Hydrogen bound by only grav force (Bohr theory etc)

kpou
Messages
24
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


If electric charge did not exist, and protons and electrons were only bound together by gravitational forces to form hydrogen, derive the expressions for a_0 and E_n and compute the energy and frequency of the H_alpha line and limit of Balmer series.


Homework Equations


E_n=mc^2 * alpha * 1 / (2n^2)
E_n=-mk^2Z^2e^4/(2hbar*n^2)=-E_0Z^2/n^2
a_0=hbar^2/(mc*alpha)=hbar^2/mke^2
1/lambda=Z^2R(1/nf^2-1/ni^2)


The Attempt at a Solution


If electric charge did not exist, then the balance of electron orbit and distance would change. Bohr's radius would just be zero i would imagine since it depends on electron charge. E_n would suffer the same fate... Would E_n just become mc^2? The radius would have to still be a number as the two do still have mass and gravity would affect them.

Edit:
F=Gm1m2/r^2 is the force on either exerted by the other and
E=-Gm1m2/r is the gravitational potential energy

The energy of the electron E_n must be strictly dependent on this.

How do I "derive" an expression from E_n or a_0 when their original formulas must be completely nixed?

Is there supposed to be a way of expressing it with n levels?

Otherwise I propose the energy of the electron is -Gm1m2/r as there is no kinetic energy.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
One of the key components of the Bohr model is the electron's angular momentum must be an integer multiple of Planck's constant divided by 2 pi:

L = n h / 2 π . . . with n = 1, 2, 3, ...​
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top