Undergrad Confused about unit conversion involving natural units

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around converting units for an atomic transition expression, specifically from natural units (Joules) to wavenumber (cm^-1) and the implications of using different constants. The user is confused about converting a term from 1/A (angstrom) to the required units, noting that multiplying by 10^8 would convert to 1/cm. There is a debate on whether to use hc instead of ħc for the conversion, with clarification that spectroscopists define wavenumber as 1/λ rather than k = 2π/λ. The conversation emphasizes the importance of making implicit conversion factors explicit to avoid errors in calculations.
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 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:
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
987
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
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