- #1

- 18

- 0

Is there any evidence that shows a relationship between the angular frequency of the electron in hydrogen, and the charge-to-mass ratio, by the mean of the special relativity ?

Looking to reading you

- B
- Thread starter hcl
- Start date

- #1

- 18

- 0

Is there any evidence that shows a relationship between the angular frequency of the electron in hydrogen, and the charge-to-mass ratio, by the mean of the special relativity ?

Looking to reading you

- #2

- 31,700

- 10,417

Do you think there should be such a relationship? Why or why not? Please give references.Is there any evidence that shows a relationship between the angular frequency of the electron in hydrogen, and the charge-to-mass ratio

- #3

- 18

- 0

Yes, this relationship is very simple :Do you think there should be such a relationship? Why or why not? Please give references.

fH = 4pi (c^2/v^2) e/m

where fH is the angular frequency of the electron in the hydrogen atom, c is the speed of light, v is the rotation speed of the electron in the hydrogen atom (multiplied by 2).

Reading you

Herve

- #4

- 31,700

- 10,417

What do you mean by "angular frequency"? What measurement does this correspond to?fH is the angular frequency of the electron in the hydrogen atom

What do you mean by "rotation speed"? You do understand that the electron is not a little billiard ball orbiting the nucleus, right?v is the rotation speed of the electron in the hydrogen atom

- #5

- 18

- 0

I mean the one forcasted by Bohr in the Bohr's model (multiplied by 2) . I mean the ionizing frequency of hydrogen (3.288 1015Hz) multiplied by 2 pi (multiplied by 2).What do you mean by "angular frequency"? What measurement does this correspond to?

What do you mean by "rotation speed"? You do understand that the electron is not a little billiard ball orbiting the nucleus, right?

Don't you have a scientific calculator to vevrify the above relation ?

- #6

- 31,700

- 10,417

Which has been known since the early 1920s to be an inaccurate model. So you should not expect it to correctly predict all experimental results. It happened to predict the energy levels of hydrogen to a reasonable approximation based on the data available when it was first proposed, but even by the early 1920s it was known that the hydrogen energy levels had structure that was not predicted by the Bohr model.the one forcasted by Bohr in the Bohr's model

That is the frequency of a photon that would be required to take the electron in hydrogen from its ground state to an unbound free state. It has nothing whatever to do with any "angular frequency" of the electron's orbit (which isn't really a meaningful concept anyway).the ionizing frequency of hydrogen

A scientific calculator is no help in telling you whether the number you are calculating makes sense. Yours doesn't.Don't you have a scientific calculator to vevrify the above relation ?

- #7

- 31,700

- 10,417

The OP question is based on a misconception. Thread closed.

- #8

Nugatory

Mentor

- 13,026

- 5,748

Of course we have access to calculators to check that calculation. We also have access to a century of theoretical developments and experimental results since Bohr proposed his model, so we know that Bohr's model is not accurate and that any discussion involving "rotational velocity" is based on a near-total misunderstanding of the physics involved.I mean the one forcasted by Bohr in the Bohr's model (multiplied by 2) . I mean the ionizing frequency of hydrogen (3.288 1015Hz) multiplied by 2 pi (multiplied by 2).

Don't you have a scientific calculator to vevrify the above relation ?

- Replies
- 60

- Views
- 8K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 520

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 804

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 633

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 636

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 2K