Talk:History of molecular theory

message: The article is starting to feel solid.  A few details left to finish include:
#Marc Antoine Auguste Gaudin - fix this redlink
#Alfred Parson - fix this redlink
#Maurice M. Rapport  - fix this redlink
#K.L. Wolf - fix this redlink
#Find the date, original picture, and article as to where Rene Descartes thought up the hook-and-eye atom bonding model concept.
#Find diagrams of the early geometric shapes of elements, used by the Greeks and others, in terms of how these combined to form pre-cursory "molecules" (before Descartes models)
#Possibly add parts on molecules in medicine such as "drug-receptor" ideas as well as designer molecules used to mimic neurochemicals, such as neurotransmitters in the brain, etc.
#Find more pre-17th century views on pseudo or precursor molecule concepts
Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 10:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do list

message: :from User talk:Kurzon:
Did you just write all that?! If so, that is brilliant! Or was it just part of a split or something? J Milburn 10:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank's for the complement (I wrote most of it), but it was a newby cut-n-paste. --Sadi Carnot 18:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename or move 

message: I put a nucleosynthesis “other uses” tag at the top so clarify that this article is not about the history of element or molecular formation following the big bang.
Also, one of the main problems with a suggested name change is that there really is no such thing as “molecular theory”; hence, how can there be a “history of molecular theory”, e.g. see: Google search results.  There are, however, related topics such as molecular orbital theory, kinetic molecular theory, Six Postulates of the Kinetic Molecular Theory, On the Motion Required by the Molecular Kinetic Theory of Heat of Small Particles Suspended in a Stationary Liquid, etc.  I also agree with Unconcerned about redirects.  I will add those per the suggestion. --Sadi Carnot 17:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Please look carefully at all contributions from User:Sadi Carnot. This editor (Sadi Carnot) has been blocked for creating bogus articles and a pattern of disruptive editing. The page section "Quantum mechanics" contains a description of one published article. I think it should either be re-named to something more specific or expanded to include more. --JWSchmidt 05:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantum mechanics

message: I think that including the quantum mechanics research reported by Zeilinger is problematic. No reference has been provided that describes it as "historic" including the recently added "Quantum physics: Waves, particles and fullerenes" Nature 401: 651-653.  Without references it is simply a "point of view" that the reseach is historic. M stone 13:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree (although I agree with removing the 21st century section). The article I quoted comments specifically on the work by Zeilinger, and considers it notable for "for extending the applicability of wave–particle duality by about one order of magnitude in the macroscopic direction". The don't exactly use the word "historic", but I think that is an unreasonable requirement. But it is basically saying that this is establishing a new "world record" for what can show interference (beating the previous one by at least a factor of ten), and that is something historic IMO. It is also the best-known example of a molecule as a whole showing interference. The article has been cited over 150 times, and it was also commented on in Physics Today. --Itub 14:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly all research in Nature is notable and important and this particular report is already included under wave–particle duality. If this research is indeed historic then it should not be difficult to find a reference describing it as such. If relatively new research is first described as historic on Wikipedia, then would that not at least be "original research?" Personally I think the best references for this page would be ones that acutually describe "the history of the molecule." M stone 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid there might be no references about "the history of the molecule", and I don't mean just regarding the particle-wave duality of fullerenes. In that case, it is possible that these entire article will end up deleted, like most of Sadi Carnot's work. I think that would be sad, because this article has a lot of good content. --Itub 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be good content in this article, but there is a lot of tangently related junk too. The early stuff appears to describe the history of atomic theory and does not really belong here at least in such detail. I am most concerned about subsections starting from "supramolecular chemistry" that seem to be included simply because an image "pleasing to the eye" was found. Perhaps it would be useful to solicit the opinions of others on how to proceed.  M stone 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I've just posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science to ask for opinions. --Itub 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with including recent research

message: Both in Atomic Theory and History of the molecule articles, the contributions of Boscovich is ignored. But he has many claims which came close the quantum physics... 85.104.79.121 (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Boscovich? 

message: This title should be renamed "History of molecular theory".  Logically speaking, the "history of the molecule" stretches back to the beginnings of the Universe!  And anyone who feels the new title would be "overcomplicated" should not bother trying to understand the article's content.Kurzon (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of molecular theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-3/captions/p45cap4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209001003/http://www.thecore.nus.edu.sg/landow/victorian/science/science_texts/molecules.html to http://www.thecore.nus.edu.sg/landow/victorian/science/science_texts/molecules.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of molecular theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://nobelprize.org/cgi-bin/print?from=%2Fnobel_prizes%2Fphysics%2Flaureates%2F1926%2Fperrin-lecture.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923094104/http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/antiBD_mol.html to http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/antiBD_mol.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060407131905/http://www.chemsoc.org/cgi-shell/empower.exe to http://www.chemsoc.org/cgi-shell/empower.exe
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This critical distinction is not well made.  Remember that this article will be read by school children.
Early speculations are of some interest, but they have nothing to do with the development of science.  Then, starting about the mid 1700s, some science came into play.  Being correct through luck is completely different to being right through careful experiment and reasoning.
I am personally interested in how Avagrado came to his theory.  The full kinetic theory of gasses did not come until much later, but but basic Newtonian mechanics were well understood by 1700.  So to what extent was Avagrado (and others) theories Science or Speculation?  And if Science, then what was the reasoning used?  Had they thought about the kinetic energy of the particles?
A good history of science explores the thought processes rather just a list of speculations and discoveries.
(Thank you to the editors that created it though.  It is generally pretty good.  And no, it is certainly not Original Research to put something like this together.) Tuntable (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science vs Wild Speculation