I Why the energy inversely propotional to n^2 in Bohr model

KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
After reading some materials on Bohr model, I understand the model is more or less incorrect, especially in terms of "orbital". I just wonder if the energy expression is also wrong or not.

In my text for general quantum theory, the energy about two neighboring level is given as ##\Delta E = E_n-E_{n-1} = \hbar\omega##
which is ##n## independent. But in Bohr model about hydrogen, the quantized energy is given as
##E_n = -E_0/n^2##
which is inversely proportional to ##n^2##. This will give, for example from level ##n## to ##n-1##

##
E_n-E_{n-1} = \frac{-E_0}{(n-1)^2-n^2}
##
which is ##n## dependent. I am quite confusing why is it. Is Bohr model about energy is correct for hydrogen or hydrogen-like atom?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The formula ##E_n = -E_0/n^2## is correct, and is due to the shape of the hydrogen potential.
The hydrogen potential has a top, so the energies levels get closer together as they approach E=0 from below. For E > 0, the energy levels are continuous and the hydrogen atom is said to be "ionized".

Your quantum theory text should not give ##\hbar\omega## increments in energy for the hydrogen potential - I suspect you have misread it - that spacing is for an approximation for other types of potential called "harmonic oscillator".

Note: your equation for the transition energy is incorrect. Try again.

See:
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/hydrogen/transitions.html
 
Simon Bridge said:
The formula ##E_n = -E_0/n^2## is correct, and is due to the shape of the hydrogen potential.
The hydrogen potential has a top, so the energies levels get closer together as they approach E=0 from below. For E > 0, the energy levels are continuous and the hydrogen atom is said to be "ionized".

Your quantum theory text should not give ##\hbar\omega## increments in energy for the hydrogen potential - I suspect you have misread it - that spacing is for an approximation for other types of potential called "harmonic oscillator".

Note: your equation for the transition energy is incorrect. Try again.

See:
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/hydrogen/transitions.html
Thanks a lot. I think I misunderstood some context in the text. I always think the ##\Delta E=\hbar\omega## is universal for all quantum system. Your reply help me to recall the harmonic oscillator. So like what you said, the explicit form of energy for a quantum system is really depending on the potential, is that what you mean?

Thanks anyway.
 
KFC said:
So like what you said, the explicit form of energy for a quantum system is really depending on the potential, is that what you mean?
That is correct - it is exactly the same for classical physics: the dynamics depends on the specific form of the potential. For instance, a ball rolling around the inside of a bowl - requires more kinetic energy to reach the same distance from the center in a steep sided bowl as for a shallow bowl.

You can see this has to be the case if you consider the case of a repulsive potential, or the free-space potential (V=0 everywhere): does it make sense for the allowed energies in these situations to have the same separation as for bound-states?
 
  • Like
Likes KFC
Thanks for clarifying it. I appreciate your help.
 
No worries.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top