Why do people think that electrons in atoms are tiny beads flying in circles around the nucleus?

Jim said:

There was a question in another thread, about why people sometimes believe things without any evidence for them. The purpose of this thread was to consider something that multitudes of people once believed, and many still do, without any evidence for it, and what their reasons might be for believing it.

Click to expand...

When debaters are speaking generally of the issues of "religion" and "science" this is very simplistic. Some religions are more specifik regarding their Stories of Creation and some scientific areas contains beliefs and assumptions which isn´t verified and which cannot live up to the very scientific method of experiments.

Once the cosmological scientific society believed that the starry motions in galaxies were similar to the planetary motions in our solar system but this was contradicted by the discovery of the "anomalistic galactic rotation curve".

This cosmological problem lead to the belief in "dark matter" - and several other "galactic problems", as for instant an increasing velocity from the assumed Big Bang expansion, lead to the belief in "dark energy".

Jim said:
"The purpose of this thread was to consider something that multitudes of people once believed, and many still do, without any evidence for it, and what their reasons might be for believing it".

The search for "dark matter" have gone on for about 100 years and it is only assumed from circumstantial observations. Still, lot of cosmological scientists believe in this - without even thinking of other explanations but the gravitational one which is just 1/4 of the fundamental forces.

Belief systems, religious and cosmological, are very hard to change . . .

gnostic said:

Wow!

What does this topic has to do with atheism?

Seriously, in high school and in university science subjects, there are no atheism this and no theism that. Both atheism and theism, and all other -ism are ignored, because they aren’t relevant in physics, chemistry or biology.

You are being paranoid and dishonest to bring up atheism here.

I am glad that not all Mormons are like you.

Click to expand...

Goodness.

It was a joke.

Now, having to explain a joke always ruins it, but.....sometimes one must.

I have read this thread, and the theme seems to be that those who still use the 'electrons orbit the nucleus' idea are somehow more stupid, ill-informed and hide bound than anybody else: that those who don't delve into the intricacies of nuclear physics and quantum mechanics and have a more accurate picture of how atoms are formed don't have the IQ level to deal with the situation at all. Even those who defend the idea...or rather, those who defend the folks who still have that mind picture...are doing so apologetically, rather like one would defend a first year geology student for saying something dumb about plate tectonics in a post grad conference. "Don't mind her, she doesn't know anything and has no business trying to talk in the presence of grownups..."

The thing is, we have constantly been told, we theists, that all good logic and thinking come from those who only use objective evidence; the scientific method. We are constantly told that SINCE we are theists, we are too stupid to be scientists, and that our opinions regarding science are not credible...not because our evidence is unreliable, but simply because we ALSO believe in a deity. Indeed, I have personally been involved in many threads in which the non-believer's position is that one simply cannot be a theist AND a scientist at the same time; that no theist can possibly understand the scientific method, or understand the worth of objective evidence.

Then there is the idea that atheists, since they are NOT believers in the supernatural, are the proper people to 'do' science.

This brings me to the "Atheist Swirl." There it is, the emblem of American Atheists, the quintessential depiction of electrons orbiting the central point...in this case, a big red "A." That....and yes, I was an English teacher. I didn't major in physics. Shoot, I had to take a semester away from all my other subjects and concentrate only on trigonometry in order to pass it. With a 'C,' the only 'C' I ever got. I'm discalculaic.

ALL my science teachers were content to us the 'electron orbiting the nucleus" mind picture to explain things on the 'beginning' level, and it worked fine. Such things DO work fine, if one isn't a physics major, or in need of more accurate mental pictures/concepts. If they work as they are...???

Shoot, even Einstein went with simplistic mind experiments/pictures when explaining his theoretical concepts; elevators, moving trains and stationary, er, stations...

He still got the important points across, as do those who depict electrons 'in orbit' rather than in some other relationship. Frankly, THAT mistake only becomes important when writing fiction...like, oh, "The Shrinking Man," by Richard Matheson (you probably only saw the movie).

UNLESS one is a physics major or more interested in this issue for other reasons.

BTW...do any of you understand, or care about, the concept of 'lemon squeezing," the specific history of the 'great vowel shift' or what happened to English, that it has a Germanic grammar and a Romantic vocabulary? Does the fact that most of you don't get the jokes in Beowulf mean that you are too stupid to live?

Yet this thread seems to be indicating that those who still use the 'mind picture' of electrons orbiting nuclei are too stupid to live. Or certainly too simplistic to be paid attention to in other matters, such as (looking at the OP again) religion or politics.

Yet...there it is. The atheists who pride themselves on intellect and logic use that very simplistic mind picture; the one they have been advocating the teaching of to children for decades...

So those who still hold to it do so because atheists have told us so. They are proud of it. They use it as a logo.

