01-27-2008, 06:04 AM
The only reason I mentioned de Broglie's hypothesis was to inform the students that there is a generally accepted underlying reason for the energy levels that Bohr did not originally envision. I will admit I was hand waving because I don't understand it beyond a superficial level - but my intent was only to let them in on the notion that there is a hypothesis to explain it. I only spent a minute on de Broglie's hypothesis. (I will say in my defense that I frequently admit to the students that there is a great deal of information beyond that which I possess on almost all of the topics we cover - especially in the non-biological sciences). I do that sort of thing fairly regularly - just try to give the students a small sense of the deeper complexity that underlies many of the concepts we discuss. I can see the case for that not being a desirable thing to do since the oversimplifications do involve giving the students a certain amount of misimpression. This has gotten me to wondering if I should just leave those kinds of things out since I don't have the knowledge or time (given the amount of curriculum we have to cover) to do better justice to those deeper conceptions.