How does the wavelength of a matter wave relate to the orbits of the Bohr atom?
369730
Well, De Broglie's 'matter waves' explain that since energy also behaves to be particles just like matter, matter may also behave like waves as if they were energy waves. This supports the Bohr model. According to the Bohr model, each element has its own line spectrum because of the "electron jumps". If you would think about it, it seems too impossible for an electron to jump instantaneously from one position to another. There must be a way for the electron to displace, and that may be how matter waves came iinto the controversy. Electrons may behave just like energy waves, so they become continuous instead of discrete at certain times. And since electrons are so tiny, they are the ones that have a really detectable wavelength. The bigger the object, the smaller its wavelength. So, by its wave nature, the electron can move from one position to another.
191834
when on eis at the speed of light, v=c:\n\n\nV = c(wavelength shift/wavelength)    \n        \n     where:  c = velocity of light\n\n name of the person is both Grocer and Grover, as v is replacable with c at the speed of light.
880969
hey, when you have 2 electrons in the same orbital, you will always have one spinning up and one spinning down... its about balance, if both electrons were spinning the same direction, they could not stay in they're orbits...
477007
energy = matter at the speed of light celeritas squared
422440
the wavelength is half...\n\nvavelength and frequency are inversely proportional
626546
The simplest reasonable model of the atom is the Bohr model, which does tend to look like a mini solar system. In actuality, atomic structure is not so easy to define. The further you advance in chemistry, the more complex the models become, and the less they look like "mini solar systems". But they are still only reasonable attempts to visualize a very complex system, and cannot physically confine all the expected paths of the electrons' orbits.
964379
The individual electrons do not travel in planes or anything resembling a planetary orbit.  Each electron associated with an atom "occupies" a space whose shape depend on how many other electrons are associated with the same atom.  "Occupies" is in quotes because it is only an approximation of the situation.  In a sense, any particular electron inhabits the entire universe, but with a much higher probability of being found in certain regions than in others.  If you made a really sophisticated graph of the probable locations of the electron, using an infinitely large clear crystal, and staining it some shade of black, with the darkness/opacity of the black depending on the probability of finding the electron there, you would have a picture of the space "occupied" by the electron, sometimes called an electron cloud.  For the single atom around a hydrogen atom, the cloud would be a spherical blob, very dark around the nucleus, getting somewhat transparent further from the nucleus, and getting fainter, but never completely clear as you moved further from the nucleus.  The shape of the clouds around a helium atom are somewhat like two tear drops, with their pointy ends near the nucleus.  The shapes of the clouds are different for different elements, and they are changed when an atom is part of a molecule with other atoms.  But the clouds are never planar.
62346
the atom is the most basic unit of matter
803143
In atomic physics, the Bohr model depicts the atom as a small, positively charged nucleus surrounded by waves of electrons in orbit — similar in structure to the solar system, but with electrostatic forces providing attraction, rather than gravity, and with waves spread over entire orbits instead of localized planets.
924334
Well, in terms of classical physics, an electron orbits the nucleus due to the electrical force.  But the theory of electromagnetism tells us that accelerating charged particles lose energy, and anything which is orbiting something is accelerating.  So, put these two facts together and the electron should lose energy and spiral into the nucleus.  This obviously doesn't happen (if it did, there would be no atoms...), so this was a serious problem for physics in the first decade or so of the 20th century.\n\nThe semi-classical explanation, created by a physicist named Bohr to solve the problems with the classical explanation, proposed that electrons could only be in orbits where the quantity called angular momentum (which is numerically the momentum of a particle times the radius of its orbit, or formulaicly pr=mvr=m(r^2)w where w is the angular velocity [think of it as the frequency of the orbit]) was some integer number times a constant (called h-bar).  This theory prevented the electron from falling into the nucleus of an atom, and it explained the Hydrogen atom perfectly.  But it didn't work for any other kind of atom.\n\nFinally, there's the quantum explanation, which emerged about ten/fifteen years or so after Bohr did his work.  In quantum theory particles are represented by probability distributions called wavefunctions (which is, depending on how you approach it, either a result of or the reason for Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle; also, I'm playing a bit fast and loose with my terminology:  a wavefunction isn't a probability distribution, but if you basically square the wavefunction, that's the probability distribution).  Now, if you work out the wavefunction of an electron around a nucleus, it turns out to be constant in time, which means that it doesn't fall into the nucleus (or fly off into space or whatever else;  it stays around the nucleus as desribed by the wavefunction).  Of course, one thing which is interesting to note is that in many situations (incluing the simplest) the signle point (though not the radius) where the probability of finding the electron is the highest is actually in the nucleus.  :)  But if you found the electron there at one moment the next moment you could easily find it outside the nucleus.  It's random (as far as we know).\n\nNow, if this last confuses you or seems weird, well, it *is* quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics is renowned for being very weird and confusing.  As to why you can never just find the electron always sitting in the nucleus of an atom, it basically has to do with the Uncertainty Principle.  If you knew that the electron definitely had to be in the same place as the nucleus at any given point of time, you couldn't know how fast it was moving very well at all, so a moment later the electron could be very far away from the nucleus (but not separated from it, as the electrical attraction would still be there and would keep the electron from escaping the nucleus altogether).\n\nI hope I've shed some light on this subject for you.