As to whether my joke is appropriate on this thread....Did you notice the forum in which this thread appears? Religious Forums? How about the sub-forum? "Science and Religion?"

It's appropriate.

Your unwarranted attack upon me is not. Ad hominems are neither logical nor polite.

gnostic said:

My reply was to dianaiad, not address to you, as to why bring up atheism at all, since physics and chemistry were taught to all students, not just to atheist students.

Atheism, theism, agnosticism, deism, etc, all have nothing to do with science.

Click to expand...

It does in a forum devoted to the discussion of 'religion and science." Just sayin.'

gnostic said:

The clumsiness in dianaiad’s argument is equating science and atheism as one and the same; dianaiad is just demonstrating his ignorance and his biases. Are you as backward as he?

Click to expand...

I'm a 'she.' Good heavens. I am constantly amazed when someone can see 'diana' in a screen name and exposes ignorance of mythology and history to the point that "he" is even a possibility. Unlike other names, which can be used by either sex (like "Chris" or even "Marion," no male has EVER been called 'Diana." Not to mention that you had enough interest to identify my religion, but NOT enough to see the very clearly marked 'FEMALE' in my bio.

gnostic said:

Jim, you are Baha’i, like @shunyadragon, and you are both theists, but you two are nothing alike when it comes to understanding science. Of you two, shunyadragon understand science without messing science with his faith and belief.

And as I told dianaiad. Science isn’t about theism or atheism or other -ism, because all these religions and philosophies aren’t relevant in understanding natural science.

Click to expand...

They are when the discussion takes place in a forum called "Science and Religion." Not that many of you have acknowledged that a theist can be a scientist....

gnostic said:

As to the illustration electrons orbiting around the nucleus, is merely oversimplification of what the atom might look like, as you should already know from Niels Bohr’s model. And such image is outdated.

Click to expand...

OK, it's outdated. So? What difference does that make to those who don't make their livings chasing down the God particle (AKA the Higgs Boson?)

gnostic said:

But you seem to suffer from selective amnesia that the older model has been replaced by particle physics and quantum mechanics, something that you would learn in more advanced physics at universities and colleges.

Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that anybody who does NOT take advanced physics in universities and colleges is too stupid to live, or contribute to society?

gnostic said:

While the Bohr’s model can served as history lesson of what physics was like at this stage, you cannot stop scientific advances or progresses by being obsessed with older and outdated theories.

Click to expand...

So who's attempting to stop such things?

It's not like any of us are attempting to pull "The BIBLE says that electrons are tiny beads orbiting a nucleus. God said it, I believe it, that settles it." now, are we?

gnostic said:

You should be forward in science, not take 10 steps backward.

Click to expand...

Of course, IF you happen to be a scientist exploring the aspects of nuclear physics. There are an amazing amount of people, however, who are pursuing knowledge in other, equally important, areas. Oh, I'm quite certain you don't think they are as important, but, well, we do.

gnostic said:

It would be like asking astronomers to ditch their powerful optical and radio telescopes and go back to star gazing with just the naked eye. You would be taking astronomy back to the Middle Ages.

Click to expand...

So who's asking you to?

As far as I can tell, it is YOU who are insisting that all of us drop whatever else we are doing and come admire your perspicacity, agree with you, and worship your theories.

The thing is, gnostic, the orchardist attempting to find the very best line of oranges to grow in the particular micro-climate his land provides doesn't need to know all the advanced mental pictures and ideas of how atoms work and appear. Their view probably ends at the DNA level of biological processes.

Or....how about the vintner who grows the best grapes in the world...on the side of Mt. Vesuvius? I rather imagine that he couldn't care less whether electron beads circle a nucleus or whether they 'cloud around." He's more worried about soil composition, biology and, in his case, probably geology. Doesn't make him stupid. Just makes him interested in different stuff.

Unless you think he should drag you away from your whiteboard and laser experiments in order to make you understand the latest theories of horticulture as it pertains to volcanic ash?

gnostic said:

Why are you so focused on Bohr’s model, and not the more advanced particle and quantum physics? Is there really a point to this thread?

Click to expand...

I dunno. If you didn't think there was a point, you wouldn't be addressing it. So what do you think the point of your comments is?

Jim said:

@gnostic I thought that you were saying that @dianaiad was posting off topic. As the person who started this thread, I’m saying that it was on topic for my purposes in this thread.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

In fact, it was just a joke on my part; the 'atomic swirl' is so very obvious...

It's actually a pretty good logo; simple, easily identifiable...I don't think that more 'modern' mental pictures of the atom would work anywhere near as well for identification.

The thing is, such symbols, especially the simple ones, are extremely effective. It doesn't mean that the user and perceiver of that symbol have to take it literally. If we had to do that, I'd be very worried about the 'men' and 'women' restroom signs in hospitals, and those signs on the top of hills that show trucks careening down steep grades. I keep thinking that THOSE things really mean 'watch out for acrobatic trucks' (I read that in a Wen Spencer book and it stuck).

