0

I have seen an answer which tells the difference between model (specific) and a theory (general). And it makes sense 'coz Bohr explained it for the hydrogen atom only. But did he not make a set of hypotheses and test them with spectral experiments?? I know he just correlated spectral data, but still..

Polisetty
  • 231
  • 3
    It's not a theory because it has very little explanatory power, and was junked less than 15 years after being proposed. See http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/89351/ and http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/114341/. It persists as a teaching model for a number of reasons but there is a bit of a movement to do away with the emphasis that has historically but put on the developmental quantum thinking in teaching modern physics (in favor of starting with correct models from the get go). – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Feb 01 '16 at 21:17
  • Terminology questions, such as, e.g., Why is the standard model not called the standard theory? or Why is string theory not called the string model? are typically non-constructive and primarily opinion-based, cf. this meta post. – Qmechanic Feb 01 '16 at 21:37
  • @dmckee nailed it. Models apply to specific cases which are not well understood/understanding them in terms of a deeper theory is not feasible. – Bruce Lee Feb 01 '16 at 21:39
  • @dmckee: I certainly hope that we stop teaching failed models outside of science history and start teaching the (more) correct solutions from the get-go. It's high time to equip people with 20th century physics knowledge. – CuriousOne Feb 01 '16 at 21:52

0 Answers0