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 295:
:The image that was added to the page did not have the electron labeled. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 20:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::Well once again there is no edit summary but this time the image is complete. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 21:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
== Why the Thomson model was(n't) wrong ==
We now have a section entitled "Why the Thomson model was wrong". This kind title gives an inaccurate sense of how scientific models work. I think you will almost never see "wrong" in print for a science model. Every single scientific model is "wrong" in some way: what's the point? Model are "useful" or "not useful" according to successful predictions in specific circumstances. Until the Geiger-Marsden experiment and Rutherford's explanation, Thomson model was useful. Then new circumstances: it could not predict the large angle scattering.
I think Thomson's scattering model should be presented straight-up, then contrasted with the new results of Rutherford. As it is I don't understand what part of the section is representing Thomson scattering and what part is tearing it down. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 23:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:I think you're splitting hairs here. [[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] ([[User talk:Kurzon|talk]]) 07:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::No, it's an aspect of the philosophy of science. You might like to read about how "[[All models are wrong |all models are wrong]]":
::* [[George Box|Box, George EP]]. "Science and statistics." Journal of the American Statistical Association 71.356 (1976): 791-799. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949?casa_token=lTCK50__6ckAAAAA:2VcLVFFpsex1vPJy6_Cd94z96xKpRUAGrVbIG8rtqhy3cEK1sr4t9S7TNgG-fVszjiv9MXSD5GBYDQ
::[[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 15:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:::So you want me to use rough approximations in the math but you're going to split hairs when it comes to prose? [[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] ([[User talk:Kurzon|talk]]) 17:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::::No. I want you to use appropriate approximations and appropriate prose according to physics in a physics article. These are connected. Using a number like 0.0186 in a physics context is not the same as 0.02. The value 0.02 is not a "rough approximation", it is additional information. It tells the reader that "we are seeking to understand a complex phenomenon so we will focus on the general character." On the other hand 0.0186 means we have confidence that our model will reproduce experiments to 4 significant figures. But "all models are wrong". The 0.0186 is mice when lions abound. We have no experimental data with 4 significant figures and not a prayer that our textbook exercise will match even if we did. The 0.0186 number is incorrect. If you wrote that on a physics exam its points off. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 18:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
| |||