I don't imagine that anybody REALLY figures that atoms are miniature solar systems, with beads orbiting a tiny 'sun.' As a symbol, though, it still works.

But then...I'm not a physicist. I'm a retired English teacher and symbols were/are my forte. We humans use them all the time, and the simpler they are, the better they work.

Don't believe me? Ask anybody who works in pictographic or ideographic languages, such as most Asians do. Nothing wrong with using the 'beads orbiting a center nucleus' symbol, even if modern physicists now argue about what they REALLY look like.

Jim said:

I’ve known about the probability cloud model for more than fifty years. but I personally know people who still think of tiny beads flying in circles around the nucleus as an actual physical description of the electrons in atoms. There might be many people who still think that. In any case, there was a time when most people of all ages believed it, without anyone claiming to have any evidence for it. The people who first proposed the model didn’t even believe in it themselves, as a literal description.

There was a question in another thread, about why people sometimes believe things without any evidence for them. The purpose of this thread was to consider something that multitudes of people once believed, and many still do, without any evidence for it, and what their reasons might be for believing it.

Click to expand...

Oh, that's simple, Jim.

People still believe things like this because those they trust (teachers, etc.,) told them so. This is true about pretty much everything, scientific, historical, religious, you name it.

If something they were told turns out to be wrong, but nobody tells them about that, what are they supposed to do?

My parents...and my own generation, until we were in high school, for instance, believed sincerely that George Armstrong Custer was a hero; a martyr who went to his death in a manner as notable and admirable as can be.

Now, of course, we understand that Custer was an idiot. He deserved what he got, and he got his men killed for no good reason at all.

But before this, all the textbooks told us that Custer was a hero. So we believed it.

In fact, there are very few things that we 'know,' or believe, that are NOT because people we trust tell us so. Science, though scientists don't like to admit this, is just as prone to this as any other field. Nobody has gone and done the experiments to prove to themselves that everything they 'know' about science is 'true.' They go by what they are told.

I sat in front of the TV set and watched the moon landing. We went there....and I have more evidence that we did than most people, since my father was very involved in the manufacturing of the fuel, and we knew the astronauts personally. I've even seen, and touched, a 'moon rock.'

Still, *I* didn't go on the space craft. I didn't wear the suits. I didn't walk on the moon. I talked to people I trusted to tell me the truth. I watched a TV broadcast that was, quite frankly, a little less spectacular than some science fiction shows I had seen. However, I trusted those who filmed and broadcast the events, and I trusted Neil Armstrong when he told me personally what it was like on the moon.

I could not repeat the experience or the experiments.

But I believe we went to the moon because people I trust told me so.

When you come right down to it, that's why most people believe most of the things they 'know.'

Religion,
Science,
History....

We believe what we do because people who have gone before us tell us what to believe, and we trust them. That's pretty much it.

dianaiad said:

I'm a 'she.' Good heavens. I am constantly amazed when someone can see 'diana' in a screen name and exposes ignorance of mythology and history to the point that "he" is even a possibility. Unlike other names, which can be used by either sex (like "Chris" or even "Marion," no male has EVER been called 'Diana." Not to mention that you had enough interest to identify my religion, but NOT enough to see the very clearly marked 'FEMALE' in my bio.

Click to expand...

I’m sorry. I didn’t go to your profile page, so I didn’t know you are a woman. I meant no offense with the “he” and “his”.

Didn’t RF used to include “gender” to display automatically in the avatar’s info for every posts of thread pages?

I don’t see reasons why they need to take gender off.

dianaiad said:

What difference does that make to those who don't make their livings chasing down the God particle (AKA the Higgs Boson?)

Click to expand...

Peter Higgs never called it the God’s Particle.

As I understand it, it was name that publisher insisted on using, for Leon Lederman’s book.

The original name intended was “Goddamn Particle”, but the publisher changed it to the God’s Particle: If The Universe Is The Answer, Then What Is The Question?

dianaiad said:

Are you under the impression that anybody who does NOT take advanced physics in universities and colleges is too stupid to live, or contribute to society?

Click to expand...

That was addressed to Jim, not you.

But the answer to your question is “no”.

I didn’t take advanced physics, and I have never taken it. Much of the science (eg physics) in the courses I did at universities were only areas related to the courses.

For instance, when I was doing civil engineering during the 80s, we covered most areas that related to civil building and building materials, which involved in Newtonian gravity, the strengths and weaknesses of steel and concrete, fluid dynamics in storm water drains, water mains or sewer pipes, the properties of soil and rocks that served as foundation, etc.

