How is the bohr model of an atom similar and different to an actual atom?

I think that this question should be phrased differently. This is because nobody knows what an actual atom is. There exist different models. The more modern quantum mechanical model is better than the Bohr model. It explains more. Although the Bohr model was the first to recognize a structure in the electron cloud, it was the last which assumed electrons to be particles. In the quantum mechanical model electrons are not longer particles. There they are waves with all kind of different shapes. Although the quantum mechanical model works really very good, there is a more modern theory, called the super string theory. This theory is for a large part incomprehensible for not mathematicians. In that theory all matter, including electrons, is built from a kind of mini rubber bands.

Classical (Newtonian) physics often is basically an approximation. that doesn't propose that's not functional. The Bohr variety makes appropriate prediction - concerning the dimensions of the hydrogen atom, valence ranges, and how lots skill is had to get rid of an electron. transferring from Bohr's variety to sparkling up misconceptions is extra advantageous than commencing with a quantum variety infants will possibly not have the skill to fully carry close. identity, on the different hand, posits an all effective "clothier", which predicts something, and to that end explains not something. in fact, any declare that may't be falsified explains not something. identity isn't technology. as properly, in accordance to quantum physics radioactive decay is an uncaused technique. which ability that's conceivable not each and every thing has a reason, and the reasoning used to declare that the universe or existence unavoidably might desire to be brought about is going out the window.