* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Bohr`s atomic model: the evolution of a theory
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Elementary particle wikipedia , lookup
Coupled cluster wikipedia , lookup
Density functional theory wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Topological quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Particle in a box wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia , lookup
James Franck wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
Scalar field theory wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup
Matter wave wikipedia , lookup
Bremsstrahlung wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantization wikipedia , lookup
Spectral density wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Electron scattering wikipedia , lookup
Wave–particle duality wikipedia , lookup
Hidden variable theory wikipedia , lookup
Atomic orbital wikipedia , lookup
Bohr–Einstein debates wikipedia , lookup
Tight binding wikipedia , lookup
Electron configuration wikipedia , lookup
Bohr’s atomic model: the evolution of a theory Dieuwke Hupkes 5652936 supervisor: Dhr.prof.dr. A.J. Kox second supervisor: Dhr.prof.dr E.P. Verlinde 7-09-2010 Abstract For a long time no scientist believed in the existence of atoms. This changed with experimental discoveries like spectral lines. After Thomson’s plumpudding model and the saturnian model of Rutherford, Bohr introduced the quantum in his model. He used Planck’s quantum hypothese, imposing a condition on a saturnian system that further abided the classical mechanic rules. He created a quantized one electron atom model. Such a system only emitted energy while passing from one state to another. The energies determined by Bohr’s quantumcondition agreed with experimental values. Sommerfeld extended Bohr’s theory for more complex systems with more electrons and more degrees of freedom. The old quantum theory ended when it became clear that only ad hoc conditions were not enough, but that a new kind of mechanics was needed. 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Spectral lines and the discovery of the electron 4 3 Models 3.1 Thomson and Rutherford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 4 Bohr 4.1 Line spectra . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Justification 1 . . . . 4.1.2 Justification 2 . . . . 4.1.3 Justification 3 . . . . 4.2 The Rydberg constant . . . 4.3 General acceptation of Bohr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 9 10 10 10 11 5 Sommerfeld and the old quantum theory 12 6 Afterword 13 7 References 14 2 1 Introduction The old-Greek philosophers were the first of whom we know they were thinking about the construction of matter. Most people will know about the thoughts of Empodocles (490-430 vc). He thought there were 4 essential elements: air, fire, water and earth. He held these elements indestructible and unchangeable. Others didn’t think there were such elements at all, they held matter to be infinitely divisible and continuous. Some of the old Greek had beliefs closer to present theories. It was in their writings that the word atom first appeared. They considered the atom the smallest element of which our physical world is constituted. However, although some people shone their light on the basic structure of matter, the real discussion about it was remarkably mute in the early physics. Most physicists refused to believe that our world could be constituted of small particles that they could not see. The opinion that matter was infinitely divisible and continuous prevailed until the nineteenth century. Experimental discoveries made the former theory on the construction of matter less plausible, and the belief in the existence of atoms became more common, although a discussion about the constitution of these smaller elements still had not taken place. This started to be a more debated topic after the discovery of spectral lines. This paper tries to describe the path that led to the older quantum theory. The next section explains how the discovery of the electron followed from the observation of spectral lines. After that, the very first atomic models and their difficulties are discussed in section 3, specifically those of Thomson and Rutherford. The most important section of this paper is section 4. In this section not only Bohr’s atomic model will be described, but also his justifications and explanations for the steps taken. The last section briefly adresses Sommerfeld’s extensions of Bohr’s model. 