Talk:History of atomic theory

message: I've done a lot of googling on the net trying to find precise details on how exactly Daltin arrived at his atomic theory, and some of the information has been contradictory.  When I wrote this section, I put nitric oxide and oxygen as one of the pairs of gases he studied.  Some articles said Dalton referred to the former as "nitrous gas", and that this gas was really nitric oxide (NO).  The equations and ratios I wrote were an educated guess on my part rather than a quotation from what Dalton actually did.  However, another wikipedian rewrote it to be nitrous oxide (N2O), which changes the equations somewhat.  Are there any experts on Dalton's life and work who can give a definite answer to this?  Could some student here please ask their chemistry professor?
I removed this paragraph:
:In some cases the study of a property at atomic level is very complex and easier results are obtained with a study at a bigger scale. This does not means that atomic theory does not work in these cases. The problem is the mathematical complexities given by treating such problems with the atomic theory. Till nowdays there are no cases where atomic theory does not work, there are only cases in which the result is more easily obtained, in the limit of the wanted approximation, with easier theories. Despite that it may be of some worthness to point out that a general vision should always kept and considered, and to consider the world or the entire universe only as series of atoms is reductive.
Aside from its very strange usage ("Till nowdays", "some worthness"), I think this is factually incorrect. There are many cases where atomic theory does not work, which is why a further reduction to quantum mechanics was required. I would be happy with a rewriting of this paragraph to express the fact that large-scale abstractions are still useful for thinking about things, as long as it is correct. Brighterorange 7 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)
:You did the right thing.  It was too generally worded to get any interesting meaning out of it, its vague. Re-write if you wish. linas 04:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: John Dalton

message: "Up until the late 20th century, atoms could not be directly observed. Beginning as a purely philosophical concept, their existence and nature were explored indirectly by correlating knowledge gained through various scientific experiments over the course of the past few centuries."
I'm not sure what is meant here by "directly observed" — they can still not be "directly" observed any more than they once could. They can be indirectly observed, and with far better precision than they could before, but "directly"? Though I am usually averse to Bohr-style philosophical discussions of what "observation" means, when we are talking about things as small as atoms I think it becomes impossible not to be very careful in our terminology. --Fastfission 19:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Visualizability

message: Congratulations, this article has passed the GA nominations. As a suggestion I would suggest having 2-3 citations in each section. Tarret 19:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed

message: Re-reviewing the article on 29 August 2007 to confirm that it still meets the GA criteria. Other than a few minor reference formatting fixes, this article continues to meet the criteria, and will continue to be listed as a Good Article. Dr. Cash 16:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA sweeps review

message: The discovery of isotopes is commonly attributed to Frederick Soddy (at least he is the one who got the Nobel Prize for it). I don't know much about the claim that it was Thompson, but if there's something to it the article should also mention Soddy and explain. If not, the attribution should be replaced by the correct one. -Itub 18:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Thomson generated the DATA for neon, but he didn't interpret it correctly at first. It sat there until 1920, when somebody realized what it was. There's also a difference between the guy who first understood that there could be isotopes of LIGHT and STABLE elements (like neon) vs the heavy and radioactive stuff that everybody was working with. I'll read INWARD BOUND on the subject and see if I can sort it out a bit better.SBHarris 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isotopes 

message: I'm just learning English, but from the sentence "Further experimentation by Rutherford found that the nuclear mass of most atoms exceeded that of the protons it possessed" I made a conclusion that the mass of an atom is greater than the sum of mass of separated protons. The matter is that the mass of an atom is less than sum of separate nucleus, because some part of the mass was converted to binding energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.2.194 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 24 February 2008
:The sentence refers to the understanding of the nucleus prior to the discovery of the neutron (which makes up more than half the mass of alomost all nuclei) and is unrelated to the more recent concept of binding energy. Vsmith (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like error 

message: The article says, "Since a wavefunction incorporates time as well as position, it is impossible to simultaneously derive precise values for both the position and momentum of a particle for any given point in time," but I am not sure what this even means.
An object containing information about time and position has absolutely nothing to do with uncertainty principle. For example, a trajectory, or, for a real life example, your GPS trace contains information about both time and position but to the idealization done in making these, both position and momentum are precisely known.
IMHO, a better introduction to uncertainty principle should begin from the fact that matter is "wave"---and waves, whether it's classical like water waves or quantum mechanical like matter waves, cannot have both the well-defined momentum (which is related to the wavelength) and well-defined position (which is related to localization).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novakyu (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence introducing uncertainty principle 

