Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #679552
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Why the Bohr model failed |
| Date | 2018-04-02 10:52 +0000 |
| Organization | The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989 |
| Message-ID | <p9t21d$4f7$4@pcls7.std.com> (permalink) |
| References | <fe87efc7-432a-4854-b2fd-8f4e99aee19c@googlegroups.com> <p9oh7v$ij9$1@pcls7.std.com> <p9oirg$858$1@dont-email.me> |
>Dne 31/03/2018 v 19:41 Michael Moroney napsal(a): >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and >>> an atom is three dimensional. >> >> No, John, the Bohr Model is a failure because an electron going round and >> round like a planet in its orbit would radiate its energy away, and crash >> into the nucleus. >Are you sure you are not confusing it >with Rutheford's planetary model ? No. Both the Rutheford and Bohr model show the electrons in circular orbits around the nucleus. Rutheford's model is shown as the classic "atom" from Atomic whatever logos. Bohr shows concentric circular orbits and emphasizes the jumps of energy between them. Both have the same fault - circular orbits. John's precessing spinny thing also has a similar fault in a worse way: trace the path of the electron as it gets all retarded and precesses, you get a squiggly curve with even more acceleration, and therefore even more radiation.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why the Bohr model failed john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 08:37 -0700
Re: Why the Bohr model failed moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-31 17:41 +0000
Re: Why the Bohr model failed Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-31 20:08 +0200
Re: Why the Bohr model failed moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-02 10:52 +0000
Re: Why the Bohr model failed Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-04-02 14:28 +0200
Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-02 09:05 -0700
Re: Why the Bohr model failed Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-04-02 18:27 +0200
Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-02 10:25 -0700
Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-03 10:21 -0700
Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-02 06:21 -0700
Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-02 09:02 -0700
Re: Why the Bohr model failed Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-03-31 14:32 -0700
Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-31 19:57 -0700
Re: Why the Bohr model failed Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-04-01 13:53 -0700
Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-01 22:58 -0700
Re: Why the Bohr model failed Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 20:36 +0100
Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 17:51 -0700
Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 23:32 -0700
Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 23:23 -0700
csiph-web