Energies higher than ionization energy

AI Thread Summary
When radiation with energy exceeding the ionization energy of hydrogen interacts with the atom, it can ionize the atom. The ionization energy of hydrogen is 13.6 eV, and radiation with a wavelength of 495A can provide sufficient energy for this process. Any excess energy beyond what is needed for ionization is converted into kinetic energy of the ejected electron. This understanding aligns with the Bohr model of the atom. Overall, there is no theoretical limit to the energy an electron can absorb, as excess energy translates into kinetic energy.
golanor
Messages
59
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



During a discussion, we tried to figure out, according to the Bohr model of the atom, what happens when radiation with a higher energy level than that which can ionize hydrogen.

Homework Equations


Absorption spectrum of hydrogen.
Ionization energy of hydrogen - 13.6 eV


The Attempt at a Solution


I believe that there is no limit to the amount of energy an electron can receive. Meaning that if, let's say, a 495A wavelength hits the hydrogen atom, it will be ionized. I can find, however, no evidence of this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
golanor said:
I believe that there is no limit to the amount of energy an electron can receive.

And you are right. Now try to guess what most likely happens with the excess energy.
 
It turns into kinetic energy?
 
Yes.
 
Thanks!
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top