Talk:Niels Bohr/Archive 1

The Niels Bohr Institute, for Pete's Sake!

The "Institute of Theoretical Physics" in Copenhagen has LONG been called the Niels Bohr Institute. Why doesn't anyone here know that and eliminte a useless -RED- Wikilink? Just do this: Institute of Theoretical Physics-, omitting the hyphen, and then go ahead and mention the Niels Bohr Institute anyway. A -RED- Wikilink is an open announcement that something has gone wrong, like typing the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics- instead of its correct name, the Max Planck Institute for Physics. Open up your eyes! instead of arguing about trivialities like Jewish vs. Christian vs. Agnostic.
98.67.175.254 (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Was he atheist?? 5:17, 4th october 2007 (UTC)

Well, he went out of his way to quit the "Danske Folkekirke" (something along the lines of "Church of England"). He never joined another religious soceity and have never uttered words pointing to a religious conviction. He's not done the opposite either (though quitting the church can be seen as an act of atheism or agnosticism).--Nwinther (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Niels Bohr was jewish. He fled Denmark in 1942 due to the (Nazi) German occupation of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.132.207 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

His mother was Jewish, making him Jewish according to the traditions of that religion, but he grew up in Denmark with a Christian father, so there is really no doubt that he was raised as a Christian.83.89.97.44 (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This type of reasoning without sources is risky. According to his biographer Abraham Pais who knew Bohr: "Bohr's parents were not religious. As a child he did not receive education in religious matters" [from Niels Bohr's Times, In Physics, Philosophy and Polity, by Abraham Pais, p.24]. Dirac66 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

At best, the evidence seems to suggest an areligious tone rather than an atheistic one. While atheism suggests nonbelief in, or the positive denial of, the existence of a God or gods, the lack of evidence concerning Bohr's religious beliefs seems to imply indifference to these matters. 74.3.35.138 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The article claims that Bohrs father was "a devout Lutheran". Being danish, he was most likely a "culture"-lutheran, but the Pais-quote pretty much negates the "devout" or even the "lutheran" bit. The parents (dubious) religiousness or lack thereof doesn't seem relevant to the article. I'll remove it if no one objects.--Nwinther (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It was said that he was an atheist, according to this source: "His mother was warm and intelligent, and his father, as Bohr himself later recalled, recognized "that something was expected of me." The family was not at all devout, and Bohr became an atheist..." John Simmons, The Scientific 100: a rankings of the most influental scientists, past and present (1996), page 16. Another source says: "On the other hand Bohr wrote of his admiration for the writing and presentation of Kierkegaard – at the same time stating he could not accept some of it. Part of this may have followed from Kierkegaard being a very avowed, yet rather circuitous proponent of a costly Christian faith, while after a youth of confirming faith Bohr himself was a non-believer." Melville Y. Stewart, Science and Religion in Dialogue, Two Volume Set (2010), page 416. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninmacer20 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears as though John Simmons misused the word Atheist. As mentioned above, atheism suggests non-belief but the word itself implies positive denial of, the existence of a God or gods.

Clearly atheism is not an accurate description for Mr. Bohr. In his own words, "The objective world of 19th century science was, as we know it today, an ideal, limiting case, but not the whole reality…I can quite understand why we cannot speak about the content of religion in an objectifying language. The fact that different religions try to express this content in quite distinct spiritual forms is no real objection. Perhaps we ought to look upon these different forms as complementary descriptions which, though they exclude one another, are needed to convey the rich possibilities flowing from man’s relationship with the central order. "

At best he could be considered a skeptic but even the word "non-believer" would be too strong a method to describe his religious beliefs given his own writing on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.208.133 (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the citations given from different sources, it quite clear that Bohr was considered an atheist/non-believer. Being an atheist does not mean totally rejecting all religions. In fact, some religions (such as Buddhism) denies the possibility of deities. You know, a person can still be spiritual and be an atheist. If you want more prove of this claim, please read this article: More than 20 percent of atheist scientists are spiritual.Ninmacer20 (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Kierkegaard again

It's fine to leave something about Kierkegaard in, but why is it it's own section. It seems like a very minor thing comparatively. --209.43.8.89 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

--Not so, philosiphy was a large part of Bhor's life, and Kierkegaard was one of his favorite philosiphers.--65.102.168.16 06:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In which case, if his interests are to be included from the perspective of influence then his musical abilities should also be referenced. All atomic physicists seem fascinated with philosophy, though they don't seem very good at it, and that would seem natural bearing in mind the fundamental nature of their work. Pulling Kierkegaard out like this creates an impression of significance which is not justified in the article.

--A problem in this section, it just pulls these two names out of thin air. it should read something like [insert title here] so-and-so of so-and-so.