209361
yeah, the guy was right, it's position and momentum, not energy and momentum. \n\nSee, if everything is a wave, it has a frequency spectrum associated with it (look up Fourier analysis). If something has one specific frequency only, then you can measure the frequency perfectly; the frequency gets you the wavelength, the wavelength gets you the momentum. But by definition, a wave at a single pure frequency extends to infinity in both directions, so you have no information about position. \n\nOn the other hand, if the wave looks like a single peak, you can calculate the position very nicely, but the frequency makeup (Fourier analysis) of a single peak contains an infinite number of frequencies, therefore an infinite number of momenta. \n\nFrom frequency /Fourier analysis, it's sort of obvious that the tighter you get the frequency/momentum, the wider the position spreads, and vice versa. No way you can specify a single frequency at a single point. (you can kind of see this intuitively; imagine a little chunk of a waveform, like just the tip of one peak; you can see the position precisely, but it's hard to estimate the frequency).
238750
Energy is directly proportional to frequency, as governed by the equation E=hv, where E is energy, h is planck's constant, and v is freuqency, in hertz.  \n\nSince wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency, and energy is directly proportional to wavelength, energy is inversely proportional to wavelength.  \n\nc=(wavelength)(frequency), where c is the speed of light\nE=(h)(v)=(h)(c/wavelength)
715376
It means that electrons have both particle-like and wave-like behaviour (for example they demonstrate interference).\n\nwavelength = planck's constant/(mass x velocity)
954846
Actually, electrons do have wave properties.  The wavelength is equal to h/mv, where h is Planck's constant, m is the mass, v is velocity.  With this equation you can find the wavelength of any matter.\nAlthough the wavelength of an electron is usually less than a nanometer, we can still detect it.
902950
Basically the same as the model of the hydrogen atom, but with more of everything!\nEach of the electrons follows it's own path, which are all perfectly circular orbits and are arranged so as to have the maximum distance between orbits possible. I'm not sure about the energy levels, or if the orbits all have the same radius...
566511
Electrons, which are a Fermion particles, obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This means in a system there can never be 2 identical fermions (in this case no 2 electrons in an atom) that occupy the same quantum state. This is different to Bosons (photons for example) where any number of bosons can occupy the same quantum state.\n\nIn a bit more depth:\nThe Pauli exclusion principle plays a profound role in a huge number of physical phenomena. One of the most important, it results in "rigidness" or "stiffness" of fermions as contrast to bosons - impossibility to squeeze identical fermions into each other - thus in "rigidness" of ordinary matter (Young and bulk moduli of solids are direct consequences of Pauli principle). Another consequence is the elaborate electron shell structure of atoms and of the way atoms share electron(s) - thus variety of chemical elements and of their combinations (chemistry). (An electrically neutral atom contains bound electrons equal in number to the protons in the nucleus. Since electrons are fermions, the Pauli exclusion principle forbids them from occupying the same quantum state, so electrons have to "pile on top of each other" in atom).\n\nFor example, consider a neutral helium atom, which has two bound electrons. Both of these electrons can occupy the lowest-energy (1s) states by acquiring opposite spin. This does not violate the Pauli principle because spin is part of the quantum state of the electron, so the two electrons are occupying different quantum states. However, the spin can take only two different values (or eigenvalues). In a lithium atom, which contains three bound electrons, the third electron cannot fit into a 1s state, and has to occupy one of the higher-energy 2s states instead. Similarly, successive elements produce successively higher-energy shells. The chemical properties of an element largely depend on the number of electrons in the outermost shell, which gives rise to the periodic table of the elements.\n\nAstronomy provides another spectacular demonstrations of this effect, in the form of white dwarf stars and neutron stars. In both types of objects, the usual atomic structures are disrupted by large gravitational forces, leaving the constituents supported only by a "degeneracy pressure" produced by the Pauli exclusion principle. This exotic form of matter is known as degenerate matter. In white dwarfs, the atoms are held apart by the degeneracy pressure of the electrons. In neutron stars, which exhibit even larger gravitational forces, the electrons have merged with the protons to form neutrons, which produce a larger degeneracy pressure. Neutrons are the most "rigid" objects known - their Young modulus (or more accurate, bulk modulus) is 20 orders of magnitude larger than that of diamond.\n\nAnother physical phenomenon for which the Pauli principle is responsible is ferromagnetism, in which the exclusion effect results in exchange energy that induces neighboring electron spins to align (whereas classically they would anti-align).
788044
i can assure you that  the answer is \n\nA. the Bohr model of the atom, with discrete orbits. \n\ni have been analyzing this work  for 3 years.\n\n\np.s the answer is so funny C."C. the Einstein model of the atom."