Coulomb force vs. Pauli principle in atoms

Heirot
Messages
145
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



In the absence of the Pauli principle, the Coulomb force would not be saturated, and the energy of a system containing N atoms would vary as N^(5/3).

Show that a system of 2N atoms would have an energy lower than that of two N - atom systems.

Homework Equations



E = c * N^(5/3)

The Attempt at a Solution



E(2N) = c * (2N)^(5/3) = c * 2^(5/3) * N^(5/3)
2 * E(N) = 2 * c N^(5/3)

Since, 2^(5/3) > 2, then obviously E(2N) > 2 E(N), contrary to the what had to be shown. Where's the error in my reasoning?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Heirot said:

Homework Statement



In the absence of the Pauli principle, the Coulomb force would not be saturated, and the energy of a system containing N atoms would vary as N^(5/3).

Show that a system of 2N atoms would have an energy lower than that of two N - atom systems.

Homework Equations



E = c * N^(5/3)

The Attempt at a Solution



E(2N) = c * (2N)^(5/3) = c * 2^(5/3) * N^(5/3)
2 * E(N) = 2 * c N^(5/3)

Since, 2^(5/3) > 2, then obviously E(2N) > 2 E(N), contrary to the what had to be shown. Where's the error in my reasoning?

Is c positive or negative, and why?
 
I can't see how could c be anything but positive due to Coulomb repulsion of like charges.
 
Heirot said:
I can't see how could c be anything but positive due to Coulomb repulsion of like charges.
True, but this is an atom: it has a large positive nuclei
 
But then then energy wouldn't depend on N as N^(5/3) but also as N^2
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top