The influence of Søren Kierkegaard on Niels Bohr is at best indirect through Harald Høfding. Besides, there's nothing in the physics of Niels Bohr that has parallel in Kierkegaards philosophy/theology - remember, Kierkegaard's statement was when faced with a paradox (has formulated in Hegel's concept of thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis) you can only resolve it by choosing to believe in the paradox. Niels Bohr's motto "opposites are complementary" is more along the lines of Hegel's synthesis than Kierkegaard's way out via faith. I'd remove the section all together as it obfuscates the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.132.207 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cruelty to Animals?

I removed this quote: "It is a litle known fact that Niels Bohr was once arrested for cruelty to animals. He was caught electrocuting baby rabits and was disgraced from the Polish institute of science"

Apart from it not being spelled correctly (rabits), it seems a bit far fetched. No citation either. Smells like vandalism to me.

--Although I cannot provide conclusive evidence on this due to the fact that it's so insanely unusual that finding any resource on it at all would be near impossible, I think that it's safe to say that Bohr is not at all the sort of person who would do that.--65.102.168.16 06:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)ISIAH HERRIN

When has he ever been a member of the Polish institute of science (if such an organization even exists)?--Nwinther 13:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me he would have had more regard for animals, as Niels Bohr was in fact a Great Dane! 68.46.96.38 11:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh . . . I had heard that he was in the habit of putting cats in sealed containers with radioactive material and a geiger counter attached to a flask of poison. ;-) 71.202.109.55 (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That was Schrödinger. roger.duprat.copenhagen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.145.3.177 (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Can Anyone Verified This Statement (Not Yet Added)

"Nuclear physicist Niels Bohr was rescued in the nick of time from German occupied Denmark. While Danish resistance fighters provided covering fire he ran out the back door of his home stopping momentarily to grab a beer bottle full of precious "Heavy Water." He finally reached England still clutching the bottle. Which contained beer. I suppose some German drank the Heavy Water."

• PROJECT-ION PHOENIX 11:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not true. Bohr escaped from Denmark around the time of the persecusion of the Danish Jews. He got on a fishing-boat and sailed to Sweden. Once there, he arranged a meeting with the principal of the University of Stockholm, and an audience with the Norwegian Crown-Prince (or King).

What was the Norwegian Crown-prince (or king) doing in Sweden? In fact he had an audience with the Swedish king. The theme of the audience was to secure the maintenance of the Danish jews coming over the sound on boats. This, however, had already been secured on Swedens own initiative and the audience was redundant.--Nwinther 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Prior to his escape he'd gotten offers from both britain and the US to come there (covertly of course) and do research. He had denied for some time, but the jewish perscution convinced him.

From sweden, he got passage to britain, though not without trouble. The first plane had engine-trouble and had to turn around - during the second attempt he didn't listen to the pilots instructions when to use the oxygen-mask, and after they landed in britain, Bohr told the pilot, that he'd slept like a baby all the ride. However, he had in reality passed out from lack of oxygen, and only his failure to respond to the pilots orders, which caused the pilot to descend into oxygen-rich altitudes, saved his life.

In London he was involved briefly in "tube-alloys" and later in the joint anglo-american effort to make a nuclear weapon.

He had nothing with him in regards of nuclear material, such as heavy water, but more importantly, information from Heisenberg on how the situation with the german bomb was.

Once in the US, he had little to do with the Los Alamos-compound. He worked as a confessionary father for the younger scientists there, and contributed to the making of the nagasaki-bomb, by figuring out how to make the initiators (detonators) for that bomb.

Possibly he's been used as a consultant on the theoritical parts of the bombs, as his compound-nuculous (spelling?) -theory was the basis for most of the assumptions on effect of fission.

Bohr was flown out of Sweden in the bomb-bay of an RAF/BOAC de Havilland Mosquito fast 'courier' aircraft. These aircraft were used to fly small-volume/high-value 'packages' in and out of Sweden - the initial cargoes were ball bearings and the route became known as 'the ball-bearing' run. Ian Dunster 11:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The above theories are probably whisper down the lane-type retellings of an original story, and they can probably be traced back to this piece printed in the St. Petersburg Times on Sunday, 16 June 1957 (article conclusion). 188.192.112.34 (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the story (represented above) in Abraham Pais' book on Bohr. I'm not 100% sure of Pais' sources but he knew and worked with Bohr for a number of years and it's likely he heard the story from Bohr himself. (He also has many other interesting anectodes, such as retold in the MAUD_Committee article etc.--Nwinther (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tone Down Last Passage

The next to last paragraph needs some toning down.

