Talk:Bohr model

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

I've recently found that there were also later models, especially by Gryzinski - he developed classical scattering theory which occurred to agree quite well with experiment and was published in the best journals a few decades ago.

The essence is that due to magnetic momentum, electrons falling on nucleus are being repelled by Lorentz force - it allows for different falling-ascending periodic electron trajectories, which he says agrees with experiment better.

This professor was the chief of large group working on plasma in Polish Institute of Nuclear Physics, publication list about these models is really impressive ... but I couldn't find any constructive comments about it?

Here is the hydrogen atom model with list of publications: http://www.ipj.gov.pl/~gryzinski/hydrogen_atom%20html.htm

Here is his large lecture (and also mentioned Langmuir helium model): http://www.cyf.gov.pl/gryzinski/ramkiang.html

Have you heard anything constructive about these models? Maybe something should be said about it on Bohr model page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.150.224.239 (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest starting a separate article about the those models. Remember that the significance of the Bohr model is mostly historical, but practically obsolete--Thorseth (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Here is the basic bibliography:

• M. Gryziński, Hydrogen atom: electron in the atom moves radially.,
• M. Gryziński, Classical Theory of Electronic and Ionic Inelastic Collisions, Phys. Rev. 115, 374–383 (1959),
• M. Gryziński, Radially Oscillating Electron-the Basis of the Classical Model of the Atom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 1059–1059 (1965),
• M. Gryziński, Ramsauer Effect as a Result of the Dynamic Structure of the Atomic Shell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 45–47 (1970). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.150.224.239 (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my "talk page" I've started stub of such article - please expand it.195.150.224.239 (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, these papers are later than 1925 and all from the same author. For this to be a legitimate wikipedia article you would have to establish that anyone noted the research. The thing that puzzles me is that, as I understand it, the concept of electron trajectories was abandoned around 1925. But don't be dissuaded it's a good starting point!--Thorseth (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, he has almost 20 papers in the best journals about such classical models ... if it doesn't mean that it 'was noted', his most popular classical scattering paper has 469 citings - and atomic model is just natural consequence: succeeding scatterings starting from a point nearby.

I also recently thought that classical models have ended with Bohr and Sommerfeld ... we probably cannot fully model atoms without QM, but these papers strongly suggests that we can do better than these old first atomic models. But it would be useful to hear some constructive comments from somebody who has first hand experience about them ... but it looks like not many such persons are still alive :/ One of coauthors is emeritus professor, maybe he would make a comment to this article? 195.150.224.239 (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

