Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

International Journal of Modern Physics A

Atomic Electron Configuration

David E. Pressler

Published Sep 1, 2001• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In this work I suggest that early twentieth century theoretical physicists did not have enough facts or experimental data to formulate a consistent atomic model and as a result the concept of the atom needs revised. I conclude that the new atomic model presented is based only on first principles, is easy to understand and visualize, and provides such a significant theoretical advance as to be a final theory.

DOI
10.1142/s0217751x01008503

Related papers

The problem of the structure of matter

Jorge José Kohanoff

The description of the physical and chemical properties of matter is a central issue that has occupied the minds of scientists since the age of the ancient Greeks. In their route to dissect matter down to what cannot be divided any further, they coined the term atom , the indivisible . Matter became then a collection of atoms. More than twenty centuries had to pass until the development of a more precise concept of atom, thanks, amongst others, to the systematic studies of Mendeleyev and the establishment in 1869 of the periodic table of the elements (Mendeleyev, 1869). The discovery of the electron in 1897 and the first modern model of the atomic structure by Sir Joseph Thomson were soon refined by his student, Sir Ernest Rutherford, who in 1910 showed that an atom was made of a positively charged small nucleus and a number of negatively charged electrons that neutralize the nuclear charge. Much in the spirit of planetary systems, and drawing from the analogy between gravitational and electrostatic interactions, scientists in the beginning of the twentieth century built an image of the atom that consisted of a number Z of electrons – of elementary charge – e – orbiting around the nucleus of charge Ze . A number of experimental observations, though, were incompatible with this idea of orbiting electrons. In particular, according to the successful electromagnetic theory, charged electrons in orbital (radially accelerated) motion should radiate energy, thus decelerating and eventually collapsing onto the nucleus. Clearly, such a picture would imply that matter is essentially unstable, in flagrant contradiction with our everyday experience of the very existence of matter.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jun 29, 2006•0 citations

II. Some Aspects of the Recent Development of Atomic Theory

Niels Bohr•Jan 1, 1984•0 citations

Principles of Constructing a Correct Microscopic Theory

B. V. Vasiliev

In our time, experimental physicists have obtained data on a very large number of phenomena and objects of the physical world. Very rarely there is a situation when theoretical physicists do not have enough experimental data to understand some known fundamental law of Nature. This situation arose almost a hundred years ago and sparked a discussion between A. Einstein and N. Bohr on the probabilistic nature of microcosm phenomena. From the time, it seemed that most physicists are inclined to believe that the proponents of a quantum explanation of the randomness of the phenomena of radioactive decay are right. Now this problem has been solved experimentally. The results of these measurements [1] show that A. Einstein and other proponents of determinism were right. In most cases, theoretical models are based on some already existing experimental data and are intended to explain them. At the same time, in the twentieth century, among microscopic, well-mathematically based models, there were several that raise doubts about their correctness, since they cannot explain a number of other experimental data that can be attributed to the fundamentally important properties of the studied objects [2] [3]. Therefore, the usual criterion for the correctness of the theory, which consists of its agreement with the measurement data, is ambiguous in this case. An additional criterion for the correctness of a microscopic theory can be formulated if it is assumed that the microscopic theory must be quantum one. The coefficients of quantum equations are world constants. Therefore, the solutions of these equations must be equalities made up of world constants only. For this reason, a correct microscopic model must rely on equalities consisting of world constants only. This criterion is shown to work successfully for models of superfluidity and superconductivity, for models of a number of particles, and models of the star interior.

Journal of Modern Physics•Jan 1, 2020•2 citations

Some Current Trends in Atomic Theory

M. G. Kozlov

Atomic theory continues to develop even after a century of rapid progress [...]

Symmetry•Aug 13, 2021•0 citations

Physical laws for small particles

Yuval Ne’eman, Yoram Kirsh

Along with the exciting experiments that changed the face of physics in the twentieth century, work proceeded feverishly on the theoretical side to rebuild the conceptual world that had been severely shaken. Sometimes the theorists lagged behind the experimentalists, and certain experimental results waited for several years to be explained. And sometimes experiment lagged behind theory, and a new theoretical model waited for years to be verified experimentally. Two great theories left their mark on physics in this century: the theory of relativity, and quantum mechanics. In this chapter we shall briefly review the main ideas of these theories which are vital for the understanding of the atomic world. The theory of relativity The theory of relativity was formulated by the great physicist Albert Einstein. The first part of it (and the important one for us) — the special theory of relativity — was published in 1905, and sprang from the need to explain a puzzling question that exercised the physicists of the nineteenth century: why was it impossible to alter the speed of light, which remained constant (299 792.5 kilometres per second) even when the detector was moving relative to the source of light? In contrast to other physicists, Einstein did not try to explain this phenomenon.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 4, 1996•0 citations