Then do it - that is the whole philosophy behind wikipedia --snoyes 20:17 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Source of information on Bohr's role in the Manhattan Project: [1] -- Tim Starling 13:22 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Heavy water refers to hydrogen-3 bonding to oxygen rather than the more common hydrogen-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.26.7 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are mistaken. Heavy water contains hydrogen-2 (also known as deuterium) bound to oxygen rather than the more common hydrogen-1. And why bring this up anyway since heavy water is not mentioned in the article now? Dirac66 (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Um follow your own link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.115.108 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is Talk:Niels Bohr, so I meant that heavy water is not mentioned in THIS article -- on Niels Bohr. Yes, the link leads to the article on heavy water, but this article does not mention heavy water, so the definition of heavy water is not relevant to THIS article as written now. Dirac66 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed Afshar experiment referernces

I have removed references to the Afshar experiment from this page. I don't think they belong in a biography about Bohr; which the Afshar experiment puts in to question some of Bohr's discoveries, I can't think of an appropriate way of adding that informaiton here without it seeming out of place. Samboy 10:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kierkegaard

I have removed the refererence to Kierkegaard. It is s persistent myth that Bohr was inspired by the famous danish philosopher in his work on physics. The philosopher and expert on Niels Bohr, David Favrholdt has worked half his life to kill the myth. Johan Bressendorff

According to Pais, Bohr admired Kierkegaards language not his ideas, with which he heartedly disagreed.

Pop culture

Should Niels Bohr's appearance in pop culture (Such as a level involving him in Secret Weapons over Normandy) be mentioned?

No.165.123.139.232 (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

The quote "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." is, in danish lore, contributed to Storm P. - Not Niels Bohr.

Should this be mentioned in the article?

At the very least, the quote should be removed -- if it wasn't said by Bohr then that means there is an error, and errors should be removed whenever found.

Done and done.

I assume the original poster meant "attributed", not "contributed". 71.202.109.55 (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

jewish-danish

Doesnt it sound a bit stupid to say jewish-danish i mean we dont say christian-danish or muslim-danish we just say danish, this isnt very important i know but Niels Bohr himself probably didnt see himself as a jew but as a dane and his father was (acording to this article) not jewish. So why call him a danish-jew? Isnt it better to say that his mother was a jew and his father a christian?

It certainly DOES sound stupid, and seems to be a recurring theme on some articles.

Was he practicing? If so, it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. But yes, it is a bit awkward to identify him that way. Gershwinrb 04:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, he was NOT practicing. He was, in all but name, an ateheist or agnostic and the part of his life where one can say he belonged to a denomination, it was the lutheran church (in his younger years) and he denounced that as well (as did much of his family). To my knowledge, Bohr didn't identify himself as a jew and did very little to make religion a part of his life, judeaism or otherwise.

By Jewish law, unless he converted he remains a Jew. Erasing a category seems like a religious policing. Any objections to Jewish sciensists? Mhym 11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I object I think. I've checked here reagarding the question of who is or is not a jew [Who is a Jew?]. It seems to be an unholy mess. There is also a nice irony in the contradictory nature of the statements: Jews are defined as those born of a Jewish mother, but then there are the references to Jewish Law. One rests on genetic factors (race) the other on religious hierarchy. Looking at Bohr's pictures he doesn't look particularly Jewish (racial) and he was not a practising Jew (religious). So who's policing who here? It seeme to me that there is a "general" attempt to impose jewish Laws on people who do not see themselves as bound by it let alone classified by it. Often the lable "Jewish" is attached to peoples professions. There are many groups who seek to classify people into groups based on class, religion, ethnicity, nationality etc etc. Generally speaking the results tend to be less than 100% happy. I do find the religious labelling offensive, it is confrontational because it is unecessary, and divisive. LookingGlass (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And all people are my willing slaves whether they know it or not or whether they renounce me nor not. That is my law. Ergo, you are my slave. (And all your base are belong to us) Jews are not (nessicerily) a race. People of asian (or any other) descent can convert to judeaism. To my knowledge, no genetic alterations happen in the process. I'm sure Bohr didn't care much about jewish "law". It seems to me that the only ones interested in pointing out who were jews and who were not, are jews themselves. It dosen't say on very many articles whether someone was Causian - certainly, it doens't have entire paragraphs on the subject.--Nwinther 13:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter if he was Jewish or not his scientific studys helped us know what we do know today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.240.145 (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As "A is A", a Jew is a Jew, regardless of practice: Being Jewish is not just a religion, it is a race. Just because he was not practicing Judiaism, he was still Jewish, full stop. He should not even be listed under "Danish physicists", being that Jews do not belong to such categories but none the less it didn't matter to him of his religon he was just a physicst !as "Danish", "German", "English", "Russian", etc.--They are their own people. They will try to give you pretence that it is not the case, but when it gets down to it, that's the way it is.

