The Significance of Negative Energy in the Rutherford Model of the Atom

AI Thread Summary
In the Rutherford model of the atom, the kinetic energy of an electron is always positive while its potential energy is negative, leading to a negative total energy. This negative energy indicates that work must be done to separate the electron from the nucleus, raising the total energy to zero when they are infinitely far apart. The zero-point of energy is defined as the state where the electron and nucleus are unbound and at rest. Understanding this concept clarifies the significance of negative energy in atomic structure. The discussion highlights the importance of energy states in the stability of atomic orbits.
AudioFlux
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
The KE (kinetic energy) of an electron revolving around a nucleus is always positive, and the PE (potential energy) of an electron is negative (except at infinity, where it is zero). Here, I am speaking from the point of view of the Rutherford model. The material from which I am reading from says that the electron will not follow a closed orbit around the nucleus if the TE is positive. Also, I am aware of the fact that the magnitude of PE is twice of that of KE. So it is not surprising why the TE is is negative. But, I do not get the physical significance of negative energy. Can someone please tell me where I am going wrong...Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AudioFlux said:
I do not get the physical significance of negative energy.

It means that you have to do positive work on the system (electron + nucleus) to separate it, that is, bring its total energy up to zero. We define the zero-point of energy in this situation to be when the electron and nucleus are "just barely unbound" from each other, infinitely far from each other and at rest.
 
jtbell said:
It means that you have to do positive work on the system (electron + nucleus) to separate it, that is, bring its total energy up to zero. We define the zero-point of energy in this situation to be when the electron and nucleus are "just barely unbound" from each other, infinitely far from each other and at rest.

OH! I get it now. Thanks a ton :smile:
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top