Talk:Bohr model

The paragraph

The Bohr atom model however becomes fully correct^{[dubious – discuss]} with the deeper interpretation of the quantum mechanics in the language of wave packets^[1] and it can be observed infinitely long while putting the hydrogen atom in the field of the circularly polarized electromagnetic wave i.e. when the electric field vector rotates with constant angular velocity. In 2012 Bohr atom was observed by the Vienna University of Technology as so called Trojan Wave Packets.

is weird. Seems to be a hoax. The style is not scientific. Usually "the deeper interpretation" strongly smells a pseudo-scientific newbie who wrongly thinks he understands something or even discovered new fundamental laws. There is no such thing as a "Bohr atom". If s/o has the time, please track down this "contributor" -- Thanks! — MFH:Talk 07:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This paragraph was added by an anonymous contributor with comment "update (lab news)", cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bohr_model&diff=prev&oldid=492649510 - then subsequently removed by some other IP, and then restored. I deleted it from the main article and put the complete source including reference here (in the above paragraph). — MFH:Talk 07:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

There are some recent changes to the article that I think unhelpfully use terms from the modern quantum mechanical understanding of the atom in the description of the Bohr model. The changes mostly involve changing the word "orbit" to "orbital", but also remove comparisons to classical orbits. I think this is a mistake: the Bohr model is very much "old quantum mechanics", using fairly classical ideas of orbiting particles, and mixing it up with the Heisenberg / Schrodinger picture that came along later just leads to a mess. Unless anyone objects, I will revert the changes in a few days. Djr32 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Djr32 (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In 1922, Nobel prize winner Niels Bohr revised Rutherford's model by suggesting that...

This is pretty strange and funny! Could he have won the prize in '13 and proposed the model in '22? How could he have done this before the discovery of time travel? 89.217.0.120 (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that section is a bit of a mess. It was added in this edit back in July 2012. As well as getting the year wrong it describes the Bohr model in a section about the shell model. I've removed it, and renamed the section to clarify.

(I think whoever added that managed to confuse the year Bohr got the Nobel prize (1922) with the year the Bohr model was published (1913).) Djr32 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I introduced the Bohr's Correspondence Principle (already created as a Wiki) here. Without the derivation of Correspondence principle Bohr's Atom Model wiki appeared as a Bohr's Atomic Model Memory Aid Wiki, rather than a science wiki. I believe that science should always be approached from the first principles. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe the sentence "The frequency of the radiation emitted at an orbit of period T is as it would be in classical mechanics; it is the reciprocal of the classical orbit period: \nu = 1/T" is very confusing, because it contradicts the sentence before "In these orbits, the electron's acceleration does not result in radiation and energy loss as required by classical electromagnetics." . So does an electron radiate while being on an orbit or does it not?

As far as I know, electrons do not radiate while at an orbit in Bohr's model. The radiation is only generated when an electron jumps from a higher orbit to a lower one. The radiation is only emitted during the jump with a frequency which is the reciprocal of the average of the two classical orbit periods. So I think the sentence about the frequency of radiation emitted should either be deleted or corrected, so that it is clear that radiation is only emitted during a quantum jump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaier (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is clearly WP:OR. I have removed it. —Quondum 22:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

All atoms are unstable for a given range of time, Hackwrench (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you trying to add?2606:6000:60CC:C900:781D:9683:F985:8D0A (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This article contains the phrase, "This will now give us energy levels for hydrogenic (no wikilink) atoms..."

I've searched the Web and cannot find an exact definition for this strange term, "hydrogenic" (that which creates water? that which is like hydrogen?). In one place, I found the example of positronium, which is supposed to be an electron and a positron unstably bound to each other yet somehow not annihilating (they are antiparticles) for an unknown length of time. In another place I found the examples of tritium (hydrogen with two added neutrons) and helium (two protons, two neutrons). Confusing: a definition by random examples? We need an expert who can provide a real definition. ADDED: I've made it a wikilink and it turns out to have a definition of sorts (follow the link in the article). Why does advanced physics seem so often to be written sloppily? David Spector (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

No mention of the nuclear force that explains why the nucleus doesn't come apart by electromagnetic force?2606:6000:60CC:C900:781D:9683:F985:8D0A (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello - I apologize that I am not sufficiently skilled with Wikipedia to fix this issue myself, and I also apologize if this is the wrong place to report this, but - I suppose - it's a start.

