Valid reason to reject the Bohr model?

In summary, the Bohr model was a significant step towards understanding the structure of an atom, but it had its limitations and flaws. One of the main reasons to reject the Bohr model is that it failed to explain the spectra of atoms with more than one electron. Additionally, the model could not account for the concept of electron spin, which was later discovered to be a crucial factor in the behavior of atoms. The Bohr model also did not consider the wave-like nature of electrons, which is a fundamental principle in quantum mechanics. These shortcomings ultimately led to the rejection of the Bohr model and the development of more accurate and comprehensive models of the atom.
  • #1
tade
702
24
The Bohr model has been superseded by the Schrodinger model.

The Bohr model involves electrons orbiting around a nucleus. I was thinking, it might be possible for the electrons to be knocked out of their stable orbits into some chaotic configuration.

Is this a valid reason to reject the Bohr model?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The Bohr model fails to describe the absorption/emission spectra of atoms that are more complex than hydrogen (i.e. the energy levels). Further, there's the so-called fine structure (splittings of spectral lines) which is due to the spin of electrons, which the Bohr model did not account for. See also failures of the Bohr Model.

The Pauli exclusion principle is also a very important concept which determines how the electrons are arranged. This was formulated more than ten years after the Bohr model.
 
  • #3
DennisN said:
The Bohr model fails to describe the absorption/emission spectra of atoms that are more complex than hydrogen (i.e. the energy levels). Further, there's the so-called fine structure (splittings of spectral lines) which is due to the spin of electrons, which the Bohr model did not account for. See also failures of the Bohr Model.

The Pauli exclusion principle is also a very important concept which determines how the electrons are arranged. This was formulated more than ten years after the Bohr model.

I know, but what about the reason I mentioned in the OP?
 
  • #4
tade said:
I was thinking, it might be possible for the electrons to be knocked out of their stable orbits into some chaotic configuration.
I see only a loosely stated hypothesis; I see no model presented that can be matched with actual experiments. Further, the Uncertainty Principle complicates the matter; therefore I abstain from commenting on such a hypothesis.

tade said:
I know, but what about the reason I mentioned in the OP?
I stated (some of) the valid reasons to reject the Bohr model according to mainstream physics. I can't do more without starting to speculate, which I do not want to do :smile:.
 
  • #5
DennisN said:
I see only a loosely stated hypothesis; I see no model presented that can be matched with actual experiments. Further, the Uncertainty Principle complicates the matter; therefore I abstain from commenting on such a hypothesis. I stated (some of) the valid reasons to reject the Bohr model according to mainstream physics. I can't do more without starting to speculate, which I do not want to do :smile:.
It's alright if you don't want to speculate.

I was thinking, if all the atoms got jumbled up, everyday solid matter as we knew it would no longer be "stable".
 
  • #6
tade said:
I was thinking, if all the atoms got jumbled up, everyday solid matter as we knew it would no longer be "stable".

Leaving aside exactly how you would do what you suggest the reason for matters stability and solidity is the Pauli Exclusion Principle which follows from the fact electrons are Fermion's = jumbling stuff up will not change that.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #7
bhobba said:
Leaving aside exactly how you would do what you suggest the reason for matters stability and solidity is the Pauli Exclusion Principle which follows from the fact electrons are Fermion's = jumbling stuff up will not change that.

Thanks
Bill

But chemical bonds and all that will be affected.

I agree with Dennis, this question is highly speculative.
 
  • #8
bhobba said:
Leaving aside exactly how you would do what you suggest the reason for matters stability and solidity is the Pauli Exclusion Principle which follows from the fact electrons are Fermion's = jumbling stuff up will not change that.

Thanks
Bill

Is pauli repulsion a type of force?
 
  • #9
tade said:
Is pauli repulsion a type of force?

Not per-se. It means two fermions cannot occupy the same state - if you try then it will be resisted which can manifest itself as a force. In fact its what's responsible for the solidity of matter - if you push solid objects together them their electrons would try to intermingle and occupy the same state which Fermions can't do - so a force arises to stop you. The math is a bit hairy and was first worked out in a bit of a mathematical tour-de-force by Dyson:
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/1995/148-16/14816-15.pdf

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
bhobba said:
Not per-se. It means two fermions cannot occupy the same state - if you try then it will be resisted which can manifest itself as a force. In fact its what's responsible for the solidity of matter - if you push solid objects together them their electrons would try to intermingle and occupy the same state which Fermions can't do - so a force arises to stop you. The math is a bit hairy and was first worked out in a bit of a mathematical tour-de-force by Dyson:
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/1995/148-16/14816-15.pdf


So the fact that two fermions cannot occupy the same state, and that two Fermis cannot occupy the same seat, are one and the same? :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related to Valid reason to reject the Bohr model?

What is the Bohr model and why was it rejected?

The Bohr model was a model proposed by Niels Bohr in 1913 to explain the structure of an atom. It suggested that electrons orbit the nucleus in fixed energy levels. However, this model was rejected due to its inability to account for the behavior of atoms with more than one electron and its failure to explain the observed spectra of atoms.

What evidence led to the rejection of the Bohr model?

One of the main pieces of evidence that led to the rejection of the Bohr model was the observed spectra of atoms. The Bohr model predicted that the spectra of atoms would consist of discrete lines, but in reality, the spectra consisted of continuous bands. Additionally, the model could not explain the behavior of atoms with more than one electron, such as the fact that some atoms had more than one line in their spectra.

What improvements were made to the Bohr model?

After the rejection of the Bohr model, scientists continued to study the structure of atoms and made several improvements to the model. These included the development of the quantum mechanical model, which used mathematical equations to describe the behavior of electrons in an atom, and the discovery of subatomic particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Why is the Bohr model still taught in schools if it has been rejected?

The Bohr model is still taught in schools because it was an important step in the development of our understanding of the atom. It introduced the concept of energy levels and provided a basis for further research and discoveries. It also helps students understand the historical progression of scientific theories and the process of scientific inquiry.

Are there any situations where the Bohr model is still applicable?

While the Bohr model was rejected as an accurate representation of the structure of an atom, it is still applicable in some situations. For example, it can be used to explain the behavior of single electrons in the hydrogen atom. It is also used as a simplification in introductory science courses to help students understand the basics of atomic structure before moving on to more complex models.

Similar threads

I Quantization of Quasiperiodic Orbits in the Bohr-Sommerfeld Model
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
1K
B How is Bohr's atom model convenient with quantum mechanics?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
I "Wave-particle duality" and double-slit experiment
    • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
I Is my interpretation of the g-factor correct?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
636
B Some website about new Bohr model
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
988
I Bohr model, Why do we assume a standing wave?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
12
Views
3K
Spin-Orbit Coupling: A Bohr-Orbital Model?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Where does the electron gain its energy from to keep orbiting?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
A What physics would look like if QM had not been invented?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
I About magnetic momentum in quantum mechanics
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
898

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top