DOCSLIB.ORG

Historical Perspectives on Atomic Structure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Historical Perspectives on Atomic Structure Discovering the Atom (Chapters 4 and 5) Dr. Walker Objectives • Understand how experiments shaped our understanding of the modern atom: – Subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) – Models of the atom (solid sphere, planetary, quantum) • Know scientists who contributed to atomic theory – Democritus – Dalton – Thomson – Rutherford – Bohr Chemistry Over Time… • Our understanding of the atom is based on experimental evidence, not conjecture • Our understanding of the atom has changed over time based upon new evidence, and may continue to change • All science is subject to peer review and repetition of experiments --- science deals with what can be proven!! Democritus (460-370 BC) • Believed there had to be a basic building block of matter which could not be subdivided. – A more famous philosopher, Aristotle, opposed this theory • Called these building blocks “atomos” • Greek for “uncuttable” or “indivisible” John Dalton (1766-1844) • Credit with “atomic theory” • Believed atoms were solid blocks (like a billiard ball) – known as the “solid sphere” model John Dalton • Elements are made of tiny particles called atoms. • The atoms of a given element are different from those of any other element; different elements can be distinguished by their distinct atomic weights. • All atoms of a given element are identical. • Atoms of one element can combine with atoms of other elements to form chemical compounds; a given compound always has the same relative numbers of types of atoms. • In chemical reaction, atoms cannot be created, destroyed, or divided. JJ Thomson (1856-1940) • Performed cathode ray tube experiment, discovering the electron • Pumped most of the air from a glass tube and applied a voltage to two electrodes placed at each end of the tube (1897) • Anode---attached to positive terminal. • Cathode—attached to negative terminal. JJ Thomson • Thomson observed a glowing beam coming out of the cathode, striking the anode and the nearby glass walls of the tube. • Called them cathode rays. • The glass tube used by Thomson is known as a cathode-ray tube (CRT) which is currently used in television sets, computer monitors, and radar displays. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Cathode_ray_tube_-_neutral.svg/782px-Cathode_ray_tube_-_neutral.svg.png JJ Thomson • Because he had pumped most of the air of the tube, the rays must have come from the cathode. • Because the ray came from the negatively charged cathode, the ray must have been negatively charged. • He confirmed his prediction by bending the cathode ray with a magnet. JJ Thomson • He also observed that when he placed a small paddle wheel in the path of the rays, the wheel turned. • Something must’ve been hitting the wheel---this suggested that the rays of the cathode were tiny particles that had mass. • Later experiments with cathodes of different metals showed electrons were present in all atoms. What did this mean? • Atoms are uncharged, electrons have a negative charge. • Scientists realized that there must be particles with a positive charge within the atom to balance the negative charge. • Scientists also found that electrons are much less massive than atoms so other subatomic particles must exist. JJ Thomson’s Atomic Model • Thomson proposed that electrons of the atom were embedded in a positively charged ball-of-matter, which led to the name “plum-pudding model”. http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/images/db/07chemHSq25.gif Robert Millikan • Performed experiments with charged oil drops – Known (oddly enough) as the “Millikan oil drop experiment” • Allowed him to calculate magnitude of charge of an electron – 1.592 × 10−19 Coulombs (unit of charge) Robert Millikan https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:mvoUPDqe@4/Evolution-of-Atomic-Theory#CNX_Chem_02_02_CathodeRay Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937) • Performed experiments (gold foil) disproving the plum pudding model of the atom (1909) • Focused a beam of positively charged particles (“alpha particles”) at a thin gold foil. • The team measured the angles at which the particles deflected after hitting the foil. http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/602/616516/Media_Assets/Chapter02/Text_Images/FG02_05.JPG Ernest Rutherford • However, his team found that most of the particles went straight through the foil. • Others went completely backwards. Rutherford’s model didn’t predict this---- Thomson’s model had solid atoms and all of the atoms would have deflected. • What happened in this experiment? Ernest Rutherford • The mass of this positively charge space, which he called the nucleus, must be larger than the mass of the alpha particle. Otherwise, the particle would have deflected rather than moving backward. • The particles that went through the gold foil did so because most of the volume of the gold atoms were empty space (the electron cloud). Okay… • From Rutherford’s experiments, we know… – The nucleus has most of the mass of an atom – The nucleus is positively charged – The