0
Enkidu Posted 17 years ago
Grammar
Comment
While proposed that negatively charged electrons
were held in orbit by the positively charged nucleus,
he did not describe the location of the electrons.
Niels Bohr proposed that electrons
move in orbits around the nucleus.
were held in orbit by the positively charged nucleus,
he did not describe the location of the electrons.
Niels Bohr proposed that electrons
move in orbits around the nucleus.
Top answer
This is a grammar forum, not a physics forum, but from the text you have supplied, I suppose it means that Niels Bohr located the electrons in their orbits around the nucleus, while Ernest Rutherford did not indicate where they were or what they were doing. J. Thomson that held to the 'plum pudding' model, while his student Rutherford, like Niels Bohr, posited electrons orbiting a central nucleus.
- This is a grammar forum, not a physics forum, but from the text you have supplied, I suppose it means that Niels Bohr located the electrons in their orbits around the nucleus, while Ernest Rutherford did not indicate where they were or what they were doing.
- J.
- Thomson that held to the 'plum pudding' model, while his student Rutherford, like Niels Bohr, posited electrons orbiting a central nucleus.
- I may be wrong though; I am just a grammarian.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
7 Answers
0
.
This is a grammar forum, not a physics forum, but from the text you have supplied, I suppose it means that Niels Bohr located the electrons in their orbits around the nucleus, while Ernest Rutherford did not indicate where they were or what they were doing.
However, I think your quote is a bit confused, since it was J.J. Thomson that held to the 'plum pudding' model, while his stud
This is a grammar forum, not a physics forum, but from the text you have supplied, I suppose it means that Niels Bohr located the electrons in their orbits around the nucleus, while Ernest Rutherford did not indicate where they were or what they were doing.
However, I think your quote is a bit confused, since it was J.J. Thomson that held to the 'plum pudding' model, while his stud
00
There may be major differences between the two theories, but they're surely not described by your sentence. Both proposals here are identical as to the location of the particles. The only difference is that your description of Bohr's proposal doesn't mention a force which "keeps" the electrons in orbit.
To be in orbit is to travel in a more or less circular path. Your description of Ru
To be in orbit is to travel in a more or less circular path. Your description of Ru
00
I like to thank to both of you first of all.
This sentence from a documentary prepared for secondary school students. That is why, it is not explained as detailed.
I read it repeatedly, but i never saw "radical difference" between them. Therefore I had to ask here even though it has to do with physics.
This sentence from a documentary prepared for secondary school students. That is why, it is not explained as detailed.
I read it repeatedly, but i never saw "radical difference" between them. Therefore I had to ask here even though it has to do with physics.
00
Careless facts and careless language. I think you were justified in your feeling.
00
AvangiTo be in orbit is to travel in a more or less circular path.More "less" than "more" once you get past the first electron shell. Those orbits loop around in the most twisting ways you can imagine. (I thoroughly disapprove, of course.)
CJ
00
enkiduI did not understand what difference are there between these two scientist's theroies.That's not surprising. It's very poorly explained. Rutherford said the electrons orbited in a dense cloud around the nucleus. The implication is that the distance from the center didn't make any difference -- just any size orbit would do. Bohr said that the orbits c
00
Related Questions