3 2 Spectral lines and the discovery of the electron Thomas Melvill was the first to observe discrete spectral lines 1 . He thought he discovered that kitchen salt emits monochromatic light when held in a flame. In fact, this light is not monochromatic (no single atomic-spectrum can be monochromatic), but merely a really intense spectral line in the sodium spectrum. These days this line is known as the D-line, which is actually a doublet, a pair of lines really close together. The next step forward was of the greatest importance. Bunsen, Heidelberg and Kirchhoff observed that each chemical element has its own unique spectrum. This knowledge led to the discovery of many new elements in the following period of time. Now it could also be analyzed which elements the sun contained, for example. After Ångström measured the wavelenghts of the four known spectral lines, scientists were looking for a mathematical regularity. Ritz already figured out that by adding up two spectral lines another could be found. This principle is called the combination principle of Ritz. In 1895 Balmer published his paper on the spectral lines of hydrogen, in which he showed that the then known spectral lines of hydrogen could be expressed as a difference of two terms, both containing an integer. The formula he found for the wavelengths (λ) of the spectral lines (in mm) was: λ=h m2 m2 − 22 (1) With h = 3645.6 x 10−7 and m = 3, 4, 5, 6, this formula perfectly matched the known hydrogen lines. What he did was amazing, because only four hydrogen lines were known, and this formula proved to be correct! Shortly after Balmer found his formula, a colleague and friend told him that twelve more lines were found. Balmer checked them in his formula and these too (with m = 7, 8 etc) fitted. More spectral lines could be found by subtracting numbers larger than 22 . The generalization of Balmers formula reads 2 1 1 ν=R − (2) n2 m2 The constant in this formula, now known as the Rydberg constant, became a popular subject of experiments. The discovery of the spectral lines was so important for the atomic theory because this proved that an atom in fact had to have an internal structure. This internal structure should be able to explain the spectral lines. However, the physicists were still in the dark, because they did not have the slightest idea what this internal structure should look like. 1 more detailed information can be found in Pais (1995) (1985) p.43 2 Heilbron 4 This changed when Zeeman discovered that the spectral lines of an atom split when the atom is held in a magnetic field. Lorentz could explain this with the force he introduced in 1892. This so-called Lorentz force acts on moving charged particles in a static magnetic field. From Zeemans measurements he concluded that an atom contained negatively charged vibrating particles with a very small mass. The measurements of Zeeman could be used to find the e/m-ratio of these particles, this ratio was a hot topic in the last years of the 19th century. In 1897 Thomson showed that the unknown negative particles in cathode rays had the same e/m-ratio as Lorentz found. The electron was born. 5 3 Models Although the discovery of the electron was a huge step forward, it still left many questions unanswered. Known was, for example, that an atom was neutral in charge, so what was responsible for the positive charge? Another important question was the number of electrons in an atom. Electrons were assumed to be the cause of a huge number of spectral lines. Because every spectral line should correspond with an oscillating electron, the number of electrons was at first assumed to be huge (in retrospect), about a 1000 times the atomic weight. The third difficulty was the stability of the system, why should a system of oscillating and therefore radiating electrons not collapse? A lot of physicists were working on the atomic theory, but because their models often differed only a little bit, only 3 main models will be discussed in this paper. In this section the work of Thomson and Rutherford will be addressed. Because the main goal of this paper is to make clear which process Bohr went through, his work wil be elaborately reviewed in the next paragraph. 3.1 Thomson and Rutherford Thomson’s work meant a great deal to the atomic theory, mostly because he ”initiated a promising research program” 3 . His model of the atom, called the plumpudding model, was not very precise. A diffuse sphere without any mass was responsible for the positive charge. A great many electrons oscillate in this sphere around a dynamical equilibrium. Because of the huge number of electrons, the radiation loss is negligible in this situation. Thomson’s atom is therefore stable. Scattering experiments by Barkla, Rutherford and Thomson himself produced evidence that the number of electrons in an atom is of the order of its atomic weight. Thomson deduced the number in his model. Consequently, several problems arose. First of all, the small number of electrons (of which the mass was known to be very small) led to the assumption that the weight of the atom lay in the positive component. Thomson had to reject his massless positive sphere. The second problem was, that now not enough electrons were available to account for all the spectral lines. Finally, with this little electrons, the radiation loss is not negligible at all. This makes the atom collapsing instead of stable. Rutherford decided to take another path. The experiments on alpha-scattering proved to him that an atom was nearly completely empty. He turned back to a saturnian model with a massive nucleus and electrons circling around it. In such a system he could calculate energies, frequencies and diameters by use of classical formulas. 