V. Some Aspects of the Later Development of Atomic Theory

Niels Bohr•Jan 1, 1984•0 citations
In this work I suggest that early twentieth century theoretical physicists did not have enough facts or experimental data to formulate a consistent atomic model and as a result the concept of the atom needs revised. I conclude that the new atomic model presented is based only on first principles, is easy to understand and visualize, and provides such a significant theoretical advance as to be a final theory.
The description of the physical and chemical properties of matter is a central issue that has occupied the minds of scientists since the age of the ancient Greeks. In their route to dissect matter down to what cannot be divided any further, they coined the term atom , the indivisible . Matter became then a collection of atoms. More than twenty centuries had to pass until the development of a more precise concept of atom, thanks, amongst others, to the systematic studies of Mendeleyev and the establishment in 1869 of the periodic table of the elements (Mendeleyev, 1869). The discovery of the electron in 1897 and the first modern model of the atomic structure by Sir Joseph Thomson were soon refined by his student, Sir Ernest Rutherford, who in 1910 showed that an atom was made of a positively charged small nucleus and a number of negatively charged electrons that neutralize the nuclear charge. Much in the spirit of planetary systems, and drawing from the analogy between gravitational and electrostatic interactions, scientists in the beginning of the twentieth century built an image of the atom that consisted of a number Z of electrons – of elementary charge – e – orbiting around the nucleus of charge Ze . A number of experimental observations, though, were incompatible with this idea of orbiting electrons. In particular, according to the successful electromagnetic theory, charged electrons in orbital (radially accelerated) motion should radiate energy, thus decelerating and eventually collapsing onto the nucleus. Clearly, such a picture would imply that matter is essentially unstable, in flagrant contradiction with our everyday experience of the very existence of matter.
In our time, experimental physicists have obtained data on a very large number of phenomena and objects of the physical world. Very rarely there is a situation when theoretical physicists do not have enough experimental data to understand some known fundamental law of Nature. This situation arose almost a hundred years ago and sparked a discussion between A. Einstein and N. Bohr on the probabilistic nature of microcosm phenomena. From the time, it seemed that most physicists are inclined to believe that the proponents of a quantum explanation of the randomness of the phenomena of radioactive decay are right. Now this problem has been solved experimentally. The results of these measurements [1] show that A. Einstein and other proponents of determinism were right. In most cases, theoretical models are based on some already existing experimental data and are intended to explain them. At the same time, in the twentieth century, among microscopic, well-mathematically based models, there were several that raise doubts about their correctness, since they cannot explain a number of other experimental data that can be attributed to the fundamentally important properties of the studied objects [2] [3]. Therefore, the usual criterion for the correctness of the theory, which consists of its agreement with the measurement data, is ambiguous in this case. An additional criterion for the correctness of a microscopic theory can be formulated if it is assumed that the microscopic theory must be quantum one. The coefficients of quantum equations are world constants. Therefore, the solutions of these equations must be equalities made up of world constants only. For this reason, a correct microscopic model must rely on equalities consisting of world constants only. This criterion is shown to work successfully for models of superfluidity and superconductivity, for models of a number of particles, and models of the star interior.
Along with the exciting experiments that changed the face of physics in the twentieth century, work proceeded feverishly on the theoretical side to rebuild the conceptual world that had been severely shaken. Sometimes the theorists lagged behind the experimentalists, and certain experimental results waited for several years to be explained. And sometimes experiment lagged behind theory, and a new theoretical model waited for years to be verified experimentally. Two great theories left their mark on physics in this century: the theory of relativity, and quantum mechanics. In this chapter we shall briefly review the main ideas of these theories which are vital for the understanding of the atomic world. The theory of relativity The theory of relativity was formulated by the great physicist Albert Einstein. The first part of it (and the important one for us) — the special theory of relativity — was published in 1905, and sprang from the need to explain a puzzling question that exercised the physicists of the nineteenth century: why was it impossible to alter the speed of light, which remained constant (299 792.5 kilometres per second) even when the detector was moving relative to the source of light? In contrast to other physicists, Einstein did not try to explain this phenomenon.