Bohr's atomic model and Bohr and Rydberg equations

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Bohr's atomic model and the associated Bohr and Rydberg equations, specifically E=-2.18×10−18Z2/n2 J and 1/λ=RZ2(1/n12-1/n22). Participants explore the persistence of these equations despite advancements in quantum mechanics, particularly the transition from circular to elliptical orbits in the Bohr Sommerfeld model. The conversation highlights the hidden symmetry of the hydrogen atom, SO(4), and its implications for both classical and quantum behavior, emphasizing the significance of the Runge Lenz vector as a constant of motion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Bohr's atomic model and its equations
  • Familiarity with the Bohr Sommerfeld model and its implications
  • Knowledge of quantum mechanics, specifically the Schrödinger equation
  • Concept of angular momentum and its role in atomic structure
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Bohr Sommerfeld model and its differences from the original Bohr model
  • Research the Runge Lenz vector and its significance in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about the asymptotic WKB approximation and its application to the Schrödinger equation
  • Explore the implications of SO(4) symmetry in classical and quantum systems
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focused on atomic theory, quantum mechanics, and mathematical physics. This discussion is beneficial for anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of atomic models and their mathematical foundations.

Nick Jackson
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hello,
well, I am totally new to this section of physics so my question may sound ridiculous, but here it is:
When I was reading about the Bohr's atomic model, I learned about the Bohr and Rydberg equations (E=-2,18*10^18*Z^2/n^2 J and 1/λ=RZ^2(1/n1^2-1/n2^2) as well as their proofs. Then I read about the "shaking down" of this atomic model (please excuse my terrible english, I am greek) which I understand but, when I asked a couple of physicists, they told me that the equations remain and just show the largest possibility of an electron to be in that place. Now I get that too. What I don't get is HOW these equations remain intact. I mean the proof uses the assumption that the electron does angular motion and makes use of the formulae Fc=mv^2/r and L=Iω. However, we know now for sure that for l>0 (the azimuthal quantum number) the shape of the orbital discards the theory of the circle orbits.
Every suggestion is welcome!
Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can't give you a completely satisfactory answer to your question, but only two remarks:
1. There is an extension of the Bohr model, the Bohr Sommerfeld model where orbits are no longer circular but elliptical depending on angular momentum.
2. The hydrogen atom (or more generally the problem of Keplerian orbits) has a high but somewhat hidden symmetry, SO(4) which is related to the fact that the Runge Lenz vector is a constant of motion. This symmetry dictates most of both the classical and quantum mechanical behaviour of the system. Hence the two lead to remarkably similar conclusions.
You may have a look at this
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/classical/runge_pro.pdf
 
DrDu said:
I can't give you a completely satisfactory answer to your question, but only two remarks:
1. There is an extension of the Bohr model, the Bohr Sommerfeld model where orbits are no longer circular but elliptical depending on angular momentum.
2. The hydrogen atom (or more generally the problem of Keplerian orbits) has a high but somewhat hidden symmetry, SO(4) which is related to the fact that the Runge Lenz vector is a constant of motion. This symmetry dictates most of both the classical and quantum mechanical behaviour of the system. Hence the two lead to remarkably similar conclusions.
You may have a look at this
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/classical/runge_pro.pdf

Thank you very much for your answer, it has been very helpful and the expansion of the Bohr's model answers many of my questions in general. Unfortunately, even with the resource you provided me with, I can't conclude why the mathematical statement stays intact...
Thanks very much anyway! :)
 
Mathematically, the Bohr Sommerfeld quantization rule can be derived using the asymptotic WKB approximation to the Schroedinger equation. From this one would expect the energy levels to come out right for high principal quantum numbers n. That this quantization is in fact exact for all n is quite a peculiarity of the hygrogen problem. In the quantization of other systems, the Bohr Sommerfeld quantization is usually not exact.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
621
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
17K