The discussion centers on the concept of molecular energy, specifically addressing whether molecules can possess negative energy values. It is established that energy values, such as -70 Ha and -75 Ha, indicate relative energy levels, with -75 Ha representing a lower energy state. The negative sign of energy is explained as a result of the chosen reference point, which is arbitrary and does not hold physical significance. The change in potential energy between configurations is what holds physical importance.
PREREQUISITESStudents and professionals in chemistry and physics, particularly those studying molecular interactions and energy dynamics, will benefit from this discussion.
Lotto said:I saw it with negative sign.
Energy is generally given relative to some arbitrary zero point. E.g. in Newtonian gravity, the zero point for a system of two masses is usually taken to be when the masses are "infinitely" far apart. In which case, the potential energy of the system is given by:$$U = -\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r}$$where ##r## is the distance between the masses. There is no physical significance of this being negative. You could equally take the potential energy to be:$$U = U_0 -\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r}$$for some constant ##U_0##. This would give a value of zero for some finite value of ##r = r_0## and the potential energy would be positive or negative, depending on the value of ##r##.Lotto said:TL;DR Summary: Is it negative or positive? I saw it with negative sign. If it is correct, then why is the energy negative?
Likewise, the electrostatic energy of an atom is generally taken to be relative to some zero point and is often negative. And, yes, ##-75 \ Ha## is less than ##-70 \ Ha##. You need to put ##+10 \ Ha## into the system to change it from the first energy level to the second energy level, in this case.Lotto said:And have all molecules or even atoms negative energies? So when a molecule have energy let's say -70 Ha and the other -75 Ha, does it mean that the second molecule has a lower energy?
Here for example https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-of-squares-of-the-initial-CSF_fig5_221729111DaveC426913 said:Where did you see it? Show us.