nucleus has protons and something else… – The atom is mostly empty space – The “plum-pudding” model is invalid – So now what does the atom look like??? Rutherford’s Model • Rutherford proposed: – The nucleus is positively charged – Electrons orbit around the nucleus – Known as the “nuclear model” • Rutherford’s model was incomplete. It would later be expanded upon by Niels Bohr Nuclear Model • Notice there are no defined paths for the electrons….yet http://images.slideplayer.com/14/4379724/slides/slide_7.jpg Niels Bohr • Bohr expanded upon this theory by proposing – Electrons travel only in successively larger circular orbits – The outer orbits could hold more electrons than the inner ones, and that these outer orbits determine the atom's chemical properties Planetary Model • If opposite charges attract, what keeps the negatively charged electrons from moving into the positively charged nucleus? The Solution… • Max Planck (1901) found that when matter is heated, it gives off energy at specific wavelengths. • This energy is known as a “quantum” of energy • These specific wavelengths mean that electrons can only exist at specific energy levels, like the rungs of a ladder. • This led Bohr to the planetary model of the atom (1913) Bohr’s Planetary Model http://knowledgepublications.com/doe/images/DOE_Nuclear_Bohr_Model_of_the_Atom.gif https://reich-chemistry.wikispaces.com/file/view/180px-Stylised_Lithium_Atom_svg.png/31529697/180px-Stylised_Lithium_Atom_svg.png The Quantum Model • Bohr was the first to theorize the quantum model in a planetary arrangement – Bohr’s model = PLANETARY MODEL!! • Bohr’s original planetary arrangement didn’t work (due to physics beyond the scope of this class) – His idea only worked for hydrogen – Electrons DO NOT move around the nucleus in fixed circular orbits – Electrons ARE contained in discrete energy levels with distinct differences between them. • You’ve seen these in the electron configuration section. The Quantum Model • Louis de Broglie discovered that electrons act like waves (wave-particle duality) – Matter acts like a particle (solid) AND a wave (radio waves, water) – Frequencies of electrons correspond to the energy levels around the nucleus • Werner Heisenberg is credited with the uncertainty principle – Uncertainty principle – we can’t know EXACTLY where an electron is or how fast it’s moving • Both (along with Erwin Schrodinger) are credited with the discovery of the quantum model of the atom Quantum Model http://js082.k12.sd.us/My_Classes/Physical_Science/atoms/atom-quantum.gif Atomic Models Through Time Thomson model (Plum-Pudding) Rutherford model In the nineteenth century, Thomson described In the early twentieth century, Rutherford the atom as a ball of positive charge containing showed that most of an atom's mass is a number of electrons. concentrated in a small, positively charged region called the nucleus. Bohr model (Planetary) Quantum mechanical model After Rutherford's discovery, Bohr proposed Modern atomic theory described the that electrons travel in definite orbits around electronic structure of the atom as the the nucleus. probability of finding electrons within certain regions of space. Terms to Know • People – Democritus – Dalton – Thomson – Rutherford – Millikan – Planck – Bohr – deBroglie – Heisenberg Terms to Know • Experiments – Terms – Solid sphere model – Cathode ray tube experiment – Plum pudding model – Gold foil experiment – Oil drop experiment – Planetary model – Quantum model – Uncertainty principle .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rutherford's Atomic Model
    CHAPTER 4 Structure of the Atom 4.1 The Atomic Models of Thomson and Rutherford 4.2 Rutherford Scattering 4.3 The Classic Atomic Model 4.4 The Bohr Model of the Hydrogen Atom 4.5 Successes and Failures of the Bohr Model 4.6 Characteristic X-Ray Spectra and Atomic Number 4.7 Atomic Excitation by Electrons 4.1 The Atomic Models of Thomson and Rutherford Pieces of evidence that scientists had in 1900 to indicate that the atom was not a fundamental unit: 1) There seemed to be too many kinds of atoms, each belonging to a distinct chemical element. 2) Atoms and electromagnetic phenomena were intimately related. 3) The problem of valence (원자가). Certain elements combine with some elements but not with others, a characteristic that hinted at an internal atomic structure. 4) The discoveries of radioactivity, of x rays, and of the electron Thomson’s Atomic Model Thomson’s “plum-pudding” model of the atom had the positive charges spread uniformly throughout a sphere the size of the atom with, the newly discovered “negative” electrons embedded in the uniform background. In Thomson’s view, when the atom was heated, the electrons could vibrate about their equilibrium positions, thus producing electromagnetic radiation. Experiments of Geiger and Marsden Under the supervision of Rutherford, Geiger and Marsden conceived a new technique for investigating the structure of matter by scattering particles (He nuclei, q = +2e) from atoms. Plum-pudding model would predict only small deflections. (Ex. 4-1) Geiger showed that many particles were scattered from thin gold-leaf targets at backward angles greater than 90°.
