Learning Goals:

• Visualize different models of the hydrogen atom.

• Explain the similarities for each model.
• Explain what experimental predictions each model makes.
• Explain why people believed in each model and why each historical model was
inadequate.
• Explain the difference between the physical picture of the orbits and the energy
level diagram of an electron.
• Gain a sense for how scientists build models.
• Engage in model building.

Multiple Choice questions:

Open the Models of the Hydrogen Atom simulation. Which aspects of this sim are
showing observations and which are showing inferences?

Picture of atom: radio buttons for observation/inference

Movement of photons across the screen: radio buttons for observation/inference
Energy level diagram: radio buttons for observation/inference
Pattern on spectrometer: radio buttons for observation/inference

Long Answer questions:

In this long answer, we will ask you to discuss the observations and inferences that led to
each new model of the atom. You may find the Models of the Hydrogen Atom and
Rutherford Scattering simulations helpful for answering these questions. To give you a
better idea of the kind of response we are looking for, we’ll start with an example of the
observations and inferences that led to the transition from the Billiard Ball model to the
Plum Pudding model:

Example: Billiard Ball to Plum Pudding – Before Thomson, it was thought that atoms
were indivisible chunks of matter with no internal structure. As discussed in section 37.4
of Knight’s introductory physics textbook, Thomson observed that x-rays could ionize
monatomic gasses. Based on this observation, he made the inference that atoms could be
separated into a negative part and a positive part. Also, based on the observations that
cathode rays could be converted to current and deflected by a magnetic field, he made the
inference that cathode rays were made of negative charges, and therefore that the
negative charges could be removed from the bulk of the atoms. He then developed a
model of the atom in which little electrons were stuck in a big positive goo. Note that he
had a lot of evidence for the electrons, but his model of the positive goo was based
mainly on a lack of evidence: no one had ever observed positive charges being separated

_________________________________
‫ אין לעשות‬.‫קובץ זה נועד אך ורק לשימושם האישי של מורי הפיזיקה ולהוראה בכיתותיהם‬
‫ פרסום באתר אחר‬,‫שימוש כלשהו בקובץ זה לכל מטרה אחרת ובכלל זה שימוש מסחרי‬
‫ העמדה לרשות הציבור או הפצה בדרך אחרת‬,)‫(למעט אתר בית הספר בו מלמד המורה‬
‫כלשהי של קובץ זה או כל חלק ממנו‬.
from the atom or observed any evidence of their structure, so he just assumed the positive
charge was one big mass.

1. Plum Pudding to Classical Solar System – To answer this question, open the
Rutherford Scattering simulation. This simulation gives a microscopic picture of
Rutherford’s famous experiment in which he shot alpha particles at a thin foil of gold.
Based on Thomson’s Plum Pudding model, how did Rutherford expect the alpha particles
to behave when he shot them at the gold atoms? (To see this behavior, go to the “Plum
Pudding Atom” panel of the simulation.) Why? What did he observe instead? (Go to the
“Rutherford Atom” panel.) Based on his observations, what inference did Rutherford
make about the distribution of positive charge in the atom?

Based on the Plum Pudding model, Rutherford expected that alpha particles would just
go straight through the atoms, since the electrons were distributed throughout a positive
goo, so wherever the alpha particles hit the atoms, they would encounter about an equal
distribution of positive and negative charge. Instead, he saw that some alpha particles
bounced back at sharp angles. From this observation he concluded that the positive
charge must be concentrated in a small region called a nucleus, rather than distributed
throughout the whole atom. Since positive charges repel each other, when the positively
charged alpha particles came close to this positively charged nucleus, they would be
strongly repelled and bounce back.

2. Classical Solar System to Bohr – Open the Models of the Hydrogen Atom simulation.
What observation can you make about the light detected by the spectrometer in
experiment mode that Rutherford’s solar system model is unable to explain? Based on
this observation, what inferences did Bohr make about the nature of atoms? How was
this inference able to explain the observation? There is also a simpler observation we can
make, that atoms are stable and do not collapse in on themselves. How did the Bohr
model address this observation?

If you look at light emitted by an atom through a spectrometer, you will see that only
certain discrete colors are emitted. The classical solar system model does not predict this
behavior. Bohr made the inference that electrons orbit the nucleus at fixed radii, with
fixed energy levels. When electrons are in these fixed energy levels, they don’t radiate,
and when they jump between the levels, they radiate exactly the energy difference
between them. This explained the spectrum of Hydrogen, because it predicted a discrete
spectrum with exactly the right colors. The Bohr model also addressed the observation
that the atom is stable, despite the prediction of classical electromagnetism theory that the
negative electron should be attracted to the positive nucleus so strongly that it should
quickly spiral into the nucleus, by simply postulating that as long as the electron is in a
fixed orbit, it will not radiate or spiral into the nucleus.

