One Hundred Years of Bohr Model
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GENERAL ARTICLE One Hundred Years of Bohr Model Avinash Khare In this article I shall present a brief review of the hundred-year young Bohr model of the atom. In particular, I will ¯rst introduce the Thomson and the Rutherford models of atoms, their shortcom- ings and then discuss in some detail the develop- ment of the atomic model by Niels Bohr. Fur- ther, I will mention its re¯nements at the hand of Sommerfeld and also its shortcomings. Finally, I Avinash Khare is Raja will discuss the implication of this model in the Ramanna Fellow at IISER, Pune. His current interests development of quantum mechanics. are in the areas of low The `Bohr atom' has just completed one hundred years dimensional field theory, nonlinear dynamics and and it is worth recalling how it emerged, its salient fea- supersymmetric quantum tures, its shortcomings as well as the role it played in mechanics. Besides, he is the development of quantum mechanics. passionate about teaching an well as popularizing Thomson Model of Atoms science at school and college level. Till 1896, the popular view was that the atom was the basic constituent of matter. The ¯rst important clue regarding the internal structure of atoms came with the discovery of spontaneous radiation, ¯rst identi¯ed by Becquerel in 1896. The very existence of atomic radia- tion strongly suggested that atoms were not indivisible. With the discovery of the electron in 1897, J J Thomson was convinced that electrons must be fundamental con- stituents of matter and this led to his corpuscular theory of matter. This model was popularly known as `Plum Pudding Model'. In this model, the positive charge of the atom was assumed to be spread throughout the atom forming a kind of pudding in which negatively charged Keywords electrons were suspended like plums. Thomson showed Plum pudding model, Rutherford atom, Balmer series, Rydberg that his model had an amazing explanatory power for formula, star Puppis, charac- the observed periodicity in the elements. Thomson later teristic X-rays, Bohr–Sommerfeld applied a modi¯ed version of this model to a variety of approach. RESONANCE October 2013 885 GENERAL ARTICLE phenomena such as dispersion of light by dilute gases and developed methods for estimating the actual num- ber of electrons in an atom. By 1910, experiments had con¯rmed many of its predictions for the absorption and scattering of electrons in matter. However, this model was not suitable for predicting spectral lines which had already been seen by spectroscopists. Figure 1. Thomson’s model Rutherford Model of Atoms of atom. In this ‘plum pud- ding’ model of atom devel- Rutherford wanted to test this Thomson picture of the oped byThomson and Kelvin atom. On his advice, Geiger and Marsden carried out in 1094, the electrons(plums) a series of experiments. Using their data, Rutherford are embedded in a sphere of in 1911 provided conclusive proof of the inadequacy of uniform positive charge (pud- the Thomson model. In these experiments, a collimated ding). 4 beam of alpha particles (i.e., He2 nucleus) from a ra- dium source strike a thin gold foil. To their surprise, they found that few alpha particles were even scattered at large angles. This would not be expected if the alpha particle had hit a much lighter particle like the elec- tron. Rutherford argued that these experiments clearly showed that instead of being spread throughout the atom, the positive charge is in fact concentrated in a very small region at the center of the atom. This was one of the most important developments in atomic physics and was Figure 2. Rutherford’smodel the foundation of the subject of Nuclear Physics. We go of atom. In this model, the through the Rutherford argument here. atom consisted of a positively charged nucleus surrounded Let us suppose that a particle of mass M and velocity by negatively charged elec- v, hits a particle of mass m which is at rest. After the trons. collision, let us suppose that the particle of mass M continues along the same line with velocity v0, giving the target particle (with mass m) a velocity u (note, we are using the notation in which positive velocity is in the same direction as the incident particle of mass M, while a negative velocity will be in the opposite direction). Then the energy and momentum conservation equations are 1 2 1 2 2 Mv = mu + Mv0 ; Mv = (Mv0 + mu ) : (1) 2 2 886 RESONANCE October 2013 GENERAL ARTICLE On eliminating u, we have a quadratic equation for v0 in terms of v 2 2 2 m(v v0 ) = M(v v0) ; (2) ¡ ¡ which has two solutions: either v0 = v or m M v0 = v ¡ : (3) ¡ µm + M ¶ The ¯rst solution v0 = v; u = 0 is a trivial solution. The interesting