469 citations! One should be so lucky (or skilled) - somebody did indeed note it. But you don't need first hand accounts, just relate what is in the papers in a encyclopedic manner, it's not my field so Ill not be able to help, but good luck--Thorseth (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my field neither, so I thought just to place it as a stub like it is now. But there should be some comment like "Although the author is very optimistic about these classical models, quantum mechanics is still needed to describe atoms, because ... (?)". There could be added a picture also - it could be copy&pasted from a paper, but I don't know what about copyright? And I think that even as a stub - some experienced Wikipedia editor should look at it earlier and decide how to 'weave' it into articles structure ... 195.150.224.239 (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some independent professor, who wrote looking deep article about such approach and still can be contacted. I think there should be created the stub and then maybe there could be written some 'formal Wikipedia letter' to ask them for some comments?195.150.224.239 (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need anyone's permission to start a new article - just register for a wikipedia account and create the article yourself. If you really can't register for an account, you could look at the Articles for creation process as an alternative method. I think there's already an article on what you call the Langmuir model at Cubical atom. Djr32 (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've started the stub of article - please expand it.Nick9876 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. I'll look in at the article from time to time, but if you think it should be expanded, just do it. Djr32 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would gladly do some work about it myself, but (beside I still don't know what about copyright law for pictures) ... it looks like an extremely delicate situation - the lecture sounds very convincing, strongly suggesting in peer-reviewed papers that in some situations classical models work better than quantum - the fact that nobody even heard about them could look a bit suspicious - I believe we should really ask some serious persons who had some experience about it why they left this topic, if we don't want to turn this article into a battlefield. I'm planning to look at it closer, do simulations myself, but after my PhD exam (a month).Nick9876 (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that maybe modern physics is making a circle and goes back to such models - we can now literally make magnified photos of atoms : measure where single electrons were before being tear off, soliton particle models (like skyrmions, Penrose twistors) suggests that they travel through some concrete trajectories - maybe both pictures are just equivalent as in Born's ensemble interpretation ? Like looking at conjugated pendulums through its positions (classical) or evolution of normal modes (quantum)? Nick9876 (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for any picture, there is almost certainly copyright on it, and I don't think it will be fair use. You can reproduce a figure, but copy paste is a no go. Most articles actually have a copyright notice. As for doing your own simulations, go ahead, but you will have to publish in a reliable journal before you can use it in an article. Original research is not admissible (Wikipedia:OR)--Thorseth (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long text description of these models? - thanks, I leave it to someone else ;P Ok - the sources say themselves what they have to say - the purpose of this article should be rather a really serious commentary of concrete arguments and counterarguments (of QM) they present - based on serious sources and persons who had worked on these models. Nick9876 (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Wikipedia is not a forum for debate, whether qualified or not. The reason to use a source in wikipedia is to relate some or all the claims of that source, in an encyclopedic way. Use text, formula or schematics whatever suits you, a list of papers on a subject is not the same as an article on that subject. If you can get an expert to expand the article, fine, just remember, to explain what it is before bringing arguments for and against. Thanks--Thorseth (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly what I'm saying - that I'm not competent to expand this article and that to do this there are needed some serious objective persons with deeper knowledge about this model and which can present and comment the sources in objective way. Thanks Nick9876 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then we agree. It a good starting point, if you can't find any contributors just leave it and wait--Thorseth (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest that any further discussion should take place on the new article's talk page? (Incidentally, Nick9876, I made some comments there that you might want to look at.) Djr32 (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the dates of Gryziński's work, and that he was working in Poland. There was some good science done behind the Iron Curtain, despite the constraints imposed by Communist theoreticians, but very little of it leaked through to have an impact on Western science. Rolcott (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph

The Bohr atom model however becomes fully correct^{[dubious – discuss]} with the deeper interpretation of the quantum mechanics in the language of wave packets^[1] and it can be observed infinitely long while putting the hydrogen atom in the field of the circularly polarized electromagnetic wave i.e. when the electric field vector rotates with constant angular velocity. In 2012 Bohr atom was observed by the Vienna University of Technology as so called Trojan Wave Packets.

is weird. Seems to be a hoax. The style is not scientific. Usually "the deeper interpretation" strongly smells a pseudo-scientific newbie who wrongly thinks he understands something or even discovered new fundamental laws. There is no such thing as a "Bohr atom". If s/o has the time, please track down this "contributor" -- Thanks! — MFH:Talk 07:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph was added by an anonymous contributor with comment "update (lab news)", cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bohr_model&diff=prev&oldid=492649510 - then subsequently removed by some other IP, and then restored. I deleted it from the main article and put the complete source including reference here (in the above paragraph). — MFH:Talk 07:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some recent changes to the article that I think unhelpfully use terms from the modern quantum mechanical understanding of the atom in the description of the Bohr model. The changes mostly involve changing the word "orbit" to "orbital", but also remove comparisons to classical orbits. I think this is a mistake: the Bohr model is very much "old quantum mechanics", using fairly classical ideas of orbiting particles, and mixing it up with the Heisenberg / Schrodinger picture that came along later just leads to a mess. Unless anyone objects, I will revert the changes in a few days. Djr32 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Djr32 (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 1922, Nobel prize winner Niels Bohr revised Rutherford's model by suggesting that...

This is pretty strange and funny! Could he have won the prize in '13 and proposed the model in '22? How could he have done this before the discovery of time travel? 89.217.0.120 (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that section is a bit of a mess. It was added in this edit back in July 2012. As well as getting the year wrong it describes the Bohr model in a section about the shell model. I've removed it, and renamed the section to clarify.

(I think whoever added that managed to confuse the year Bohr got the Nobel prize (1922) with the year the Bohr model was published (1913).) Djr32 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I introduced the Bohr's Correspondence Principle (already created as a Wiki) here. Without the derivation of Correspondence principle Bohr's Atom Model wiki appeared as a Bohr's Atomic Model Memory Aid Wiki, rather than a science wiki. I believe that science should always be approached from the first principles. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the sentence "The frequency of the radiation emitted at an orbit of period T is as it would be in classical mechanics; it is the reciprocal of the classical orbit period: \nu = 1/T" is very confusing, because it contradicts the sentence before "In these orbits, the electron's acceleration does not result in radiation and energy loss as required by classical electromagnetics." . So does an electron radiate while being on an orbit or does it not?

As far as I know, electrons do not radiate while at an orbit in Bohr's model. The radiation is only generated when an electron jumps from a higher orbit to a lower one. The radiation is only emitted during the jump with a frequency which is the reciprocal of the average of the two classical orbit periods. So I think the sentence about the frequency of radiation emitted should either be deleted or corrected, so that it is clear that radiation is only emitted during a quantum jump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaier (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is clearly WP:OR. I have removed it. —Quondum 22:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All atoms are unstable for a given range of time, Hackwrench (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to add?2606:6000:60CC:C900:781D:9683:F985:8D0A (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains the phrase, "This will now give us energy levels for hydrogenic (no wikilink) atoms..."

I've searched the Web and cannot find an exact definition for this strange term, "hydrogenic" (that which creates water? that which is like hydrogen?). In one place, I found the example of positronium, which is supposed to be an electron and a positron unstably bound to each other yet somehow not annihilating (they are antiparticles) for an unknown length of time. In another place I found the examples of tritium (hydrogen with two added neutrons) and helium (two protons, two neutrons). Confusing: a definition by random examples? We need an expert who can provide a real definition. ADDED: I've made it a wikilink and it turns out to have a definition of sorts (follow the link in the article). Why does advanced physics seem so often to be written sloppily? David Spector (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the nuclear force that explains why the nucleus doesn't come apart by electromagnetic force?2606:6000:60CC:C900:781D:9683:F985:8D0A (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I apologize that I am not sufficiently skilled with Wikipedia to fix this issue myself, and I also apologize if this is the wrong place to report this, but - I suppose - it's a start.

I arrived at this, the Bohr Model page, and then clicked on this diagram depicting models of electron energy levels. If one scrolls down, below the picture, you will find some text:

Electron Energy Levels. See a related animation of this medical topic.

Obviously, this is not a "medical topic". If one follows the "related animation" link, you are directed off Wikipedia to what appears to be a sign-in for a Blausen Medical. There is, of course, no animation at this destination.

I do hope this was the appropriate action to take and is helpful in diagnosing and fixing the problem. Please feel free to let me know if you have questions or would like to direct me to an actual animation of the Bohr Model. 🙂

AreThree (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the link, thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2nd para says something about John William Nicholson's model, but no link to such a model. There is a link to a new quantum mechanical model, but the link here is to general QM stuff, not specifically to an atomic model, although I admit to just skimming.

4th para compares to valence shell model, sort of implying that is the replacement. But the linked article here discusses the valence idea, and not a lot of atomic model per se. (I suppose the improvement being the correct number of electrons in shells, does mention p,d etc)Feldercarb (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The old picture is a bit like a solar system, where electrons orbit or revolve about the nucleus. What's the newer/correct picture? Do electrons orbit, sit in one spot, or move about randomly in their orbitals, or we don't know/don't care due to uncertainty principle? (might be better answered in a different article, so as to not confuse us as to what Bohr's idea was? Feldercarb (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Pauli exlcusion thing, I guess? ie it is no longer orbital velocity as in solar system model. Where does the deBroglie idea, electron as sort of a standing wave thing fit in? A later idea I think? Could we say Bohr's key idea was relating shells to quantized energy of electrons, without having a clear picture of what keeps them from falling into the nucleus?Feldercarb (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence in the article:

• Rutherford's atom model is disastrous because it predicts that all atoms are unstable.

was supported by this reference:

• • "CK12 – Chemistry Flexbook Second Edition – The Bohr Model of the Atom". Retrieved 30 September 2014.

The reference claims:

• "Rutherford, in addition to carrying out the experiment that demonstrated the presence of the atomic nucleus, proposed that the electrons circled the nucleus in a planetary-like motion."

