Why do we use Bohr's model of the atom in electrostatics?

[Magnetons]

Why we use Bohr's model of atom in electrostatic?

 

[kuruman]

Can you explain your question a little bit more and what you have in mind? Can you offer an example where Bohr's model is used in electrostatic?

 

[Delta2]

Because in electrostatics we don't have to worry about electromagnetic radiation, cause that's where Bohr's model fails. The electron (because it does circular orbit hence it has centripetal acceleration) would radiate energy (as all charges that have acceleration do), hence it would start losing energy and fall into the nucleus.

 

[DrStupid]

Because in electrostatics we don't have to worry about electromagnetic radiation, cause that's where Bohr's model fails.

Bohr's model also fails in regard to the orbital magnetic moment. However, this is also not relevant in electrostatics.

 

[Magnetons]

Can you explain your question a little bit more and what you have in mind? Can you offer an example where Bohr's model is used in electrostatic?

We

Can you explain your question a little bit more and what you have in mind? Can you offer an example where Bohr's model is used in electrostatic?

Can you explain your question a little bit more and what you have in mind? Can you offer an example where Bohr's model is used in electrostatic?

I mean we consider k,l,m... Shells where electron is present according to Bohr. Why?

 

[DrStupid]

I mean we consider k,l,m... Shells where electron is present according to Bohr. Why?

Who is "we"? I don't do that. If I talk about shells than I mean orbitals with the same principal quantum number.

 

[kuruman]

If you are asking why the energy levels are quantized, @Delta2 gave you an answer by considering what would happen if they were not: the electron would spiral into the nucleus which would mean that the hydrogen atom is unstable.

Is this answer to your “why” satisfactory?

 

[Nugatory]

I mean we consider k,l,m... Shells where electron is present according to Bohr. Why?

That’s not Bohr’s model, it’s what we get when we solve Schrödinger’s equation for electrons bound electrons.

 

[DrStupid]

That’s not Bohr’s model

How do you see that? Yes, it’s what we get when we solve Schrödinger’s equation. But it is also consistent with Bohr’s model. Do I miss something?

 

[vanhees71]

Who uses the Bohr model of the atom? I only know it from high school, where it was reluctantly taught by our physics teacher, because she had to, because it was mandatory in the curriculum. Directly after that she taught us the Schrödinger equation...

There is some hope that it gets abandoned from the curricula of our high schools, because the didactics community (at least in Germany) has finally come to the conclusion how bad it is to still teach this model. It only works for the hydrogen atom, because of the large symmetry of that system. It provides a wrong qualitative picture of the hydrogen atom, which is not a little disk but a sphere (in its ground state). It is also intrinsically inconsistent, because an accelerated charge radiates, and a model where you ad hoc state it doesn't radiate, if it is on certain orbits is not a solution of this contradiction.

All this is solved by modern quantum theory, which was discovered independently in three versions by Born, Jordan, and Heisenberg (matrix mechanics) in 1925, by Schrödinger (wave mechanics) 1926, and Dirac (algebraic approach called "transformation theory" at this time) in 1926. It does not only resolve the intrinsic inconsistencies of the old quantum theory (among them wave-particle dualism) but also quantitatively describes all known phenomena correctly.