RE: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

Let us not forget that the ground state is n=0 and not n=1 as in the Bohr model. The most we get now of the Bohr model is the early history of quantum mechanics and a simple picture in an area of physics were pictures are actually not truly applicable.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of George Murphy
Sent: Wed 7/4/2007 10:01 PM
To: Randy Isaac; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

The Bohr model was just that, a model, not a full-fledged theory. Even with the advent of the Wilson-Sommerfeld quantization rules, the "old quantum theory" still contained a number of ad hoc rules. E.g., there was no justification for the statement that accelerated charges in certain orbits wouldn't radiate. & there wasn't much success in getting good quantitative results for atoms more complex than helium. For these & other reasons the old quantum theory can't really be seen as an established paradigm. & only a bit more than a decade passed between the publication of Bohr's model (1913) & the publication & wide acceptance of the theories of Heisenberg, Schroedinger & Dirac (1925-27) so there wasn't really time for it to become the common sense of the scientific community.
 
It's amusing, BTW, that Thomas Barnes' (of decaying earth's magnetic field fame) 1983 book The Physics of the Future flailed away at the Bohr theory for the wrong reasons, apparently under the impression that it was modern quantum mechanics.
 
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net <mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net> >
To: <asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> >
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

> Good ones, Jim. That's the kind of examples I was looking for.
>
> The "pre-Einstein physics" example is too general to get my teeth into.
> George already mentioned that much of such physics wasn't invalidated but
> shown to be of limited scope.
>
> I'm interesting in the Bohr model example. That's a good one. For the
> historians here: to what extent was the Bohr model a community-wide
> consensus with data verification that distinguished it from all other
> models? How soon was it shown to be inaccurate? Note that the Bohr model is
> still taught, partially because it's such a good illustration of the atom
> that people can comprehend it and partially because the nature of its error
> is very educational.
>
> I'm not familiar with early cell models. Which ones were validated by data
> and then shown to be wrong (as opposed to incomplete)?
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Mahaffy" <Mahaffy@dordt.edu <mailto:Mahaffy@dordt.edu> >
> To: <asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> >
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 5:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?
>
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu <mailto:mahaffy@dordt.edu> ) Phone: 712 722-6279
>> 498 4th Ave NE
>> Biology Department FAX : 712 722-1198
>> Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697
>>
>>>>> On 7/3/2007 at 12:43 PM, in message
>> <20070703174520.64828711495@gray.dordt.edu <mailto:20070703174520.64828711495@gray.dordt.edu> >, "Randy Isaac"
>> <randyisaac@comcast.net <mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net> > wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> By the way, in my talk I ended up claiming that, as far as I could tell,
>>> there has been no case where a scientific theory which has been validated
>>> by
>>>
>>> data from many independent sources and which is accepted as consensus by
>>> the
>>>
>>> mainstream community, has been later invalidated. I'd love to hear of any
>>> examples that any of you might think of.
>>
>>
>> I haven't been following this thread closely but I think Kuhn just rolled
>> over in his grave.
>>
>> He would claim that there was lot of evidence for pre Einstein physics
>> and in fact some of those models still work.
>>
>> In chemistry biologist still use the Bohr mode because it explains some
>> concepts easier than drawing clouds of electrons etc.
>>
>> The early models of the cell assuming the protein was denatured fit with a
>> lot of the evidence.
>>
>> Some of the early inheritance models (pre-Cell theory fit a lot of the
>> evidence).
>>
>> That does not mean that some of these were not poor or wrong models but
>> they did fit with a lot of the evidence of the day.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [snip again]
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 4 22:22:27 2007