Rutherford–Bohr Model of the Atom

Homer B. Tilton

Henry Zatzkis

The historical development leading up to the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom is briefly surveyed. The atomic model, suggested by J. J. Thomson before Rutherford's model, is investigated. The quantization shows that the bound states bear a marked resemblance to those of the hydrogen atom. However, the states are in general nondegenerate. Thus, the Thomson atom could not have survived the spectroscopic evidence even if no Rutherford scattering experiments had been performed.

Motiur Rahman Ansari

This paper discusses Bohr-Somerfield quantization theory and tries to explain how all earlier propositions about energy at atomic level failed to correspond to observed facts and further how this model solved the mathematical discrepancies leading to a near perfect model of energy exchange at the atomic level. The author has attempted here to show the historical connections, logical justifications as well as mathematical expressions for the energy of electron in hydrogen atom and prove how Bohr’s celebrated theory of atomic structure is an application of Planck’s theory of quanta to the Rutherford nuclear atom in an attempt, extraordinary fruitful, to define the nature of the orbits in which the electrons might revolve round the nucleus and to explain the origin of spectral lines of the elements. It further shows how Sommerfeld extended the model so as to include elliptical orbits. The introduction of the elliptic orbits has no new energy for the electron of the hydrogen atom. Bohr had also solved the dilemma arose due to the Rutherford’s atomic model and he admitting the failure of the classical theory, applied with remarkable success of the quantum theory to the Rutherford nuclear atom with revolving electron, which leads us to understand the significance of the Bohr’s atom model.  Keywords: Electromagnetic theory, Model, Electrical attraction, Energy, Atom.

David E. Laird

Giora Hon, Bernard R. Goldstein

The quantum theory of Bohr has roots in the theories of Rutherford and J. J. Thomson on the one hand, and that of Nicholson on the other. We note that Bohr neither presented the theories of Rutherford and Thomson faithfully, nor did he refer to the theory of Nicholson in its own terms. The contrasting attitudes towards these antecedent theories is telling and reveals the philosophical disposition of Bohr. We argue that Bohr intentionally avoided the concept of model as inappropriate for describing his proposed theory. Bohr had no problem in referring to the works of others as 'models', thus separating his theory from previous theories. He was interested in uncovering 'a little piece of reality'.