3 Heilbron (1977) p.53 6 4 Bohr Bohr was the man who eventually made huge progress in the search for the model of atoms. In July 1913 he published his first paper on the hydrogen atom. There was already evidence that a hydrogen atom contained only one electron. Inspired by Rutherford, Bohr started with calculations on a saturnian model. The nucleus was assumed to be very small and of charge +e, the electron orbiting around it of charge −e. In this calculation it is assumed that the mass of the electron is negligible (in comparison to that of the nucleus) and that the velocity of the electron is small compared with the speed of light4 . For the electron to stay in its orbit, the electrical force should be equal to the centripetal force. mv 2 e2 = = mr(2πf )2 (3) 2 r r The total energy of the electron is the sum of its kinetic and potential energy. 1 e2 e2 e2 e2 + mv 2 = − + =− (4) r 2 r 2r 2r Combining these two formulas results in an expression for both the frequency of revolution and radius of the system, depending on the total energy. √ 3 2e2 2 |W | 2 √ , r = (5) f= π e2 m |W | W = Epot + Ekin + = − If the electron had radiated energy, W would not be constant. The frequency could not be constant either, neither could the radius. It is now clear to see that if this were the case, it would be impossible for the electron to describe a stationary orbit. Atoms, howerever, seemed to have strict dimensions and frequencies, what does not correspond to the model described above. Bohr made a very daring and surprising assumption: Let us at first assume that there is no energy radiation. In this case the electron will describe stationary elliptical orbits’ 5 He did not reject the saturnian model, but he rejected the mechanical world in which it was living! The new situation was a nucleus with an electron, now orbiting in certain possible stationary states with certain corresponding energies (although he did not know which states existed). The very important next step he made, was using the quantum hypothesis Planck postulated in 1900. This hypothesis said that the energy of charged oscillators is quantized. The oscillator can only emit or receive amounts of energy equal to an integer multiple of a constant times the oscillation frequency of the oscillator: E = nhν. 4 Bohr(1913) 5 Bohr p.3 (1913), p.3 7 The constant h is now called the Planck constant. At the moment he postulated his hypothesis nobody (not even Planck himself) saw the huge implications of Plancks discovery. It was Bohr who made a very important next step. He linked the differences in energy between the different stationary orbits to differences in frequency. The way he did this is once again remarkable, his second assumption was: Let us now assume that: during the binding of the electron, a homogeneous radiation is emitted of a frequency ν, equal to half the frequency of revolution of the electron in its final orbit (my italics)6 He did this without any further justification, just because it seemed to work. Although Bohr came up with some possible explanations, it is important to see that these explanations were not the reason Bohr came up with the factor 1 2 in the first place. To implement his postulated relation between radiation frequency and frequency of revolution Bohr makes another, not implausible assumption: following Planck he takes the energy of the radiation that is emitted when an electron goes from a free state to a bound state to be equal to nhν, with n an integer and ν the frequency of the radiation. Thus: W = nhν Using his assumption for the relation between f and ν Bohr then finds: f (6) 2 (I stuck with the symbol f for frequency of revolution, like I did before). With the expressions for frequency and energy he found before, he could now get a series of values for W , f and r, corresponding to a series of configurations of the system. W = nh W = 4.1 2π 2 me4 n2 h2 f= 4π 2 me4 n3 h3 2r = n2 h2 2π 2 me2 (7) Line spectra This system can emit energy (because of the spectral lines), but it does not do so in a stationary state. It radiates when it passes between the different stationary states. Therefore, the frequencies (or energies) emitted by this system, are the energy (frequency) differences between the different stationary states! An expression for these differences follows from formula 7. 1 2π 2 me4 1 − 2 (8) W n2 − W n1 = h2 n22 n1 The now found energy differences should, according to Planck, be equal to hν. The emitted frequencies then are: 6 Bohr (1913 p.4 8 ν= 2π 2 me4 h3 1 1 − 2 2 n2 n1 (9) Putting n2 = 2 and varying n1 , he got the well-known experimental Balmer formula 2! He obtained a value for the Rydberg constant in terms of atomic 2 4 constants: R = 2π hme . The agreement between the value he found and the 3 experimental value was within the experimental marges of uncertainty. Bohr could now also explain why only some of the lines of the Balmer series could be observed. According to 7, the radius of the atom is proportional with n2 , therefore it is possible to find an n, for which the diameter of the orbit is of the dimension of the distance between the molecules in a gas. To observe spectral lines with a high n, the gas has to be very dilute in order to keep the distance between the molecules large enough. This explains why spectral lines that can not be observed on earth, sometimes can be observed in stars: the pressure there is much lower, as is the density. These facts indicated strongly that Bohr was on track. But he still needed a justification of equation 6. He gave three. 4.1.1 Justification 1 The first justification he gave, was the following: the radiation emitted during the passing of the system must be equal to an integer multiple of hf . Instead of 6 this gives W = x(n)hf , and the expressions for W and f , instead of 7, become: W = π 2 me4 2h2 x2 (n) f= π 2 me4 2h3 x3 (n) And instead of 9, the formula for the allowed frequencies becomes: π 2 me4 1 1 ν= − 2h3 x2 (n1 ) x2 (n2 ) (10) (11) To get an expression of the form of the Balmer series, x(n) has to be of the form x(n) = cn. It is now possible to determine c by considering the passing of the system between 2 stationary states n1 and n2 . n1 = N and n2 = N − 1 gives: π 2 me4 1 1 π 2 me4 2N − 1 ν= − = (12) 2h3 c2 N 2 (N − 1)2 2h3 c2 N 2 (N − 1)2 For large N, this is approximately equal to ν= π 2 me4 π 2 me4 2 = 2h3 c2 N 3 h3 c2 N 3 Using formula 10, he could find the ratio between the frequency before and after the emission. 9 fN fN −1 = (N − 1)3 N3 (13) For large N , this will be very close to 1. The ratio between the frequency of radiation emitted and the frequency of revolution, should then according to ordinary electrodynamics also be very close to 1, that is ν should be close to equal to f . Since (still in the limit for large 2 4 π 2 me4 1 N ) f = 2cπ3 hme 3 N 3 , and ν = c2 h3 N 3 , this condition will only be satisfied if c = 2 . 4.1.2 Justification 2 The second solution Bohr supplied was that the mean frequency with respect to the nucleus should be used. Because the initial frequency is zero, the average of both frequencies, like in the formula, is half the frequency at which the electron is orbiting. 4.1.3 Justification 3 Bohrs hypothese put a condition on the possible stationary states, this condition can be translated in a quantum number that gives the allowed angular momenta of the electrons. The angular momentum of an electron (L), expressed in kinetic kin . In a circular orbit, energy (Ekin ) and frequency of revolution (f ), is L = Eπω Ekin = W . Using condition 6, the expression for the angular momentum is nh (14) 2π Denoting it this way, stationary states of an electron can be described by a quantumnumber n. L= 4.2 The Rydberg constant Although his justifications were really ad hoc, Bohrs theory gained ground by giving a right value for the Rydberg constant. As said before, with his theory he could express this constant in terms of atomic constants. Besides that, he also proved that this constant is the same for all elements.7 For that he used the most general formula for spectral lines (i.e. this formula isn’t restricted to hydrogen lines): ν = Fr (n1 ) − Fs (u2 ) With n1 and n2 entire numbers, K a universal constant, equal to the factor outside the bracket in formula 9, and F1 , F2 , F3 ... functions of n equal to K K (n+a1 )2 , (n+a2 )2 , .... First he remarks that this formula is again a difference between two entire functions. This suggests that not only the sprectral lines of hydrogen, but all spectral lines are caused by elements passing between their 7 Bohr p.11 10 ∼ k2 . Formula 7 gives another exdifferent stationary states. Now for large n, F = n 2π 2 me4 2 pression for F , namely F = W , for K this yields: K = F ·n2 ∼ . =W h h ·n = h3 The limit for n is large gives thus always the same value for the Rydberg constant. 