Confused about unit conversion involving natural units

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kelly0303
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Joules Unit conversion
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on unit conversion involving natural units, specifically converting terms from 1/Å (angstrom) to Joules and cm-1 for atomic transitions. The conversion from 1/Å to 1/cm requires multiplying by 108, while converting to Joules involves using the constants ℏ (h-bar) and c, leading to a conversion factor of 15,927,759.569. The discrepancy of 2π arises from different definitions of wave number used by spectroscopists and theorists. It is confirmed that using hc instead of ℏc is appropriate for energy calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of natural units, specifically Joules and cm-1
  • Familiarity with the constants ℏ (h-bar) and c (speed of light)
  • Knowledge of unit conversion techniques in physics
  • Basic concepts of atomic transitions and energy equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the relationship between energy and wave number using the equation E=hc/λ
  • Learn about the implications of using ℏ versus hc in quantum mechanics
  • Research the significance of unit conversion factors in spectroscopy
  • Explore detailed examples of unit conversions in atomic physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, chemists, and students involved in atomic transitions, spectroscopy, or any field requiring precise unit conversions in natural units.

kelly0303
Messages
573
Reaction score
33
Hello! I have an expression whose natural units are Joules, but all the terms are expressed in terms of cm##^{-1}## (it is for an atomic transition). I have a term in the expression whose units are 1/A (angstrom) and I am not sure how to convert it to what I need. On one hand, if I were to go from 1/A to 1/cm, I would need to multiply that term by ##10^8##. On the other hand, if I want to convert to J, I need to multiply by ##\hbar## c, then convert from J to cm##^{-1}##, which gives ##15927759.569##. The difference between the 2 approaches is ##2\pi##, but I am not sure why. Should I actually use hc instead of ##\hbar##c? The issue is that the formula is defined using ##\hbar## and I am not sure what I am doing wrong. For reference I am talking about equation 1 in this paper (##\alpha_5##, ##A_1## and ##A_2## are unitless). Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have implicit conversion factors somewhere. You need to make them explicit. (Well, you don't need to, but the chances of screwing up are smaller if you do)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
kelly0303 said:
On one hand, if I were to go from 1/A to 1/cm, I would need to multiply that term by ##10^8##.
Correct.
kelly0303 said:
Should I actually use hc instead of ##\hbar##c?
Yes. What spectroscopists refer to as wave number is ## 1/\lambda ##, not ## k = 2 \pi / \lambda ##, as theorists often do. In terms of energy (## E=hc/\lambda ##), ##\rm 1 ~eV = 8065.5~cm^{-1} = 1.6022 \times 10^{-19}~J##.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: berkeman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K