Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Valid reason to reject the Bohr model?

  1. Mar 31, 2013 #1
    The Bohr model has been superseded by the Schrodinger model.

    The Bohr model involves electrons orbiting around a nucleus. I was thinking, it might be possible for the electrons to be knocked out of their stable orbits into some chaotic configuration.

    Is this a valid reason to reject the Bohr model?
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 1, 2013 #2
    The Bohr model fails to describe the absorption/emission spectra of atoms that are more complex than hydrogen (i.e. the energy levels). Further, there's the so-called fine structure (splittings of spectral lines) which is due to the spin of electrons, which the Bohr model did not account for. See also failures of the Bohr Model.

    The Pauli exclusion principle is also a very important concept which determines how the electrons are arranged. This was formulated more than ten years after the Bohr model.
  4. Apr 1, 2013 #3
    I know, but what about the reason I mentioned in the OP?
  5. Apr 1, 2013 #4
    I see only a loosely stated hypothesis; I see no model presented that can be matched with actual experiments. Further, the Uncertainty Principle complicates the matter; therefore I abstain from commenting on such a hypothesis.

    I stated (some of) the valid reasons to reject the Bohr model according to mainstream physics. I can't do more without starting to speculate, which I do not want to do :smile:.
  6. Apr 1, 2013 #5

    It's alright if you don't wanna speculate.

    I was thinking, if all the atoms got jumbled up, everyday solid matter as we knew it would no longer be "stable".
  7. Apr 1, 2013 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Leaving aside exactly how you would do what you suggest the reason for matters stability and solidity is the Pauli Exclusion Principle which follows from the fact electrons are Fermion's = jumbling stuff up will not change that.

  8. Apr 1, 2013 #7
    But chemical bonds and all that will be affected.

    I agree with Dennis, this question is highly speculative.
  9. Apr 6, 2013 #8
    Is pauli repulsion a type of force?
  10. Apr 6, 2013 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Not per-se. It means two fermions cannot occupy the same state - if you try then it will be resisted which can manifest itself as a force. In fact its what's responsible for the solidity of matter - if you push solid objects together them their electrons would try to intermingle and occupy the same state which Fermions cant do - so a force arises to stop you. The math is a bit hairy and was first worked out in a bit of a mathematical tour-de-force by Dyson:
    http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/1995/148-16/14816-15.pdf [Broken]

    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  11. Apr 6, 2013 #10

    So the fact that two fermions cannot occupy the same state, and that two Fermis cannot occupy the same seat, are one and the same? :smile:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Valid reason to reject the Bohr model?
  1. Bohr model (Replies: 1)

  2. Bohr Model (Replies: 11)

  3. Reason of rejection (Replies: 2)

  4. Bohr's model (Replies: 3)

  5. Bohr model (Replies: 3)