To give you another example, when I was studying geology for 1 semester, it was mostly to identify common rocks and minerals that served as foundation for construction of buildings, for roads or for laying out of pipes. We never covered more more advanced geology subjects, like stratigraphy, radiometric datings, paleontology, tectonic plates, etc, because the geology in civil engineering set limits to what were taught and what got left out. So when civil students about gravity and mechanics, they left out Relativity, because it was never required. When they taught us about rock minerals and soil types, these were often knowing molecular structures, we were not taught smaller subatomic particles (eg quarks) that were taught in particle physics or quantum mechanics.

Everything I have learned in the past 18 or 19 years about physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy and even biology, on more advanced subjects not covered in the 2 university courses I did, were something that I learned in my free times and out of curiosity and fascination with the subjects.

I was never astronomy student, but I learn what I can (in my free time) from astronomy books and visiting and learning from observatories’ websites or websites from NASA or ESA. Learning about stars and galaxies, led me to astrophysics in cosmology (eg Big Bang and CMBR. But learning them outside of my curriculum, don’t make me “qualified” or “expert”. I would never claim qualifications that I don’t have.

But no, dianaiad. Not doing advanced physics at universities, don’t make anyone stupid.

But it is stupid for anyone to talk about something without learning some basics, whether that person agree or disagree with the science.

Too often I see and read creationists saying stupid things like there are “no evidences” for evolution, when there are evidences and data. They can disagree with the evidences that support evolutionary biology, but they cannot say there are “no evidences”. That’s where I do see stupidity.

gnostic said:

I’m sorry. I didn’t go to your profile page, so I didn’t know you are a woman. I meant no offense with the “he” and “his”.

Didn’t RF used to include “gender” to display automatically in the avatar’s info for every posts of thread pages?

I don’t see reasons why they need to take gender off.

Click to expand...

Apology accepted. No problem, really.

I was, actually, making a rather ham-handed point. As it happens, I don't really care THAT much whether someone initially identifies me as male. I usually just say 'I'm a 'she" and leave it at that.

This time, however, I was reacting to, hmnnn. the tone of your posts and your insults about how 'OF COURSE' everybody should be aware of the different theories regarding the makeup of atoms, and how everybody on the planet should be fully up to date on the different possibilities and the current arguments about how atoms are arranged.

I was, indeed, more than a little insulted over your totally inappropriate swipe at my personal beliefs and your crack about my religion.

So I turned things around a bit. It is, in fact, more than a little arrogant to assume that everybody in the world would be fully aware of Greek and Roman (Diana is Roman, not Greek) mythology, and the history of a name, and to instantly recognize it in the rather convoluted screen name that I use. Which is, in fact, a combination of 'diana' and "naiad." Which in and of itself is inaccurate; Diana was associated with dryads, not naiads. (shrug) never mind, it was what was available, and "diananyad' was taken by a pretty cool woman my age who set a lot of long distance swimming records.

So...why should I expect you to know all that and instantly identify...hmnnn..'dianaiad,' (pronounced, if anybody is interested, as 'dian-I-ad, four syllables) OBVIOUSLY this is a woman who knows stuff about history, Greek and Roman mythology, literature, the Olympic games and the sport of swimming, especially long distance swimming? I mean, really....shouldn't anybody with any brains keep up with this sort of thing?

Why should you? You are busy investigating your own field of interest, which happens to include quantum physics. Or Particle physics, or whatever scientific field investigates the actual form atoms take.

So, in reality, I was trying to make a point with that; if a whole bunch of people still think 'beads orbiting a central nucleus in a mini-solar system sort of thing,' it doesn't mean that they are stupid, or unreasonable, or unscientific, or without imagination, or any one of the other things that they have been accused of. It just means that they probably know a great deal about stuff you might not know about. It is as silly for them to go after you for your understandable ignorance as it is for you to go after them because they have a simplistic symbolic idea of what an atom is like.

I'll admit: I'm still very annoyed at your crack about my religion. It was uncalled for, insulting, and irritated the peawaddin' out of me. you don't owe me an apology for assuming that I'm male.

You DO owe me one for the 'I'm glad most Mormons aren't like you" crack.

I think the 'electron beads' idea is present mostly because people tend to think of 'particles' as little beads and they know that electrons are particles. There is also the analogy with planetary motion, complete with the Coulomb force also being inverse square.

Once past the Bohr model, there is still the valence model of atomic bonding, showing little dots around the central atom and those dots being shared when the bonds form. And this is a quite workable initial model for bonding in simple molecules.

The shift from 'orbits' to 'orbitals' is a subtle one, and doesn't usually show up until hybridization becomes relevant for the geometry of bonds.

There are other subtleties involved, like the s orbitals having zero angular momentum (hardly the intuition for an orbit) and the 1s orbital being concentrated at the nucleus. The we can get into nodal planes...

gnostic said:

Peter Higgs never called it the God’s Particle.

Click to expand...

