atomic structure

[Peter Macinnis]

;rep:111,4220
LH>I assume the lady on the radio was referring to the 'Rutherford atom' or the
LH> view of the atom where the electrons orbit about the nucleus, much as
LH>planets
LH>orbit about the sun. This is an incorrect view of the atom and I might add,
LH> if one attempts to obtain a picture of the atom you will have errors in tha
LH> view. The best models are mathematical models and they are beyond the
LH> understanding of most high school students.

I have always worried about this: can we justify using such an
old-fashioned model? I would be interested to hear other views before I
weigh in with my own (which I recently discovered had been promulgated
by Thomas Kuhn 30 years ago!)

peter

~ SLMR 2.1 ~ Two things I dislike about John Hewson: his face.

--
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!3!711!508.0!Peter.Macinnis
Internet: Peter.M...@p0.f508.n711.z3.fidonet.org

[Brian D. Suggs]

In article <52477.2...@puddle.fidonet.org> Peter.M...@p0.f508.n711.z3.fidonet.org (Peter Macinnis) writes:
>;rep:111,4220
>LH>I assume the lady on the radio was referring to the 'Rutherford atom' or the
>LH> view of the atom where the electrons orbit about the nucleus, much as
>LH>planets
>LH>orbit about the sun. This is an incorrect view of the atom and I might add,
>LH> if one attempts to obtain a picture of the atom you will have errors in tha
>LH> view. The best models are mathematical models and they are beyond the
>LH> understanding of most high school students.
>
>I have always worried about this: can we justify using such an
>old-fashioned model?

I think there is nothing wrong with using "such an old-fashioned model" as long
you make it clear that it is just that -- a model. This holds for more current
theories as well! The only "absolutely correct" model of an atom is an actual
atom.

If you and your students are up to it, you should explain what assumptions are
made by the model, where the model doesn't hold true, etc.

I agree that the more recent mathematical models, (i.e. quantum mechanics) are
beyond the understanding of many. I've found the easiest way to deal with them
is to throw out all your preconceptions and simply say, "Atoms tend to exhibit
behaviour consistent with these equations: ...", rather than try to associate
concepts with those of classical mechanics. (e.g. "Orbits" of electrons around
a nucleus are very different from orbits of planets around a star, but the fact
that the term "orbit" is used when discribing electrons makes it hard for some
to dismiss their preconception of what an orbit is.)

--
Internet: su...@alumni.caltech.edu

[Lowell Herr]

> PMI have always worried about this: can we justify using such
> PMan
> PMold-fashioned model? I would be interested to hear other
> PMviews before I
> PMweigh in with my own (which I recently discovered had been
> PMpromulgated
> PMby Thomas Kuhn 30 years ago!)

I think the Thompson model, Rutherford Model, Bohr Model and etc are useful in
the sense that they provide an historical context for current knowledge.
Further, it is about as far as one can go at the high school level. Students
need to know that these models are far from the last word and that quantum
mechanics lies ahead. It is useful for students to confront a model and see
what works and what does not work within that model. The whole concept of
building a model is most useful in the study of science.

Lowell

--
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!32!Lowell.Herr
Internet: Lowel...@f32.n105.z1.fidonet.org