Talk:Atomic theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atomic theory has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Atomic theory has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.	Physics Portal
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top importance within physics.
Help with this template Comments: edit – history – watch – refresh I rated it A as it seems like a very good article (also a FAC) it is also in my opinion a topic very important within the field of physics! Snailwalker | talk 16:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 John Dalton 2 Visualizability 3 Philosophical Atomism vs. Atomic Theory. 4 GA Passed

[edit] John Dalton

I've done a lot of googling on the net trying to find precise details on how exactly Dalton 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)

I removed a small paragraph mentioning an early, discarded theory of cubical atoms from the last section. I believe this article should focus only on the chain of developments that led to modern accepted atomic theory (in particular, give the reader a basic idea of how scientists figured it out). Dead ends and tangents can make things a little confusing.Kurzon

[edit] Visualizability

"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)

Don't field ion microscopes count as direct observation? Kurzon 14:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical Atomism vs. Atomic Theory.

This is already a great article.

I have a problem: Philosophical atomism addresses the concept that the matter in the universe is composed of indivisible units. This philosophy is not invalidated by "splitting the atom". Basically, the fact that we can split an "atom" merely means that we assigned the name "atom" to the wrong physical unit.

The definition of an "atom" according to the philosophers is "an indivisible entity." It is not the fault of the philosophers that Dalton and other early chemists incorrectly attached the word "atom" to an entity that we later discovered to be divisible.

[edit] GA Passed

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)