Transition energy estimation based on bond length

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a discrepancy in energy estimation results using the particle in a box model, specifically with initial and final quantum numbers n(Initial) = 22 and n(End) = 23, leading to a calculated box length of 732 pm and an energy result of 39.3 nm, which differs significantly from the textbook answer of 239 nm. Participants emphasize the importance of showing work for effective assistance, highlighting that incomplete submissions hinder the ability of volunteers to help. There is also a suggestion to improve the clarity of the submitted image for better understanding. The conversation underscores the need for clear communication and presentation in problem-solving discussions. Overall, accurate calculations and proper formatting are crucial for collaborative learning in such forums.
hanhjung99
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Moved from another forum. No template.
I come across this question in a textbook. Somehow my result is way off from the solution answer. I used the energy formula for particle in a box with n(Initial) = 22 and n(End) = 23, the calculated box length is 732 pm. I arrived at an answer of 39.3 nm. The answer from the answer book is but 239 nm. Thanks for the help
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2018-12-23 at 11.04.33.png
    Screenshot 2018-12-23 at 11.04.33.png
    16.4 KB · Views: 380
Physics news on Phys.org
:welcome:

Our rules say that you must show us your work, not just your answer, before our helpers give help.
 
  • Like
Likes hanhjung99
anorlunda said:
:welcome:

Our rules say that you must show us your work, not just your answer, before our helpers give help.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2767.jpg
    IMG_2767.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 333
You're making it hard for would be helpers. Can you rotate that image 90 degrees, crop,it and enhance the contrast?

We are volunteers here. If a helper thinks your post is difficult, he/she can just skip,it.
 
Edited image
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2767.jpg
    IMG_2767.jpg
    53.5 KB · Views: 311
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top