message: This entry is regrettably silent about Ernst Mach's skepticism re atomism. It has only one brief paragraph on how Einstein's paper on brownian motion, and Jean Perrin's careful estimate of Avogadro's number, convinced almost everyone by 1910-15 that atoms were indeed real. Also, when Feynman was asked to state the single most important scientific fact discovered from Galileo onwards, he said "the world is made of atoms."132.181.160.42 (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to edit the article, provided that any new or changed material is supported by reliable sources. Finell (Talk) 01:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: There are far too many dead-end theories in the study of matter.  This article concentrates on the chain of events that genuinely pushed modern accepted theory as we know it.Kurzon (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perrin, Mach, brownian motion, Feyman 

message: I find it strange that Leucippus, the originator of atomic theory, and his followers Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius, are nowhere to be found in an article on ‘atomic theory’? I do note that he was in the original  2004 stub version, but seems to have been removed, to the relegated atomism article. When someone thinks ‘atomic theory’ the first names that come to mind are either Leucippus (or Democritus) or Dalton. I would suggest someone do a rewrite of this article to reflect this simplicity. The following timeline I wrote up today might lend some guidance on the basic framework of atomic theory:
*Atomic theory – Encyclopedia of Human Thermodynamics
I hope this input helps? --Libb Thims (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I've added a section on atomism. Λυδαcιτγ 00:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Leucippus the ‘father of atomic theory’ nowhere to be found?

message: I was reading the article about Johann Josef Loschmidt, and it says that Lochschmidt estimated "in 1865 the size of the molecules that make up the air:[2] his result was only twice the true size, a remarkable feat given the approximations he had to make."
I jumped to this article, because I was hoping to find a description of what method he was using 1865, but there is no reference at all to this guy.  Does anybody know something more? Thank you. If relevant, maybe it could also be added to the historical part in this article.
KlausN (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lochschmidt

message: I added the section on the controversy about the existence of atoms. I thought this should be a separate article as it spoils the flow a bit, but the editors would not allow a new page so I have put it in here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathew Rammer (talk • contribs) 20:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it's tangential.  There are lots of dead end theories, too many to mention.Kurzon (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Science evolves and changes. Vitalism should be included as part of that change in this article. It should link in a way that allows tangenital stuff to be reached by linking off page, not removed to only have long equations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.37.20 (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: history of science

message: In the animation for the Bohr model, the linear velocity in the outer orbit appears to be higher than the linear velocity in the inner orbit. In my understanding of the Bohr model, it should be the other way round: the linear velocity should be inversely proportional to the radius of the orbit.
Robamler (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Robamler, so the electron when on the outer shell should take four times as long to complete a single orbit than on the inner shell?Kurzon (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animation for Bohr model 

message: According to stats.grok.se, this time of year is when instances of vandalism to this article spikes.  The school year has started.Kurzon (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Substituted at 08:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Atomic 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417074535/http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/scientists/ESchrodinger.htm to http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/scientists/ESchrodinger.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122193755/http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/scientists/MBorn.htm to http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/scientists/MBorn.htm
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) 17:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the philosophical atomism section, the articles does not give substantial information about the work done in India. I recommend the author to refer to the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanada_(philosopher) to include some details on the work of Indian philosophers.
Here are a few lines that can be included about the work of Indian philosophers (These are words directly used from the wikipedia article).
In India, the  Vaisheshika school of philosophy founded by Kanada attempted to explain the creation and existence of the universe by proposing an atomistic theory. Kanada suggested that everything can be subdivided, but this subdivision cannot go on forever, and there must be smallest entities (parmanu) that cannot be divided, that are eternal, that aggregate in different ways to yield complex substances and bodies with unique identity, a process that involves heat, and this is the basis for all material existence. 73.92.109.166 (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ask me, the Philosphical section should be reduced to just three or four sentences. Dalton's scientific theory of atoms was not based on ancient philosophical theories.  Maybe he got the basic idea of the atom from the ancient Greeks, but the arguments the Greeks used to prove the existence of atoms are totally different from Dalton's, who based his arguments on experimental evidence. Thus, there is not much use in detailing how the ancients came up with the idea of atoms, beyond the need to show the disconnect with Dalton's theory. The ancient Greeks were right about atoms, but for the wrong reasons.Kurzon (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Another editor has disagreed with the inclusion of this. NiciVampireHeart 19:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2019 

