• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Internal structure of electrons, quarks and gluons

Roger Ramjets said:
Bohr model
Click to expand...
Obsolete now, yes. But at the time, the Bohr model solved a problem. Classical electromagnetism doesn't describe electron orbits in a way that allowed for observed quantum behavior. Bohr proposed that electrons can only occupy fixed circular orbits and that they could gain or lose energy only when electrons jump between orbits. This is still what's taught in introductory chemistry.

@wise47 is no Niels Bohr. Here's why.

Bohr was trying to solve a problem. He could point to the prevailing model (classical electrodynamics) and point to an observation (quantized light emission) and say, "This model does not allow for this observation." @wise47 cannot tell us what observation is not predicted correctly by the Standard Model and therefore why his ideas are needed. He can't tell us what problem he's trying to solve.

Bohr used math. He expressed his model of discrete orbitals by an equation that related the energy state of an electron to both the ground state of the atom and the orbital position of the electron. The equation is E = - 13.6 keV z2 / n2. z is the atomic number of the element, 13.6 keV is the ground state energy of hydrogen (z = 1), and n is an integer representing the orbital level. When an electron jumps to a new orbit, the difference in energy as n changes is the energy of the emitted or absorbed photon.

@wise47 cannot do math. Therefore he cannot describe any actual quantities his ideas might entail or require. In physics, quantitative reasoning is everything. You can have a great idea to harness mosquitoes to pull rail cars, but the math tells you that can't happen and therefore that it's a useless idea. The Standard Model is all math. It's consummately arrogant for someone to claim they are among the luminaries of physics when they clearly lack the mathematical skill to understand the Standard Model and thereby to explain what's wrong with it.

Bohr verified his model empirically. The energy of a photon is directly related to its wavelength. When you solve the equations for hydrogen (z =1, n ∈ {1,2}), you get a wavelength of 656 nm, which is observed as the strongest line on a spectrogram of hydrogen emission. @wise47 says it would be extremely difficult to verify his idea empirically. I agree, if by direct observation. However, real physicists are geniuses at finding indirect ways to observe the effects of their proposals. The requirement to do so is not abated just because it would be difficult.

Bohr criticized, revised, and eventually abandoned his model. Bohr understood from the start that his model still needed work because it didn't accurately predict spectra for all values of z and n. He felt he was onto something but needed to keep going. He organized the Niels Bohr Institute and brought in young physicists specifically to test and criticize his physics. One of his protégés, Werner Heisenberg (the original Heisenberg) reformulated electron orbits successfully—using better math. Bohr remained humble and curious. @wise47 is neither.

Bohr shows us how to do physics the right way,
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
...snip...

@wise47 is no Niels Bohr. Here's why.

Bohr was trying to solve a problem. He could point to the prevailing model (classical electrodynamics) and point to an observation (quantized light emission) and say, "This model does not allow for this observation." @wise47 cannot tell us what observation is not predicted correctly by the Standard Model and therefore why his ideas are needed. He can't tell us what problem he's trying to solve.

...snip...
Click to expand...
I suspect wise47 thought the diagram that is often used to illustrate Bohr's model was Bohr's model.
 
Darat said:
I suspect wise47 thought the diagram that is often used to illustrate Bohr's model was Bohr's model.
Click to expand...
That would jibe with his apparent misunderstanding of the gridded rubber sheet diagram to illustrate spacetime curvature. He seems to not to understand what a “model” is in physics. It not just a diagram.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom