weakness of Bohr's model of the atom?
97906
No electron path. If this was true electrons would have eventually collapsed into the nucleus
1126630
Theoretically, it'd be trapped inside the sphere forever. In practice, mirrors are not perfect. The material the light bounce off would absorb energy, allow light to "leak" through, etc etc.\n\n\nsomething related.. maybe...\nThis remind me of one thought experiment to determine the position and energy of an electron simultaneously by putting the electron in a box and making the box smaller and smaller. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle said u cannot determine both the momentum and position of the electron infinitely accurately at the same time. The idea is to make the box so small eventually the electron would be confined to a fixed position with 0 velocity and known position. But however, by making the box smaller and smaller, the wall of the box push against the electron, giving it more and more energy and when u thought u have zoom in on its position, the electron would have so much energy it'd simply burst out of the box.
36089
Don't take that idea too literally.  The idea that atoms have electrons, which are on the outside, and are negative, is just a model.\n\nPeople used models, such as the idea that atoms are composed of negatively-charged electrons spinning around a nucleus composed of positively-charged protons and electrically neutral neutrons, because the models were found to be useful in explaining or perhaps even predicting certain behavior or phenomena.  When conditions were found that were not consistent with that model, new models were devised.\n\nThe model you are talking about is now considered to be obsolete.  See the references linked below.
274107
Fine answers so far, indeed.\nQuantum mechanics is a very complicated field of physics and even a Godfather like Richard Feynman said that people who claim to understand it really understand it not at all.\nBasic problem is that experimental research below a certain dimension inevitably fails because of Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known." Meaning that we, using waves of certain lenghts to be able to look at the world of subatomic particles, influence them. So we cannot determine both a particle's position AND momentum with pinpoint precision. Thus, in quantum mechanics, the principle of possibilities replaces hard Yes-No-facts. This leads to very confusing studying that often results in escapes into pure mathematics. For example, the dualistic nature of light (which seems to be both matter and wave) can only be described by quantum mechanics.\nAs time and space came into existence only with the beginning of the universe, the question what occurred "before" (being a chronological term, belonging to the principle of time) is irrelevant.
1082808
mathematical dilemma. there is no answer to the question. Well at least none that are known. Just like the elements we know there out there but we have to figure them out first.  just like Einstein theory of fusion. its passable just not proved.
15507
Depends upon the experimental conditions.  Electrons are not hard little balls with a negative charge.  They are best thought of as areas of possibility for the location of a wave.  The angle of interaction, the relative velocity of the electron and proton and many other factors will determine the observed effect of their interaction.  Some believe that the expectations of the observer also plays a big role.  Neutrons have been “observed” to breakdown into an electron and a proton under some conditions.  The reverse seems possible.
621110
You're question seems a bit confused, but I'll try to answer what I see you as asking. First, if the Pauli principle doesn't hold, the particles are Bosons. This means that they will tend to congregate in the same state, subject to the requirments of statistical mechanics (temperature is relevant).\n\nNext, the classical equilibrium will correspond to a range of quantum states. These will be populated to various degrees. The distribution will be determined by Bose-Einstein statistics. Any *other* distribution of states will be a non-equilibrium situation. So, no, the system is not always in equilibrium. The fact that the particles are indistinguisable individually doesn't mean that they are in the same state.
848113
He created a set of equations that described the behavior of certain ions with just one electron orbiting around them. \nScientists observed the anomalies of these ions and Bohr was able to describe what was going on in the quantum world using the Newton’s laws of motion and the coulombs law...
914809
Not for an atom but it is for an electron.
