Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion from Talk:Plum pudding model. (BOT) |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion from Talk:Plum pudding model. (BOT) |
||
Line 395:
:::::Huh? If that is what you believe then you have to present what he presented. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 02:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::No, I think there was a misprint. I wonder if Thomson published a correction in a later article. [[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] ([[User talk:Kurzon|talk]]) 03:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
== Lead sentence is inappropriate. ==
The lead sentence is currently
* The plum pudding model is an obsolete scientific model of the atom.
This incorrectly makes "obsolete" the most significant characteristic of the Thomson model. That does not, for example, distinguish it among other articles on atomic models:
* {{annotated link|Bohr atom}}
* {{annotated link|Cubical atom}}
* {{annotated link| Rutherford model }}
or models without their own page, including [[Joseph Larmor]]'s Solar System model (1897), [[Jean Perrin]]'s model (1901), [[Hantaro Nagaoka]]'s Saturnian model (1904), [[Arthur Haas]]'s quantum model (1910), and [[John William Nicholson]]'s nuclear quantum model (1912).
The distinguishing feature of the Thomson model was the first use of internal structure. In addition the concept of "obsolete" is not a major point of discussion in the article as an aspect of the model, making "obsolete" a secondary point.
I changed the first sentence to one that matches the subject, but @[[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plum_pudding_model&diff=prev&oldid=1231306309 changed it back]. I disagree and want a sentence that describes this model more clearly. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
:The point you want to make is just a few sentences further. It's ok. [[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] ([[User talk:Kurzon|talk]]) 17:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
::I disagree. If a later sentence is adequate for the most important characteristic of the model (being the first with internal structure), then it certainly is adequate for the least important characteristic (being obsolete). [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I like it because it signals to students "You don't have to know any of this for the exam. You can take a nap instead of reading this if you want.". [[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] ([[User talk:Kurzon|talk]]) 21:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
::::That's not a Wikipedia goal. Plus any student who can't figure this out is probably napping already. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 00:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] and @[[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]]
:::::Thanks for all the remarkable changes to this page. They were very much needed and are solidly geared to the educational and informative purposes of Wikipedia.
:::::I'm surprised it took 7 years (2023) for someone to remove my egregious "self-promotion" (from 2016) citations that I added in the hopes that the subject matter would be taken up with much more seriousness than this page originally had. A student alerted me to this over the weekend when she couldn't find the citations and images she heard about from former students! I wish I had the time over the last several years to do what you've done in the last year or so with this page.
:::::On that note, I'm happy to see the 1904 model cited as the first atomic model with internal components. It was quite a dramatic theological and empirical break from the "atomic" nature of the Greek "atomos".
:::::I guess I wasn't crass enough at the time nor as deeply invested in pushing historical science fact in response to flippant "classroom" views on Wikipedia. I'm seeing a similar trend on reddit which has an almost purely mindless and pedantic academic tone today on physics-related threads rather than genuine knowledge- and skill-building thinking. Got to keep up those exam scores up, I guess, rather than actually learn, invent, or create anything meaningful.
:::::I often wonder if the internet we built will ever fulfill its leveled playing field goal before it's dumbed-down to the point of informational extinction.
:::::Carry on. This is great work! [[User:Tjlafave|TJ LaFave]] ([[User talk:Tjlafave|talk]]) 19:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Well this is the first time in the 20 years I've been on Wikipedia that somebody notices my work.
::::::Why do teachers push such a simplistic narrative about the plum pudding model anyway? When I started going through the original papers by Thomson and Rutherford, I found that the truth deviated considerably from the narrative. The stuff you teach in schools gets the physics right but not the history. And that bugs me because I'm a history guy (Johnjbarton is the actual physicist). [[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] ([[User talk:Kurzon|talk]]) 19:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::"The stuff you teach in schools gets the physics right but not the history."
