Physics Was Wrong

…and Niels Bohr was right

Wait, what? We’re talking about physics again?

Here’s the deal: the discipline of chemistry started with the concept of an element. The atom (and its subatomic particles) is the basis for an element. It is the reason an element behaves the way it does. Understanding the nature of the atom (which involves a little bit of physics) leads to a deeper, more complete understanding of chemistry. I promise.

Now, let’s talk about food.

With plum pudding debunked, Rutherford hypothesized a new model for the structure of an atom — one with a central nucleus around which electrons orbited. The data so far supported this; however, there is a small problem with this model, and it requires a bit of physics to explain. Let’s hope I don’t screw this up…

Velocity, as far as traditional physics is concerned, consists of speed and direction. Acceleration is the change in velocity, which can be either a change in speed or direction. Therefore, a thing that is always changing direction is always accelerating.

Imagine that “thing” is an electron orbiting a nucleus — by the very definition of its orbit, an electron is constantly accelerating (it is constantly changing direction). A classical physical treatment of the electron states that an accelerating particle should radiate energy, meaning that the electron would constantly be losing energy. If that were true, an electron would very simply spiral into the nucleus resulting in the…