3. Explain the relationship between the behavior of the electron in the picture of the atom
and the energy level diagram for the Bohr model. As n gets larger, do the orbits get
_________________________________
‫ אין לעשות‬.‫קובץ זה נועד אך ורק לשימושם האישי של מורי הפיזיקה ולהוראה בכיתותיהם‬
‫ פרסום באתר אחר‬,‫שימוש כלשהו בקובץ זה לכל מטרה אחרת ובכלל זה שימוש מסחרי‬
‫ העמדה לרשות הציבור או הפצה בדרך אחרת‬,)‫(למעט אתר בית הספר בו מלמד המורה‬
‫כלשהי של קובץ זה או כל חלק ממנו‬.
closer together or farther apart? Why? As n gets larger, do the energy levels get closer
together or farther apart? Why?

Each level on the energy level diagram corresponds to an orbit in the atom. As the
electron orbits get further from the nucleus, their energy gets higher. When the electron
makes a transition from one orbit to another, the absorbed or emitted photon is
represented by a squiggle in the energy level diagram. The difference between the two
levels, or the length of this squiggle, tells you the energy of the photon. As n gets larger,
the orbits get farther apart because the radius is proportional to n², but the energy levels
get closer together because the (negative) energy is inversely proportional to the radius.

4. Bohr to deBroglie – The deBroglie model is different from the previous models we
have discussed in that it was based on a theoretical argument, rather than on experimental
observations. (There is no experimental difference between the Bohr model and the
deBroglie model!) What was the problem with the Bohr model that deBroglie sought to
address? How did he address this problem? Do you think his argument was convincing?
Would you have granted him a PhD for this argument? What later observations backed
up his argument? How did these observations support his model?

Bohr’s postulate that electrons can only orbit at certain fixed radii was not very satisfying
because there was no reason for it. deBroglie gave a more satisfying explanation by
postulating that electrons are standing waves spread out along the entire orbit. Since we
know that standing waves can only exist with certain energies, this model “explains” why
electrons can only have certain energies

5. How is deBroglie’s view of the electron different from Bohr’s view? What is the
purpose of the three different views of the deBroglie electron in the Models of the
Hydrogen Atom simulation? Which view do you find most useful for helping you
understand the nature of the electron in this model? Why?

In the Bohr model, the electron is a point particle moving along a circular orbit like a
planet going around the sun, with a definite position and momentum at all times. In the
deBroglie model, the electron is a wave spread around the whole orbit at once. The three
different views all give you a sense of what an electron standing wave is like, although
none of them can accurately capture exactly what’s going on. The radial view represents
the amplitude of the wave as radial distance, and the 3D view represents the amplitude of
the wave as distance perpendicular to the ring. The brightness view represents the
amplitude of the wave as brightness. None of these are quite right, since the amplitude
actually represents the probability density, but hopefully having all three reminds you not
to take any one too seriously. The radial view and 3D views help make a connections
with standing waves on strings and rings, which may be more familiar because you have
seen them in real life. The brightness view may give you a more accurate sense that the
amplitude of the wave tells you the magnitude of the probability, not a location in space.

_________________________________
‫ אין לעשות‬.‫קובץ זה נועד אך ורק לשימושם האישי של מורי הפיזיקה ולהוראה בכיתותיהם‬
‫ פרסום באתר אחר‬,‫שימוש כלשהו בקובץ זה לכל מטרה אחרת ובכלל זה שימוש מסחרי‬
‫ העמדה לרשות הציבור או הפצה בדרך אחרת‬,)‫(למעט אתר בית הספר בו מלמד המורה‬
‫כלשהי של קובץ זה או כל חלק ממנו‬.
6. Name at least three observations scientists made that were either inconsistent with, or
inadequately described by, the Bohr and deBroglie models. Discuss how the models
were inadequate or inconsistent for each of these observations.

Here are some possible answers:

1. Some spectral lines are brighter than others. Neither Bohr nor deBroglie could explain
why.
2. Molecular bonds depended on electrons being distributed in orbitals with peculiar
shapes that were much more complex than the simple circular orbits described by Bohr or
the simple circular standing wave described by deBroglie.
3. An electron in the ground state of Hydrogen was found to have an angular momentum
of n, rather than zero, as Bohr and deBroglie predicted.
4. Scientists observed spectra and bonding for complex multi-electron atoms than Bohr
and deBroglie couldn’t even begin to explain.

7. Describe the Schrodinger model of the atom (you may want to use the sim) and discuss
how this model addressed each of the inconsistencies you listed in question 6.