4.3 General acceptation of Bohr theory There was one series of spectral lines that caused Bohr trouble, the Picker1 ingseries: νn = R( 14 − (n/2) 2 ). In Bohrs formula there was no place for half integers, because no half quanta could be emitted. Bohr fitted them in his theory, by rewriting the series as ν = 4R( 412 − n12 ) and attributing it to ionized helium. With a nuclear charge of 2, the Rydberg constant should be four times that of hydrogen. The Balmer formula did agree very well with the experiment, the Pickering formula not so much. Bohr was very inventive again and found a way to correct Pickerings formula. He said to have neglected the small motion of the nucleus, the mass m should be replaced by the reduced m . He required: RHe \RH = 4.00163. The experimental ramass m0 = mmZZ+m tio found was 4.0016. Although Thomson still wasn’t convinced, Bohrs theory fastly gained ground. Einstein said to be astonished by this fact, and he called it ’an enormous achievement’ (p47 Heilbron 1). 11 5 Sommerfeld and the old quantum theory Bohr laid the foundation for what is now called the old quantum theory: the principle that motion in an atomic system is quantised. His theory was, however, far from perfect. Not only did his theory only work for hydrogen(like) atoms, with one electron rotating in a circular orbit, but his theory was also unable to explain experimental results like the Stark effect or Zeeman effect. It became clear, that more degrees of freedom were needed. Sommerfeld used Bohr’s theory and extended it, resulting in new quantum states, now called the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantisation rules. I I I pφ dφ = nh pr dr = n1 h pθ dθ = n2 h (15) With two new quantum numbers, more states were possible. Selection rules (which described which combinations of quantum numbers were allowed), stated which transistions were allowed. Experimental measurements showed that each of the known spectral lines were, in fact, a few adjacent lines. Sommerfeld’s major succes was that he was able to explain this so-called fine structure of spectral lines. The new transitions that could be found with his selection rules were in agreement with the measurements on fine structures. Scientists kept extending Bohr’s (and Sommerfeld’s) theory, by introducing more quantum numbers and methods to generalize quantum conditions. An important example of such a method is the adiabatic theorema of Ehrenfest, that states that an adiabatically transformed quantized system remains in its quantized state. With this method, it possible to determine the allowed motions of any periodic system of one degree of freedom if it is adiabatically related to the harmonic oscillator8 , by finding an adiabatic invariant I. The quantum condition for the new system then reads I = nh. A lot of new quantum conditions could be found for many new systems, but they were still conditions imposed on classical mechanics systems. The conditions were ad hoc and there was no physical explanation for any of them. That’s where the older quantum theory stuck. In fact, a new kind of mechanics with new formalisms was needed: quantum mechanics. This new mechanics started to develop in the early 1920s, with famous names like Schrödinger and Heisenberg. 8 Heilbron(1977) p.99 12 6 Afterword This paper is not meant to be a mere description of the development of the atomic model, but above all it is meant to give an insight in how science moves forward. Studying physics in high school or at a university sometimes gives the wrong impression of how a new theory develops. I saw that very clearly when I was writing this paper. In the textbooks I read and learned from, scientific processes seem to be very logical, straightforward and smooth. I did not learn about the dead ends that at first were so promising. What Bohr did was very unlogical then, there weren’t more arguments than the right value of the Rydberg constant he found. In order to progress, it is important that there are people who dare to make assumptions no one believes in, even if they prove to be wrong. Science isn’t a straight line, there are many dead ends along the way. Maybe we are heading for a dead end now. But it is also possible that we develop theories that people will marvel at in a hundred years. 13 7 References 1. Bohr N. On the constitution of atoms and molecules. In: Philosophical Magazine; Series 6, Volume 26; 1913. p. 1-25. 2. Brown LM, Pippard B, Pais A, editors. Twentieth Century Physics. Taylor & Francis; 1995. p. 43-141. 3. Heilbron J. Bohr’s first theories of the atom. In: Physics Today; Volume 38, Issue 10;1985. p. 28-36. 4. Heilbron J. Lectures on the history of atomic physics 1900-1922. In: C. Weiner (Ed); History of twentieth century physics (= Rendiconti della scuola internazionale di fisica Enrico Fermi 57); New York & London: Academic Press, 1977. p40-108. 5. Jammer M. The conceptual development of quantum mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1966. p.96. 6. Krach H. Quantum Generations, a history of quantum mechanics. Oxford: Clarendon; 1981. 7. Pais A. Niels Bohr’s times in physics philosophy and polity. Oxford: Oxford university press; 1991. 14