8
$\begingroup$

So, can we have for all this (Rutherford–)Bohr(–Sommerfeld) model of an atom (and related) questions? Alternatively, we can have for the most chemically interesting result of old quantum theory, or both since the old theory is not limited to Bohr model.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't really see why not, needs a good wiki though. How many questions would that be currently, have you checked? $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Jun 19 '15 at 11:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin-マーチン, it is quite difficult to count. :D If we search for "Bohr model" literally then there are only 8 questions. But there are a lot of questions that are either predicated themselves on the results of old quantum theory (OPs just don't realize that) or answered from the old theory viewpoint. Just an example. $\endgroup$ – Wildcat Jun 19 '15 at 12:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well I guess eight questions is enough to roll it out, to have it in place just in case. And it's not too much so that the active tab gets buried with it... I still would suggest adding it in two intervals and leave questions with negative score untouched... but that's only my opinion. $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Jun 19 '15 at 12:28
6
$\begingroup$

There is no reason why we should not have at least one of these tags.

Considering the comments by Wildcat, I do also agree, that is the more reasonable choice.
I'd prefer because it is broader and since we will probably not deal with a whole lot of these questions in the long run we might profit from having a somewhat broader tag.
I suggest applying it to a couple (if not all) questions when there is time for it. Please consider writing a tag wiki to define the scope.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The more I think about it, the more confident I get that we do not need the general old-quantum-chemistry tag since apart from bohr-model there is nothing chemically-oriented in the old quantum theory. There some other old quantum models (such as, for instance, the Einstein model for heat capacity) but they IMO should be discussed on Physics.SE. $\endgroup$ – Wildcat Oct 2 '15 at 22:07
  • $\begingroup$ Besides, old-quantum-chemistry is a bit confusing since a lot of aspects of primitive MO and VB theories can be also qualified as the old quantum chemistry which in contrast to the old quantum theory term does not have a well-established meaning. $\endgroup$ – Wildcat Oct 2 '15 at 22:15
  • $\begingroup$ And all of a sudden, I already created a old-quantum-chemistry tag. :( I think it should be burned. $\endgroup$ – Wildcat Oct 2 '15 at 22:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Wildcat I assume you have burned it already since it does not exist any more. What is your opinion on the bohr-model tag? Do you think it is necessary? I believe there are a few questions dealing with this topic, it would not hurt to have it. If you think this is not necessary, then I should probably tag this proposal with declined? $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Oct 14 '15 at 10:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, someone burned it. I think it will be good to have bohr-model tag, so I will probably introduce it this weekend. $\endgroup$ – Wildcat Oct 14 '15 at 10:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .