- #1

- 131

- 2

*smaller*wavelengths.

This seems backwards since electrons naturally try to settle into lower orbits, which have lower energies (I thought). And I normally equate energy with wavelength.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter daisey
- Start date

- #1

- 131

- 2

This seems backwards since electrons naturally try to settle into lower orbits, which have lower energies (I thought). And I normally equate energy with wavelength.

- #2

- 34,352

- 12,595

smallerwavelengths.

This seems backwards since electrons naturally try to settle into lower orbits, which have lower energies (I thought). And I normally equate energy with wavelength.

Energy is proportional to frequency, which means it's *inversely* proportional to wavelength.

- #3

- 131

- 2

Energy is proportional to frequency, which means it's *inversely* proportional to wavelength.

So electrons in lower orbits have...

* Relatively less energy

- Higher Kinetic Energy

- Lower Potential Energy

* Smaller Wavelength

* Higher Frequency

- #4

- 415

- 0

You can do things like compute the expectation value of kinetic energy [tex]1/2m \langle p^2 \rangle[/tex] which will be non-zero. And it will be true that electrons in lower energy levels will have more kinetic energy, but they will also have a much more negative potential energy. In fact, the Virial theorem applies, so [tex]\langle V \langle = -2\langle T \rangle[/tex], so an electron in a state with large kinetic energy will have a much larger potential energy than an electron in a state with low kinetic energy.

Share: