Initial and final quantum numbers/Doppler shift/Spectral lines Question

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on determining the initial and final quantum numbers for spectral lines from a distant galaxy and calculating its recession speed using the Doppler effect. The spectral lines observed are at wavelengths of 164.4 nm, 168.4 nm, and 177.5 nm, and the challenge lies in solving for quantum numbers given the Rydberg equation. The user struggles with having two unknowns and only one equation, leading to confusion about how to incorporate the Doppler shift. Suggestions include using wavelength ratios to eliminate the redshift factor and focusing on transitions to the n=1 state, which may simplify the problem. Ultimately, the approach of calculating ratios and testing integer values for quantum numbers is recommended to find a solution.
xago
Messages
60
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The spectral lines of the light from distant galaxies exhibit a Doppler redshift due to
the motion of the galaxy away from our own. For a particular galaxy, three spectral
absorption lines are observed from the Earth to have wavelengths of 164.4 nm 168.4 nm
and 177.5 nm. Assuming that these lines are from hydrogen gas in the outer regions
of the stars in the galaxy, answer the following:

(a) Identify the initial and final quantum numbers for the states involved in these
three transitions.

(b) Determine the speed with which the galaxy is receding from our own.

Homework Equations



a)Rydberg Equation: \frac{1}{\lambda} = R*(\frac{1}{nf^2} - \frac{1}{ni^2})

b)Relativistic Doppler Shift: fobs = \frac{\sqrt{1 + \frac{v}{c}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v}{c}}} * fsource

The Attempt at a Solution



For a) since were given 3 wavelengths I've simplified it down to 1/\lambda/R = (\frac{1}{nf^2} - \frac{1}{ni^2}). The probelm is, when I plug in the wavelength of 164.3nm, it simplifies to 0.5543 = (\frac{1}{nf^2} - \frac{1}{ni^2}). Now I've got 2 unknowns and 1 equation. If i just sub in whole integers for ni and nf to try and find the best combination, I still can't come close to 0.5543.

For b) I was thinking just to use the realativistic Doppler Shift equation, but I'm only given the observed wavelength and not the wavelength of the source or the velocity between the two. Once again, 2 unknowns, 1 equation.

If anyone could tell me what I'm missing for the 2 questions I'd be forever grateful
 
Physics news on Phys.org
xago said:
For a) since were given 3 wavelengths I've simplified it down to 1/\lambda/R = (\frac{1}{nf^2} - \frac{1}{ni^2}). The probelm is, when I plug in the wavelength of 164.3nm, it simplifies to 0.5543 = (\frac{1}{nf^2} - \frac{1}{ni^2}).

You have to understand that you just can't plug in and expect a wavelength match because the wavelength you are comparing against is Doppler-shifted by being multiplied by some factor related to the velocity. You need to drop the Doppler factor out of the picture, then do your educated guesswork. What would happen if you calculated ratios of wavelengths? They are independent of the Doppler shift, are they not? What does the ratio of any two wavelengths look like according to the Rydberg formula? Also note that the observed wavelengths are in the UV region, so I would try transitions to the n = 1 state first (Lyman series).
 
Thanks for your response, I see what you are saying about taking ratios to elimiate the redshift factor of the observed wavelengths. By taking the wavelength ratios and simplifying a bit I get:
\frac{\lambda1}{\lambda2} = \frac{1/nf2^2-1/ni2^2}{1/nf1^2-1/ni1^2}

Now my question is should I assume that they both drop to the n=1 level in which nf22 and nf12 become 1 and therefore:
\frac{\lambda1}{\lambda2} = \frac{1-1/ni2^2}{1-1/ni1^2}

If so, then I still get an equation with 2 unknowns and the guesswork here seems to punishing to do.
 
It's not that bad. Take the ratios of the given wavelengths first, then try the first few values for the n's.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K