equation:

mvr = n\frac{h}{2*\pi}
We get a function r of n, namely ##r(n)=\frac{n}{mv}\frac{h}{2*\pi}##.

Couldn't I use r = 7,000,000 m to find what v is in the second equation? ##v=\sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}## and we have r, G (grav. constant), M (mass of earth). This nets us a v of 7548.6 m/s.

With that v and using an r value again of 7,000,000 m, we can find what n is in the first equation which comes out to be a huge 5.0106*10^(47).
 
RJLiberator said:
Ah, I see. That makes sense, so using the first equation:

mvr = n\frac{h}{2*\pi}
We get a function r of n, namely ##r(n)=\frac{n}{mv}\frac{h}{2*\pi}##.

Couldn't I use r = 7,000,000 m to find what v is in the second equation? ##v=\sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}## and we have r, G (grav. constant), M (mass of earth). This nets us a v of 7548.6 m/s.

With that v and using an r value again of 7,000,000 m, we can find what n is in the first equation which comes out to be a huge 5.0106*10^(47).
The second equation gives you ## v=\sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}} ##, so for this case, yes, you can take that shortcut to the answer. ## \\ ## Meanwhile the huge ## n ## does not surprise me. I might try to compute it, and see if I concur.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: RJLiberator
Yes, my thoughts when first reading this problem was that n would be very extreme and the changes from the change in n should result in very minute differences. This is what explains why we can differentiate r(n) without n being a continuous variable.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Charles Link
RJLiberator said:
Yes, my thoughts when first reading this problem was that n would be very extreme and the changes from the change in n should result in very minute differences. This is what explains why we can differentiate r(n) without n being a continuous variable.
The arithmetic checked out=I agree with your answers. ## \\ ## Meanwhile ## r_n ## can be written as a Taylor series: ## r(n)=r(n_o)+r'(n_o)(n-n_o)+\frac{1}{2}r''(n_o)(n-n_o)^2+...##. The derivatives get successively smaller. Your explanation is ok too, but I think justifying it with the Taylor series is more mathematical. (Even though ## n ## is integer, you can assume it to be a continuous variable in the formula for ## r(n) ##, and when you put in integers ## n ## and ## n_o ##, the Taylor Series would get you the exact answer for ## r(n) ## if you included all of the terms in the series. In this case you find ## \Delta r=r(n)-r(n_o) ## with just the first derivative term).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: RJLiberator
Charles, thank you for helping me with my problem and even cross-checking your solution with mine.

:biggrin::bow::bow::partytime:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
4K