Proof for quantisation of electrons energy around an atom?

In summary, the conversation discusses the proof for the quantization of electron energy around an atom. The Balmer series, mathematical solutions to the Schroedinger equation, and physical experiments such as spectroscopic studies and the Frank-Hertz experiment support this idea. The conversation also mentions the importance of both theoretical and experimental physics in understanding atomic dynamics and the relationship between the two branches of physics. However, there is no definitive proof in science and further evidence is always sought to refine theories. The conversation ends with a mention of the wonder and impact of theoretical physics on the world.
  • #1
Phy_enthusiast
38
0
What is the proof for quantisation of electrons energy around an atom?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Excellent question - and one which has many answers written about online and in textbooks etc.
What have you managed to find out?

Hint: Balmer series.
 
  • #3
Bohr applied the 'plancks black body radiation quantisation' theory to that of atomic world of electrons, and proposed his theory of atom, but does this application of radiation quantisation directly to electrons energy have any proof?
 
  • #4
Phy_enthusiast said:
Bohr applied the 'plancks black body radiation quantisation' theory to that of atomic world of electrons, and proposed his theory of atom, but does this application of radiation quantisation directly to electrons energy have any proof?

Mathematical: solutions to the Shroedinger equation

Physical: spectroscopic studies

This is covered in your modern physics course.
 
  • #5
https://archive.org/details/QuantumMechanicsVolumeI

Read the first chapter, "the origins of quantum theory".
 
  • #6
Plancks law seems to be a emperical while that of bohr seems to be theory verified later.
 
  • #7
Bohr's model of the Hydrogen atom was a first step in the right direction that has been refined and put on very solid foundations since, by Schrödinger, Pauli, Dirac and a few others - as any quantum mechanics 101 lecture will teach you. Planck's law of black body radiation is perfectly consistent with theory, too, even if Planck did not have a full understanding of QM when he formulated it. You can't blame him, it did not exist at the time.
 
  • #8
Phy_enthusiast said:
Bohr applied the 'plancks black body radiation quantisation' theory to that of atomic world of electrons, and proposed his theory of atom, but does this application of radiation quantisation directly to electrons energy have any proof?
...there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as proof in science (see "the problem of induction" and "empiricsism") ... the observed discrete atomic spectral lines supports the idea that electron energies in an atom are quantized. But it does not prove it.
I suggested you look up "Balmer Series", did you do that?

Phy_enthusiast said:
Plancks law seems to be a emperical while that of bohr seems to be theory verified later.
Both these guys were working from prior data, and both sought further data to help refine their theories. This is how science is done.

There are many experiments which support the idea that electron energies in an atom are quantized.
I was hoping that you would have made some effort to discover them yourself.

Scientific models do not rest on just one experiment though - they are supported by the cleverness of the many attempts to disprove them. To go from "this phenomena looks like it works by this rule" to "this phenomena is this way" takes a while and requires quite a bit of evidence.

Among the many experiments concerning energy quantization in atoms, the following are easily discovered in casual googling.

Frank-Hertz experiment (historically important - an early clue)
There's the discrete atomic emission and absorption spectra already mentioned.

You know a theory is pretty solid when there is a commercial product which relies on it:
Lasers rely on quantized energy levels for their operation too, so do LEDs - and a range of common semiconductor devices in common use.

You should read about all these things.

Conversely - can you think of any experiment that demonstrates atomic electron energies are not quantized?
 
  • #9
Simon Bridge said:
...there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as proof in science (see "the problem of induction" and "empiricsism") ... the observed discrete atomic spectral lines supports the idea that electron energies in an atom are quantized. But it does not prove it.
I suggested you look up "Balmer Series", did you do that?

Both these guys were working from prior data, and both sought further data to help refine their theories. This is how science is done.

There are many experiments which support the idea that electron energies in an atom are quantized.
I was hoping that you would have made some effort to discover them yourself.

Scientific models do not rest on just one experiment though - they are supported by the cleverness of the many attempts to disprove them. To go from "this phenomena looks like it works by this rule" to "this phenomena is this way" takes a while and requires quite a bit of evidence.

Among the many experiments concerning energy quantization in atoms, the following are easily discovered in casual googling.

Frank-Hertz experiment (historically important - an early clue)
There's the discrete atomic emission and absorption spectra already mentioned.

You know a theory is pretty solid when there is a commercial product which relies on it:
Lasers rely on quantized energy levels for their operation too, so do LEDs - and a range of common semiconductor devices in common use.

You should read about all these things.

Conversely - can you think of any experiment that demonstrates atomic electron energies are not quantized?

Thank you for such a clear explanation, Theoretical physics is amazing in the sense application of human intellectual mathematically can do wonders.Its same in the case of bohr,because at that time the electromagnetic theory needed explanation for atomic dynamics by proposing his theory he gave birth to atomic quantum world.
 
