1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Theories in physics that seemed to work but were wrong?

  1. Aug 11, 2018 #1
    I'm trying to (re-)collect the physical theories that once were considered as a correct description of reality and worked to a certain degree, but were subsequently dismissed. I would say that the geocentric epicycle theory of Ptolemy could be considered an example. It correctly describes the path planets trace on the sky, but is obviously wrong since heliocentrism is true. Another example could be Bohr's atomic model. It furnishes the energy levels of the hydrogen atom. Later Sommerfeld extended it to electron elliptic orbits and was able to obtain further fine spectral lines of the H atom. And yet this model is no more than a historical curiosity. I suspect that there are many other examples of theories that seemed to 'save the appearances' but didn't work out. Can you tell of others?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 11, 2018 #2

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    The Caloric theory.

    Zz.
     
  4. Aug 11, 2018 #3

    anorlunda

    Staff: Mentor

  5. Aug 11, 2018 #4

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    Caloric.
    Luminiferous ether.
    Newtonian mechanics.
     
  6. Aug 11, 2018 #5

    fresh_42

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Ptolemy's planetary system.
    Atomic models of Rutherford, Bohr.
     
  7. Aug 11, 2018 #6

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    Why choose Newtonian Mechanics for the list? It's not even out of date for most practical purposes. In no way is it in the same category as Caloric.
     
  8. Aug 11, 2018 #7

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    I think that's a fair description of what he asked for. Newtonian Mechanics works well in its domain, but fails spectacularly outside it - e.g. an electron in an atom.
     
  9. Aug 11, 2018 #8

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    Oh yes - but caloric was complete rubbish even when it was current. Caloric even makes fifteen year old GCSE students giggle.
     
  10. Aug 11, 2018 #9

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    I dunno about "complete rubbish". Sadi Carnot developed the Carnot cycle using it.
     
  11. Aug 12, 2018 at 3:58 AM #10

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    Perhaps I have interpreted the terms of the OP in the wrong way. Hindsight can be 100% accurate so perhaps that's where I'm wrong in applying it.
    The Maths of a phenomenon can be arrived at by good or not so good models. Carnot spotted some variables that were future proof but his analogue / model of a 'substance' , although forgivable, was seriously adrift.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted