Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Relativistic electrons

  1. Apr 28, 2005 #1
    Just a general q: at what kinetic energy do electrons speeds become relativistic? I heard some people mention from 20keV onwards... is that correct?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 28, 2005 #2
    I dont understand your question. If you are talking about relavistic speed, it is always relative (to something else). Even if its going .001 meter per second, it has more KE than a body going 0 meters per second.

    Are you asking at what speed does relavistic mass (hence energy) become noticable?
     
  4. Apr 28, 2005 #3

    Ich

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    "relativistic" usually means v> 0.1 c, where SR corrections are more than 1%. That would mean about 50 keV for an electron.
     
  5. Apr 28, 2005 #4
    He means when do you need to use relativistic mechanics rather than classical mechanics to describe it.

    Obviously there's no definite cut-off point, but as a general rule of thumb a particle is considered to become relativistic when its kinetic energy is roughly equal to its rest mass energy, so for an electron that would be ~500keV.
     
  6. Apr 28, 2005 #5
    KE = 1/2 m v^2

    m = 9.1*10^-31 kg

    and to be a relativist electron its speed should exceed 0.1v where v is the speed of light; thus exceeds 30000 km/s

    the minimum kinetic energy required for an electron to be relativist is proportional to a minimum of 30000 km/s as speed.
    do the calculations and u will find the energy required in Joules unit

    if you need to convert to eV
    energy (J) / 1.6*10^-19 = energy (eV)

    Hope this helps to get a clearer view
     
  7. Apr 28, 2005 #6

    robphy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    This reminds me of a neat calculation:
    What is the speed of an electron in a (Bohr model) hydrogen atom? (Express your answer as a fraction of the speed of light.) [You don't need a calculator.]
     
  8. Apr 28, 2005 #7
    Well, I guess that all depends on how presise you want your calculations to be. Relavistic effects always take place from a stationary reference frame (even tho its small) when v > 0.
     
  9. Apr 28, 2005 #8
    0 in the frame of the electron! :approve:
     
  10. Apr 29, 2005 #9
    ropbhy - first Bohr orbit it is apha = (1/137)c
     
  11. Apr 29, 2005 #10

    Ich

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    ups, that means 2.5 keV of course (1/2 %).
     
  12. Apr 29, 2005 #11

    robphy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Yes! So, one could use this as a rule of thumb to determine if a non-relativistic treatment is good enough.

    It's interesting how important energies and lengths in atomic/quantum physics are related by powers of alpha.
     
  13. Apr 29, 2005 #12

    Meir Achuz

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Coulombs law has no intrinisc dimension if written in appropriate units as V=e^2/r.
    Any physical result for the hydrogen atom must either be dimensionless or depend on some power of m and powers of alpha (which is dimensionless).
     
  14. May 1, 2005 #13
    Here's another:
    An electron has a spin angular momentum of [itex]\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}{\hbar}[/itex] and a classical radius [tex]R_0=\frac{\alpha{\hbar}}{mc}[/tex].
    Classically, what is the maximum surface speed of the electron,
    assuming the electron has spherical shape and its mass is uniformly distributed.
    Express your answer in fractions (or multiples) of c. :biggrin:

    Creator
     
  15. May 2, 2005 #14
    What; no takers? :rolleyes:
     
  16. May 4, 2005 #15

    Meir Achuz

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    NR, I would get 5\sqrt{3}/(4*alpha), which means it is a relativistic question. Is that what you meant? This becomes relativistic, with a bit of a messy integral involved.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2005
  17. May 8, 2005 #16
    Yes; thanks for the attempt, Meir. But its more than simply 'relativistic', it becomes an 'impossibility'.

    Start with the classical spin angular momentum L = I[itex]\omega[/itex].
    Then substitute in values for electron spin angular momentum, solid spherical moment of inertia I, and angular velocity [itex]\omega=\frac{v}{R}[/itex], and R=classical electron radius as previously given.
    Then solve for v (surface velocity) in terms of c.
    What do you get?

    Creator :biggrin:
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2005
  18. May 9, 2005 #17

    Meir Achuz

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The model is wrong, but not impossible. Your simple formula L=I\omega is wrong in SR.
    Actually angular momentum can get quite complicated in SR.
    If the model had any interest, I would plow through the messy integration.
     
  19. May 9, 2005 #18
    It depends on the precision of your equipment/experiment. Take protons as an example. There have been experiments in which the mass of low speed protons has been detectable. I think the experiment was called a "Penning Trap."

    Pete
     
  20. May 9, 2005 #19
    That's the whole point, Meir! Duh! Double Duh! You obviously missed the entire purpose of the exercise! :cry:

    The whole point of my post to Robphy was in response to his question about trying to figure the 'orbital velocity' of an electron. Which actually one cannot use as 'correct' model either.
    Well, my question was about the analogous situation involving the velocity of 'spin'.

    Neither of us was trying to produce a 'correct ' model; it was merely an exercise.
    The whole point of my exercise was that (if one uses the classical radius) then in order to account for the electron angular momentum classicallythen the surface velocity of the electron would have to be around 300 c !!

    And yes, that is an impossibility, (whether you care to agree or not).
    Had you done the simple calculation I suggested you would have realized that!..MAYBE. :tongue2:
    I'm sure you'll want to argue about it...Just forget it ...it's not worth trying to explain.

    Creator
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2005
  21. May 10, 2005 #20

    Meir Achuz

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    L=I\omega is wrong. Wrong is wrong. Using the right formula would give v<c.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?