Trevor Jess

Pierre Filerio
Jackie Castaneda

Atomic Models Phet Simulations

Multiple Choice questions:

 
Search Google for PhET simulations.  Open the Models of the Hydrogen Atom using the
Browser Compatible version. Which aspects of this sim are showing observations and which are
showing inferences?
 
Picture of atom: Inference. We can make inferences about how the atom will affect the photons
on the screen.
Movement of photons across the screen: Inference. We can make inferences about how the
photons will be affected by the atom.
Energy level diagram: Observation. We can measure how the photons are being affected by the
atom using the energy level diagram.
Pattern on spectrometer: Observation. We can make observations form the pattern of the
spectrometer
 
 
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 (PhET, also) 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 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 upon the Plum Pudding model, Rutherford would have expected the alpha particles to pass
through the atom and appear at the back without being affected by the atom. This is because they
believed at the time that the density of the atoms was constant and uniform. This turned out to be
false, because what Rutherford actually observed was the alpha particles being deflected in all
directions. This led Rutherford to infer that there was a dense, positively charged nucleus in the
center of the atom, with the negatively charged particles outside. 
 
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?
 
We observed the box of hydrogen is white the small light dots emit different colors. Bohr
predicted that the electron circles around the proton in a slower circle and that the hydrogen
particles would just pass through them. The inference helps the observation because in this case
the observations show that the electron in his model does circle around.

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 closer together or
farther apart?  Why?  As n gets larger, do the energy levels get closer together or farther apart? 
Why?
 
As the atom comes into contact with the photon, it gains energy and jumps to a higher energy
level. The electron is absorbing energy from the photon and moving away from the nucleus of
the atom. It cannot sustain itself in the higher energy orbit, however, so it moves back down to
its starting position, releasing energy in the form of light as it goes. This is why different atoms
have different spectra associated with them: as the energy difference changes between each level,
the color of light released by the electron moving to a lower energy level is different. As the
number of orbits gets larger, the orbits get farther and farther apart. This is because it tackles
much more energy to move between the shells the farther out you get.

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?

The problem that de Broglie’s model sought to address was that according to Bhor’s model,
electrons could only navigate or orbit a fixed radi, when in reality, there was no real justification.
In order to address the problem, de Broglie proposed that electrons are actually standing waves
which explains why electrons have specific energies. I think this argument is convincing because
it explains that standing waves can only be present with certain types of energies, and in this
case; electrons. We would have granted him a Phd for his argument because it introduced that
matter has wave-like properties. Later tests and experiments showed that electron steam acted in
ways like light and therefore backed up his argument. This observation supported his model
because it demonstrated that electrons didn’t have a fixed orbit and showed how they had
properties of waves.
 
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?

The main way in which deBroglie’s view of the electron is different from the Bohr model is that
deBroglie thought electrons may exist as waves, the same way that light particles do. This idea
was not formed as part of an experiment, and was purely philosophical, but it does explain things
that Bhor’s model cannot. I find Bhor’s model most useful for helping my understanding of the
nature of the electron in the model because it is easier to conceptualize a particle orbiting around
the nucleus than a wave doing the same thing. For me it is much easier to think of a particle
orbiting the nucleus very fast than to think of a wave that is around the whole nucleus at the
same time.
 
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.

An observation that scientists weren’t able to adequately describe by these models was that
whenever an electron accelerated, they didnt know why it gave off energy. The models couldn’t
describe it because they couldn’t understand that the electrons behaved like photons. Also,
another observation that they failed to explain was that molecular bonds needed electrons to be
in their specific orbit in a particular shape. These models were inconsistent with this observation
because they couldn't simply be explained by Bhor’s orbits or de Brogile’s waves. Another
observation that these models were inconsistent with was that some spectral lines give off more
light than others. The models failed to explain this because the answer was too complex for the
models to show.
 
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.
The model is described as the assumption that electrons come in waves and tries to describe the
regions in space, where electrons can be found. The other models show the electron orbiting and
there are inconsistencies as to where the electrons can be found. If the  electrons are different
most can give off different amounts of light but Schrodinger's model is not treated like a particle
in fixed position unlike bohrs, Schrodinger's model was shown as a one dimensional model
addressing inconsistencies in Bohr's model, and it was more precise. 

 
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.

In the Pictures of the atoms the electrons circle around the protons and neutrons, and in the
model the proton seems to be on top of the electron. By gaining energy from photons the atoms
cannot sustain high amounts of energy for very long losing them . The simulation shows a
constant energy.

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?

The main difference between each of the models is how the atoms react to being hit with the
photons. The plum pudding model only ever shows the hydrogen atom emitting the same
wavelength of light because there is no way for it to absorb and let off a different amount. The
classical solar system model showed the electron falling into the nucleus because that is how our
understanding of planetary orbits was. The Bhor model shows the electron orbiting the nucleus
and jumping to higher energy levels when it is hit with a proton. The electron then falls to lower
energy levels and lets off light as it does so. This explains how the hydrogen atom can give off
multiple different wavelengths of light, but it does not very accurately represent the amounts of
each wavelength that are being emitted. The model that best fits the experimental data is the
Schrödinger model. This is probably because it is the most advanced model and uses our current
understanding of previous experimental data. While this model best reflects what happens in the
experimental test, it is not perfect, suggesting that we still do not fully understand the atomic
model.