Timeline for Why did the Bohr Model Successfully calculate some of the energy levels in hydrogen?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 6, 2023 at 0:30 | comment | added | Matt Hanson | This is a far more rigorous treatment of an incorrect model than I was expecting, and I genuinely learned something. | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 18:21 | comment | added | knzhou | @rubenvb Yeah, I meant "from the perspective of somebody who was just taught $L = n \hbar$, it seems completely ridiculous, contradicting both classical and quantum mechanics". Actually, the model is a nice fusion of the two. | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 18:19 | history | edited | knzhou | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 213 characters in body
|
| Nov 7, 2019 at 17:53 | comment | added | J.G. | "Bohr's result happens to be equivalent to $L_n=n\hbar$, but this wasn't what he actually used." That's an excellent historical point. Modern summaries of the Bohr model often get to this formula from the de Broglie wavelength, but de Broglie actually proposed $p\lambda=h$ in 1924 as a standing-wave interpretation of the angular momentum observation that fell out of Bohr's model in 1913. +1. | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 15:51 | comment | added | rubenvb | I wouldn't blatantly label a model that actually does predict whatever it was meant to predict "obviously wrong". Otherwise, the number of "obviously wrong" theories outnumbers the "correct" ones greatly (in extremis there could be no correct theory in that sense...). The fact that the laws of Newton don't handle relativistic effects doesn't make them "obviously wrong". In the case of Bohr, you can even retrieve it in the semiclassical limit from the Schrodinger equation, as detailed by Frederic under his answer. | |
| Nov 6, 2019 at 17:59 | history | answered | knzhou | CC BY-SA 4.0 |