Seeking books to help me understand the structure of the Hydrogen Atom

[Martyn Arthur]

TL;DR Summary: How to learn about the Hydrogen Atom from Level 2 OU Degree

I am copleting the second year of the OU physics degree and "understand" what is taught about the Hydrogen atom there, energy levels et al.
I am not yet competent in calculus here.
I seek a means, buy a book....view relevant data that can take me past this basic point at the limited level at which I am able to comprehed the data?
Thanks
Martyn Arthur

 

[PeroK]

TL;DR Summary: How to learn about the Hydrogen Atom from Level 2 OU Degree

I am copleting the second year of the OU physics degree and "understand" what is taught about the Hydrogen atom there, energy levels et al.
I am not yet competent in calculus here.
I seek a means, buy a book....view relevant data that can take me past this basic point at the limited level at which I am able to comprehed the data?
Thanks
Martyn Arthur

Does the OU not recommend a text book?

 

[Martyn Arthur]

Thanks but no as the knowledge sought exceeds that of this stage of the course; I am using the summer break to look at additional stuff.
Martyn

 

[topsquark]

Thanks but no as the knowledge sought exceeds that of this stage of the course; I am using the summer break to look at additional stuff.
Martyn

If you aren't doing Calculus, probably the Bohr or Bohr-Sommerfeld model is as far as you are going to get.

-Dan

 

[vanhees71]

The Bohr-Sommerfeld model is by no means any option! Even my colleagues in the physics-didactics department nowadays finally don't recommend to teach it anymore. The reason is that it is wrong even on a rough qualitative level. Atomic and subatomic structure of matter cannot be understood without quantum mechanics, and physics as a whole cannot be understood without calculus.

For atomic physics, particularly the hydrogen atom, you need just introductory non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Wave mechanics is the most direct approach, and you need a good understanding of the theory of angular momentum (spherical harmonics). A good undergrad atomic physics book seems to be

M. Fox, A Student's guide to atomic physics, Cambridge University Press (2018)

 

[Martyn Arthur]

This is really helpful big time.
The data needs more maths than I have at the moment but thats ok.
More importantly it has set in context for my ongoing thoughts, the mathematical nature of the whole mathematical subject of astrophysics, and the use to which the technical learning to date will be put in use practically.
Many, many thanks
Martyn

 

[topsquark]

The Bohr-Sommerfeld model is by no means any option! Even my colleagues in the physics-didactics department nowadays finally don't recommend to teach it anymore. The reason is that it is wrong even on a rough qualitative level. Atomic and subatomic structure of matter cannot be understood without quantum mechanics, and physics as a whole cannot be understood without calculus.

For atomic physics, particularly the hydrogen atom, you need just introductory non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Wave mechanics is the most direct approach, and you need a good understanding of the theory of angular momentum (spherical harmonics). A good undergrad atomic physics book seems to be

M. Fox, A Student's guide to atomic physics, Cambridge University Press (2018)

I'm not actually arguing with you... Yes, the Bohr-Sommerfeld model (the "BS" model as I learned it) isn't all that good. But, frankly, it's the only other option to the Bohr model that I know of that doesn't use Calculus, which the OP says they don't really know. It does have some uses, but perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up.

-Dan

 

[vanhees71]

The avoidance of calculus is also bad advice, even worse than the use of the Bohr-Sommer-Feld model, which of course also can't be derived without calculus.

 

[DrJohn]

As a chemist, I can't really advise much on calculus. Although we did have to learn some for our courses. (I've forgotten a lot of the calculus now.)

BUT at top of this section of the forum are two collections of books, one set on physics and one set on maths, which are free online copies. So why not try one or two of the maths books to gain some knowledge of calculus? Then one or two on physics, to help you with theories about the atom?

 

[Muu9]

The avoidance of calculus is also bad advice, even worse than the use of the Bohr-Sommer-Feld model, which of course also can't be derived without calculus.

No one is advising OP to avoid calculus, they're just working with what they have, which is an interested person who doesn't know calculus.

 

[Vanadium 50]

they're just working with what they have, which is an interested person who doesn't know calculus.

But that does somewhat limit the options. Go farther - what if he wanted to learn relativistic quantum mechanics without algebra? Quantum field theory without addition? Eventually one crosses a line, and it's probably already crossed.

(And the issue is not so much calculus as differential equations)

 

[vanhees71]

No one is advising OP to avoid calculus, they're just working with what they have, which is an interested person who doesn't know calculus.

The point is to give honest advice. You have to learn calculus to quite some extent to communicate about and understand physics.

 

[Frabjous]

You might enjoy “The Structure of Matter” by Rice and Teller (1949).