Talk:Bohr–Sommerfeld model

Zeeman splitting[edit]

This is discussed completely in old quantum theory. The magnetic field splitting is not explicitly mentioned, but it was the experimental test.Likebox (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the blanking. I think the merge is a good idea, but a hard redirect to a page that does not even mention the word "Bohr-Sommerfeld theory" seems a bit drastic, wikipedia is also suppose to be for non-experts, should people just guess the context? --Thorseth (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Bohr and Sommerfeld are mentioned right at the beginning, though. The content of Sommerfeld quantization is section 1 of the contents. The link Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization goes to the same place. If you want to rewrite the lead of Old quantum theory to make it clear that this is Bohr Sommerfeld theory, please feel free. The two articles are duplicating concepts.Likebox (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the magnetic field splitting: this is discussed in the section on the magnetic quantum number in old quantum theory, but it isn't very clear about the experimental signature. That's because there are selection rules, and spin, which complicate the whole thing.Likebox (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion transwikied from "talk:Bohr–Sommerfeld theory#Zeeman splitting". Nicole Sharp (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation[edit]

For me (a solid state physicist) the Sommerfeld model is the Free electron model, where it is called Drude-Sommerfeld model. I think this needs a diambiguation page. Seattle Jörg (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Done. See "Sommerfeld model". Nicole Sharp (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

figure[edit]

The most elliptic orbit is labelel "s l=0" instead of "s l=1" (and similarly for higher orbits). It is true that what we today call s-state has l=0, but this was not true in the old quantum theory, that is classical mechanics with restrictions on the energy and angular momentum values. In classical mechanics, an l=0 orbit is a segment of straight line (the minor semiaxis is proportional to L).

Actually, my experience is that teaching the BS model causes problems to chemistry students (whose knowledge of classical mechanics is limited). From the fact that 1s is circular and the elliptic orbits appear at higher energies, they often understand that the elliptic orbits correspond to the p orbitals. Other confusions appear in connection with the fact that the s-orbitals are more penetrating than the p-ones. This only to say that if someone has experienced related problems, he is not the only.

thanks. I know that my text is confuse, but my english is poor. 151.29.137.229 (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems useful to state in the figure captions that the radii of the circular orbits (and the axis of all orbits) are in the ratio 1:4:9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.29.137.229 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]