message: I just rewrote the lede. Any thoughts? You guys seem to know your science. Kurzon (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the effort, but your rewrite doesn't work.  Dalton's atomic theory (ca. 1808) preceded the kinetic theory of gases and heat, which entered the scientific mainstream only with the work of Clausius, Maxwell, et al. (1860s).  I'll try a re-write.Ajrocke (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine that you sorted out the history for me, but the language of your writing is a little... purple? All I got wrong was the timing of the kinetic theory of gases. I think you made the text a little too difficult to read. I'll try to reword it into something more accessible. Kurzon (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

text:  OK, I rewrote the lede to something that is a little closer to Sesame Street level. Please have a read to make sure I haven't butchered it in the process. Kurzon (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks,Kurzon, I do see merit in some of your revisions. But there are problems with some others.  "Early 1800s" is awfully vague, and it is historically incorrect to  refer to Dalton as a "scientist."  That sentence does not accurately characterize what Dalton did, for in elemental analyses as expressed in percentages by weight one sees no small integral multiples (they only appear when one holds the weight of one element constant -- see  explanation in the article below). Dalton's theory was a response to the discovery of the laws of stoichiometry, not just multiple proportions, and that has to be said in some form.  Also, the correct word must not be "substances", but rather "elements" or "chemical elements." Also, to mention the ancient tradition here is misleading, for Dalton had no sense whatever that he was continuing or reviving an ancient tradition; chemical atomism was something totally new and really quite unrelated to the philosophical tradition.  In addition, I think it's necessary to indicate that Dalton's new tradition, chemical atomism, had a lively and continuing (and absolutely vital!) development from his time to ours. One more comment: can we say that what we know now as "elementary particles" will always be thought to be indivisible? That's an absolute, abstract statement. It's better to call them what they really are thought to be by 2020 science: constituents of subatomic particles. I like your addition that the word "atom" has become an accepted convention, rather than the literal "unsplittable" idea. When I have a little time, I will offer some suggested re-writes that combine our two efforts, OK?Ajrocke (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrote lede

message: How about this summary of the law of multiple proportions?  Is this more accurate?
 In the early 1800s, John Dalton compiled experimental data gathered by himself and other scientists and discovered a pattern now known as the "law of multiple proportions". He noticed that in chemical compounds which all contain a particular chemical element, the content of that element in these compounds will differ by ratios of small whole numbers.
Kurzon (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: The law of multiple proportions

message: Could we possible include the Lewis Model, Gryziński model, Dirac-Gordon Equation and Vortex Theory as further improvements in the article since they are also previously/currently suggested models? These models are mentioned in the 'Atomic Models' category box under External Links but perhaps including them in the main article would be informative. --NikeTheVictorious (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to include some more models 

message: Change:  Solar system models proposed before Thompson always resulted in atoms spiraling into the nucleus.[28]  to  Solar system models proposed before Thompson always resulted in electrons spiraling into the nucleus.[28] KHBPGBC (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page  00:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022 

message: This is clearly a history article. Could it be renamed to History of atomic theory? ReyHahn (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article has a substantial chronology of the development of this topic. However, a page called "History of atomic theory" suggests it is a sub-topic of another page called "Atomic theory", where that main-topic page has substantial content on aspects beyond the history. Otherwise, the title is needlessly verbose (and says it would only cover historical development). What would be the remaining atomic-theory page once the history as you see it is offloaded? See WP:TITLE and WP:Splitting for the relevant guidelines. DMacks (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that we do not have an atomic theory article so it seems like extra work (thought it is unnecessary to have such an article as we have articles for quantum chemistry, hydrogen atom, quantum mechanics, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics, and just atom). However, I would insist to move it in the sense that it is at odds with other history articles which are usually called "history of" and do not have necesssarily a corresponding article. See for example History of molecular theory or History of subatomic physics.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Rename I think you should make this the "history" page for the Atom article and cut back some of the content in that article now under 'history of atomic theory'. You could call is "History of the Atom" I suppose. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Hah, there is also Atomism, yet another redundant history. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose "History of the atom". Atoms existed long before atomic theory, and the article should cover the history of the latter, not the history of the former. I am only mildly opposed to "History of atomic theory". Not every article on a historical scientific topic starts with "History of". We don't have History of aether theories, but rather Aether theories. As currently constructed, Atomic theory is the historical background to Atomic physics. We could have an article called History of atomic physics, but Atomic theory is a better name for that article. --Srleffler (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, you are ok with Rename "History of atomic theory" correct? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated, I am mildly opposed to "History of atomic theory". I am not convinced that the proposed renaming is necessary.--Srleffler (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