    [Show full text]
  • Pioneers of Atomic Theory Darius Bermudez Discoverers of the Atom
    Pioneers of Atomic Theory Darius Bermudez Discoverers of the Atom Democritus- Greek Philosopher proposed that if something was divided enough times, eventually the particles would be too small to divide any further. Ex: Identify this Greek philosopher who postulated that if an object was divided enough times, there would eventually be small particles that could not be divided any further. Discoverers of the Atom John Dalton- English chemist who made the “billiard ball” atom model. First to prove that rainfall was a result of temperature change. He was the first scientist after Democritus to build on atomic theory. He also created a law on partial pressures. Common Clues: Partial pressures, pioneer of atomic theory, and temperature change causes rainfall. The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. Discoverers of the Atom J.J. Thomson- English Scientist who discovered electrons through a cathode. Made the “plum pudding model” with Lord Kelvin (Kelvin Scale) which stated that negative charges were spread about a positive charged medium, making atoms neutral. Common Clues: Plum pudding, Electrons had negative charges, disproved by either Rutherford or Mardsen and Geiger The image cannot be displayed.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CHEM 1411 Chapter 5 Homework Answers 1. Which Statement Regarding the Gold Foil Experiment Is False?
    1 CHEM 1411 Chapter 5 Homework Answers 1. Which statement regarding the gold foil experiment is false? (a) It was performed by Rutherford and his research group early in the 20th century. (b) Most of the alpha particles passed through the foil undeflected. (c) The alpha particles were repelled by electrons (d) It suggested the nuclear model of the atom. (e) It suggested that atoms are mostly empty space. 2. Ernest Rutherford's model of the atom did not specifically include the ___. (a) neutron (b) nucleus (c) proton (d) electron (e) electron or the proton 3. The gold foil experiment suggested ___. (a) that electrons have negative charges (b) that protons have charges equal in magnitude but opposite in sign to those of electrons (c) that atoms have a tiny, positively charged, massive center (d) the ratio of the mass of an electron to the charge of an electron (e) the existence of canal rays 4. Which statement is false? (a) Ordinary chemical reactions do not involve changes in nuclei. (b) Atomic nuclei are very dense. (c) Nuclei are positively charged. (d) Electrons contribute only a little to the mass of an atom (e) The nucleus occupies nearly all the volume of an atom. 2 5. In interpreting the results of his "oil drop" experiment in 1909, ___ was able to determine ___. (a) Robert Millikan; the charge on a proton (b) James Chadwick; that neutrons are also present in the nucleus (c) James Chadwick; that the masses of protons and electrons are nearly identical (d) Robert Millikan; the charge on an electron (e) Ernest Rutherford; the extremely dense nature of the nuclei of atoms 6.
