Undergrad Where did I go wrong in deriving quantized energy?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of the relationship ω = E/h and the confusion surrounding the factor of ½ in the equation E = ½ hω. The user attempts to connect momentum and energy through various equations, ultimately questioning the validity of their algebraic manipulations. Key points include the distinction between classical and quantum mechanics, particularly the application of ω = kv, which is only valid for photons. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the context of energy equations, specifically E = mc² versus E = mv²/2.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of classical mechanics, specifically kinetic energy equations.
  • Familiarity with quantum mechanics concepts, including Planck's constant (h) and angular frequency (ω).
  • Knowledge of momentum-energy relationships in both classical and quantum contexts.
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic equations and understand their physical implications.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the de Broglie wavelength and its implications in quantum mechanics.
  • Learn about the differences between classical and relativistic energy equations, particularly E = mc² and E = mv²/2.
  • Explore the concept of angular frequency and its relationship to wave mechanics.
  • Investigate the conditions under which ω = kv holds true, especially in the context of different particle types.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, as well as educators looking to clarify common misconceptions in energy equations.

SpaceNerdz
Messages
19
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
I've been trying to derive ω = E/hbar, but to no success. I thought it was fairly straight forward derivation, could some one point out my mistake ?
OK, so I just want to show ω = E/h = kv, but I keep running into errors, I don't know why.

So, let's start with momentum:
p^2 / 2m = E
p^2 = 2mE
p = sqrt(2mE)
h/λ = sqrt(2mE)
hk = sqrt(2mE)
k = sqrt(2mE)/h

So far so good. Now let's start with conserved Energy
E= ½ mv^2
2E/m = v^2
v = sqrt(2E/m)

So, the angular velocity is :
ω = kv
ω = sqrt(2mE)/h *. sqrt(2E/m)
ω = 2E/ h
E = ½ hω

This is weird. Where did the ½ come from ?

I thought its E = hω.

Can someone tell me where I went wrong ? I'm pretty sure the algebra is correct, but am I introducing some concept where I shouldn't ? Please let me know !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

Is this for billiard balls or for marbles ?

Can you typeset your equations ? It is difficult to deciper your ##\hbar## invention.

Any context ?

(guidelines point 7)

Check out E and p http://depts.washington.edu/jrphys/ph248S16/PhotoEffEqu-16.pdf
 
Last edited:
SpaceNerdz said:
Summary:: I've been trying to derive ω = E/hbar, but to no success. I thought it was fairly straight forward derivation, could some one point out my mistake ?

So, the angular velocity is :
ω = kv
That was the mistake. What made you think that ##\omega=kv##? It's true for photons (with ##v=c##), but in general it's not true.

Your confusion is also closely related to another frequent confusion about the formulas ##E=mc^2## and ##E=mv^2/2##. Can you explain why only one of them has the factor ##1/2##?
 
Last edited:
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
6K