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:
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top