Hydrogen atom: potential well and orbit radii

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the electron orbit radius and the potential well radius in a hydrogen atom, as described in an old book by Sah. It is noted that the orbit radius is stated to be half the well radius at energy level E_n, leading to questions about the definition of "well radius" in this context. The potential well is clarified as the width due to the nucleus at specific energy levels, with the orbit radius at E_1 being half of this width. The conversation highlights the confusion surrounding the concept of a "1/r potential well" extending infinitely, as well as the implications for the Bohr radius. Overall, the discussion seeks to clarify these concepts and their mathematical relationships.
shallowbay
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I happened to open up an old book by Sah, and in it he says:

"it is evident that the electron orbit radius is half the well radius at the energy level E_n"

The orbit radius is r_n=\frac{4*\pi*ε_0*\hbar^2*n^2}{mq^2} and the potential well V(r_n)=\frac{-q^4*m}{(4*\pi*ε_0)^2*\hbar^2*n^2}

Of course the orbit radius has to be confined in the well, but it's not obvious to me why it should be exactly half the well radius? This isn't something I recall seeing before either.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What does "well radius" even mean in this context? I've never seen anyone talk of the "radius" or "width" of a 1/r potential well; it extends from r = 0 to r = ∞.
 
He's speaking of the width of the potential well due to the nucleus at the specific energy levels E_n. So that apparently r_1 of the electron is half of the width of the potential well itself at E_1, or the well would be twice the Bohr radius.

Attached diagram he uses where he has drawn the orbit radius to be half that of the well. When I just add it to the post it is far too small to be useful.
 

Attachments

  • 0222140910a.jpg
    0222140910a.jpg
    13.5 KB · Views: 481
Last edited:
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K