Timeline for Why does the Bohr model give the correct energy levels for hydrogen even though it assumes a circular orbit?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 5, 2020 at 1:38 | comment | added | Ponder Stibbons | Okay - partly I was saying that it was not a coincidence that it worked, as far as that it was a model that could be fitted to any spectral series. To me, this means as physics it was junk. It told us nothing about the atom. My understanding is that we are on the same page with that. | |
| Mar 5, 2020 at 1:37 | comment | added | Ponder Stibbons | In fact, I was saying the Bohr model was junk. Just overfitting a model to the data. And it was only out there for a couple of years before it got heavily modified and then replaced entirely. No reason it should even be brought up in quantum mechanics courses. | |
| Mar 5, 2020 at 1:35 | comment | added | Natsfan | Yes but that doesn't in any way make it correct. | |
| Mar 5, 2020 at 1:32 | comment | added | Ponder Stibbons | It was built from knowledge of the Balmer series, so it involved fitting the orbit sizes to that empirical data. It was only later that Debroglie came up with the wavelength argument for the choice of orbit sizes, and indirectly that lead to the idea of a wave, which lead to a wave equation, which lead to Schroedinger's work on producing his quantum wave equation. Bohr's approach could have been fitted to any data as long as it was closed under addition and subtraction. At the time it was criticised as being numerology. | |
| Mar 5, 2020 at 1:25 | history | answered | Natsfan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |