Jump to content

classical mechanics


lemur

Recommended Posts

Since (intuitive) classical mechanics no longer seems to apply at the sub-atomic level, what would you say the smallest scale is at which phenomena can be described and analyzed in terms of classical mechanics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the size of the system is comparable to the de Broglie wavelength of the particles then classical mechanics breaks down. The wavelength is given by

 

[math]\lambda = \frac{h}{m v}[/math], (nonrelativistic)

 

where [math]m[/math] is the particle's mass and [math]v[/math] is the speed of the particle. [math]h[/math] is Planck's constant.

 

As long as you are considering things on a length scale much larger than [math]\lambda[/math] classical mechanics will be ok.

Edited by ajb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the size of the system is comparable to the de Broglie wavelength of the particles then classical mechanics breaks down. The wavelength is given by

 

[math]\lambda = \frac{h}{m v}[/math], (nonrelativistic)

 

where [math]m[/math] is the particle's mass and [math]v[/math] is the speed of the particle. [math]h[/math] is Planck's constant.

 

As long as you are considering things on a length scale much larger than [math]\lambda[/math] classical mechanics will be ok.

 

Could you maybe give examples for reference since I am somewhat math illiterate?

 

When the size of the system is comparable to the de Broglie wavelength of the particles then classical mechanics breaks down. The wavelength is given by

 

[math]\lambda = \frac{h}{m v}[/math], (nonrelativistic)

 

where [math]m[/math] is the particle's mass and [math]v[/math] is the speed of the particle. [math]h[/math] is Planck's constant.

 

As long as you are considering things on a length scale much larger than [math]\lambda[/math] classical mechanics will be ok.

 

Could you maybe give examples for reference since I am somewhat math illiterate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will depend on the mass of particle and its velocity. So, [math]10^{-10}[/math] meters tells us that we cannot ignore quantum effects when dealing with atomic physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will depend on the mass of particle and its velocity. So, [math]10^{-10}[/math] meters tells us that we cannot ignore quantum effects when dealing with atomic physics.

 

That appears smaller than the bound of an atom; is the calculation I pasted wrong?

 

If you look at your post it is non sequiter...how can you follow an indefinite with a definite? You say it depends... and then give a fixed numeric answer!?

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That appears smaller than the bound of an atom; is the calculation I pasted wrong?

 

If you look at your post it is non sequiter...how can you follow an indefinite with a definite? You say it depends... and then give a fixed numeric answer!?

 

Atomic size runs from a few tenths of an angstrom to a few angstroms.

 

It will be different should you use another particle and you will have to re-evaluate, but for an electron in an atom (you gave the fixed numeric answer), you can see that have to use QM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at your post it is non sequiter...how can you follow an indefinite with a definite? You say it depends... and then give a fixed numeric answer!?

 

You gave a numerical value of the wavelength for an electron "whizzing around" an atom. It turns out to be about an angstrom, which is comparable to the size of atoms. Like swansont says, angstroms are the natural scale of atoms.

 

This means that atomic physics is inherently quantum mechanical in nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, what about inter-atomic physics? I.e. physical interactions among atoms?

 

Molecular physics, condensed matter physics and many aspects of chemistry rely on quantum mechanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molecular physics, condensed matter physics and many aspects of chemistry rely on quantum mechanics.

 

Yep, you can treat a molecule as a classical body as long you are only worried about molecular dynamics/statistical mechanics. If you want to look at things like individual bond movements or energy level stuff, you are back to QM for obvious reasons.

Edited by mississippichem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molecular physics, condensed matter physics and many aspects of chemistry rely on quantum mechanics.

 

 

Yep, you can treat a molecule as a classical body as long you are only worried about molecular dynamics/statistical mechanics. If you want to look at things like individual bond movements or energy level stuff, you are back to QM for obvious reasons.

What about things like how substances behave in various materials, mixtures, etc? E.g. I am guessing that the malleability/ductility of metals have to do with their electron abundance, but is this effect of the atoms interacting with each other explained by QM aspects or does it have to do with how the atoms interact at the inter-atomic level?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.