Mechanical Kinetic Energy vs Electrical Potential Energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the relationship between mechanical kinetic energy (KE) and electrical potential energy (PE) for an electron orbiting a nucleus. The user has derived the electric potential energy expressions but struggles to demonstrate that KE equals negative half of PE. A participant points out a mistake in the user's equation relating force and kinetic energy, suggesting that correcting this error will lead to the solution. The result is identified as the Virial Theorem, emphasizing the importance of careful proof-reading in problem-solving. The conversation highlights the connection between classical mechanics and electrostatics in atomic models.
jg370
jg said:
The problem I am working on is as follows:

Consider an atom with a single electron in orbit of radius r about a nuclear charge +Ze.

As requested, I have dertermine that the electric potential energy of the nucleus at the electron position and the potential energy of the electron are respectively:

V(r) = \frac{1}{{4\pi\varepsilon_o}}\frac{Ze}{r}

and

PE(elect) = \frac{Ze}{{4\pi\varepsilon_o r}}

Next, I am asked to use the Coulomb law for interaction between the orbiting electron and the nucleus and write Newton's second law of motion for the orbiting electron.

For this part of the problem, I have come up with:

F(elect) = F(cent), which implies,

-\frac{Ze}{{4\pi\varepsilon_o r}} = m\frac{v^2}{2}

My difficulty arises as I am asked to show that:

KE = -\frac{1}{2}PE

Could someone give me a hint how to proceed with this part of the problem?

Thank you kindly,

jg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jg370,

Well you're very close to the answer. You've got a tiny mistake here (on the RHS):

-\frac{Ze}{{4\pi\varepsilon_o r}} = m\frac{v^2}{2}

If you fix it and then write the general equation for KE, I think you'll see the answer.
 
As jdavel said, check the expression on the RHS. This sort of 'coding' error (if you will) left me stumped on a problem which was just recently cleared up for me here. I better start getting in the habit of proof-reading my work. I suggest you do the same.
 
By the way, the result in this problem is called the Virial Theorem.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top