---It is true that according to the religion one who is born a jew will remain a jew, but it makes no sense whatsoever to say that he is not danish. After all he was born and remained for his entire life a danish citizen. If being jewish was like being a nationality and should therefore replace the nationality one would think that after several generations they will be citizens of the country in which they live rather than remaining jewish. That is what usually happens when a family moves from one country to another. As it is not so with jews they clearly do not belong in that category. It makes no sense to call him jew-danish. It would be better just to note somewhere that he was a jew, but that he was not practising. Elentirmo 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• His father is Danish (and not Jewish), therefore, Niels is Danish himself. Whether his mother was "Jewish," "Danish," or "Jewish-Danish" is a moot point, because regardless of what you decide the answer is, the fact remains that he is inherently Danish through his father. It is not just a national distinction -- it is also ethnic, for this reason. 69.84.115.253 (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My father, technically Jewish being the child of a Jewish mother, never set foot in a synagogue, and adopted Christian Methodism in middle age. I once asked him what being Jewish meant and his answer mentioned all points clarified above by other contributors - and I also learned thereby is no real way to precisely and concretely determine who is Jewish and who is not! Similar questions and discussions can continue ad infinitum, as they undoubtedly will.Betzel56 (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But he being the son of a jewish woman is always considered like a jewish for jewish comunity. And specifying, he was a shepardic jewish like Spinoza. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavanthropos (talk • contribs) 05:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ellen Adler" sounds like an Ashkenazi name, Slavanthropos. Any proof she was Sephardi? Or do you just like to make stuff up?184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC).

Humanitarian work

The article could expand to include Bohr's efforts to help Jewish scientists leave Germany and obtain work elsewhere. If I had references handy I'd add this myself, but the day the Germans invaded Bohr and his associates frantically destroyed years of records of the many people he had helped, even concealing someone's Nobel Prize medal by dissolving it in a solution of aqua regia. Durova 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Was Bohr Jewish? he definately was under the Nazi Neurenburg Laws, as he had a Jewish Mother (One Jewish Grandparent would have done). Thus even if he had been a Roman Catholic Priest, the Nazis would still have cleassed him as a Jew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.11.206 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bohr's correspondence

Something that's both profound and a bit light-hearted: Bohr's terrible penmanship was legend within the physics community. One professor I took a class from recalled a sequence when Bohr gave a lecture at UC Berkeley, and Bohr, in his typical soft-spoken style, lectured and wrote indecipherable scribbles on the chalkboard. At one point, Bohr paused, erased one squiggle and replaced with another, slightly different, but equally incomprehensible chalkmark.

Due to this, it has been said, much of Bohr's correspondence with colleagues was typed (first by his mother, then by his wife?), and copies were kept on file, providing a trove of historical information, especially his famous debates with Einstein. This correspondence forms the basis of the Niels Bohr Archive.

I don't recall the name of the professor, but when (if?) I do, I'll add that in. Tmurase 17:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Barometer Story

I remember hearing this story as a teenager in the 70s or 80s. When I heard it, it was not attributed to anyone in particular. I suspect that the attribution to Niels Bohr is just to make the story sound better and not based on fact. It would be nice to get a citation one way or the other. WilliamKF 00:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I found a source that dates this back to a 1958 Reader's Digest, I am going to remove the quote from this page as it appears falsely attributed to Neils Bohr WilliamKF 00:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC):

Barometer Urban Legend

Chemist or Physicist

Bohr was a Chemist, not a physicist (and was actually quite annoyed by the fact that he was repeatedly recognized as a physicist).

-This is such preposterous claim. Forgive me if I am blunt, but you obviosly don't know much about what a physicist and a chemist is. Maybe you should read some physics history books to see what Bohr is. Please don't mislead people by such absurd claims. Maybe you should just read what this wikipedia article is saying about his career: studying under a physicist, working with the great physicist Rutherford, heading a theoretical physics group, winning the Nodel prize in physics, simply doing physics for the rest of his life. -Ur

I'm afraid not, see for example Marie Curie, who received a Nobel prize in physics and in chemistry, is she a physicist? is she a chemist? you cannot say she was a physicist who turned to chemist. also review chemistry as a subject, you will not find a course in general chemistry that doesn't mention Bohr's' model (even high school) but in physics Bohr is relatively much less important. It is like asking if the word atom belongs to chemistry or physics. Whmice (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this matter terribly? In that time period (and even today) physics and chemistry often merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.96.129 (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Whmice, You are afraid for what? That Bohr was a chemist and not a physicist? I am sorry but you should just read the wiki article one more time. Also, you say "but in physics Bohr is relatively much less important." You are badly mistaken, Bohr and Bohr Model is very important in physics, both historically and scientifically. Every introductory physics course on modern physics talks about Bohr Model. Bohr Model is an early model of the old quantum theory. The reason that chemistry uses it is because the fundamental theory of chemistry is ultimately quantum physics. In addition, Bohr is one of the most prominent physicists of quantum mechanics.192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)-Ur

Vandalism

This article has some traces of vandalism. Can someone check the details? Bohr and his brother played for rubles?

Shouldn't something be said about Margrethe Norlund? The two were married 50 years, and she is everywhere described as the ideal wife. He was brilliant and apotheosized by Oppenheimer and the people at Los Alamos. She must have had a supportive and inspiring affect on him, and she typed his papers. Why isn't more available? 66.215.123.233 (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)GCOK

Unintentional flub

The section on "tubes" begins:

The British intelligence services inquired about Bohr's availability for work or with insights of particular value.