I arrived at this, the Bohr Model page, and then clicked on this diagram depicting models of electron energy levels. If one scrolls down, below the picture, you will find some text:

Electron Energy Levels. See a related animation of this medical topic.

Obviously, this is not a "medical topic". If one follows the "related animation" link, you are directed off Wikipedia to what appears to be a sign-in for a Blausen Medical. There is, of course, no animation at this destination.

I do hope this was the appropriate action to take and is helpful in diagnosing and fixing the problem. Please feel free to let me know if you have questions or would like to direct me to an actual animation of the Bohr Model. 🙂

AreThree (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I deleted the link, thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

2nd para says something about John William Nicholson's model, but no link to such a model. There is a link to a new quantum mechanical model, but the link here is to general QM stuff, not specifically to an atomic model, although I admit to just skimming.

4th para compares to valence shell model, sort of implying that is the replacement. But the linked article here discusses the valence idea, and not a lot of atomic model per se. (I suppose the improvement being the correct number of electrons in shells, does mention p,d etc)Feldercarb (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The old picture is a bit like a solar system, where electrons orbit or revolve about the nucleus. What's the newer/correct picture? Do electrons orbit, sit in one spot, or move about randomly in their orbitals, or we don't know/don't care due to uncertainty principle? (might be better answered in a different article, so as to not confuse us as to what Bohr's idea was? Feldercarb (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The Pauli exlcusion thing, I guess? ie it is no longer orbital velocity as in solar system model. Where does the deBroglie idea, electron as sort of a standing wave thing fit in? A later idea I think? Could we say Bohr's key idea was relating shells to quantized energy of electrons, without having a clear picture of what keeps them from falling into the nucleus?Feldercarb (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This sentence in the article:

• Rutherford's atom model is disastrous because it predicts that all atoms are unstable.

was supported by this reference:

• • "CK12 – Chemistry Flexbook Second Edition – The Bohr Model of the Atom". Retrieved 30 September 2014.

The reference claims:

• "Rutherford, in addition to carrying out the experiment that demonstrated the presence of the atomic nucleus, proposed that the electrons circled the nucleus in a planetary-like motion."

This claim is false. Rutherford's scattering model had no electrons. Here is a quote:

• Rutherford presented his theory primarily as a scattering theory and realized that, considered as a theory of atomic structure, it was most incomplete. First and foremost, it could offer no suggestion of how the electrons were arranged, the very issue that was central to atomic models. 'The question of the stability of the atom proposed need not be considered,‛ he wrote, ‚for this will obviously depend upon the minute structure of the atom, and on the motion of the constituent charged parts.‛

from, where Kragh is quoting Rutherford's 1911 paper.

• • Helge Kragh (Oct. 2010). Before Bohr: Theories of atomic structure 1850-1913. RePoSS: Research Publications on Science Studies 10. Aarhus: Centre for Science Studies, University of Aarhus. Page 48

Johnjbarton (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I plan to create a "Background" section out of the first paragraph of Origin, then change the name to Development. The section on Solvay is way too long with many puzzling quotes without sufficient context. All we need here is what ideas from Solvay influenced Bohr. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@PyetroPy I deleted this a couple of time:

• In quantum mechanics, this emission must be in quanta of light, and if we impose that classical mechanics approximates the quantum description at large quantum numbers, i.e. large orbit's radii, their frequencies must be integer multiples of 1/T, corresponding to energy gaps between the orbits multiples of h/T. This means that the energy level corresponding to a classical orbit of period 1/T must have nearby energy levels which differ in energy by h/T:

$${\displaystyle \Delta E_{n}={\frac {h}{T(E_{n})}},}$$

where ${\displaystyle T(E_{n})}$ is the period of the n-th energy level/state/orbit. Bohr worried whether the energy spacing 1/T should be best calculated with ${\displaystyle T(E_{n})}$, ${\displaystyle T(E_{n+1})}$, or some average — in hindsight, this model is only the leading semiclassical approximation.

I think you are trying to express a very complex issue without giving sufficient information. I believe what you are getting at is related to the correspondence principle, but that principle is not what many people think it is. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton it was not my original material, I was just trying to clarify the reasoning behind it.

In my view it was an interesting passage in which Bohr (or the OP) was trying to explain the same phenomenon (discrete emission of frequencies by the hydrogen atom spaced by 1/T) with classical mechanics (harmonics of 1/T, the classical orbit period) and quantum mechanics (photons emitted by the electron jumping between energy levels spaced by ${\displaystyle \hbar /T}$). I would have left it.

