Derive an expression of Bohr radius in gravitational case

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves deriving an expression for the Bohr radius in a gravitational context, drawing parallels between gravitational and electrostatic forces. The original poster seeks to understand the quantum number of Earth's orbit and whether differences in quantum states within the solar system are observable.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the virial theorem and equate total energy with potential energy to derive a formula for the gravitational Bohr radius. They express uncertainty about the correctness of their derived equations and seek clarification on their approach.

Discussion Status

Some participants have pointed out potential errors in the original poster's calculations, particularly regarding unit consistency and the implications of their derived formulas. There is an ongoing exploration of the algebra involved and the conceptual understanding of the relationships between variables.

Contextual Notes

Participants are discussing the implications of gravitational versus electrostatic forces and the assumptions made in the derivation process. There is a noted concern about the physical meaning of the quantum number derived and its relation to observable phenomena.

Frioz
Messages
4
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Both Newton's gravitational law and Coulomb's law are inverse-square laws: The force of attraction
between the sun (S) and Earth(E) has (G*m_S*m_E)/r^2, whereas the force of attraction between an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom is (e^2)/(4*pi*epsilon_0*r^2). Derive an expression for the equivalent of the Bohr radius for the gravitational case. What is the value of the quantum number of Earth's orbit? Would distance differences between individual quantum states in the solar system be observable?

Homework Equations


F = (G*m_S*m_E)/r^2
F= (e^2)/(4*pi*epsilon_0*r^2)
KE = 1/2 * m*v^2
PE = -e^2 / (4*pi*epsilon_0*r)
U=(G*m_S*m_E)/r
E_total = nhv

The Attempt at a Solution



My attempt was to use the virial theorem, that total energy is equal to one of half of the potential energy. Therefore, since U=-(G*m_S*m_E)/r, then E_total = -(G*m_S*m_E)/2r.

Then I equated E_total = -(G*m_S*m_E)/2r = nhv, and solved for v to get v = -(G*m_S*m_E)/(2rnh).

I then used F = (G*m_S*m_E)/r^2 = (m*v^2) / r and substituted what I got for v, and solved for r. This yielded:

r = (G*m_S*(m_E^2))/(4n^2*h^2).

Is this the correct way to get the Bohr radius?

I also solved for n to get n = sqrt((G*m_S*m_E^2)/(4*h^2*r)) which gave me n=3.533x10^63, which seems to be off by a factor of 10^11 from the actual answer. Any direction would be valuable, and I thank you in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That looks like a very complicated way, but I guess it is possible, if you fix an error:
The last formula cannot be right, it gives inverse meters as unit: WolframAlpha
This is easy to fix - do you expect a larger r to give a smaller n, as your formula suggests? What could have went wrong?
 
I cannot seem to find this error.. I saw that I neglected a negative sign when solving for r, but that doesn't change the magnitude. Am I just missing something algebraic or is there a huge concept that's flying over my head?
 
Well, the idea to find the error is easy: check the units in every equation. At some point it starts to be wrong.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K