Nobody ever called it the 'God's Particle." A great many people called it the "God Particle."

gnostic said:

As I understand it, it was name that publisher insisted on using, for Leon Lederman’s book.

The original name intended was “Goddamn Particle”, but the publisher changed it to the God’s Particle: If The Universe Is The Answer, Then What Is The Question?

Click to expand...

No it wasn't. That was a crack by one of the authors...after the fact. And the name of the book is
The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?

You MIGHT want to research your sources better, but even Wiki got the title right.

gnostic said:

That was addressed to Jim, not you.

Click to expand...

Public forum. you post something, anybody may answer. However, if you are going to object to my posting in answer to something aimed at someone else, then perhaps you should have thought twice before you wrote that rather nasty personal attack to my 'atheist swirl,' post, which was NOT addressed to you.

Or are there different sets of rules for you than for the rest of us?

gnostic said:

But the answer to your question is “no”.

I didn’t take advanced physics, and I have never taken it. Much of the science (eg physics) in the courses I did at universities were only areas related to the courses.

.......

But no, dianaiad. Not doing advanced physics at universities, don’t make anyone stupid.

But it is stupid for anyone to talk about something without learning some basics, whether that person agree or disagree with the science.

Too often I see and read creationists saying stupid things like there are “no evidences” for evolution, when there are evidences and data. They can disagree with the evidences that support evolutionary biology, but they cannot say there are “no evidences”. That’s where I do see stupidity.

Click to expand...

Uh huh. Are you under the impression that I am, in any way, a young earth creationist, or am a biblical inerrantist? You made a crack about how you are glad I'm not like most Mormons. The problem here is that very few, if any, Mormons ARE young earth creationists, NONE of us are biblical inerrantists and I don't know any who have a problem with science, in any way.

Perhaps you should alter your timeline from "shoot, ready, set," to some other method of attack?

Are you under the impression that autodidacts MUST follow the same course of curiosity that you have? As it happens, I was a geology student in 1967, the year that 'plate tectonics' as a term was coined. It was an exciting time. I had a professor who was very interested in it, and had all of us freshman Geology 101 types involved in what was going on there, along with the standard rock identification, stratification....he was very 'ahead of his time,' identifying ideas and theories that didn't gain universal acceptance for years.

It ALMOST made me change my major, except that I'm discalculaic and have a real problem with inserting actual numbers into mathematical formulae.

Here's news: we don't. SOME of us love science, even if we can't manipulate numbers well. SOME of us understand that getting into details is something best left to those who want to specialize....as I do in the symbology humans use, English, writing and literature. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with this, either:

Tell me why, when the traditional idea of electrons zooming around a nucleus still basically describes how atoms work...that is, electrons, neutrons, nucleus and other particles all combining to make the building blocks of matter...doesn't work just fine for most of us? WHY do we have to be dragged into different mind pictures of how they 'look,' when in fact, few, if any, of us will ever see what an atom actually looks like? Who does this matter to? Who can do stuff with it, once it is understood how atoms are actually comprised?

What difference does it make to the geologist who is interested in volcanology, whether the atoms of basalt are beads orbiting a nucleus or a cloud of particles all smooshed up together? I just finished an online course in just that...how volcanism works and has shaped the earth, and y'know what? In thirty six lectures, the professor never once addressed the shape of atoms.

Come to think of it, last winter I took another course in astronomy and the creation of stars, etc., THAT guy never talked about how atoms were made up, either. He talked about the formation of elements, and the numbers of electrons, etc., because that is important. However, he never talked about what they looked like. He spoke about how some particles have the properties of 'particles' AND waves, and can confuse people, but for some reason he never talked about what the atom looked like when it was at home.

OK, I guess you need to know something, finally: I do try hard not to be uncivil or insult people, and I try REALLY hard not to 'go first.' However, when someone comes at me with all guns blazing, the way you did, I tend to return fire. Let's call a truce here, OK? You stop assuming that I'm dumb as a rock, and I won't continue being snarky.

dianaiad said:

Apology accepted. No problem, really.

I was, actually, making a rather ham-handed point. As it happens, I don't really care THAT much whether someone initially identifies me as male. I usually just say 'I'm a 'she" and leave it at that.

This time, however, I was reacting to, hmnnn. the tone of your posts and your insults about how 'OF COURSE' everybody should be aware of the different theories regarding the makeup of atoms, and how everybody on the planet should be fully up to date on the different possibilities and the current arguments about how atoms are arranged.

I was, indeed, more than a little insulted over your totally inappropriate swipe at my personal beliefs and your crack about my religion.

