swans on tea

Just another SFN Blogs site
  • Home
  • A very little about me
  • Sample Page

The Bohring Part of Physics is Wrong

Published by swansont on November 28, 2011 03:00 am under Education, Physics, Video

Atomic Rant

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Overall I agree — there are a lot of people who seem to remember the Bohr atom but not that it’s wrong. Unfortunately, some of them seem to want to build their own personal physics theories on it. I understand the motivation to teach it — there is an historical context, and it’s an opportunity to dip one’s toe into some quantum theory rather than jumping into the deep end.

One nit, though. Even thinking of electrons as “buzzing around the nucleus” still implies a trajectory and motion, and you get into trouble trying to reconcile those classical notions with angular momentum, which is one of the failures of the Bohr model: the S orbital has no orbital angular momentum.

I do like the orbital ballon animals, but I don’t recommend a science clown doing them for kids’ parties.

6 Comments so far

  1. Appolinaria on November 28th, 2011

    Let’s start with the SFN logo.

  2. Schrödinger's hat on November 28th, 2011

    This frustrated me to no end in high-school. The prescribed text did not even mention anything other than the Bohr model.

    Your point about the S orbital is a good one as well, and I think it boils down to there being nothing in our every day experience like a wavefunction.

    A wavefunction isn’t like anything but a wavefunction, and I think far too many explanations of quantum phenomena spend too long trying to equate or compare it to various classical objects.
    Sure the analogies can be a useful tool for describing some of its properties, but the student/reader should at least be informed that it is an entirely new concept that they are going to have to build a mental model of.

  3. Uncle Al on November 28th, 2011

    Lisa Randall PowerPointed at Caltech 10 October 2011, Baxter Lecture Hall, hawking her new book. An early slide featured “lithium-5” and a trefoil of orbits of its three electrons (illustrating scale hierarchy, atoms down to quarks). Q&A afterward, Uncle Al politely informed Dr. Randall that Li-5 does not exist, and electrons don’t do that. Has anyboy seen a later presentation? 40 years of physical theory since Suskind got stuck in an elevator with Gell-Mann have zero empirical validation.

    LCAO treatment of atomic electrons and atomic bonding is silly. LCAO is your only hope to pass first term organic chemistry. Nobody in the art looks at molecules and synthesis any other way until subtleties like boranes, the Woodard-Hoffmann rules, or isolobar this and that intrude. MO theory is useful if you have a rack of CPUs at your disposal.

    Elegant earns accolades, useful earns income. Only one buys lunch.

  4. Xittenn on November 29th, 2011

    For me the use of orbitals was not important in demonstrating an electrons potential for motion. I think that the Bohr Model made it clear to me that electrons are standing waves around the nucleus and whose development must be treated as such. I always thought of orbiting as simply a visualization that was inaccurate, but demonstrated the concepts. I mean how do you visualize a cloud of constituent matter popping in and out of existence(or place best description here) as a standing wave?

    I was taught that the Bohr model concept of orbiting was false in high school. But no one told me that electrons manifested within their probability density clouds as standing waves and this was the important part. Reading about the Bohr model more recently I felt privy to seeing the cross over from Physical Chemistry’s to Particle Physics and most of the insight I had gained was from my review of the Bohr model.

  5. dragonstar57 on November 29th, 2011

    someday a physicist is going to say something like “lets try to dumb this down without a inaccurate model but still correctly explain the concept”
    and physics will make sense once again. 🙂

  6. Rachel on December 1st, 2011

    So what were the pictures he showed from the textbook “that physicists use”? I thought that physicists used the s,p,d,f balloon shapes just like chemists do.

Posting your comment.

  • Recent Posts

    • When Does the Decade End?
    • This is the Hardest Job a Manager Has …
    • 5 Things You Should Know About Light
    • See Spot "Run"
    • The System Works
  • Recent Comments

    • Joey Cook on One Ringy-Dingy, Two Ringy-Dingy
    • Science Fanatic on Talk Like a Physicist Day
    • Chris Gould on Brian Cox is Full of **it
    • LaurieAG on Inmates Running the Asylum
    • Uncle Al on Curious About Curies
  • Archives

    • December 2019
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
  • Categories

    • admin
    • Antiscience
    • Art
    • Blog Compendia
    • Blogging
    • Body
    • Books
    • Bureaucracy
    • Business
    • Cartoon
    • Conference stories
    • Cool stuff
    • DIY science
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Experiments
    • Food
    • Game
    • Geocaching
    • History
    • Humor
    • Illusions
    • Journalism
    • Lab Stories
    • Language
    • Links
    • Math
    • Metaphysics
    • Misc
    • Movies
    • Music
    • Navy
    • Not Really Science at All
    • Other science
    • peeve
    • photography
    • Photos
    • Physics
    • Politics
    • Quotes
    • Rants
    • Religion
    • Satire
    • Sci-Fi
    • Science-general
    • science-y observation
    • Security
    • Shameless self promotion
    • Sick sick sick
    • Silly
    • Sports
    • Tech
    • The Lab
    • Thermal IR
    • Time
    • TMI
    • Toys
    • trivia
    • TV
    • TYAGFITI
    • Typography
    • Uncategorized
    • Video
    • Weird
    • World Events
    • Writing
  • Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2021 swans on tea
WordPress Theme based on Light Theme