416468
Quite typically a Bohr Model of the Calcium atom is used for student projects. It is the easiest to understand & make.\n\nIt will have the nucleus in the center w/ the protons & neutrons being represented there. Along the outside, electrons will be placed around in their energy "shells".\n\nI included a diagram in the link below. Remember it is in 2D whereas the project probably needs to be in 3D.\n\nTypical models include styrofoam balls as the nucleus w/ protons & neutrons being painted on in different colors for each; electrons are usually strung around the outside using styrofoam balls or beads on florist or some other type of bendable wire.\n\nRemember to label the electrons to look like electrons (neg. sign) & the protons will have a positive one. Neutrons can be represented using "0".\n\nHope this helps!\n\nEnjoy working on the project. :)
457209
Mathematics and the physical sciences use many models of the real world. While these models are self-consistent, they also strive to be the most concise such models. Thus many more models will give the same phenomena (Take the Lagrange and Hamilton reformulations of classical mechanics, and the necessity for all new physical theories to be proven equivalent to the established physical theories under the established conditions). Quantum mechanics mathematically reduces to classical mechanics in the large-scale, relativity mathematically reduces to Newtonian mechanics at speeds much less than c or mass-energy densities that are well distributed, and so forth. \nThus, never mistake a model of the real world used for prediction, with the real world. Consider an infinite plane (no coordinate system, just a plane). There are many valid ways of measuring distance on a plane. We find the Pythagorean theorem to be the simplest such method; the theorem is not prescribed by the plane, it is prescribed by our model of the plane. The taxicab metric: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_metric is also valid and is used in other circumstances where such a metric is more useful than the Pythagorean metric. The Minkowski metric is another that is useful in relativity theory. There are also a myriad of coordinate systems that we use to assign numbers to points on the plane; each system convenient to some problem at hand by being the simplest formulation. Underneath all these metrics and coordinate systems, the plane still exists unblemished by our methods of modelling it.\nNot even atoms are safe; first atoms were indivisible points, then there were really indivisible points making up the atoms such as electrons and protons, and now we are looking at subatomic particles as membrane vibrations: notes which can easily change various properties depending on the frequency of vibration in various dimensions. We like this picture because of its elegance and simplicity, but there's no reason to believe it is the "true physical nature" if such a thing exists, of the universe. Just a good way to predict events.
375875
Essentially, Dr Mills believes that he can create a hydrogen atom with an electron orbital that is closer to the nucleus than quantum mechanical theory allows.  Though the physics is very complex, he claims that the process of making compounds from this new type of hydrogen atom releases vast quantities of heat energy, which can be used as fuel.  The support for this comes from a number of scientists who have examined the process closely, and have had full access to the process, and have come away convinced.  The primary detraction comes from the fact that it disputes quantum theory, which itself has a great deal of scientific and experimental support.  As it stands now, quantum theory has the great preponderance of supporting data on it's side.  That isnt to say that Dr Mills may not have discovered something, or that quantum theory may have to be adjusted.
664927
First, can a subatomic particle appear to be in two places at once?\n\nAccording to Quantum Theory, the answer is yes, because in order to know where a particle is, we have to measure its position, but the very act of measuring its position will alter the particle's behavior. So in effect we can never be sure where it is exactly. So in this sense, we may get measurements that give results that says the particle is here and there (this is the Uncertainty Principle).\n\nOf course, this is NOT new to quantum theory. So what's new? Someone mentioned "quantum entanglement" and "quantum teleportation". These are some of the new topics in quantum theory.\n\nPS - there is no such thing as Aether quantum dynamics or\n Auto dynamics, and Bohr's quantum mechanics is alive and well. The only addition we've added to Bohr's theory is the concept of electron cloud (i.e. a probability cloud) around the nucleus of an atom rather than electron orbits.
1112040
it is possible that an atom can support life like the earth does,  but if it does, then it would be way different and ofcource smaller. the things that make up the earth perfect to support life may be different in an electron. but it is something to think about. interesting question
261371
It's not that they are at two places at the same time, but there is an equal probability of finding the proton in both places. When you get to the level of quantum mechanics, due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle we rely on probability curves to get an approximation of the physical world, the funny thing is that the areas with the most probability, are those predicted by Bohr without using quantum mechanics.
1065955
Yes, the W boson is very massive, and what is actually emitted in neutron decay is a virtual W boson.  In quantum mechanics, rules of conservation of energy can be violated for short periods of time.  Virtual particles are common in subatomic interactions, if you don't see the word "virtual", note that physicists will sometimes refer to them as "particles off the mass shell".\n\nVirtual particles are not just mathematical fictions.  If a virtual W boson were to interact with another particle during its short existance, it could exchange enough energy/momentum with that particle to become a real boson itself (albeit one that will still decay in a short time because of the finite lifetime of real W bosons).\n\nVirtual particles are absolutely necessary in particle physics in order to model the behaviour correctly.  Even the attraction of positively and negatively charged objects is explained by the exchange of virtual photons.
469212
See if this helps.\n\nhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atomic/hund.html