Will Bohr's model of the atom become a mythology or folk law in the future?

P

purplepeace59

New member
Advances of science in Quantum physics strongly suggest, actually prove, this model of the atom is inaccurate. Even when thinking about the model the orbiting electrons are particles of matter with no density or mass!! which means they don't occupy any space!!?? which is an impossibility for physical matter.

This question does belong in R & S because so many claim religions are nothing more than mythology or folklore. My point is that if in the future we may think of Bohr's model as a mythology or folk law. That doesn't invalidate the existence of the atom. Have you ever wondered where the idea for this model came from. It looks suspiciously like the model of the solar system but with overtones of the creation myth, think about it. And for those that say there was evidence, obviously since this model has proved inaccurate the apparent evidence was not so much evidence as speculation.
 
It is the best comprehensive explanation we currently have.

Until Albert E, Newtonian gravitational theory was the best explanation. It is still currently taught, because it is an adequate model for non-complex applications, even though WE now KNOW Newton was wrong.

Furthermore this belongs in Science and or Education, not Religion.
 
It was reliable enough to produce falsifiable predictions which came true.

Even if it becomes outdated, it's still a better model that the previous one.
 
Electrons have mass.....what are you talking about? Bohr's model isn't totally accurate. Electrons act like waves at times, and that is hardly new news. It's impossible to know the position, velocity, and mass of an electron all at one time because the observation of one changes the others. But it has all three.

Also...it isn't impossible for matter to have zero volume. That's the definition of a singularity. They are reasonably common.

See...the difference here is we have evidence for an atom. You still have none at all there is a god. But keep making excuses.
 
Try examining the Holographic Principle (based on Black hole entropy and String Theory)...then you will see that this idea of "3D space" is totally incorrect, in fact you will gain an appreciation for the Buddhist and Hindu conceptions of reality.

(Black holes contain massive amounts of mass/matter in an infinitely small "point"...the only way to calculate this is via the surface are of the event horizon, hence this idea of matter "taking up space" is rather incorrect for the same applies to an object while it is collapsing into a black hole and indeed can apply to an object that has not collapsed)

Edit: Wft, thumbs down? Go and educate yourself a little.
 
Electrons are not massless. They have negligible mass.

You don't know what you're talking about. It's evident you have no clue about the history of physics. Yeah, Bohr's model originally didn't take into account things such as Heisenberg Uncertainty, but the model still works. It MODELS reality very well and you haven't provided any evidence that the model FAILS at describing some facet of reality.
 
I think I get your point (and it's a important yet subtle one)

science AND religions (usually) provide explanations for why things are as they observed to do. Both "approaches" have dogma about what constitutes proof (in itself dogma is neutral rather than bad or good). Other than issues of what constitutes proof there little difference, both are beliefs about how the world works. Because of Descartes etc proof is limited to that assigned by a person, rather than being absolute. Ultimately what is important is if the individual finds a particular explanation useful.

As people still the Bohr model useful I can see how people of the future might well do. As it can be shown to have flaws/there are better models it can be shown to be at least partially untrue. I'd argue that superstition isn't really to do with believing things to be true when they aren't(I believe superstition is not matching results with actions, which is slightly different), but it's a model many have/will continue to As such there will be people who will treat the Bohr's model's as superstition


---
Animist/systems theorist who thinks it's all so much EASIER to quantify AND qualify things if EVERYTHING is treated as having some degree of sentience, and entities exist within systems of symbiotic (and antagonistic) entities
 
There is every good chance of that happening, after all the people most likely to perpetuate the myth (because it's "science based") are nowhere near as intelligent as they claim.
They too cling to straws in their attempt to sustain their (lack of) belief system.
Truth is often a casualty when fundamentalist ideals are the order of the day.
 
Bohr's model of an atom was the second atomic model after Rutherford's. It is already viewed as an inaccurate and incomplete theory. Actually it was Rutherford who compared electrons to planets and nucleus to sun. Now science is relying on theories on quantum physics to explain atomic model. Still Bohr's model introduced concepts like energy levels for electrons which make sense even in quantum perceptive. It is already been discarded. But it will still be an important theory for science students who wants to study the development of atomic model.
 
There are ways of interpreting and getting around the fact electrons seem to take up 'no space'.
alternative ideas on what space means gets around that they seem to take up no space.
photons have no mass - they are sometimes known as luxons, as they travel AT the speed of light
according to Einstein's equation
E= mc²/√(1-(v²/c²))
travelling with a velocity such that v=c
you have a denominator of zero - undefined, or infinite energy. THAT is impossible
 
Well, I was taught that the Bohr model was inaccurate back in grade school, but that it was the best way to wrap your brain around the abstract concept of an atom, since we would never see the real thing, anyway. It remains a good way to teach the concept. So, it is already generally known to not be accurate.
 
@STAINLESS "Last time I saw a model of the Solar system all of the planets were on the same plane, and not orbiting at different angles"

Except for that damned pluto...There's always that one guy in every crowd... ;-)

@RELATIVISTIC "Until Albert E, Newtonian gravitational theory was the best explanation. It is still currently taught, because it is an adequate model for non-complex applications, even though WE now KNOW Newton was wrong"

And, it appears, even einstein didn't get ALL the bases covered. The voyager satellites aren't where they're supposed to be. ;-)

But the beauty of science is that we can SEE where the problems are, and we KNOW they are problems. And we attack these problems with great gusto until they give up their secrets.

Contrast this with the religious method of claiming perfection, and attacking the observers of problems with great gusto, accusing them of not understanding the perfection.
 
If you can predict the future that the bohr's model will either be mythology or folklore then why the heck are you even posting this up?

Its strange because if quantum physics have proven that the bohr's model is innacurate, i still wonder as to why many countries educate this model to students.

So i guess it hasnt been proven yet that the bohr model is inaccurate.
 
No, it will be seen as one model which was improved as more data came in.
It was a model. The whole point of models is that they are simplifications of reality. I've just been reading a book from the 50's, in which it was freely admitted that the atom was not really like that at all, but that it was useful to think of it as so.
As an astronomer, I often use a geocentric frame of reference even though the solar system doesn't really work like that, it is just a useful model.
Science is self-correcting, unlike religion.
 
Back
Top