Rejecting the Semiclassical Bohr Model: Examining the Uncertainty Relation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the incompatibility of the semiclassical Bohr model with the uncertainty principle, highlighting that the assumptions of negligible uncertainties in position and momentum are invalid in quantum mechanics. It emphasizes that classical interpretations fail when analyzing systems at lower energy levels, where quantum effects become significant. The equations referenced illustrate that the semiclassical model only holds under specific conditions, particularly when quantum numbers are large. Consequently, the necessity to reject the semiclassical approach arises from its inability to accurately describe atomic behavior at lower quantum states. Understanding these principles is crucial for grasping the limitations of classical physics in quantum contexts.
s3a
Messages
814
Reaction score
8
"Show that the uncertainty relation forces us to reject the semiclassical Bohr [...]"

Homework Statement


The problem along with the solution is attached as TheProblemAndSolution.jpg.

Homework Equations


Uncertainty principle/relation.

The Attempt at a Solution


To consider an electron's motion in classical terms, the uncertainties in its position and momentum must be negligible when compared to r and p; in other words, Δx << r and Δp << p.
Why is it the consideration of the motion in classical terms that is reponsible for requiring that the uncertainties in position and momentum be negligible when compared to the actual values? Also, is it the case that the uncertainties need not be negligible when the motion is considered to be non-classical? If so, why is this the case?

Eq. (1.7.1) is incompatible with Eq. (1.7.2), unless n >> 1.
Is the reason why Eq. (1.7.1) is incompatible with Eq. (1.7.2) because we can analyze a situation at a specific energy level (and therefore hold n constant for that situation) such that n >> 1 does not hold (for example when n = 1)? Similarly, is it not the case that n >> 1 because, Eq. (1.7.2) does not hold for all values of n (even if it holds for the majority of the values), we can say that the assumption using classical theory is false and we must therefore reject the semiclassical Bohr model for the hydrogen atom?

Even if I got things right, please confirm it for me.

Any help in fully understanding this problem, would be greatly appreciated!
 

Attachments

  • TheProblemAndSolution.jpg
    TheProblemAndSolution.jpg
    49.3 KB · Views: 530
Physics news on Phys.org


If there is something important I did not mention, please tell me what is is and I will mention it.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top