What is the relationship between energy levels and de Broglie waves?

dalarev
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
The Formula for computing E(n) = -(Z^2)/(n^2) * Ei

is fairly straight forward. Am I right in thinking this formula refers to the energy level of the atom with Z number of protons? This formula, what it yields at least, doesn't depend on the number of electrons the atom has?

Also, when trying to find the wavelength of the emitted/absorbed photon, should we use hc/E or h/p ? What makes a wave a de Broglie wave? I have deeper doubts but I don't even know where to start, I hope with more replies it'll become clearer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dalarev said:
The Formula for computing E(n) = -(Z^2)/(n^2) * Ei

is fairly straight forward. Am I right in thinking this formula refers to the energy level of the atom with Z number of protons? This formula, what it yields at least, doesn't depend on the number of electrons the atom has?

This formula works only for hydrogen and for "hydrogen-like" ions, that is, ions with only one electron, e.g. He+, Li++, Be+++, etc. If there's more than one electron, the electrons interact with each other and this affects the energy levels.

Also, when trying to find the wavelength of the emitted/absorbed photon, should we use hc/E or h/p ?

It doesn't make any difference, because for a photon, E = pc. This follows from the general formula for energy, momentum and rest mass:

E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2

with m_0 = 0 for a photon.
 
jtbell said:
This formula works only for hydrogen and for "hydrogen-like" ions, that is, ions with only one electron, e.g. He+, Li++, Be+++, etc. If there's more than one electron, the electrons interact with each other and this affects the energy levels.
I suppose for the purpose of my class (and my exam today) this general formula will be enough. Actually, they love to use the energy 13.6 eV in the book, I believe this is the same case that only applies for single electron-atoms.



jtbell said:
It doesn't make any difference, because for a photon, E = pc. This follows from the general formula for energy, momentum and rest mass:

E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2

with m_0 = 0 for a photon.
That's exactly right..I didn't think it through very well.


What about when they ask for the energy of the photon that is emitted? The wavelength of the emitted/absorbed photon will always equal the Energy needed for the electron to move from one energy level to the next, correct?
 
dalarev said:
What about when they ask for the energy of the photon that is emitted? The wavelength of the emitted/absorbed photon will always equal the Energy needed for the electron to move from one energy level to the next, correct?

The wavelength of an emitted/absorbed photon will be related to the energy decrease/increase of the electron that absorbed it by:

\Delta E=hc/\lambda
 
Last edited:
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top