1
$\begingroup$

Bohr's model was created to fix Rutherford's because his model was unstable due to nucleus spiral and so forth. Thus, Bohr postulated three ideas which solved this instability issue. My textbook then goes on to say that de Broglie's proposal about standing waves explained the stability of electron orbits in Bohr's model, when in point of fact Bohr's model was created to explain the stability of electron orbits as is lacking in Rutherford's model.

What am I missing here? is this just a battle of semantics and in truth both worked together or something?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Bohr simply postulated certain behavior without explanation (i.e. he advanced a phenomenological model). De Broglie gave a (still very primitive and incomplete) reason for the postulated behavior. It's not a "fix", it's an explanation.

All that said, don't spend much time on the Bohr atom. It's wrong and it's only real uses are back of the envelope calculations and offering either historical perspective on or motivation for a real quantum theory.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.