    [Show full text]
  • A Computational Study of Ruthenium Metal Vinylidene Complexes: Novel Mechanisms and Catalysis
    A Computational Study of Ruthenium Metal Vinylidene Complexes: Novel Mechanisms and Catalysis David G. Johnson PhD University of York, Department of Chemistry September 2013 Scientist: How much time do we have professor? Professor Frink: Well according to my calculations, the robots won't go berserk for at least 24 hours. (The robots go berserk.) Professor Frink: Oh, I forgot to er, carry the one. - The Simpsons: Itchy and Scratchy land Abstract A theoretical investigation into several reactions is reported, centred around the chemistry, formation, and reactivity of ruthenium vinylidene complexes. The first reaction discussed involves the formation of a vinylidene ligand through non-innocent ligand-mediated alkyne- vinylidene tautomerization (via the LAPS mechanism), where the coordinated acetate group acts as a proton shuttle allowing rapid formation of vinylidene under mild conditions. The reaction of hydroxy-vinylidene complexes is also studied, where formation of a carbonyl complex and free ethene was shown to involve nucleophilic attack of the vinylidene Cα by an acetate ligand, which then fragments to form the coordinated carbonyl ligand. Several mechanisms are compared for this reaction, such as transesterification, and through allenylidene and cationic intermediates. The CO-LAPS mechanism is also examined, where differing reactivity is observed with the LAPS mechanism upon coordination of a carbonyl ligand to the metal centre. The system is investigated in terms of not only the differing outcomes to the LAPS-type mechanism, but also with respect to observed experimental Markovnikov and anti-Markovnikov selectivity, showing a good agreement with experiment. Finally pyridine-alkenylation to form 2-styrylpyridine through a half-sandwich ruthenium complex is also investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture #3, Atomic Structure (Rutherford, Bohr Models)
    Welcome to 3.091 Lecture 3 September 14, 2009 Atomic Models: Rutherford & Bohr Periodic Table Quiz 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Name Grade /10 Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. La Lazy Ce college Pr professors Nd never Pm produce Sm sufficiently Eu educated Gd graduates Tb to Dy dramatically Ho help Er executives Tm trim Yb yearly Lu losses. © source unknown. All rights reserved. This image is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse. La Loony Ce chemistry Pr professor Nd needs Pm partner: Sm seeking cannot be referring Eu educated to 3.091! Gd graduate Tb to must be the “other” Dy develop Ho hazardous chemistry professor Er experiments Tm testing Yb young Lu lab assistants. © source unknown. All rights reserved. This image is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse. 138.9055 920 57 3455 3 6.146 * 1.10 57 5.577 La [Xe]5d16s2 Lanthanum CEase not I to slave, back breaking to tend; PRideless and bootless stoking hearth and fire. No Dream of mine own precious time to spend Pour'ed More to sate your glutt'nous desire.
    [Show full text]
  • Electron Charge Density: a Clue from Quantum Chemistry for Quantum Foundations
    Electron Charge Density: A Clue from Quantum Chemistry for Quantum Foundations Charles T. Sebens California Institute of Technology arXiv v.2 June 24, 2021 Forthcoming in Foundations of Physics Abstract Within quantum chemistry, the electron clouds that surround nuclei in atoms and molecules are sometimes treated as clouds of probability and sometimes as clouds of charge. These two roles, tracing back to Schr¨odingerand Born, are in tension with one another but are not incompatible. Schr¨odinger'sidea that the nucleus of an atom is surrounded by a spread-out electron charge density is supported by a variety of evidence from quantum chemistry, including two methods that are used to determine atomic and molecular structure: the Hartree-Fock method and density functional theory. Taking this evidence as a clue to the foundations of quantum physics, Schr¨odinger'selectron charge density can be incorporated into many different interpretations of quantum mechanics (and extensions of such interpretations to quantum field theory). Contents 1 Introduction2 2 Probability Density and Charge Density3 3 Charge Density in Quantum Chemistry9 3.1 The Hartree-Fock Method . 10 arXiv:2105.11988v2 [quant-ph] 24 Jun 2021 3.2 Density Functional Theory . 20 3.3 Further Evidence . 25 4 Charge Density in Quantum Foundations 26 4.1 GRW Theory . 26 4.2 The Many-Worlds Interpretation . 29 4.3 Bohmian Mechanics and Other Particle Interpretations . 31 4.4 Quantum Field Theory . 33 5 Conclusion 35 1 1 Introduction Despite the massive progress that has been made in physics, the composition of the atom remains unsettled. J. J. Thomson [1] famously advocated a \plum pudding" model where electrons are seen as tiny negative charges inside a sphere of uniformly distributed positive charge (like the raisins|once called \plums"|suspended in a plum pudding).
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Basic Properties of Atoms
    6. Basic properties of atoms ... We will only discuss several interesting topics in this chapter: Basic properties of atoms—basically, they are really small, really, really, really small • The Thomson Model—a really bad way to model the atom (with some nice E & M) • The Rutherford nuclear atom— he got the nucleus (mostly) right, at least • The Rutherford scattering distribution—Newton gets it right, most of the time • The Rutherford cross section—still in use today • Classical cross sections—yes, you can do this for a bowling ball • Spherical mirror cross section—the disco era revisited, but with science • Cross section for two unlike spheres—bowling meets baseball • Center of mass transformation in classical mechanics, a revised mass, effectively • Center of mass transformation in quantum mechanics—why is QM so strange? • The Bohr model—one wrong answer, one Nobel prize • Transitions in the Bohr model—it does work, I’m not Lyman to you • Deficiencies of the Bohr Model—how did this ever work in the first place? • After this we get back to 3D QM, and it gets real again. Elements of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences I NERS 311: Slide #1 ... Basic properties of atoms Atoms are small! e.g. 3 Iron (Fe): mass density, ρFe =7.874 g/cm molar mass, MFe = 55.845 g/mol N =6.0221413 1023, Avogadro’s number, the number of atoms/mole A × ∴ the volume occupied by an Fe atom is: MFe 1 45 [g/mol] 1 23 3 = 23 3 =1.178 10− cm NA ρ 6.0221413 10 [1/mol]7.874 [g/cm ] × Fe × The radius is (3V/4π)1/3 =0.1411 nm = 1.411 A˚ in Angstrøm units.
    [Show full text]
  • Cbiescss05.Pdf
    Science IX Sample Paper 5 Solved www.rava.org.in CLASS IX (2019-20) SCIENCE (CODE 086) SAMPLE PAPER-5 Time : 3 Hours Maximum Marks : 80 General Instructions : (i) The question paper comprises of three sections-A, B and C. Attempt all the sections. (ii) All questions are compulsory. (iii) Internal choice is given in each sections. (iv) All questions in Section A are one-mark questions comprising MCQ, VSA type and assertion-reason type questions. They are to be answered in one word or in one sentence. (v) All questions in Section B are three-mark, short-answer type questions. These are to be answered in about 50-60 words each. (vi) All questions in Section C are five-mark, long-answer type questions. These are to be answered in about 80-90 words each. (vii) This question paper consists of a total of 30 questions. 4. What is the S.I. unit of momentum ? [1] SECTION -A (a) kgms (b) mskg−1 −1 −1 DIRECTION : For question numbers 1 and 2, two statements (c) kgms (d) kg() ms are given- one labelled Assertion (A) and the other labelled Ans : (c) kgms−1 Reason (R). Select the correct answer to these questions from the codes (a), (b), (c) and (d) as given below. 5. Which of the following is not a perfectly in elastic collision ? [1] (a) Both A and R are true and R is correct explanation (a) Capture of an electron by proton. of the assertion. (b) Man jumping on to a moving cart. (b) Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of the assertion.
    [Show full text]
  • Rutherford Scattering
    Rutherford Scattering Gavin Cheung F 09328173 November 15, 2010 Abstract A thin piece of gold foil is bombarded with alpha particles using an americium-241 source at several angles. The resulting scattering of the alpha particles is examined by finding the count rate at the angles. It was found that most of the particles were unscattered while a minority were scattered. It is predicted by Rutherford's model that the count rate is proportional to cosec4 of the angle and this relationship was verified. This disproves the plum-pudding model and supports Rutherford's theory. ? Introduction The idea of the atom has been around for millenia yet little could be said about it. By the end of the 19th Century, it became apparent that atoms were a useful tool that could be used to model phenomena in physics and chemistry. J. J. Thomson proposed the plum pudding model in 1904 where the atom is a mass of positive charge with small negatively charged electrons embedded in it like plums in a plum pudding. In 1909, Ernest Rutherford directed the famous experiment where a thin sheet of gold foil was bom- barded with alpha particles. The plum pudding model predicted that the alpha particles would be scattered by the gold atoms by small angles. However, it was found that most of the alpha particles passed straight through the gold foil with little scattering and a very small amount of the alpha particles were scattered by some large angle and some were even backscattered. The only explanation Rutherford had was that the plum pudding model could not be right.
