Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion from Talk:Plum pudding model. (BOT) |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 discussions from Talk:Plum pudding model. (BOT) |
||
Line 200:
:::::Not anymore no. At the time, however, it was so. Now it's obsolete, and no one uses it to describe the atom anymore.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 01:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
::I am also surprised at the heat of the initial query in this thread. I think it is misplaced. The plum pudding model is clearly a scientific theory, and it is clearly obsolete. I say these things with at least some authority, as I am a retired professor of history of science who specialized over my 40+ year career in the close study of theories in the physical sciences of the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly atomic theory. The definitions given at the top of the thread are deficient. Throughout the history of science, models can definitely fulfill the definition of theories. In fact, the definition given above of a model can also serve as an excellent definition of a theory: "a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes"; we speak (for instance) of the geocentric or heliocentric model of the solar system. The plum pudding model (his theory of the composition of the atom) died with advent the Rutherford-Bohr nuclear atom, as Thomson well recognized. "Damaging"? "False"? "Misleading"? No, none of these.[[User:Ajrocke|Ajrocke]] ([[User talk:Ajrocke|talk]]) 18:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
== Overview is too long and detailed. ==
The Overview is too dense. I'm not even sure why it exists. Seems like what we need is "Background". The intro should be the overview. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 03:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:Ok I moved content out of Overview, and deleted some of it. In its place I added a Background section with four ingredients essential for the Thomson story: atomic model, electrons, radiation, and spectral lines. Thomson uses electrons to build a model of the atom, radiation to probe matter in support of his model, but ultimately fails to describe spectral lines. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 18:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
== Need a section on the experimental evidence. ==
Thomson and his colleague Crowther published work on the scattering of beta particles by metal foils that they used to support Thomson's model. This work should be discussed. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 03:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
== Development ==
Unfortunately at least some of content of the Development section is wrong, and now I suspect it all. It appears to be a synopsis of self-selected contributions of Thomson by date, created by reading the original papers. It's a good example of why [[WP:PSTS| Wikipedia prefers secondary sources]].
For example the 1905 lecture was an overview of previous work, esp. a 1903 paper where the magnetic analogy was introduced based on previous work by [[Alfred Marshall Mayer]]. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 21:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:In my experience working on many history projects on Wikipedia, secondary sources are often unreliable. They often present a distorted summarization of what came before. That's why I use both. [[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] ([[User talk:Kurzon|talk]]) 22:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::Well I agree that many pages use web sites as if they were secondary sources or sensationalized pop-science articles that aren't historical analysis. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 00:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
:Also secondary sources might contradict each other and we end up having to pick and choose and interpret anyway . [[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] ([[User talk:Kurzon|talk]]) 22:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
| |||