So I turned things around a bit. It is, in fact, more than a little arrogant to assume that everybody in the world would be fully aware of Greek and Roman (Diana is Roman, not Greek) mythology, and the history of a name, and to instantly recognize it in the rather convoluted screen name that I use. Which is, in fact, a combination of 'diana' and "naiad." Which in and of itself is inaccurate; Diana was associated with dryads, not naiads. (shrug) never mind, it was what was available, and "diananyad' was taken by a pretty cool woman my age who set a lot of long distance swimming records.

So...why should I expect you to know all that and instantly identify...hmnnn..'dianaiad,' (pronounced, if anybody is interested, as 'dian-I-ad, four syllables) OBVIOUSLY this is a woman who knows stuff about history, Greek and Roman mythology, literature, the Olympic games and the sport of swimming, especially long distance swimming? I mean, really....shouldn't anybody with any brains keep up with this sort of thing?

Why should you? You are busy investigating your own field of interest, which happens to include quantum physics. Or Particle physics, or whatever scientific field investigates the actual form atoms take.

So, in reality, I was trying to make a point with that; if a whole bunch of people still think 'beads orbiting a central nucleus in a mini-solar system sort of thing,' it doesn't mean that they are stupid, or unreasonable, or unscientific, or without imagination, or any one of the other things that they have been accused of. It just means that they probably know a great deal about stuff you might not know about. It is as silly for them to go after you for your understandable ignorance as it is for you to go after them because they have a simplistic symbolic idea of what an atom is like.

I'll admit: I'm still very annoyed at your crack about my religion. It was uncalled for, insulting, and irritated the peawaddin' out of me. you don't owe me an apology for assuming that I'm male.

You DO owe me one for the 'I'm glad most Mormons aren't like you" crack.

Click to expand...

You have made some fair points.

I am sorry about my tone and attitude towards to you and your religion.

My irritation towards you with regarding to that symbol, was that you seemed to be implying that science and atheism are synonymous to each other.

I have repeatedly stated that atheism, theism, agnosticism, and other -ism have nothing to do with science, and that they are only related to religious or philosophical question of the existence of any deity, and such question don't involve science.

Any theist, atheist or agnostic can become scientist, since a scientist or job-related to science in some ways, are profession or jobs, while theist, atheist, agnostic, etc are not job description.

That your image was a joke, was lost on me.

I do actually have families and long-time friends, who are Mormons, and I don't mean people from cybernet.

From my personal experiences with Mormons, none of them (those who I have discussed science with) ever associate science and atheism. It is only when I am here and at other forums, that I sometimes come across few Mormons who do explicitly or implied science are related to atheism.

But since, it was just a joke, I apologise for that too, for allowing my irritation get the best of me.

dianaiad said:

No it wasn't. That was a crack by one of the authors...after the fact. And the name of the book is
The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?

You MIGHT want to research your sources better, but even Wiki got the title right.

Click to expand...

I am not a particle physics student, nor have I read Lederman's book.

If I got the title wrong, then I got it wrong.

Until today, I never use the word "God Particle", because whenever I mention Higgs Boson in my posts, I just called it that, "Higgs Boson".

dianaiad said:

I have read this thread, and the theme seems to be that those who still use the 'electrons orbit the nucleus' idea are somehow more stupid, ill-informed and hide bound than anybody else ...

Click to expand...

That isn’t what I was thinking. Just the opposite. I was looking for possible reasons for people to believe things without evidence, without it being some kind of defect in character or capacities.

Even those who defend the idea...or rather, those who defend the folks who still have that mind picture...are doing so apologetically ...

Click to expand...

That might have been from thinking that I was depreciating people who think of tiny beads flying in circles around the nucleus as an actual physical description of the electrons in an atom.

I think now that a better title for this thread might have been “Why do people believe things without evidence?” I chose an example of what people have believed without evidence, that came from science.

I’m some discussions I’ve seen what looked to me like saying that it’s always wrong to believe anything without evidence, that the only possible explanation for it is some kind of defect in character or capacities, and that it’s something that only religious people do. I chose tiny beads flying in circles around a nucleus as an example that could not be blamed on religion.

I didn’t know where this would go. I was just looking for other reasons why people believe things without evidence, besides blaming it on religion and some kind of defect in character or capacities. I found what I was looking for; trusting what some people are telling us, which is not always associated with some kind of defect in character or capacities, and is not something that only religious people do.

gnostic said:

You have made some fair points.

I am sorry about my tone and attitude towards to you and your religion.

My irritation towards you with regarding to that symbol, was that you seemed to be implying that science and atheism are synonymous to each other.

Click to expand...

(grin) I haven't met an atheist yet who didn't think so him/herself....ah, well.

gnostic said:

I have repeatedly stated that atheism, theism, agnosticism, and other -ism have nothing to do with science, and that they are only related to religious or philosophical question of the existence of any deity, and such question don't involve science.

Click to expand...

Oh, well, I agree with you. Now try convincing non-believers....

gnostic said:

Any theist, atheist or agnostic can become scientist, since a scientist or job-related to science in some ways, are profession or jobs, while theist, atheist, agnostic, etc are not job description.

