[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 128 KB, 1404x824, fea.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9805820 No.9805820 [Reply] [Original]

Why are they still teaching Bohrs model in highschool? This is probably the worst disinformation teached on a massive scale in lower education

>> No.9805829

>>9805820
Cause chemistry is a series of progressively more complicated lies and you need to start somewhere. Being able to understand the quantized nature of electron energy levels and how they depend on the type of atom is important for building up to the more complicated concepts.

It's like getting mad at a teacher for teach Newtonian mechanics

>> No.9805830

>>9805820
probably because it captures the qualitative features of the atom that are relevant at the level of a highschool chemistry/physics class.

"However, because of its simplicity, and its correct results for selected systems (see below for application), the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics or energy level diagrams before moving on to the more accurate, but more complex, valence shell atom"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

>> No.9805847

>>9805820
same reason why the hard shell model of the atom is still taught. its useful and helps explain certain concepts.

>> No.9805964

>>9805820
>"Now, class, before we can really start mixing the stuff in these vials and seeing what happens, let me give you a quick introduction to commutator algebra and Hilbert spaces. No, this won't be on the test, but anon on an anonymous imageboard thinks we can't have simplified models"

>> No.9805979

>>9805820
Very much like Newtonian mechanics, we know it's flawed, but still good enough for either pedagogical or practical applications.

>> No.9807239

While we're at it, we should start teaching 6 year olds quantum field theory. I mean, why bother simplifications right?

>> No.9808766

>>9805829
It's nothing like the use of Newtonian mechanics because for all intents and purposes, Newtonian mechanics is a correct model to use in order to describe motion and energy in the universe on a macroscopic level.
The Bohr model is strictly incorrect because it is a gross simplification of a system on the same scale of quantum mechanics. It is however a good starting point for introducing the idea of electrons existing in certain regions of an atom and that they do more or less have some orbital pattern.

>> No.9808768

>>9808766
>on a macroscopic level
But that's where newtonian mechanics fails the worst.

>> No.9809039

>muh rutherford-chadwick
>muh sommerfeld
fuck off bohr is based

>> No.9810079

>>9805820
because you dont do shit with chemistry in high school that requires a deeper grasp of AOs and MOs. not even close. Its an easy way to describe how electrons fill orbitals and shells.

The picture you have in the OP is more accurate. Actual chemists readily refer tothis model when describing orbital overlap in a molecule.

>> No.9810106

>>9808766
>macroscopic level
Tell that to relativity, my dude

The Bohr model is a useful approximation that provides new insight into the problem. It's not "strictly incorrect" in any way that classical mechancis is not, or that even QM is not. Pedagogically, historical context and development is also worth learning.

Physicists (in real real real research contexts) use toy models and approximations all the time. Google "Effective Field Theory." Problems in QCD are often intractable, so theorists limit the theory to some useful (perturbatively) calculable domain and pack the rest away in some fudge factor. Even the Standard Model is presumably a low energy limit of some better model like SUSY

>> No.9810375

>>9805820
>This is probably the worst disinformation teached on a massive scale in lower education
Oh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8ZrxGaY-lA&t=31m33s