    [Show full text]
  • Rutherford Scattering Simulation
    Name ______________________________ Date______________________ Rutherford Scattering Simulation Ernest Rutherford, (30 August 1871 – 19 October 1937) was a New Zealand-born British physicist and chemist who became known as the father of nuclear physics. He was awarded the noble prize in chemistry in 1908 for his investigations into the disintegration of the elements, and radioactive substances. Rutherford performed his most famous work after he became a Nobel laureate. In 1911, although he could not prove that it was positive or negative, he theorized that atoms have their charge in a very small nucleus and pioneered the Rutherford model of the atom. Through his discovery and interpretation of Rutherford scattering in his gold foil experiment he is widely credited with discovery of the the proton. Rutherford remains the only science Nobel Prize winner to have performed his most famous work after receiving the prize. The popular theory of atomic structure at the time of Rutherford's experiment was the "plum pudding model". This model was developed in 1904 by J. J. Thomson, the scientist who discovered the electron. This theory held that the negatively charged electrons in an atom were floating (sometimes moving) in a sea of positive charge. The gold foil experiment fires a series of positively charged alpha particles (helium nuclei) at a very thin sheet of gold foil. If Thomson's Plum Pudding model was to be accurate, the big alpha particles should have passed through the gold foil with only a few minor deflections. This is because the alpha particles are larger and heavier than electrons GOLD FOIL EXPERIMENT Expected results: alpha particles passing through the plum pudding model of the atom undisturbed.
    [Show full text]
  • Coercing Magnetism Into Diamagnetic Ceramics: a Case Study in Alumina Erik Nykwest University of Connecticut - Storrs, [email protected]
    University of Connecticut Masthead Logo OpenCommons@UConn Doctoral Dissertations University of Connecticut Graduate School 4-25-2019 Coercing Magnetism into Diamagnetic Ceramics: A Case Study in Alumina Erik Nykwest University of Connecticut - Storrs, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations Recommended Citation Nykwest, Erik, "Coercing Magnetism into Diamagnetic Ceramics: A Case Study in Alumina" (2019). Doctoral Dissertations. 2136. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/2136 Coercing Magnetism into Diamagnetic Ceramics: A Case Study in Alumina Erik Carl Nykwest, Ph.D. University of Connecticut, 2019 Ceramics are very diverse class of materials whose properties can vary greatly. It is this diversity that make ceramics so useful in advanced technology. The relatively open crystal structure of ceramics makes it pos- sible to impart functionalities via judicious doping. This work focuses on developing a generalized method for introducing magnetism into normally non-magnetic (diamagnetic) ceramics, using the example case of alumina (Al2O3).Here, substitutional doping of Al atoms with 3d transition metal in α- and θ-alumina was studied. Density functional theory was used to predict the structural, electronic, and magnetic properties of doped alumina, as well as its stability. The results show that adding small concentrations of transition metals to alumina may increase magnetic activity by generating unpaired electrons whose net magnetic moments may couple with external magnetic fields. The dopant species and dopant coordination environment are the most important factors in determining the spin density distribution (localized or delocalized from the dopant atom) and net magnetic moment, which strongly direct the ability of the doped alumina to couple with an ex- ternal field.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5.1 Slides
    5.1 Revising the Atomic Model > Chapter 5 Electrons In Atoms 5.1 Revising the Atomic Model 5.2 Electron Arrangement in Atoms 5.3 Atomic Emission Spectra and the Quantum Mechanical Model 1 Copyright © Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. 5.1 Revising the Atomic Model > Energy Levels in Atoms The Bohr Model In 1913, Niels Bohr (1885–1962), a young Danish physicist and a student of Rutherford, developed a new atomic model. • He changed Rutherford’s model to incorporate newer discoveries about how the energy of an atom changes when the atom absorbs or emits light. 2 Copyright © Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. 5.1 Revising the Atomic Model > Energy Levels in Atoms The Bohr Model Bohr proposed that an electron is found only in specific circular paths, or orbits, around the nucleus. 3 Copyright © Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. 5.1 Revising the Atomic Model > Energy Levels in Atoms The Bohr Model Each possible electron orbit in Bohr’s model has a fixed energy. • The fixed energies an electron can have are called energy levels. • A quantum of energy is the amount of energy required to move an electron from one energy level to another energy level. 4 Copyright © Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. 5.1 Revising the Atomic Model > Energy Levels in Atoms The Bohr Model The rungs on this ladder are somewhat like the energy levels in Bohr’s model of the atom. • A person on a ladder cannot stand between the rungs.
    [Show full text]