Talk:A New Model of the Atom
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion, but was kept. Please see the discussion in the Wikibooks:Requests for deletion archives for justifications and discussion. Old discussions should be taken into account before nominating again for deletion. |
[edit] A new model?
I am a bit confused, does is this book proposing a new model? Thenub314 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm confused by this, too. The part that stays on Wikibooks can't. I suggest we rename this book to something more clearer. --Swift (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is definitely a place on Wikibooks for a book on "visualising the atom", but the original thought in this book seems so intrinsic that it would take a complete rewrite. We might well be better off writing one from scratch. --Swift (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I've seen many cranks propose new models, claiming that the standard model is "rubbish". These cranks are the reason behind WB:OR. But that doesn't appear to be the case here. This book seems to be proposing a learning tool intended to help high school students learn about atoms and Wikipedia: molecular orbital, while admitting that this is a bit of an oversimplification of the more accurate standard model.
- No teacher seems able to immediately present the full complexity of the standard model to high school students; we always start with some oversimplified initial model. We always teach students about "waves" and "particles" even though neither oversimplified model alone can really describe an electron. The question is not which model is "right" -- they all fail when compared to the standard model, and even the standard model has a known problem. The question is whether a model is adequate to support further learning, and isn't too painful to rip out and replace with a more accurate model when the time comes. It may turn out that there are several such oversimplified initial models, all of which work just as well for that purpose, even though they may appear to be contradictory. --DavidCary (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That's what I thought first, too. I actually started cleaning it up but realised that this isn't just an overly simplified analogy. Give it a thorough read, including the bits I removed. This is quite certainly more than just a new view of the atom. --Swift (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I un-indented the above as it was not a direct reply to the preceding comment, but rather a reply to the thread as a whole. Feel free to re-indent if this is confusing. --Swift (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that I have created a bit of controversy, which may be good, but I don’t wish to offend either, so removing the claims is fine with me. However, as DavidCary notes:
- “…The question is not which model is "right" -- they all fail when compared to the standard model, and even the standard model has a known problem. The question is whether a model is adequate to support further learning,…”
As my kids (they are twins) went through school they had a lot of trouble understanding the atom. They found my explanations made this difficult subject much more comprehensible than what they received in science class. Once I got my version of atomic theory explanation into the heads of my kids, they could “see” (as I can) how pressure and heat can turn carbon to diamond, why the transformation increases carbon’s density, and why the diamond bonds are so strong. They can now understand the chemistry of why mayonnaise emulsifies oil with vinegar. I didn’t get that understanding from 8th grade science and chemistry, nor even high school. They were often far ahead of their classmates in many areas of middle and high school. Now in college, they have told me on several occasions that due to my explanations (on a multitude of subjects), they have found themselves in classes where they are significantly ahead of classmates. It was my kids who ask me to write a book.
- This is my first WikiBook and undoubtedly needs adjustment. It is my attempt to make a complex subject comprehensible to the average reader. Ptolemy’s Terracentric Model of the Cosmos worked adequately for some 1500 years, improving things like navigation, and prediction of solar and lunar eclipses. But, his view had a few kinks too, making it very difficult for average people to comprehend. Those kinks finally led to our easily comprehensible Solarcentric Model. I find my “atomic model” makes it much easier for the mind’s eye to “see” molecular bonding.
If we leave aside my speculation on the standard model’s kinks, is my atomic model an acceptable learning/teaching tool?
What would be a better name?
- “A New High School Primer on Atomic Theory”? That sounds a bit wordy.
- “The Atom”? – That does not distinguish it from 50 years of bland explanation.
Has anyone, with only a vague notion of atomic theory read my WikiBook and felt they can understand molecular bonding more intuitively afterwards?
What parts are unclear?
Most of all; - Is my explanation useful?
I welcome your constructive criticism. Pcfjr9 (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. I don't have time to go into this in detail, but I'll give some comments. Don't worry about creating controversy. Discussion is always good as long as they don't get personal or are preceived as such.
- I think the strength of this book is the realistic visualisation of the electron clouds. The weaknesses are the gossamers analogy instead of a discussion on probability, and the disc analogy for light. The latter is not only impossible, as the two axes of rotation would act with torque on each other creating procession, but the polarisation explanation is limited as it doesn't explain circularly polarised light or polarisation of reflected light.
- If the only atomic schematic you children were exposed to was the concentric one you refer to as the "classical atomic schematic" (see File:Fig3AB iCarbon 01C.jpg, then I can see your frustration. I'd say this is rather the failure of their teachers, rather than the existing model. I don't know when they were in school, but when I was first introduced to the atom some fifteen years ago, our teacher discussed them and stressed that while some schematics used the concentric circles, these were simply shorthands, not representative of the actual spacial structure of the atom.
- To conclude: I'm afraid I don't think this model is useful and potentially confusing. I think a better approach is to explain the actual physical concepts where possible rather than introduce analogies without explanations. A Visualising the Atom book could be a place for this, but I'm sorry to say that I don't see much content here that would warrant salvaging this. --Swift (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] merge
Do you expect to write an entire book about this model of the atom? If not, perhaps we could make this one chapter of some other book -- perhaps Nuclear Physics/Molecules - an Analogy, or Physics - For dummies, rebels and humans. --DavidCary (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I do plan writing more, but not until this voting is complete. Serendipitously, a young man (20-22 years) drop in to repair my cable connection. I asked he him if had taken any science classes and was informed that he had 1 year each of science and physics. I asked if he understood how the atom works and how they can form molecules. He said "Uh, no... it's all very fuzzy to me. I didn't get much out of that subject". I showed him my "New Model of the Atom" and he was elated. He said "In 10 minuets you have added more to my understanding of atoms and light than a whole year of classroom teaching. You should be a teacher!. I can't wait to show this to my brother". During our discussion he pointed out that model he was used to seeing was the one shown in my book, File:Fig3AB iCarbon 01C.jpg. Whoever taught him science no more than 4 or 5 years ago was still using old, drab and boring "models" and techniques. Pcfjr9 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