That your image was a joke, was lost on me.

I do actually have families and long-time friends, who are Mormons, and I don't mean people from cybernet.

From my personal experiences with Mormons, none of them (those who I have discussed science with) ever associate science and atheism. It is only when I am here and at other forums, that I sometimes come across few Mormons who do explicitly or implied science are related to atheism.

But since, it was just a joke, I apologise for that too, for allowing my irritation get the best of me.

Click to expand...

OK, no problems...

but I suggest that you review the threads on such forums as this, and decide for yourself which group (atheist or theist) who claims that THEY are 'scientific' and 'scientists" and that the other side simply cannot be.

I have had some conversations within the last month, right here, with atheists who insist that it isn't possible for a theist to be a proper scientist, that science and religion CANNOT work together, and that only non-believers can properly employ the scientific method...because no scientist can believe in anything unless it can be objectively proven.

It is, after all, what that atheist "atomic swirl" symbol is all about, isn't it? They use that logo to claim that, because they believe in science and all, that they are different from all the religious folks who obviously don't?

That's what struck me funny about it; here this group is using what is being seriously debunked as an outdated and inaccurate symbol of the atom...as a way to differentiate them from theists. the joke is a joke on so many different levels.....

gnostic said:

I am not a particle physics student, nor have I read Lederman's book.

If I got the title wrong, then I got it wrong.

Until today, I never use the word "God Particle", because whenever I mention Higgs Boson in my posts, I just called it that, "Higgs Boson".

Click to expand...

Most people do.

Please remember, though, that "The god particle" was assigned to the Higgs Boson thing for pretty much the same reason the Big Bang was named the 'Big Bang." as mockery.

Remember: the Big Bang was entitled that by Fred Hoyle, who remained a proponent of the steady state universe until the end of his life. He was making fun of the idea, and PART of the reason he did so was because he was afraid that some theists could use that theory to bolster their claim that God created the universe 'by a word,' or 'out of nothing."

It was grabbed and used by its proponents the way other insulting terms have, at times, been grabbed by the targets and turned around to 'take the sting out."

But the first people to call the Big Bang a Big Bang were NOT being complimentary.

..............and neither were the first people to call the Higgs Boson the 'god particle.' Well, perhaps they weren't being QUITE as obnoxious as Hoyle was, but there was definitely that flavor....

As to what atoms look like....hmn.

Even the folks like me, who can't add four plus four and get eight six times in a row have an understanding that when one gets to the level of quantum physics, where the particles that make up atoms; electrons, quarks...whatever...have properties that can be confusing as all get out, and really can't be handily plunked into mini solar orbits.

The symbol, however, still works just fine.

dianaiad said:

The symbol, however, still works just fine.

Click to expand...

Aye, accuracy isn't the issue...recognition is.
The alternative, an electron probability cloud, is funny & foreign looking.

Jim said:

That isn’t what I was thinking. Just the opposite. I was looking for possible reasons for people to believe things without evidence, without it being some kind of defect in character or capacities.

That might have been from thinking that I was depreciating people who think of tiny beads flying in circles around the nucleus as an actual physical description of the electrons in an atom.

I think now that a better title for this thread might have been “Why do people believe things without evidence?” I chose an example of what people have believed without evidence, that came from science.

I’m some discussions I’ve seen what looked to me like saying that it’s always wrong to believe anything without evidence, that the only possible explanation for it is some kind of defect in character or capacities, and that it’s something that only religious people do. I chose tiny beads flying in circles around a nucleus as an example that could not be blamed on religion.

I didn’t know where this would go. I was just looking for other reasons why people believe things without evidence, besides blaming it on religion and some kind of defect in character or capacities. I found what I was looking for; trusting what some people are telling us, which is not always associated with some kind of defect in character or capacities, and is not something that only religious people do.

Click to expand...

We all do that; our understanding of the world is based upon what people we trust tell us. That is the same whether that understanding is 'scientific,' or religious, or historical....

this is fine, actually; there is NO way that any of us can personally recreate and confirm all the experiments that gained the knowledge originally acquired by scientists. We trust those who have gone before us. I believe it is called 'standing on the shoulders of giants."

We aren't wrong to do this. ...unless of course those we trust are wrong, or betray that trust. And that does happen.

BTW,, nobody believes anything 'without evidence.' Every belief has evidence. It's just that some of that evidence isn't accepted as valid by others.

The thing that bugs me is that most kids are taught science by exactly the same sort of evidence by which they are taught religion, or morals, or ethics or history, or....????

Because their teachers say that 'this is true,' and 'this isn't."

I was a teacher, and I have a couple of shelves worth of text books. One of them is a science text ("Earth Science") for fourth graders.