It forces the reader to guess what said "work" or "insights" are supposed to be about. By the end of the paragraph the reader may guess that British intelligence communicated to Bohr about his ability to contribute ideas of the fabrication of some kind of alloy tubes.

The connection between "alloy tubes" and nuclear energy may have been a secret back then, but don't make it a secret from the reader today. P0M 01:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker 07:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Some of the information about physics in this page is inaccurate, probably because it was written by a non-expert. For example:

"..., physicists currently conclude that light is both a wave and a stream of particles — two apparently mutually exclusive properties — on the basis of this principle"

This statement probably refers to the particle duality of Louis de Broglie (so it wrongly refers to the principle of complementarity of Niels Bohr). Although it is true that this was the right picture before quantum mechanics, most physicists would say that the advent of quantum mechanics made this statement outdated. There is no such thing as particle duality, nor is light both "a wave and a stream of particles". It is instead a quantum mechanical particle. -- no classical wave attached.

"Bohr also found philosophical applications for this daringly original principle. "

Such as?

"Albert Einstein much preferred the determinism of classical physics over the probabilistic new physics of Bohr (to which Max Planck and Einstein himself had contributed)."

In the way put it here it seems that it was Niels Bohr who introduced the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, it is widely recognized that this interpretation is due to Max Born, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics due to this.

"One of Bohr's most famous students was Werner Heisenberg, a crucial figure in the development of quantum mechanics, who was also head of the German atomic bomb project"

This is plain wrong. Werner Heisenberg was never a student of Niels Bohr. Heisenberg studied under Sommerfeld at Munich, and then went to work with Max Born as an assistant researcher. Please refer to

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1932/

for an accurate biography of Heisenberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.46.168 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 22 January 2008

Please could you improve the article. I for one would really appreciate it. I thought that the Slovay Conference of 1927 revolved around Bohr and Heisenberg and their presentation and argument with Einstein (which they won). This was also the version of history recently broadcast by the UK Open University on the BBC in January this year. LookingGlass (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think all of these points have been addressed by me or others by now (though for the "Bohr also found philosophical applications for this daringly original principle." question, all I've done is added a "specify" tag to the sentence). Hence removed the "disputed" tag from the top of the article. Djr32 (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Re philosophical applications, some useful information is found in Abraham Pais' biography of Bohr, Niels Bohr's Times, chapter 19: "We are suspended in language" Dirac66 (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

For an excellent book on the philosophical implications of Bohr's work, see Henry Folse (1985), The Philosophy of Niels Bohr.Hickorybark (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words

The section of this article on Bohr's relationship with Heisenberg seems "weasely". The article states a number of matters as facts which are reported as emanating from a conversation that took place between the two of them which in the words of the article:

"neither Bohr nor Heisenberg spoke about it in any detail to outsiders nor left written records of this part of the meeting at the time, and they were alone and outside"

If there is no knowledge or record then nothing can be said about it. In addition the article goes on to say that Heisenberg for one disclaimed the inference given in the section. LookingGlass (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding citation from Heisenberg's wife's book. "Weasel" template removed.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Status of Bohr

I see that a citation is required for the sentence "Bohr is widely considered to be the one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century." Whoever inserted that tag, obviously is not very aware of Bohr's status in the world of physics. There is actually some debate whether Einstein or Bohr was the greatest. In other words, the problem would not be to provide a citation, the problem would be to choose which one. I propose that we removed the tag, and let the sentence stand. If that's not acceptable, I think we could use Gino Segre's Faust in Copenhagen, which explains Bohr's role not only as a physicist, but also as a mentor for other physicists. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You can also use "Niels Bohr's Times: In Physics, Philosophy and Polity" by Abraham Pais. And I agree with your statement above. Personally I'd rate Bohr to be amongst the 10 greatest phycisists the last 300 years.--Nwinther (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I was the one who inserted that tag. It's not that I dispute the statement (I don't; I'd personally rate Bohr as Nwinther would, but that is only my personal opinion) — it's that without a citation the statement becomes an unattributed opinion. The part "widely considered" is problematic, in my humble opinion, because it is vague and basically "widely" is a weasel word here. How many people is enough for us to use the word "widely"?
The only problem with finding a citation, as I see it, is that while it is relative easy to find an authority that says Bohr was such a great physicist and why, many of them will likely be hesitant to say that the belief is shared by a lot of other people (and by how many). On second thought, I should probably have tagged the statement as ^{[attribution needed]} rather than ^{[citation needed]}. Hemmingsen 15:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Hemmingsen. If this can help reduce the 'weaseling' of the article, better have one source too much than too little.--Nwinther (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

