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

[Jim]

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

 

[exchemist]

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

Because that was the old Rutherford -Bohr model of the atom, developed before quantum theory, which is still taught at elementary level in schools. It is easier to grasp, for people who are not going to learn physical science to an advanced level, than the more modern model involving wave-particle entities.

And, for all its obvious defects, it gets a few important things right*, chiefly the idea that the electrons are responsible for the effective size of atoms, while almost all the mass is concentrated in a tiny nucleus at the centre. It also allows the student to visualise ions as atoms in which electrons have been either added to or removed from some of the "orbits". And it allows the idea of successive "shells" of electrons, which is important for understanding the Periodic Table. So it's OK up to about GCSE (16yrs old) science.


* "right" in this context means "in accordance with observation", notably that of Rutherford's (or Geiger and Marsden's) famous experiment, involving shooting alpha particles at gold foil, which showed the the earlier "plum pudding" model of the atom must be wrong.

 

[Jim]

The reason that I used to think that was because that’s what I had always heard and read, that’s what I was taught in high school chemistry class, and I never saw it being doubted or questioned.

 

[exchemist]

The reason that I used to think that was because that’s what I had always heard and read, that’s what I was taught in high school chemistry class, and I never saw it being doubted or questioned.

At what stage in your school career did you give up physical science (physics and chemistry)? If you stopped by the age of 16 it is not very surprising.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

Probably because it's a popular schematic. It cost me to divulge deeper and learn more about electron shells and the nature of protons and neutrons, quarks and gluons. It got me interested in what a natural atom looks like and they actually came up with an amazing photograph of a single atom that was illuminated.

How a Student Photographed a Single Atom With a Store-Bought Camera

 

[Jim]

Because that was the old Rutherford -Bohr model of the atom, developed before quantum theory, which is still taught at elementary level in schools. It is easier to grasp, for people who are not going to learn physical science to an advanced level, than the more modern model involving wave-particle entities.

And, for all its obvious defects, it gets a few important things right*, chiefly the idea that the electrons are responsible for the effective size of atoms, while almost all the mass is concentrated in a tiny nucleus at the centre. It also allows the student to visualise ions as atoms in which electrons have been either added to or removed from some of the "orbits". And it allows the idea of successive "shells" of electrons, which is important for understanding the Periodic Table. So it's OK up to about GCSE (16yrs old) science.


* "right" in this context means "in accordance with observation", notably that of Rutherford's (or Geiger and Marsden's) famous experiment, involving shooting alpha particles at gold foil, which showed the the earlier "plum pudding" model of the atom must be wrong.

From the beginning, none of the scientists who have been the best informed about it, including the ones who first developed it, have ever thought of it as an actual physical description of electrons. They have only ever thought of it as an analogy.

My question is, why did people think that it was an actual physical description, and why are there still people who think that?

 

[exchemist]

From the beginning, none of the scientists who have been the best informed about it, including the ones who first developed it, have ever thought of it as an actual physical description of electrons. They have only ever thought of it as an analogy.

My question is, why did people think that it was an actual physical description, and why are there still people who think that?

Rutherford and Bohr came up with it because it was obviously far closer to reality than the plum pudding model. Don't forget everyone was groping in the dark at that stage and a lot of theories in physics were being overturned cf. Ultraviolet Catastrophe, the aether, etc.

Rather as with dark matter today, they had some observations that were consistent with their new model, but other theories of physics which it did not seem to obey. So they knew more work was needed. Cue De Broglie's idea of wave-particles and Schrödinger's equation, hence "orbitals" rather than "orbits" and so on.

As for why "people" (= non-scientists) still think that, it is for the reasons I gave you in post 2.

Science is often like peeling an onion: there is a simple model and then more sophisticated models when you get into it more deeply. Take evolution. Most people know Darwin's basic mechanism of natural selection operating on inherited traits, but how many people know anything about horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics etc.?

I studied quantum chemistry at university, but it was only the physicists who were introduced to quantum field theory, according to which QM entities are represented as disturbances in fields of various kinds. So my experience is that, however much you learn, there is practically always a deeper level.

 

[Jim]

As for why "people" (= non-scientists) still think that, it is for the reasons I gave you in post 2.

Thank you. That’s very helpful.

You gave me reasons for it being taught that way. My question is, why do people believe it? Can you think of any reason for people believing it, other than trusting what some other people say about it?

 

[tas8831]

Thank you. That’s very helpful.

You gave me reasons for it being taught that way. My question is, why do people believe it? Can you think of any reason for people believing it, other than trusting what some other people say about it?

Why don;t you just tell us what you are getting at?

 

[exchemist]

Thank you. That’s very helpful.

