Bohr's electronic theory vs. Schroedinger equation?

In summary, the conversation discusses the compatibility of Schroedinger's equation and Bohr's theory of electron's energy state jumps. It is clarified that Bohr's theory is partly incorrect and has been superseded by the concept of wavefunctions in quantum mechanics. The evolution of energy and angular momentum is not discontinuous, but can be modeled as a linear superposition of time-dependent wave functions. During a transition between energy levels, the system does not have a definite energy and the probability distribution of the wavefunction oscillates. This is a manifestation of the measurement problem, where observations may seem to indicate discreet jumps from the quantum to classical world. It is suggested to continue further discussions on the measurement problem in other threads.
  • #1
loom91
404
0
Hi,

I was wondering, if the Schroedinger equation implies a continuous evolution of the state vector, then how does Bohr's theory of electron's discontinuous jumps between energy states fit in? Conversely, if an electron 'jumps' from one state to another with nothing intermediate, then how can its wave-function undergo continuous evolution? Thanks.

Molu
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi,

First of all, you cannot compare the validity of Bohr's theory with that of Schroder since the first one is partly incorrect. To see why, check out our FAQ (the first post to be exact : Why Don’t Electrons Crash Into The Nucleus In Atoms?) where we have answered this question.

Enjoy

regards
marlon
 
  • #3
Yes, Bohr's concept of discreet orbits have been superceded by wavefunctions. But energy and angular momentum is still quantised, no? Their evolution is discontinuous? How does this fit into continuous unitary evolution?

Molu
 
  • #4
loom91 said:
But energy and angular momentum is still quantised, no? Their evolution is discontinuous?

No, their evolution is not discontinuous. You can model a transition between two energy levels by constructing a linear superposition of the two time-dependent wave functions, in which the coefficients are time dependent:

[tex]\Psi(x,t) = a_1(t) \Psi_1(x,t) + a_2(t) \Psi_2(x,t)[/itex]

If the wave functions are normalized properly, then at any time, [itex]a_1^*a_1[/itex] gives the probability that the system is in state 1, with energy [itex]E_1[/itex]; and [itex]a_2^*a_2[/itex] gives the probability that the system is in state 2, with energy [itex]E_2[/itex].

Before the transition begins, [itex]a_1 = 1[/itex] and [itex]a_2 = 0[/itex]. At some later time, after the transition has finished, [itex]a_1 = 0[/itex] and [itex]a_2 = 1[/itex].

During the transition, both [itex]a_1[/itex] and [itex]a_2[/itex] are nonzero, and the system does not have a definite energy. If you measure the energy partway through the transition, you may get either [itex]E_1[/itex] or [itex]E_2[/itex]. During the transition, the probability distribution [itex]\Psi^* \Psi[/itex] oscillates (sloshes around or pulsates) with frequency [itex]f = (E_2 - E_1) / h[/itex].
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Thank you, I think I understand. The wavefunction itself evolves continuously, but as measurement collapses the wavefunction, thus observations will seem to indicate discreet jumps. This is another manifestation of the measurement problem, a transition from the quantum world to the classical one.
 
  • #6
loom91 said:
Thank you, I think I understand. The wavefunction itself evolves continuously, but as measurement collapses the wavefunction, thus observations will seem to indicate discreet jumps. This is another manifestation of the measurement problem, a transition from the quantum world to the classical one.


We have a number of threads going on different aspects of the measurement problem. Perhaps you would want to continue on one of them, rather than starting yet another new one?
 
  • #7
I don't think I'm qualified enough to discuss the measurement problem seriously. I was just clearing a confusion brought about by the outdated quantum mechanics syllabus that includes wave mechanics without correcting Bohr's theory in our high school.
 

Related to Bohr's electronic theory vs. Schroedinger equation?

1. What is the difference between Bohr's electronic theory and the Schroedinger equation?

Bohr's electronic theory describes the arrangement of electrons in an atom as being in specific energy levels, while the Schroedinger equation is a mathematical equation that describes the behavior of electrons in an atom in terms of probability.

2. Which theory is more accurate, Bohr's or the Schroedinger equation?

The Schroedinger equation is considered to be more accurate because it takes into account the wave-like nature of electrons and therefore can predict the behavior of electrons in more complex systems.

3. How did Bohr's electronic theory contribute to our understanding of atomic structure?

Bohr's electronic theory was one of the first models to accurately describe the arrangement of electrons in an atom, and it helped to explain the observed spectra of different elements. It also introduced the concept of energy levels and how electrons can jump between them.

4. What limitations does the Schroedinger equation have?

The Schroedinger equation is limited in its ability to accurately describe the behavior of electrons in systems with more than one electron. It also does not take into account the effects of relativity and the magnetic field on electrons.

5. Can these two theories be reconciled?

While Bohr's electronic theory and the Schroedinger equation may seem contradictory, they can actually be reconciled by understanding that the Schroedinger equation describes the behavior of a single electron, while Bohr's theory applies to multiple electrons in an atom. Both theories are still used and studied in different contexts in modern atomic physics.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
692
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
27
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
883
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
49
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
46
Views
8K
Back
Top