Energy of an electron in hydrogen

AI Thread Summary
The energy of an electron in the 2s orbital of a hydrogen atom can be calculated using the formula En = -RZ^2 / n^2, where R is the Rydberg constant, Z is the atomic number, and n is the principal quantum number. For hydrogen, Z equals 1 and n equals 2, leading to an expected energy of -3.4 eV. The discussion highlights confusion regarding the calculation, emphasizing the need for clarity on the specific answer obtained to identify any errors. Without knowing the incorrect answer, it is challenging to diagnose the mistake. Proper application of the formula should yield the correct energy value for the 2s orbital.
mahrap
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
What is the energy of an electron in the 2s orbital of a hydrogen atom?
I thought En = -RZ^2 / n^2

Why am i not getting the right answer with

Z = 1
n = 2
and R just the value of the constant
 
Physics news on Phys.org
E = -13.6 \frac{z^2}{n^2}eV
 
mahrap said:
What is the energy of an electron in the 2s orbital of a hydrogen atom?



I thought En = -RZ^2 / n^2

Why am i not getting the right answer with

Z = 1
n = 2
and R just the value of the constant
If you don't tell us what answer you got, it is difficult to say why it is wrong.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
923
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top