On page 26 of Newton-Smith's A Companion to the Philosophy of Science, the first sentence on Niels Bohr reads "One of the most influential physicists of the twentieth century, Niels Bohr was born in Copenhagen on 7 October 1885, and died there on 18 November 1962" (accessible via Google Books at [2]). Considering that this is stating the obvious to those familiar with physics, and that its author is a reliable source (Daniel Murdoch -- brief description at [3]), I move to cite that source or one of the several already mentioned, remove the word "widely" if it is still problematic, and delete the "citation needed" tag. Emw2012 (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a perfectly fine source. I added your reference, rephrased the sentence slightly to match the reference and removed the tag. As an aside, you really should feel free to do that type of edits yourself without proposing them on the talk page first. Hemmingsen 14:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This phrase is a platitude that violates WP:PEACOCK. You could say this about any Nobel science laureate of the 20th century. That's why they give the prize. The article doesn't say in the body why some people may consider him one of the most influential. He has his admirers, and I'm sure they've said that about him at some time, but it's a meaningless phrase.

It also specifically violates WP:MOSINTRO: "The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning")."

So it violates specific WP guidelines and style for several reasons. I propose we strike that sentence. Any objections? --Nbauman (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Bohr's religiousness

The info-box states that his religious stance was Lutheran (I'll be removing it after this post is written). I'd like to see some data to support this, as he went out of his way to give up his membership of the danish lutheran church (the state church). He also never entered any other religious societes or communities or organizations and never expressed any religious convictions. I'd go as far as saying he was an atheist or at least agnostic, but there doesn't seem to be any sources that state this as a fact. However sources state that he did not want to be associated with the lutheran church, as described above.--Nwinther (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edit Request

Just a minor edit request: the picture of Bohr as a young man has lost it's subtitle on the page and you must click on it for any information at all. Can it say under it "Bohr as a young man" or something under it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.108.47 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added the text on the description page for this photo in Wikimedia Commons, which says "Niels Bohr as a young man. Exact date of photo not known." Dirac66 (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Bohr effect

The article used to say (I've removed it now) that Niels Bohr is remembered for the "Bohr effect"". No he is not; that was his father, as the linked article makes clear.TSRL (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of Bohr effect from the infobox about Niels Bohr is correct. In the sentence about his father, it only said "Bohr shift" so I have now added "Bohr effect" there as a second name.Dirac66 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer "Bohr effect" to "Bohr shift". I love the way you sign as "Dirac" who of course died 24 years ago. Torricelli01 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not pretend to be Paul Dirac who died in 1984, but Wikipedia encourages everyone to choose a Wikiname so I chose to remember Dirac. I presume that you are not Evangelista Torricelli who invented the barometer and died in 1647. Happy new year. Dirac66 (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with Rutherford

If there is a section about relationship with Heisenberg, there have to be a section about relationship with Rutherford, who was strong menter, almost second father, for Bohr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.6.127 (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Death

I've heard that he hung himself is it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filippos2 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not true. In the future I recommend that you use the reference desk for questions which are not directly related to improving the article . --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Bhor died from heart attack—Preceding unsigned comment added by Filippos2 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is confirmed in Niels Bohr's Times, In Physics, Philosophy and Polity, by Abraham Pais (ISBN 0-19-852049-2), who says on p.529 that "According to the death certificate the diagnosis was heart failure." Dirac66 (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Pigfeet???!?

OK, I'm utterly confused: the word "pigfeet" shows up when I view this page ("one of their sons, Aage Niels Bohr, grew up to be an pigfeet important physicist") and I also see that when I search on Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=pigfeet+bohr&aq=f&oq=&aqi= However when I edited the page to remove the apparent vandalism, I couldn't see "pigfeet" anywhere in the page. Bug in Mediawiki s/w? Bizarre hacker vandalism? Given the previous vandalism of this page involving cruelty to animals, I suspect foul play.--Ian Holmes (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2009 (PDT)

I am seeing this as well, and it does not show up when editing. That is truly strange. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Pigfeet was deleted about an hour ago. You must be seeing a cached copy. Add &action=purge to the end of the URL and it should clear up for you. —EncMstr (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is gone now. I would have thought that the cache would automatically be renewed as soon as changes occurred in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

speaking

My father said that in several occasions from different accounts, including his, later in life Niels Bohr's speeches would trail off into nothing making him very hard to understand.. It's funny I've not been able to dig up anything about this.

75.173.73.176 (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Supposed answer in College essay

A user on Funny Test Answers wrote this

" At my first year of college my physics teacher told us this rather amusing story, I’ve never forgotten this story - but I certainly have forgotten everything I learned in that class.

The following question was asked at the University of Copenhagen in a physics exam:

“”Describe how to determine the height of a skyscraper with a barometer.”

One student replied:

“You tie a long piece of string to the neck of the barometer, then lower the barometer from the roof of the skyscraper to the ground. The length of the string plus the length of the barometer will equal the height of the building.”