This claim is false. Rutherford's scattering model had no electrons. Here is a quote:

• Rutherford presented his theory primarily as a scattering theory and realized that, considered as a theory of atomic structure, it was most incomplete. First and foremost, it could offer no suggestion of how the electrons were arranged, the very issue that was central to atomic models. 'The question of the stability of the atom proposed need not be considered,‛ he wrote, ‚for this will obviously depend upon the minute structure of the atom, and on the motion of the constituent charged parts.‛

from, where Kragh is quoting Rutherford's 1911 paper.

• • Helge Kragh (Oct. 2010). Before Bohr: Theories of atomic structure 1850-1913. RePoSS: Research Publications on Science Studies 10. Aarhus: Centre for Science Studies, University of Aarhus. Page 48

Johnjbarton (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to create a "Background" section out of the first paragraph of Origin, then change the name to Development. The section on Solvay is way too long with many puzzling quotes without sufficient context. All we need here is what ideas from Solvay influenced Bohr. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PyetroPy I deleted this a couple of time:

• In quantum mechanics, this emission must be in quanta of light, and if we impose that classical mechanics approximates the quantum description at large quantum numbers, i.e. large orbit's radii, their frequencies must be integer multiples of 1/T, corresponding to energy gaps between the orbits multiples of h/T. This means that the energy level corresponding to a classical orbit of period 1/T must have nearby energy levels which differ in energy by h/T:

$${\displaystyle \Delta E_{n}={\frac {h}{T(E_{n})}},}$$

where ${\displaystyle T(E_{n})}$ is the period of the n-th energy level/state/orbit. Bohr worried whether the energy spacing 1/T should be best calculated with ${\displaystyle T(E_{n})}$, ${\displaystyle T(E_{n+1})}$, or some average — in hindsight, this model is only the leading semiclassical approximation.

I think you are trying to express a very complex issue without giving sufficient information. I believe what you are getting at is related to the correspondence principle, but that principle is not what many people think it is. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton it was not my original material, I was just trying to clarify the reasoning behind it.

In my view it was an interesting passage in which Bohr (or the OP) was trying to explain the same phenomenon (discrete emission of frequencies by the hydrogen atom spaced by 1/T) with classical mechanics (harmonics of 1/T, the classical orbit period) and quantum mechanics (photons emitted by the electron jumping between energy levels spaced by ${\displaystyle \hbar /T}$). I would have left it.

OTOH, I don't get the "shortcut" for the computing of ${\displaystyle \Delta E}$ that comes right after that, and the fact that the angular momentum is ${\displaystyle n\hbar }$ was not a Bohr's result, it was determined later in time. PyetroPy (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton plus, by deleting that passage, the next:

Bohr considered circular orbits. Classically, these orbits must decay to smaller circles when photons are emitted. The energy level spacing between circular orbits can be calculated with the correspondence formula. For a hydrogen atom, the classical orbits have a period T determined by Kepler's third law to scale as r3/2.

loses meaning, because the parallel between classical and quantum mechanics is not explicit enough. PyetroPy (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I plan to delete all of this unsourced material as I work my way through the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The long discussion of the Solvay conference seems to be an original research attempt to justify this claim:

• Bohr's footnote at the bottom of the page is to the French translation of the 1911 Solvay Congress, proving he patterned his model directly on the proceedings and fundamental principles laid down by Planck, Lorentz, and the quantized Haas model of the atom which was mentioned seventeen times.

That sentence references Bohr's 1913 (I) paper. Bohr does cite the 1911 Solvay for this sentence:

• The result of the discussion of these questions seems to be a general acknowledgment of the inadequacy of tile classical electrodynamics in describing the behaviour of systems of atomic size.

Bohr also explicitly cites Haas in that paper.

The general tenor of the paragraph is that Bohr somehow plagiarized his model from the Solvay proceedings. This claim is based solely on primary refs and is inconsistent with extensive historical analysis. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that most of this text was actually from page 273

• Giliberti, Marco; Lovisetti, Luisa (2024). "Bohr's Hydrogen Atom". Old Quantum Theory and Early Quantum Mechanics. Challenges in Physics Education. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57934-9_6. ISBN 978-3-031-57933-2.

without attribution but with distortions added. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]