In the Schrodinger model, rather than a point particle or a standing wave on a ring, an
electron is described by a “cloud” or “wave function” which is spread out in a complex
three dimensional shape. This cloud describes the probability of finding the electron as
function of position. It is determined by solving the three dimensional Schrodinger
equation with the potential energy given by the Coulomb potential of the nucleus. (For
multi-electron atoms, the potential energy for each electron is given by the Coulomb
potential of the nucleus plus all the other electrons.)

1. The Schrodinger model predicts the brightness of spectral lines because you can
compute the probability of a transition between two states. This probability is given by
the overlap between the old probability distribution modified by the E-field of the
incoming photon, and the new probability distribution.
2. The Schrodinger model predicts the shape of orbitals – they are just the solutions to the
Schrodinger equation.
3. Solving the Schrodinger equation gives the angular momentum of an electron as
l(l+1), rather than n, as Bohr and deBroglie predicted.
4. While it is messy, computers can solve the Schrodinger equation for any arbitrary
potential energy, including that of multi-electron atoms.

8. Explain the relationship between the behavior of the electron in the picture of the atom
and the energy level diagram for the Schrodinger model. Compare and contrast this
explanation with the explanation you gave for the Bohr model in question 3.

Each level on the energy level diagram corresponds to an orbital of the electron in the
atom. Rather than a point particle at a specific radius, the electron is now spread out over
a distribution of radii. It is similar to the Bohr model in that higher energies correspond
_________________________________
‫ אין לעשות‬.‫קובץ זה נועד אך ורק לשימושם האישי של מורי הפיזיקה ולהוראה בכיתותיהם‬
‫ פרסום באתר אחר‬,‫שימוש כלשהו בקובץ זה לכל מטרה אחרת ובכלל זה שימוש מסחרי‬
‫ העמדה לרשות הציבור או הפצה בדרך אחרת‬,)‫(למעט אתר בית הספר בו מלמד המורה‬
‫כלשהי של קובץ זה או כל חלק ממנו‬.
to higher average radii, but different in that the electron can no longer be described as
being at a specific radius. The energies are the same for the Bohr and Schrodinger
models, but in the Schrodinger model, there is more than one possible state for each
energy, described by different values of the quantum numbers l and m, and corresponding
to different probability distributions of the electron.

9. Turn the simulation speed up to “fast” so that you can build up the spectrometer
pattern more quickly. Then run the spectrometer for a minute for each model and take a
snapshot with the camera button on the spectrometer. Compare the spectrometer
readings for each model. Note that which photon happens to come in and excite the
electron at any given moment is random, so pay attention to the overall pattern, not to
small fluctuations in the numbers emitted. Explain, based on the spectrometer readings,
the differences between each of the models. Which spectrometer reading is most similar
to the spectrometer reading in Experiment mode? Why?

In the billiard ball model, atoms have no structure, with no positive or negative charges.
Therefore they cannot absorb or emit light, so they have no spectrum. The spectrometer,
which measures emitted light, doesn’t read anything. In the plum pudding model, there
are no energy levels, just electrons bouncing around inside a positive goo. These
electrons always oscillate with the same frequency, so they always emit the same color of
light. The spectrometer therefore only picks up one color, rather than a full spectrum. In
the classical solar system model, the electron spirals into the nucleus long before it can
ever absorb any light, so again the spectrometer reads nothing. This model clearly
doesn’t work. The Bohr model is the first model that produces a spectrum. Bohr
postulated that electrons could only be in fixed energy levels, so they emitted very
specific colors of light that corresponded to the energy differences between those levels.
This gives rise to the spectrum we see on the spectrometer. There is no experimental
difference between deBroglie and Bohr. It has the same fixed energy levels, and emits
the same colors of light. The Schrodinger model also has fixed energy levels, but they
are more complicated because there are also m and l values. Also, if you look at the
spectrometer, you get the same colors as in Bohr and deBroglie, but the distribution of
these colors is different. Bohr and deBroglie could not explain the relative probabilities
of different transitions, but Schrodinger could. Therefore, Schrodinger gives the
spectrometer reading most similar to the real spectrometer reading in Experiment mode.

_________________________________
‫ אין לעשות‬.‫קובץ זה נועד אך ורק לשימושם האישי של מורי הפיזיקה ולהוראה בכיתותיהם‬
‫ פרסום באתר אחר‬,‫שימוש כלשהו בקובץ זה לכל מטרה אחרת ובכלל זה שימוש מסחרי‬
‫ העמדה לרשות הציבור או הפצה בדרך אחרת‬,)‫(למעט אתר בית הספר בו מלמד המורה‬
‫כלשהי של קובץ זה או כל חלק ממנו‬.