:::::::As a physicist, a scientific discovery I made in the closing months of my PhD program (in Electrical Engineering!) has a specific historical link to developments in atomic theory. I believe I can best put a pin in about 1922/23 when Bohr finally had something constructive to say with regard to chemists' static models. (I'm actually trying to hunt down a paper of Bohr's from this time that I recall reading in about 2013 ...I believe it's an unpublished response paper of some 6 or 7 pages mentioned in the Bohr archives. Still no luck finding that paper!) My work picks up, it appears, where the chemists left off. Their work was cast out of the limelight because of the blinding flurry of quantum mechanical developments in the 1920s and 30s. I think my work makes important connections between the static and dynamic models that are difficult to impress upon today's science students as worthwhile. After all, a common misconception that persists is that we know all we need to know -- well, unless it's cosmology or string theory.
:::::::Thus, I'm quite interested in the historical developments as well -- and my first boss as an undergraduate student was a History professor.
:::::::I think the underlying response to your remark above is that "hindsight is 20/20". That's to say that as we look back at the historical science record, we already know the outcome -- the facts, the scientific laws, the failings of others, and such. So, we shed from our lesson plans those things that don't give a direct line of sight to the "solution" of any given science problem. Perhaps we've cut too much philosophy from science education today.
:::::::I vividly recall a theoretical electrical engineering professor I did research with back in Dallas who was excited as a bright-eyed kid in a candy store to come up to me after my seminar on my doctoral research to tell me that he was reminded so much of all the exciting physical chemistry lectures he attended in the 60s and 70s. He said my work was too important to ignore but no one today will care about it because students just want nicely wrapped answers. [[User:Tjlafave|TJ LaFave]] ([[User talk:Tjlafave|talk]]) 20:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::What do your students think of this article and [[Rutherford scattering experiments]]? [[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] ([[User talk:Kurzon|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Also I remember what the Internet was like in the 1990s, Wikipedia f*cking amazing compared to what I had back then. I don't think the Internet is dumbing us down and making us less empathetic, I think it does the opposite. [[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] ([[User talk:Kurzon|talk]]) 19:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm pointing to the internet being dumbed down too much. Social media is king today.
:::::::For those willing to reflect on what's discussed and posted online, it definitely improves our empathy, awareness, and knowledge.
:::::::As for 1990s internet, I'm glad I managed to ween so many people off left-hand justified pages of text on grey Netscape backgrounds. That was an information design technology change that transformed the world.
:::::::We also used to FTP into the U. Hawaii library to search for books and journal articles in our own library. Why spend hours at a card catalog when you can just stay in your dorm room and perform simple queries on the network before even stepping into the library? [[User:Tjlafave|TJ LaFave]] ([[User talk:Tjlafave|talk]]) 20:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::We have also improved the [[Rutherford scattering experiments]] article. [[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] ([[User talk:Kurzon|talk]]) 23:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:Alternatives include:
:* The plum pudding model was the first modern scientific model of the atom.
:Per
:* Kragh, Helge. "Before Bohr: Theories of atomic structure 1850-1913." RePoSS: Research Publications on Science Studies 10 (2010). https://css.au.dk/fileadmin/reposs/reposs-010.pdf
:** "The atomic model developed by the famous Cavendish physicist Joseph John Thomson in the early years of the twentieth century can with some justification be called the first modern model of the atom".
:or
:* The plum pudding model was the first scientific model of the internal structure of the atom.
:Per
:* "J. J. Thomson's plum-pudding atomic model: The making of a scientific myth" Giora Hon, Bernard R. Goldstein 06 September 2013 https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.201300732
:** "What distinguishes Thomson's theory is his assignment of a specific inner structure to the atom as well as a set of dynamical assumptions."
:[[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 18:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
::I have incorporated these references and an additional secondary history ref in a new section called "Significance". [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 03:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] Please stop changing the lead sentence without discussion. It is inappropriate per sources and personally rude in my opinion. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 16:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
| |||