Why was a change in the Bohr Model of atom required? Due to which important development (s), concept of moveme

NCERT Exemplar · Q55

Q. Why was a change in the Bohr Model of atom required? Due to which important development (s), concept of movement of an electron in an orbit was replaced by, the concept of probability of finding electron in an orbital? What is the name given to the changed model of atom?

Puducherry CbseLong· 3mImportance★★★★★

100% · 140/140 Questions

🔒 Locked · start free trial →

You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Concept understanding — De Broglie Wavelength

De Broglie Wavelength: When Particles Start Acting Like Waves

Imagine you're holding a cricket ball. You know exactly where it is, and if you throw it, you can predict its path. That's a particle — localised, definite, following Newton's laws. Now think of light. You can't "hold" a beam of light; it spreads out, bends around corners, creates interference patterns. That's a wave — spread out, not localised.

For centuries, physics kept these two worlds separate. Particles were particles. Waves were waves. Never the twain shall meet.

Then came a young French physicist, Louis de Broglie, in 1924. He asked a question that seemed almost absurd: If light — which we thought was a wave — can behave like a particle (the photoelectric effect), then why can't a particle — say, an electron — behave like a wave?

That question turned physics upside down.

The Core Idea

De Broglie proposed that every moving particle has a wave associated with it. The wavelength of that wave depends on the particle's momentum. The faster or heavier the particle, the shorter the wavelength.

\lambda = \frac{h}{p} = \frac{h}{mv}

This is not a mathematical trick. It's a physical reality. An electron moving through a crystal actually behaves like a wave of this wavelength — it can diffract, interfere, and form patterns just like light does.

Why You Don't See It in Daily Life

Here's the crucial point: the de Broglie wavelength is incredibly tiny for everyday objects.

Take a cricket ball of mass 0.16 kg moving at 30 m/s. Its de Broglie wavelength is:

\lambda = \frac{6.626 \times 10^{-34}}{0.16 \times 30} \approx 1.38 \times 10^{-34} \ \text{m}

That's about a hundred trillion trillion times smaller than the nucleus of an atom. No experiment can detect such a wave — it's effectively zero for all practical purposes.

Now take an electron (mass $9.1 \times 10^{-31}$ kg) accelerated through 100 volts. Its speed is about $5.9 \times 10^6$ m/s. Its de Broglie wavelength:

\lambda = \frac{6.626 \times 10^{-34}}{9.1 \times 10^{-31} \times 5.9 \times 10^6} \approx 1.23 \times 10^{-10} \ \text{m}

That's about 0.12 nanometres — comparable to the spacing between atoms in a crystal. This is measurable. And indeed, in 1927, Davisson and Germer fired electrons at a nickel crystal and observed diffraction — the unmistakable signature of a wave.

Note

The de Broglie wavelength is only observable when it is comparable to the size of objects the particle interacts with. For macroscopic objects, it's far too small to matter. For subatomic particles, it's the key to understanding their behaviour.

What This Means Physically

The wave is not a physical wave in space like a water wave. It's a probability wave — its amplitude at any point tells you the probability of finding the particle there. Where the wave amplitude is large, you're likely to find the particle; where it's zero, you won't.

This wave-particle duality is not a compromise. It's the actual nature of reality. An electron is neither a pure particle nor a pure wave — it's something that shows particle-like behaviour in some experiments (like hitting a screen at a point) and wave-like behaviour in others (like passing through two slits and interfering with itself). …

Why this formula?

De Broglie Wavelength: Why the Formula Holds

Let's build this from the ground up — understanding why matter has a wavelength, not just memorizing $\lambda = \frac{h}{p}$ .

The Core Insight: Nature's Symmetry

Before de Broglie, physics had two separate worlds:

Light — showed wave behaviour (diffraction, interference) but also particle behaviour (photoelectric effect)
Matter — showed particle behaviour (momentum, collisions) but no wave behaviour yet

De Broglie asked a daring question in his 1924 PhD thesis:

If light (a wave) can behave like a particle, why can't a particle (like an electron) behave like a wave?

Nature should be symmetric — what applies to one should apply to the other.