  • #10
Phy_enthusiast said:
Theoretical physics is amazing in the sense application of human intellectual mathematically can do wonders. [...]
After seeing a number of seminal experiments and real world devices you conclude that... theoretical physics is amazing?
 
  • #11
cgk said:
After seeing a number of seminal experiments and real world devices you conclude that... theoretical physics is amazing?

Many physics inventions are outcome of theories proposed, experimentation is different physical science and theoretical is different.
 
  • #12
It is a bit surprising that you'd conclude with amazement at theoretical physics from the demonstrations of experimental physics, while, in the next breath almost, talking about how experimental and theoretical physics are "different".

That kind of thing can raise some concern here about your view of how Physics is done, and the relationship between the experimental and theoretical branches, but it may have been an off-the-cuff remark intended to end discussion ;)

There are a lot of philosophy of science college courses online - I would urge you look up something like "introduction to empiricism". Unfortunately, philosophy is discouraged here ... so that is the extent of that discussion.

The standard position is that physics is foremost an empirical science.
Theoreticians come up with all kinds of wonderful theories and models - general public tends only to hear about the ones that turn out to be successful. You need to remember that for every successful set of postulates there are hundreds of not thousands of failed ideas.

I seem to find myself repeating the following quite a bit over the last few months:
Coming up with new theories is the easy part, and it's cheap. The hard part, the expensive part, is choosing between them.
 
  • #13
Phy_enthusiast said:
Theoretical physics is amazing in the sense application of human intellectual mathematically can do wonders.Its same in the case of bohr,because at that time the electromagnetic theory needed explanation for atomic dynamics by proposing his theory he gave birth to atomic quantum world.

Every experimental physicist first does their own theory; otherwise it is rather hard to setup a good experiment! And even harder to explain what they have achieved!

For the philosophy of physics try "Two New Sciences" by Galileo. He (mostly) did his own experiments, prompted by his own questions in many cases, and then explained them.

Once you have a sufficient base of experimental results, carefully analysis can produce additional theoretical results ... which must in turn be experimentally verified.
 
  • #14
Phy_enthusiast said:
Many physics inventions are outcome of theories proposed, experimentation is different physical science and theoretical is different.

You should listen to a couple of physicists "discussing" some effect or problem! New ideas are proposed and shot down rapidly. Then they finally settle on an experimental approach to look into the situation ... something quick is best ... and the experiments settle the discussion.

Or maybe not! Sometimes the results are ambiguous, with perhaps multiple possibilities. This calls for more discussion, and more experiments.

Eventually the problem is (a) resolved, or (b) abandoned.

This cycle occurs with new inventions - things which are created because you need something to solve some other problem.

It's fun to work on these, especially when your final "product" actually does what is required, and you understand how it works. The stuff that doesn't work is quietly forgotten ...
 
  • #15
As an experimentalist, I have the following view:

The worst possible result of an experiment (other than total failure, which happens often enough) is to be completely and exactly consistent with the prevailing theory. In that case you have learned nothing. The best possible outcome is to shoot down a theory in flames. Because then you have learned something: That this particular theory is wrong, and has to be replaced by something better.

Unfortunately editors and referees don't always agree.
 

1. What is quantization of electron energy?

Quantization of electron energy refers to the concept that electrons in an atom can only exist in discrete energy levels, rather than being able to occupy any energy level within the atom. This was first proposed by Niels Bohr in his atomic model in 1913.

2. How is the quantization of electron energy proven?

The quantization of electron energy has been proven through various experiments, such as the photoelectric effect and the emission spectrum of elements. These experiments have shown that electrons can only absorb or emit energy in specific amounts, corresponding to the discrete energy levels within the atom.

3. Why is the quantization of electron energy important?

Understanding the quantization of electron energy is crucial for explaining the stability of atoms and the behavior of electrons within them. It also helps to explain the unique emission spectra of different elements and is essential for the development of modern technology, such as transistors and lasers.

4. Can the quantization of electron energy be observed in everyday life?

While we cannot directly observe the quantization of electron energy in our daily lives, its effects can be seen in many technological devices that rely on the behavior of electrons, such as computers and smartphones. The principles of quantization also play a role in the functioning of solar panels and fluorescent lights.

5. Are there any exceptions to the quantization of electron energy?

There are a few exceptions to the quantization of electron energy, such as in the case of atoms with extremely high energies, where the energy levels become so close together that they appear continuous. Additionally, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know both the exact energy and position of an electron simultaneously, making it challenging to precisely measure the quantized energy levels of an atom.

Similar threads

  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
2
Views
744
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
6
Views
981
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top