solution is the second one given by (3). It says that v0 can be negative (i.e., scattered particle recoils backwards) only if m > M (similarly, somewhat weaker limits on m can be inferred from scattering at any large angle). Thus it was clear to Rutherford that the experimental results of Geiger and Marsden could not be explained in terms of multiple encounters with a positively charged sphere of atomic dimensions, as was Thomson's view. The fact that a few alpha particles were observed to be scattered at large angles clearly showed that the alpha particles must be hitting something in the gold atom which is much heavier than the electron. As Rutherford later explained, \it was quite the most incredible event that has ever happened to me in my life. It was almost as incredible as if you ¯red a 15-inch shell at a piece of paper, and it comes back and hits you". Hence, Ruther- Rutherford ford concluded that the positive charge of the atom is concluded that the concentrated in a small heavy nucleus at the center of positive charge of the atom, around which the much lighter, negatively atom is concen- charged electrons circulate in orbits, like planets around trated in a small the sun. This is why the Rutherford nuclear model is heavy nucleus at often referred to as the planetary model of the atom. the centre of the This model, despite being successful, had one major atom, around which problem. It predicted that even light atoms like hy- the much lighter, drogen were unstable. The point was, according to the negatively charged classical electromagnetic theory, an electron revolving electrons circulate around a nucleus will radiate electromagnetic waves and in orbits. RESONANCE October 2013 887 GENERAL ARTICLE hence will deplete the electron's energy and it will even- tually spiral inwards towards the nucleus. Thus an atom would rapidly collapse to nuclear dimensions (the col- 12 lapse time can be computed to be of order 10¡ sec!). Further, the continuous spectrum of the radiation that would be emitted in this process was not in agreement with the observed line spectrum. Bohr Model In the autumn of 1911, Bohr went to England for his post-doctoral research. He had already done interest- ing work on the electron theory of metals during his PhD thesis { it was so advanced that no one in Den- mark could evaluate it fully. Bohr ¯rst went to Cam- bridge University and worked for about a year with J J Thomson before being invited by Rutherford to work with him at University of Manchester. Using the data from the absorption of alpha-rays, and using Ruther- ford's model, Bohr showed that the hydrogen atom has only one electron outside the positively charged nucleus while the helium atom has two electrons outside the pos- itively charged nucleus. It is worth noting here that till 1912, physicists were not sure about the number of elec- trons in the helium atom or even in the hydrogen atom. All this time, the problem which was really troubling Bohr was, however, the stability of the Rutherford atom and ¯nally he came up with a simple model of atomic structure. A key feature of this very successful model, proposed by Bohr in 1913, was the prediction of the line spectrum of radiation by atoms. So we shall digress here and describe what was known experimentally about A key feature of the atomic spectra at that time. Bohr model was the By 1900, the amount of information available about prediction of the atomic spectra was enormous. Spectroscopists had no- experimentally ticed that an atom can only absorb certain energies of observed line light (the absorption spectra) and once excited can only spectrum by atoms. release certain energies (the emission spectra), and these 888 RESONANCE October 2013 GENERAL ARTICLE energies happen to be the same. Further, the spectra coming from di®erent atoms showed that each atom has its own characteristic spectrum, i.e., a characteristic set of wavelengths at which the lines of the spectrum are found. Amongst all the atoms, the spectrum of hy- drogen is relatively simple. Since most of the universe consists of isolated hydrogen atoms, the hydrogen atom spectrum is of considerable importance. It was found that the hydrogen atom spectrum had a great regular- ity. This tempted several people to look for an empirical formula which would represent the wavelengths of the lines. Such a formula was discovered by Balmer, a Swiss school teacher, in 1885. He found the simple relation n2 ¸ = 3646 ; n = 3; 4; 5; ::: ; (4) n2 4 ¡ where ¸ is the wavelength. Using this formula, he was able to predict the wavelengths of the ¯rst nine lines of the series to better than one part in 1000. This discov- ery initiated a search for similar empirical formulas that would apply to other series.