Step 1: Start with Light (What We Already Knew)

For a photon, Einstein had given us two key relations:

Energy: $E = hf$ (Planck's relation)
Momentum: $p = \frac{h}{\lambda}$ (from $E = pc$ for light, combined with $c = f\lambda$ )

So for light:

\lambda = \frac{h}{p}

This was experimentally verified for photons.

Step 2: De Broglie's Bold Hypothesis

De Broglie said: This relation is not special to light. It is universal.

For any particle with momentum $p$ :

\boxed{\lambda = \frac{h}{p}}

Where:

$\lambda$ = de Broglie wavelength
$h$ = Planck's constant ( $6.626 \times 10^{-34} \text{ J·s}$ )
$p$ = momentum of the particle

Step 3: Why Momentum and Not Velocity?

This is crucial. The formula uses momentum ( $p = mv$ ), not just velocity.

For a non-relativistic particle (slow compared to light):

\lambda = \frac{h}{mv}

For a relativistic particle (like an electron at high speed):

p = \gamma mv \quad \text{where} \quad \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}

\lambda = \frac{h}{\gamma mv}

Why momentum? Because momentum is the more fundamental quantity — it's conserved, it's frame-independent in a deeper sense, and it connects directly to the wave's phase.

Step 4: The Deeper Reasoning — Wave-Particle Duality

De Broglie didn't just guess. He reasoned:

Every moving particle has an associated wave — called the "matter wave" or "pilot wave"
The frequency of this wave comes from energy: $f = \frac{E}{h}$
The wavelength comes from momentum: $\lambda = \frac{h}{p}$

These two relations are linked by the phase velocity of the wave:

v_{\text{phase}} = f\lambda = \frac{E}{h} \cdot \frac{h}{p} = \frac{E}{p}

For a free particle with kinetic energy $E = \frac{p^2}{2m}$ :

v_{\text{phase}} = \frac{p}{2m} = \frac{v}{2}

This is half the particle's speed — a strange but mathematically consistent result.

Step 5: Experimental Confirmation (Why We Believe It)

De Broglie's idea was confirmed when electrons showed wave behaviour: …

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

The Bohr model failed to explain the spectra of multi-electron atoms and the dual nature of matter. The development of quantum mechanics, especially the de Broglie hypothesis and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, replaced the idea of fixed orbits with the probability-based concept of orbitals. The resulting model is the quantum mechanical model of the atom.

The Bohr model was a brilliant leap, but it had serious limitations. It worked perfectly for hydrogen (one electron) but failed for atoms with more than one electron — it couldn't predict their spectral lines accurately. More fundamentally, Bohr arbitrarily assumed that electrons move in fixed, circular orbits without explaining why those orbits were stable. This was a patch, not a principle.

The real breakthrough came from two revolutionary ideas in the 1920s.

de Broglie's hypothesis of matter waves (1924): Louis de Broglie proposed that every moving particle, including an electron, has a wave associated with it. The wavelength is given by $\lambda = \frac{h}{mv}$ . This meant an electron is not just a tiny ball — it also behaves like a wave. A wave cannot be confined to a sharp, fixed orbit; it spreads out.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (1927): Werner Heisenberg showed that it is impossible to simultaneously know both the exact position and exact momentum of a particle like an electron. Mathematically, $\Delta x \cdot \Delta p \ge \frac{h}{4\pi}$ . If you try to pin down where an electron is (small $\Delta x$ ), you lose knowledge of its speed (large $\Delta p$ ). This demolished the idea of a precise, predictable orbit.

Watch out

A common mistake is to think the Bohr model was "wrong" — it wasn't. It was a useful approximation for hydrogen. The problem is that it assumed classical orbits, which violate the wave nature of electrons and the uncertainty principle. …

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

←Previous questionQ54 — Calculate the energy and frequency of the radiation emitted when an el…→Next chapterCh 3Classification of Elements and Periodicity in Properties

Q.Why was a change in the Bohr Model of atom required? Due to which important development (s), concept of movement of an electron in an orbit was replaced by, the concept of probability of finding electron in an orbital? What is the name given to the changed model of atom?

🎓Unlock everything free for 14 days

Unlock everything free for 14 days