Jump to content

Talk:Niels Bohr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Filippos2 (talk | contribs) at 20:53, 31 August 2009 (→Relationship with Rutherford). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WP1.0

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


--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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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):[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Death

I've heard that he hung himself is it true?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Niels_Bohr&oldid=311148740"