Electron energy increases with N?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter diagopod
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electron Energy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the energy levels of electrons in the context of the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom. Participants explore the relationship between quantum number N, kinetic energy, potential energy, and the implications of these concepts on electron behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that in the Bohr model, N = 1 corresponds to zero eV, while N = 2 corresponds to 10.2 eV, leading to confusion about kinetic energy and velocity.
  • Another participant corrects the first claim, stating that N = 1 corresponds to an energy of -13.6 eV, with zero eV representing the state where the electron is infinitely separated from the nucleus.
  • There is a discussion about potential energy increasing with distance from the nucleus, with an analogy to raising a stone, suggesting that as the electron moves farther away, it has more potential energy.
  • Participants clarify the formula for potential energy, noting the importance of the negative sign in the conventional expression, which indicates that potential energy becomes less negative as distance increases.
  • One participant expresses confusion over energy calculations, comparing results from different formulas for potential energy and kinetic energy, indicating a lack of clarity on the correct approach.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the electron possesses both kinetic and potential energy, contributing to the overall energy balance.
  • There is a reiteration of the energy formula U = -13.6 eV/n^2, with clarification that there is no additional negative sign in front of the 13.6 eV term.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the initial interpretation of energy levels, with some clarifying the correct values and conventions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the calculations and the application of different formulas for potential and kinetic energy.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the correct formulas for potential and kinetic energy, and there are inconsistencies in the calculations presented, indicating a need for further clarification on these concepts.

diagopod
Messages
96
Reaction score
3
I'm stuck on a pretty basic concept. I'm thinking in terms of the Bohr model, which I know is rather archaic now, but I think the outputs of the model for basic understanding still hold? In any event, to my understanding, at least in hydrogen, N = 1 corresponds to the electron having zero eV, and N = 2 to 10.2 eV, so an electron that absorbs a photon of 10.2 eV will change to N = 2 at a greater radius and now have 10.2 eV in terms of its energy, which I assume is essentially kinetic. So an electron's kinetic energy increases with radius or N. Yet all the while its velocity decreases with radius or N. And yet its kinetic energy is supposed to be a function of its velocity, right, even in QM, or no? The only other place for the energy to come I would think is potential energy due to its presence in the electrostatic field, but that decreases with radius too, right by V = kQ/r? That's the contradiction that I have in my head, although I know it's a matter of me missing something essential here. Any guidance would be appreciated and thanks for your patience.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
diagopod said:
N = 1 corresponds to the electron having zero eV

No, n=1 corresponds to an energy of -13.6 eV.
Zero eV would correspond to the nuclei and the electron infinitely separated. :smile:
 
guerom00 said:
No, n=1 corresponds to an energy of -13.6 eV.
Zero eV would correspond to the nuclei and the electron infinitely separated. :smile:

This is the regular convention we use. Although we could use another convention, this one is more useful.

In regards to your question, the potential energy increases as distance from the nucleus. Just think, the farther the electron is, the more work can be done by it falling farther. This is analogous to raising a stone farther from the Earth's surface. The higher you raise the stone, the more potential energy it has.

Your confusion arises because you used the wrong formula. Using our regular convention, the potential energy is V=-kq^2/r^2 notice the negative sign! As r increases, the potential gets less negative which means it's increasing!
 
Matterwave said:
Using our regular convention, the potential energy is V=-kq^2/r^2 notice the negative sign! As r increases, the potential gets less negative which means it's increasing!

Appreciate your help, and thanks for the clarification. Btw, your formula above looks like Coulomb's force equation, but it can't be, right?
 
Yes, that should be r, not r^2. Sometimes I mix up the formulas for Coulomb force and potential energy, myself!
 
Yea, sorry. =P
 
Matterwave said:
Yea, sorry. =P

Np, so now using U = -kq^2/r I get -4.34 x 10^-18J or -27 eV for the ground state N=1 and -1.09 x 10-18J or -6.8eV for N=2. But that doesn't seem right. When I use the formula U = 13.6 eV - (13.6 / N^2) that generates 0 eV for N=1 and -10.2eV for N=2. Even if it was just a conventional of making U = 0 for the ground state, the U difference b/w N = 1 and N = 2 should be the same in these two approaches but it isn't, so I must still doing something wrong :(

Also, if U = -kq^2/r, than V = -kq/r right, or no?

Thanks again for your patience and help.
 
Last edited:
The electron has kinetic energy as well as potential energy.
 
Also, the energies are U=-13.6eV/n^2

There is no 13.6- in front of that. Thus for n=1, U=-13.6eV as n goes higher U becomes less negative (higher), and eventually reaches 0 for n=infinity.
 
  • #10
Matterwave said:
Also, the energies are U=-13.6eV/n^2. There is no 13.6- in front of that.

Thanks, all adds up now :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K