Why Can You Only Observe the Balmer Series Lines in Hydrogen Spectroscopy?

UrbanXrisis
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
1
I'm learning about quantum physics and did an experiement in my class. It's a spectroscopy activity where you place a hydrogen lamp in front of a defraction grating. We must verify that only the Balmer lines are visible but why do I only observe the Balmer series lines and not others?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because the Balmer series is in the visible wavelength region...
 
UrbanXrisis said:
I'm learning about quantum physics and did an experiement in my class. It's a spectroscopy activity where you place a hydrogen lamp in front of a defraction grating. We must verify that only the Balmer lines are visible but why do I only observe the Balmer series lines and not others?

Only the Bamer lines are in the visible range for your eyes. The Lyman series, for example, are in the ultraviolet range, while the Paschen series are in the infrared. You can verify this by looking at the wavelength typical for each series. All these lines are probably there (depending on the power supply attached to your discharge tubes), but you just can't see them.

Zz.
 
Sorry to bore you. Like I said, I'm totally new at this. The experiment asks me to verify that only the Balmer lines are visible with the equation:

1/lambda=R(1/n^2)-(1/n^2)
 
UrbanXrisis said:
Sorry to bore you. Like I said, I'm totally new at this. The experiment asks me to verify that only the Balmer lines are visible with the equation:

1/lambda=R(1/n^2)-(1/n^2)

So then take the n values (principle quantum number) for just the balmer series. I think they are n=[3,4,5,6...]. But you simply go back and look up in the textbook (or web) that they are visible wavelengths that result from putting these numbers in the above Balmer formula...right? All other series (like Paschen) will calculate to be outside your vision. Now the tough part is arranging your equation properly. It says above there are two n's, but its easier to think of them separately as m and n where m<n. We will hold m=2 as constant for the whole series (that's what defines the Balmer series) and increment the n to get all the lines. So the first will be m=2 and n=3.

1. R[1/m^2 - 1/n^2] = R[1/4 - 1/9] = 1.09723 10E-3[0.13888] = 1/(6562.08 Angstroms)

and that's correct. You are using the Rydberg constant above. Then,

2. R[1/4 - 1/16] = 1/(4860.7 A)

Is that right? I'll bet all the lines you saw in your lab correspond to everything you calculate with this method. Now keep going. I don't know how many you calculate for all the visible lines, but as I said you can look that up
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top