text: History of atomic physics would be ok by me and match Atomic physics. We could build up the non-history content on atoms there. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to renaming this article to "History of atomic theory". It makes no difference to me. Kurzon (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: Atomic theory in the quantum era makes no sense without a discussion of the Pauli principle. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Be my guest. Kurzon (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Johnjbarton (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pauli principle 

message: I deleted a paragraph on the uncertainty principle (again). I suppose there are a few connections between atomic theory and uncertainty principle, but if these are notable in the context of the article they should be called out (with refs). Almost all of these connections are just tidbits not really physics. Of course the principle applies but it's not useful for understanding atoms. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncertainty principle 

message: Jean-Baptiste Dumas defined a "physical atom" as a particle that cannot be divided by "physical forces" such as temperature and pressure and a "chemical atom" as a particle that cannot be divided by chemical reactions. Hydrogen gas particles are physical atoms but not chemical atoms because if you mix hydrogen gas and chlorine gas, their molecules split so that their atoms can combine into hydrogen chloride (HCl).
By this description, I suppose that hydrogen chloride molecules would be "chemical atoms" but not "physical atoms" because the only way to separate the hydrogen from the chlorine is electrolysis, a physical process.  Remember that this is all from the perspective of early 19th century chemists.  What I'm looking for is a source that confirms my supposition.  For the paragraph above, I already have a source, but that book doesn't mention electrolysis. Kurzon (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not assume electrolysis, esp. in the early 19th century. Water soluble HCl is chemically reactive in many ways. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical and chemical atoms per Dumas

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
----
:Atomic theory →  – An atomic theory article would be to vast and articles for quantum chemistry, hydrogen atom, quantum mechanics, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics, and just atom, exist already. This page as it currently stands it is a history article, most of the section headers could be promoted to level 1 headers if the article name is changed. This move is also in line with other "history of" articles that do not necessarily have a main article. See for example History of molecular theory or History of subatomic physics. ReyHahn (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly Agree Title should match content. The subject notable and needed. Purpose of other articles will be clearer once this one is not overlapping their names. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Rename per nom. Hard to disagree when the article title is "Atomic theory" and all the content is under the heading "History". Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Comment: Since you're asking for a no-redirect move, would you want Atomic theory to redirect instead to Atom? -- asilvering (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that "atomic theory" is barely a term now, but I have no problem making atomic theory a redirect to atom.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Atomic_theory, it seems that most of the links are in the historic context, and it seems reasonable to keep Atomic theory pointing here. A few of the links should perhaps be retargeted to Atomic physics or Atom. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

text: No objections Kurzon (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Strongly Agree This article covers the history, not the theory itself. TheBooker66 (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 February 2024 

message: Would a comment on Walter Gordon (physicist) on solving the relativistic equation (Dirac equation) for the hydrogen atom be of interest here? What about the Lamb shift? Or are these ideas heavily focused on hydrogen? ReyHahn (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hydrogen is simply the iconic atom. Both issues are related to atomic theory IMO. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativistic atom 

message: Maybe a mention to Ostwald's energetics could fit in the statistical mechanics section. ReyHahn (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energetics 

message: Let's revisit this issue.
I think it should be "multiplier".Kurzon (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ? I guess this is a quote from somewhere.  But it is unrelated to the discussion on Rutherford scattering experiments. In the quote above "multiplier" seems fine to me. The other sentence was different and anyway I removed it for other reasons. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiplier/multiples