OTOH, I don't get the "shortcut" for the computing of ${\displaystyle \Delta E}$ that comes right after that, and the fact that the angular momentum is ${\displaystyle n\hbar }$ was not a Bohr's result, it was determined later in time. PyetroPy (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton plus, by deleting that passage, the next:

Bohr considered circular orbits. Classically, these orbits must decay to smaller circles when photons are emitted. The energy level spacing between circular orbits can be calculated with the correspondence formula. For a hydrogen atom, the classical orbits have a period T determined by Kepler's third law to scale as r3/2.

loses meaning, because the parallel between classical and quantum mechanics is not explicit enough. PyetroPy (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I plan to delete all of this unsourced material as I work my way through the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The long discussion of the Solvay conference seems to be an original research attempt to justify this claim:

• Bohr's footnote at the bottom of the page is to the French translation of the 1911 Solvay Congress, proving he patterned his model directly on the proceedings and fundamental principles laid down by Planck, Lorentz, and the quantized Haas model of the atom which was mentioned seventeen times.

That sentence references Bohr's 1913 (I) paper. Bohr does cite the 1911 Solvay for this sentence:

• The result of the discussion of these questions seems to be a general acknowledgment of the inadequacy of tile classical electrodynamics in describing the behaviour of systems of atomic size.

Bohr also explicitly cites Haas in that paper.

The general tenor of the paragraph is that Bohr somehow plagiarized his model from the Solvay proceedings. This claim is based solely on primary refs and is inconsistent with extensive historical analysis. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Now I see that most of this text was actually from page 273

• Giliberti, Marco; Lovisetti, Luisa (2024). "Bohr's Hydrogen Atom". Old Quantum Theory and Early Quantum Mechanics. Challenges in Physics Education. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57934-9_6. ISBN 978-3-031-57933-2.

without attribution but with distortions added. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I've made progress on reorganizing the article. Recently a new source for Borh's 1913 postulates was added and I used that to redo the Development section. What is missing is Bohr's use of the postulates in his historic work. The Energy Levels section is a modern derivation AFAICT. Similarly Bohr's treatment of the Rydberg series was the key to rapid acceptance of his work but the Ryberg section is just the modern treatment. The historic content is needed but need not be long. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The intro says:

"Developed from 1911 to 1918 by Niels Bohr and building on Ernest Rutherford's nuclear model, it supplanted the plum pudding model of J. J."

Rutherford never proposed an "atomic model". He empirically showed that the majority of the mass of an atom was concentrated in one place (1911) and that it was positively charged (1914). This is not a model. This is reality. Meanwhile, none of J. J. Thomson's relevant publications (1904, 1905, 1906) ever referred to puddings. The "plum pudding" was invented by a (now unknown) journalist.

See my essay: https://jayarava.blogspot.com/2025/04/notes-on-early-atomic-models.html

Or read the relevant papers:

Rutherford, Ernest. (1911). "The scattering of α and β Particles by Matter and the Structure of the Atom." Philosophical Magazine. Series 6. 21 (125): 669–688. doi:10.1080/14786440508637080.

Rutherford, Ernest. (1914). "The Structure of the Atom." Philosophical Magazine. Series 6, 27: 488 - 498

Thomson, J. J. (1904) "On the structure of the atom: an investigation of the stability and periods of oscillation of a number of corpuscles arranged at equal intervals around the circumference of a circle; with application of the results to the theory of atomic structure." Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, 7(39): 237 - 265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786440409463107

Thomson, J. J. (1905). “The Structure of the Atom” A Lecture Delivered at the Royal Institution. (Weekly Evening Meeting, Friday, March 10, 1905): 1-15. http://www.ub.edu/hcub/hfq/sites/default/files/Thomson_model(6).pdf

Thomson, J.J. (1906) "On the number of corpuscles in an atom." Philosophical Magazine Series 6. 11(66): 769-781, DOI: 10.1080/14786440609463496

Jayarava (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Our text does not say anything about Rutherford's "atomic model". You quoted it: "building on Ernest Rutherford's nuclear model," We can make it a little clearer,

• Developed from 1911 to 1918 by Niels Bohr and building on Ernest Rutherford's model of the nucleus, Bohr's supplanted the plum pudding model of J. J."

Johnjbarton (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

In Haas atomic model

how can a strictly negative quantity be equal to a positve one? ~2026-15562-42 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)