One of the statements in it...one that is revisited by a quiz at the end of the chapter, is the statement that the tallest mountain in the world is Mt. Everest. Another text, aimed at fifth graders, states that the tallest mountain in the world is actually Mt. Kilauea , if one measures it from its base rather than from sea level. First, which statement is 'true?"

Oh, and why does anybody expect nine and ten year olds to confirm those statements? Are they going to go measure the height...or depth...of either mountain?

No. They are expected to take the word of the author of the book, and they do that because their teacher says so. ...and y'know what? NONE of those kids will ever go remeasure Mt. Everest or Mt. Kilauea to confirm for themselves that what they were told is so...is so. They trust those who said THEY did it.

But that is why any of us believe anything, when it comes right down to it...except for those things that we do personally confirm for ourselves, either by experiment or prayer or whatever....because someone we trust told us so.

What really annoys me is the claim by the scientifically minded that THEY believe in 'science' because of objective evidence that can be tested. Except of course that they don't test it.

They believe what they do because someone they trust told them 'so.'

And that's pretty much it.

Revoltingest said:

Aye, accuracy isn't the issue...recognition is.
The alternative, an electron probability cloud, is funny & foreign looking.

Click to expand...

Y'know, my kids had pacifiers that looked a bit like that.

dianaiad said:

(grin) I haven't met an atheist yet who didn't think so him/herself....ah, well.

Click to expand...

I am actually agnostic, not atheist.

I simply don't like people confusing science with atheism, as some theists and all creationists tends to do with this stereotype.

I will l recognize any scientific work (as long as there are verifiable evidences), regardless if the scientists are theists, atheists, agnostics, deists or any other.

Despite what you might think of me, the Genesis is my favorite book in the entire Bible, but I don't treat the bible as work of science or work of history.

When I argue against creationists, I am actually arguing against their interpretations of the creation.

I have no desire to change the bible, to make it fit in the scientific paradigm, because I know that there are too many errors in the book (Genesis).

The bible is no more a science treatise than the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon (not that I have heard of any Mormons elevating BoM to the science podium).

dianaiad said:

Remember: the Big Bang was entitled that by Fred Hoyle, who remained a proponent of the steady state universe until the end of his life. He was making fun of the idea, and PART of the reason he did so was because he was afraid that some theists could use that theory to bolster their claim that God created the universe 'by a word,' or 'out of nothing."

Click to expand...

Believe me, I am no fan of Fred Hoyle.

Personally, when dealing with science, the merits of any scientific theory is the number of verifiable evidences that support it, not atheism vs theism.

The more evidences FOR or AGAINST existing theory or a new hypothesis, respectively, the more probable or more improbable it is, not some idiotic personal preferences (like/dislike, atheism/theism, philosophy vs philosophy), which have no place in determining which theory or hypothesis is true or false.

I am serious, I don't give a crap about Hoyle being atheist. His Steady State model was debunked back in 1964, and should stay dead, until there are actually more evidences than the Big Bang.

Second, the Big Bang theory, originally called the expanding universe model, wasn't about atheism vs theism.

Georges Lemaitre was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, as well as physicist. His priesthood meaning nothing to me, only his work in this expanding universe model. But what people tends to forget or ignore, was that he wasn't the only pioneers of the BB theory.

One Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann (1922) and one American physicist Howard Percy Robertson (1924-45) independently came up with similar theories, using Einstein's General Relativity as framework to construct their individual works. Both postulate the same theory, independently, and before Lemaître published Hypothesis Of The Primeval Atom in 1927.

It isn't important that Friedmann and Robertson are atheists, it is their work that was important. Likewise it was Lemaître's work that was important to science, not his religion or chosen belief.

Hoyle is stubborn idiot who let his ego to continue to push the debunked Steady State model. Although Lemaître was still alive at the time, Hoyle was actually competing against George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, who wrote papers together in 1948, predicting the Primeval Nucleosynthesis (Gamow & Alpher partnership) and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (Alpher & Herman). These trio expanded Friedmann/Robertson/Lemaître model.

Gamow was also a Russian, who defected to the US, and he was former student of Friedmann. It was Friedmann's work that he based his work on, not Lemaître's. And Alpher was a former student of Gamow, before they worked together in 1948.

It was not long after their joint publication, that Hoyle tried to promote his own Steady State model in 1949, and it was on the radio show that he coined the name the Big Bang theory (supposedly during the radio interview), like you said as to mock it. Hoyle was idiot if he think the Big Bang is about theism, just because of Lemaître's involvement, because other contributors were mostly not theists.

It shouldn't matter if scientists are atheists or theists.

Revoltingest said:

Aye, accuracy isn't the issue...recognition is.
The alternative, an electron probability cloud, is funny & foreign looking.

Click to expand...

The 3rd one looks like what baby suck on...sorry, I can't remember what you would actually call it.