You gave me reasons for it being taught that way. My question is, why do people believe it? Can you think of any reason for people believing it, other than trusting what some other people say about it?

Aha. This seems a rather faux-naive question, but I was expecting that, after some preamble, you would come out with something like this .

People do actually, from time to time, believe what they are taught, by teachers, in, er, schools. That is - an admittedly unfashionable, but inescapable - part of what is known as education, is it not? If none of us took on trust the information we were presented with, we would all still be living in caves - or psychiatric institutions. Civilisation largely depends on trust in others, does it not?

However, I have to say that, with this question of yours, a couple of amber lights have come up on my dashboard. I think it is about time you told us what you really want this thread to be about.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

From the beginning, none of the scientists who have been the best informed about it, including the ones who first developed it, have ever thought of it as an actual physical description of electrons. They have only ever thought of it as an analogy.

My question is, why did people think that it was an actual physical description, and why are there still people who think that?

Because for most people's purposes, it's a perfectly adequate description

 

[Jim]

Why don;t you just tell us what you are getting at?

It’s for the discussion about faith in God, why people sometimes believe things without any evidence.

 

[Jim]

Aha. This seems a rather faux-naive question, but I was expecting that, after some preamble, you would come out with something like this .

People do actually, from time to time, believe what they are taught, by teachers, in, er, schools. That is - an admittedly unfashionable, but inescapable - part of what is known as education, is it not? If none of us took on trust the information we were presented with, we would all still be living in caves - or psychiatric institutions. Civilisation largely depends on trust in others, does it not?

However, I have to say that, with this question of yours, a couple of amber lights have come up on my dashboard. I think it is about time you told us what you really want this thread to be about.

Someone was asking in another thread why people sometimes believe things without any evidence. One reason I thought of was because they trust what some other people tell them. I don’t think that it’s always wrong to trust what other people tell us, and I wanted to see what other people think about that.

 

[Shaul]

It’s for the discussion about faith in God, why people sometimes believe things without any evidence.

Believe doesn’t not require evidence. Just like science requires empiricism but not belief. A scientific theorem is not diminished because someone doesn’t have faith in it. Likewise a religion isn’t diminished because it lacks empirical evidence. It is not that hard to grasp.

 

[Mindmaster]

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

It's only a model. In reality, the protons and neutrons are particles but the electrons form sort of a "cloud" that's basically barely visible. They do, however, behave as particles thus the way we model them is for our own convenience.

Secondly, the theories of the structure of an atom were developed before we could actually see them with any device and the model was basically developed on an "action-reaction" basis.

Anyway, we still cannot see individual atoms as they are smaller than the wavelengths of light that would be used to bring that visualization into our eyes. So, how do we figure it out? Via material properties and testing that prove the existence by inference. If a certain behavior is found to be true, it proves X atomic particle interacted -- we cannot see the action, but we can see the result of the action.

 

[Shaul]

Someone was asking in another thread why people sometimes believe things without any evidence. One reason I thought of was because they trust what some other people tell them. I don’t think that it’s always wrong to trust what other people tell us, and I wanted to see what other people think about that.

What people tell us or what a deity tells us?

 

[Revoltingest]

I blame this guy...

 

[exchemist]

Someone was asking in another thread why people sometimes believe things without any evidence. One reason I thought of was because they trust what some other people tell them. I don’t think that it’s always wrong to trust what other people tell us, and I wanted to see what other people think about that.

But there are two separate things here:

i) the way we may take on trust the evidenced-based* ideas of science, without demanding to see that evidence with our own eyes, and

ii) the way we may take certain other ideas on trust, which are not evidence-based in the same way at all.

What we have been talking about up to now is (i). But if someone is questioning the basis of religious belief they are almost certainly talking about (ii).

Do not try to establish a false equivalence by conflating the two.





* evidence in the scientific sense has to meet certain criteria, viz. observations of nature, that can be reproduced by different people, in a variety of ways.

 

[Shaul]

It's only a model. In reality, the protons and neutrons are particles but the electrons form sort of a "cloud" that's basically barely visible. They do, however, behave as particles thus the way we model them is for our own convenience.

Secondly, the theories of the structure of an atom were developed before we could actually see them with any device and the model was basically developed on an "action-reaction" basis.

Anyway, we still cannot see individual atoms as they are smaller than the wavelengths of light that would be used to bring that visualization into our eyes. So, how do we figure it out? Via material properties and testing that prove the existence by inference. If a certain behavior is found to be true, it proves X atomic particle interacted -- we cannot see the action, but we can see the result of the action.

Warning, Heisenberg uncertainty principle imminent!

 

[exchemist]

Warning, Heisenberg uncertainty principle imminent!

You mean a sort of scientific version of Godwin's Law operates?