Ground State Energy of an Electron

jbowers9
Messages
85
Reaction score
1
This is what I've tried to work out and I'm not getting -13.7 eV. What am I doing wrong?


E 2 Π m e^4 / (4 Π ε0 )^2 h^2 6.90E-19 J=4.31eV

m 9.11 x 10-31 kg 9.11E-31
e 1.60 x 10-19 C 1.60E-19
ε0 8.85 x 10-12 C2/Nm2 8.85E-12
h 6.63 x 10-34 J S 6.63E-34

1 joule = 6.24150974 × 10^18 electron volts
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry but I have absolutely no idea what that equation is supposed to be, or where you got it from. Try TeXing it perhaps? How did you arrive at it?
 
Need more information, have no idea what you're saying.
 
The equation is based on the Bohr atom for energy levels. The version I wrote above is for n=1. The development in the text I'm using:

AUTHOR Mortimer, Robert G.
TITLE Physical chemistry / Robert G. Mortimer.
PUB INFO San Diego, Calif. : Academic Press, c2000.
pgs. 511-520 roughly

uses En = 2 Π m e4 / n2 (4 Π ε0 )2 h2

When I plug in the constants, n=1, the value is off from 13.7 eV, after conversion from Joules, by a factor of 3.14, as if Pi doesn't belong in the denominator. I'm thinking that it is already included in the permitivity constant ε0.
 
jbowers9 said:
The equation is based on the Bohr atom for energy levels. The version I wrote above is for n=1. The development in the text I'm using:

AUTHOR Mortimer, Robert G.
TITLE Physical chemistry / Robert G. Mortimer.
PUB INFO San Diego, Calif. : Academic Press, c2000.
pgs. 511-520 roughly

uses En = 2 Π m e4 / n2 (4 Π ε0 )2 h2

When I plug in the constants, n=1, the value is off from 13.7 eV, after conversion from Joules, by a factor of 3.14, as if Pi doesn't belong in the denominator. I'm thinking that it is already included in the permitivity constant ε0.

I presume you mean E_n = \frac{2 \pi m_e e^4}{n^2 (4 \pi \epsilon_{0}) h^2}

Incidentally, my quantum mech book gives the equation for the energy according to the Bohr model as \frac{m_e Z^2 e^4}{(4 \pi \epsilon_0)^2 2 \hbar^2}\frac{1}{n^2}

so you're missing a factor of 2 \pi up top and you're missing a 2 from down below... in other words, you're missing a factor of pi. Which is what you say you're missing. =)
 
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