Theories in physics that seemed to work but were wrong?

  • #1
170
12
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?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #4
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2021 Award
28,061
12,606
Caloric.
Luminiferous ether.
Newtonian mechanics.
 
  • #5
fresh_42
Mentor
Insights Author
2021 Award
16,459
15,541
Ptolemy's planetary system.
Atomic models of Rutherford, Bohr.
 
  • #6
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
27,205
5,913
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 It's not even out of date for most practical purposes.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.
 
  • #7
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2021 Award
28,061
12,606
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.
 
  • #8
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
27,205
5,913
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.
 
  • #9
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2021 Award
28,061
12,606
I dunno about "complete rubbish". Sadi Carnot developed the Carnot cycle using it.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur and nasu
  • #10
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
27,205
5,913
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.
 
  • #11
29
11
The phlogiston theory.
 

Related Threads on Theories in physics that seemed to work but were wrong?

Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Top