This highly original answer so incensed the examiner that the student was failed immediately. He appealed on the grounds that his answer was indisputably correct, and the university appointed an independent arbiter to decide the case. The arbiter judged that the answer was indeed correct, but did not display any noticeable knowledge of physics. To resolve the problem it was decided to call the student in and allow him six minutes in which to provide a verbal answer which showed at least a minimal familiarity with the basic principles of physics. For five minutes the student sat in silence, forehead creased in thought. The arbiter reminded him that time was running out, to which the student replied that he had several extremely relevant answers, but couldn’t make up his mind which to use. On being advised to hurry up the student replied as follows:

“Firstly, you could take the barometer up to the roof of the skyscraper, drop it over the edge, and measure the time it takes to reach the ground. The height of the building can then be worked out from the formula H = 0.5g x t squared. But bad luck on the barometer.

“Or if the sun is shining you could measure the height of the barometer, then set it on end and measure the length of its shadow. Then you measure the length of the skyscraper’s shadow, and thereafter it is a simple matter of proportional arithmetic to work uut the height of the skyscraper.

“But if you wanted to be highly scientific about it, you could tie a short piece of string to the barometer and swing it like a pendulum, first at ground level and then on the roof of the skyscraper. The height is worked out by the difference in the gravitational restoring force T = 2 pi sqrroot (l/g).

“Or if the skyscraper has an outside emergency staircase, it would be easier to walk up it and mark off the height of the skyscraper in barometer lengths, then add them up.

“If you merely wanted to be boring and orthodox about it, of course, you could use the barometer to measure the air pressure on the roof of the skyscraper and on the ground, and convert the difference in millibars into feet to give the height of the building.

But since we are constantly being exhorted to exercise independence of mind and apply scientific methods, undoubtedly the best way would be to knock on the janitor’s door and say to him ‘If you would like a nice new barometer, I will give you this one if you tell me the height of this skyscraper’.” The student was Niels Bohr, the first Dane to win the Nobel prize for Physics. "

This is supposedly what Niels Bohr answered to a test in college: [4] I would not make any assumption that this is accurate, but it's still funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenappleman7 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Very funny, but fake, just urban legend You have only a barometer, but not a string, metric tape, watch, permission to sell the barometer, knowledge of the barometer dimensions,... And Bohr's father was the first danish Nobel price! PD: the author forgot to mention: see the building drawings shoot the building with the barometer until became powder and answer zero

-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.72.34 (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Biography

Two different paragraphs under the Biography section reads

"After four productive years with Ernest Rutherford in Manchester, Bohr returned to Denmark becoming in 1918 director of the newly created Institute of Theoretical Physics."

and

"In 1916, Niels Bohr became a professor at the University of Copenhagen. With the assistance of the Danish government and the Carlsberg Foundation, he succeeded in founding the Institute of Theoretical Physics in 1921, of which he became its director"

Was the institute founded in 1918 or 1921 and did Bohr return in 1916 or 1918? The original source of the latter sentence is gone, but http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/history/highlights_from_Bohrs_career/The_Nobel_Prize/ suggests he returned in 1916 and founded the institute in 1921. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.5.226 (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Part of the answer to contested content is to have precise, readily checked references. There were several problems with the references in this article, including:

• two definitions of the Rhodes (1968) citation
• inconsistent ways of referring to pages in Rhodes (1968)
• hardwired reference to "note 11" which would become out of date if the reference numbers changed
• the reference just to "note 11" was not very precise, although the entries in note 11 (now [a]) themselves have page numbers
• a list of supplementary citations embedded in the references list
• citations for two editions of Rozental: 1967 which is referenced and 1964 in Further reading

I will now make have made "several changes" to improve this situation:

• Used short references for Rhodes (1968) and Rozental (1967). To support those tidily I have used Sfn etc and Cite book. Using Sfn for multiple inline references to the same book makes it easy to provide page numbers for each reference.
• Named the note so it can be used as a normal reference
  • Since it is rather long and thus interrupts the source of the article for editors, I have defined it in the reference list.
  • Place specific inline references in addition to the general reference to the note
• Created separate sections for:
  • Notes: linked to inline references which extend the information in the article. This uses the ref group lower-alpha which magically generates really neat [a] notes. This is an experimental feature, if there are any problems with it we can replace lower-alpha by note, but it seems to work nicely.
  • References: linked to inline references which directly support the information in the article.
  • Citations: citation defintions linked from elsewhere in the article (typically from the notes and references, but could be from anywhere).
• There is still the Further reading section which cites books etc which have not been used directly by the rest of the article. I thus moved the second Rozental citation to a comment after the first one.

There are a few patterns for inline references to get used to, but I think this is worth it:

• {{Sfn|author[|author...]|year|pp=whatever}} etc for short references (see the Rhodes citation for how to make the citation linkable using ref=harv) and
• <ref group="lower-alpha" name="rescue"/> or whatever for a note.

I hope you will agree that all this is an improvement. Comments welcome. I will wait for any responses before making any further (similar, extensive) changes. --Mirokado (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC) (now done) --Mirokado (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well worth the effort: an improvement now and for the future. Thanks! --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Pop culture

Is 'Bohr was referenced in The Simpsons thirteenth season episode entitled I Am Furious Yellow. In the episode, Homer Simpson is looking forward to watching a television show called When Dinosaurs Get Drunk, when it is suddenly announced that it will be replaced with another called The Boring World of Niels Bohr. The opening image is of the scientist and an expanded version of the Bohr model of the atom.' really necessary in the Legacy subsection of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.21.151 (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No - gone, thanks Vsmith (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

He gave a Gifford lecture in 1949

I've heard his speach remains unpublished.

If he was an atheist however what would he have even talked about?

--Agnostihuck (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 October 2012

Please change: His essay won the prize, and it was this success that decided Bohr to abandon philosophy and adopt physics. to: His essay won the prize, and it was this success that prompted Bohr's decision to abandon philosophy and adopt physics. Because: Original sentence is grammatically incorrect. Bohr decides, he is not decided.

Thank you. LenFischer (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Done--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Olivia Newton-John

I thought I remembered learning that Niels Bohr was the great uncle of Olivia Newton John, but I just googled it and see it mentioned that he was her grandfather. It seems like the actual relationship between the two is worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.224.153 (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Newton-John is not related to Bohr but she is the granddaughter of Max Born, and the relationship is mentioned in the article about him. Favonian (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Poss. plagiarism

The Speculation section starts

In 1957, while the author Robert Jungk was working on the book Brighter Than a Thousand Suns, (see letter page 100 in this book)

the phrase "(see letter page 100 in this book)" suggests to me it's been copied verbatim from somewhere, so I've removed the braced text I've had a quick Google of the first part of the line but couldn't see the preceding text, it could be it's referring to page 100 in the book "Brighter Than a Thousand Suns" but as I don't own that (and this isn't my field) can someone confirm it's OK (and put the braced text back is needed). --Scott A Herbert (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Order of the Elephant

Niels Bohr wasn't awarded the Order of the Elephant by the Danish government - it was awarded by the Danish king. Whilst the government is sometimes beeing consulted, the award is under the sole control of the Danish royal family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars Skjærlund (talk • contribs) 12:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Bohr and the model of atom

The sentence "He developed the model of the atom with the nucleus at the center and electrons in orbit around it, which he compared to the planets orbiting the sun." is not true and cries to be wiped out. It was launched by Rutherford after his attempts with gold folio where a fraction of the alfa particles returned back letting him suggest the existence of the nucleus. Bulphys (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is true, and it is now cited. Yworo (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Look at the Wiki article about Rutherford citition N 5 (from 1911) - of course the Planetary model belongs to Rutherford and its known by any pupil. If any contribution from Bohr about it - that contribution must carefully be stated and not atribute the Rutherford model (\Wiki) to Bohr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulphys (talk • contribs) 23:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what the word "developed" means? Rutherford's model was called the "Plum Pudding Model" - it was not an orbital model and he did not compare it to the planets orbiting the sun. Yworo (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you a physicist? Any physicist know that the plum pudding model is the model of JJ Thomson (search wiki please) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulphys (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What's it matter? I can read the Rutherford model article and can see that it was not an orbital model: "In this May 1911 paper, Rutherford only commits himself to a small central region of very high positive or negative charge in the atom." He did not compare it to the planets orbiting the sun. Major difference here? Rutherford's model turned out not to be accurate (see Rutherford model), while Bohr's model is still used. Yworo (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This idea belongs not to Bohr and was known priory even before Rutherford's experiment (1904 Saturnian model of Naguoka). Bohr just explained the levels of the electrons orbiting the nucleus and their transitions and the spectra of the radiation.(Bohr model Wiki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulphys (talk • contribs) 00:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please change caption of Ehrenfest photo

The photo of Einstein and Bohr kicking back is very famous, of course. It is nice to think that the snapshot was taken at a moment of historically interesting debate. But they might have been discussing where to go for a beer.

No need to force history.

Shlishke (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Niels Bohr/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Bohr was an scientist. Bohr model The Bohr model is a relatively primitive model of the hydrogen atom, compared to the valence shell atom. As a theory, it can be derived as a first-order approximation of the hydrogen atom using the broader and much more accurate quantum mechanics, and thus may be considered to be an obsolete scientific theory. However, because of its simplicity, and its correct results for selected systems (see below for application), the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics, before moving on to the more accurate, but more complex, valence shell atom. A related model was originally proposed by Arthur Erich Haas in 1910, but was rejected. The quantum theory of the period between Planck's discovery of the quantum (1900) and the advent of a full-blown quantum mechanics (1925) is often referred to as the old quantum theory.

Last edited at 19:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 20:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)