I’m not sure if it’s considered wrong per se, but it’s too simplified. It includes the idea that electrons exists at different energy levels, but kind if just puts them in concentric circles around the nucleus. Better models include specific orbitals that better describe electron location which helps explains some bonding properties
The B-R model is simply far too oversimplified to be accurate, as is the case of many physics and chemistry concepts. That model implies that every pair of electrons orbits neatly in a predefined shell. In reality, electrons move within “electron clouds” which is a general area we believe electrons are likely to be at any given time. However, electrons move so fast and so erratically that they practically have no position at all. Obviously they are there but we can never say with any certainty where any electron exists at any point in time.
the model is taught because it describes most “everyday” processes well.
but it is incorrect when you go to some extremes/into details, because for starters the particles themselves aren’t “neat little balls” but quantum mechanical “probability clouds”, but that just simply doesnt matter because if looked at “from far enough away” they behave exactly the same, so you can teach students the easy way first.
in physics/math you often have terms like y= 3x+ 0.000001 * x^5
if you look at values for x between 0 and 1 then that last part is so insignificant and small it can just be ignored and the whole thing becomes MUCH easier. it wont lead you to the “correct” result but does ist really matter if the result for x = 0.5 is 1.5 or 1.5000000000000000000000000001 (not the actual number)? usually it doesnt
Latest Answers