Bohr's Intuition: How He Knew Angular Momentum Without Proof

AI Thread Summary
Bohr's intuition regarding angular momentum stemmed from his proposal that electron orbits are quantized, addressing atomic stability issues that classical theories couldn't explain. He based his model on the de Broglie hypothesis, asserting that electrons behave as waves, which must meet specific conditions for constructive interference. This led to the conclusion that the orbital radius must satisfy the equation 2πr = nλ, where n is an integer. From this relationship, the quantization of angular momentum naturally follows as L = mvr = nħ. Ultimately, Bohr's approach was not a mere guess but a bold theoretical framework that successfully bridged classical and quantum mechanics.
shravan
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
there is no proof for the saying that the orbit in which an electron is moving is an integral multiple of angular momentum? how did bohr guess that it is angular momentum ;why didnot he try other angular variables?
my question is how he knew angular momentum without any proof.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The 'proof' is that the Bohr model solves the problem that classical theory could not explain regarding atomic stability. He didn't 'guess'. He made a bold proposal (at the time) that the radius of orbit was quantized. Consequently, its angular momentum must be as well. The concept of angular momentum is relatively classical in origin and was understood way back before Bohr. It has proved to apply in the quantum world as well.
 
there is no proof for the saying that the orbit in which an electron is moving is an integral multiple of angular momentum? how did bohr guess that it is angular momentum ;why didnot he try other angular variables?

He started with the assumption that the electron is a de Broglie wave with wavelength given by the de Broglie formula:

\lambda = h/mv.

Then, he said that for such a wave "wrapped around" the nucleus to undergo constructive interference, it must satisfy the condition:

2 \pi r = n\lambda

where r is the orbital radius, and n is an integer greater than or equal to one.

From that formula, it is very easy to derive the quantisation of angular momentum:

L = mvr = n \hbar

Try it yourself. It only takes a couple of lines of working.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top