B Theories in physics that seemed to work but were wrong? (1 Viewer)

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

122
6
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?
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
34,612
3,538
The Caloric theory.

Zz.
 

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
22,376
4,704
Caloric.
Luminiferous ether.
Newtonian mechanics.
 

fresh_42

Mentor
Insights Author
2018 Award
9,017
6,292
Ptolemy's planetary system.
Atomic models of Rutherford, Bohr.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,490
3,440
Caloric.
Luminiferous ether.
Newtonian mechanics.
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 It's not even out of date for most practical purposes.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.
 

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
22,376
4,704
Why choose Newtonian Mechanics for the list?
once were considered as a correct description of reality and worked to a certain degree
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.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,490
3,440
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.
Oh yes - but caloric was complete rubbish even when it was current. Caloric even makes fifteen year old GCSE students giggle.
 

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
22,376
4,704
I dunno about "complete rubbish". Sadi Carnot developed the Carnot cycle using it.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,490
3,440
I dunno about "complete rubbish". Sadi Carnot developed the Carnot cycle using it.
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.
 
The phlogiston theory.
 

The Physics Forums Way

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top