Relativistic Bohr Atom and MacLaurin Series

atomicpedals
Messages
202
Reaction score
7

Homework Statement



By expanding a MacLaurin Series show that
E_{n}=\epsilon_{n} - \mu c^{2} = - \frac{w_{0}Z^{2}}{n^{2}}[1+\frac{\alpha^{2} Z^{2}}{n}(\frac{1}{k}-\frac{3}{4n})]

Homework Equations



Through a lengthy derivation I arrived at
\epsilon_{n}=\frac{\mu c^2}{\sqrt{1+\frac{Z^{2}\alpha^{2}}{n_{r}+\sqrt{l^{2}-Z^{2}\alpha^{2}}}}}
I should add that k is what the text is using for the azimuthal quantum number, I used l in my derivation out of habit.

The Attempt at a Solution


I've got no ideas where to go with this thing. I should take advantage of identites
\sqrt{1-x}=1-\frac{x}{2}-\frac{x^{2}}{8}+...
\frac{1}{1+x}=1+...
Do I need to make some aggressive substitutions?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I can make the following justifiable substitution
\epsilon_{n}=\frac{\mu c^2}{\sqrt{1+\frac{Z^{2}\alpha^{2}}{n'}}}
Where n' = n_{r} + \sqrt{l^{2}-Z^{2} \alpha^{2}}. But this still doesn't get me any closer to arriving at E_{n}=\epsilon_{n} - \mu c^{2} = - \frac{w_{0}Z^{2}}{n^{2}}[1+\frac{\alpha^{2} Z^{2}}{n}(\frac{1}{k}-\frac{3}{4n})] through a Maclaurin series.
 
Ok, I may be closer... using the substitution above to put E_{n} = \epsilon_{n} - \mu c^{2} in terms of n' I can calculate a Maclaurin series as follows
- \mu c^{2} + \frac{\mu c^{2} \sqrt{n'}}{\alpha Z} - \frac{n^{3/2} (\mu c^{2} \alpha Z)}{2(\alpha^{4} Z^{4})} + \frac{n^{5/2} (3 \mu c^{2} \alpha Z)}{8 \alpha^{6} Z^{6}} - ...
Am I on the right track to the final E_{n}?
 
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