Equipartion Theorem rotation question

  • Thread starter Thread starter IDumb
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rotation Theorem
IDumb
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I have absolutely NO IDEA what d is asking or how to do e. A and B are simple, i used the formula E = hbar^2(l(l+1) / 2I (I is moment of inertia) to get c. Can anyone help me with D and E please?

Consider the model of a diatomic gas fluorine (F2) shown in Figure 9.3.

(Figure is 2 atoms connected by an imaginary "rod" along the z axis)
Figure 9.3

(a) Assuming the atoms are point particles separated by a distance of 0.14 nm, find the rotational inertia Ix for rotation about the x axis.
3.1e-46 kg·m2
(b) Now compute the rotational inertia of the molecule about the z axis, assuming almost all of the mass of each atom is in the nucleus, a nearly uniform solid sphere of radius 3.2 x 10^-15 m.
2.58e-55 kg·m2
(c) Compute the rotational energy associated with the first (l = 1) quantum level for a rotation about the x axis.
3.6e-23 J
(d) Using the energy you computed in (c), find the quantum number script i needed to reach that energy level with a rotation about the z axis.

(e) Comment on the result in light of what the equipartition theorem predicts for diatomic molecules.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I just had this question on my homework. Part (d) is bullsh*t, simply. It doesn't actually mean an integer when it says 'quantum number'.

For me, I had 8.9e-25 for part (c), and 3.188e-54 for (b), so part (d) looked like:

E_{rot} = \frac{\hbar^2 l (l + 1)}{2I}
Rearrange...
\frac{2 E_{rot} I}{\hbar^2} = l (l + 1)
Plug in...
\frac{2 (8.9e-25) (3.188e-54)}{(1.05e-34)^2} = l (l + 1)

Solving for l gives 5.147e-10 which I cannot understand as a quantum number, since l = 0, 1, 2, ...n-1.

Conceptually, the l = 1 energy level for rotation about the X axis has to be a much lower energy level than the l = 1 energy level for rotation about the Z axis since the moment of inertia for the Z axis is so much smaller.

Bogus question, or perhaps I missed something. Anyway, WebAssign accepted my answer for part (d).
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top