183:
chain of discoveries that led to our current understanding of the atom. For instance, Gilbert N Lewis once proposed that atoms were shaped like cubes, in an attempt to explain chemical bonding. This was discarded when
Schroedinger came along with his waveform model which was not built upon the Lewis model.
192:
As I mentioned above, there are history of physics sources that deal with these issues. It is not legitimate in a historical article to omit "obsolete theories", especially when the the line between an obsolete theory and a precursor that has some retained elements is so fuzzy. It is more a gradual
182:
I found no mention of intermediate theories in my research. I deliberately omitted obsolete theories from the Modern Atomic Theory part, unless a said theory was a vital stepping stone to another. Otherwise, this article would become too large, and the dead ends would distract readers from the core
170:
There is no mention of the many intermediate theories between what is described in the "Birth" section and J.J. Thomson. The vortex-based ether theories and other 19th century ideas are an important part of the web of ideas from which modern atomic theory arose. There is, for example, no mention of
269:
The article doesn't cover anything from the 11th to the 19th century. How did the early atomic philosophy affect the later atomic hypothesis in science? Did medieval alchemists and renaissance scientists put the atomic hypothesis entirely from their minds? Were any theories developed in the missing
265:
Atomism - needs a paragraph or two discussing atomism as a concept rather than starting straight off with the Indian philosophy. I would like to see this section much more heavily cited. The section on the Greeks cannot continue to rely on
Encarta, which is not a reliable source. Furthermore there
292:
I would make 'Quantum models of the atom' a section of its own. I think you need to give the reader an idea of the state of atomic theory today, even if it is largely unchanged since the 1920s. You also need to talk about applications of atomic theory and other theories derived from it (nuclear
300:
This is an explicitly historical article, and there is plenty of history that has been written. The number of original papers is a flaw, in my view, bordering on original research. There have been probably thousands of papers on atomic theory, and it is not self-evident which are the most
227:
The tone does not always seem suitable. The comment that the Greeks would think graphite and diamonds composed of carbon, for instance, sounds very informal. The significiance of
Einstein's work is also not made clear: it was the first evidence that atoms were actual physical objects of
219:
There is no adequate transition between the "philosophical atomism" section and what presumably is the contrasting birth of scientific atomism. Much more relevant to the topic than Indian, Greek, or
Islamic atomism was the assortment of Renaissance and early-modern atomic
261:- I am surprised to see so many comments in the previous FACs saying 'not enough refs' and few dealing with the problems the article has. It is far short of FA standards. My problems with its current version are:
296:
The number of original papers in the references is a strong point of the article. However I would prefer to see some non-technical references - e.g. authoritative textbooks or popular science - included as well.
53:
167:
by Kragh is a good general source for the late-nineteenth and 20th-century portions of the story, and there are a number of histories of chemistry that would be relevant.
159:
This is an article on the history of atomic theories, but it draws almost exclusively on primary sources and websites of dubious authority with respect to the topic (
331:
40:
30:
17:
121:
Nitpicking: Those JPG images should ideally by SVG. You could probably catch hold of someone who's made svg diagrams for format conversion.
57:
317:
305:
250:
232:
208:
187:
153:
139:
109:
100:
243:"antiquated beliefs .. arbitrarily small quantity." contradicts the next sentence "Atomic theory began thousands of years"
85:
285:
Isotopes: Why are they relevant to atomic theory? And the account of their discovery is not the same as that given in
276:
Birth: Why are Brown's and
Einstein's contribution to Brownian motion relevant, given that Dalton and Avogadro's work?
279:
How quickly was the atomic hypothesis adopted; did it immediately gain acceptance or did it face opposition for ages?
193:
evolution of theories than a simple case of some wrong dead ends being omitted. I strongly suggest that you consult
125:
163:, Encarta, etc.). There are many good histories of physics and chemistry that could be used for this article;
96:
273:
You should remove the 'Modern Atomic Theory' section and make each subsection a section in its own right.
172:
134:
89:
176:
79:
229:
314:
302:
205:
150:
64:
201:
by
Jungnickel and McCormmach. There's also a good atomic theory bibliography here:
270:
period influenced by the idea of atoms (e.g. Newton's corpuscular theory of light?)
247:
202:
129:
199:
Intellectual
Mastery of Nature: Theoretical Physics from Ohm to Einstein, volume 2
184:
106:
75:
286:
149:. This article has some shortcomings content-wise and source-wise.--
330:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
282:
I would put the discovery of nucleus and electrons into one section.
228:
determinate size, rather than infinitely small theoretical models.
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
160:
54:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/Atomic theory/archive2
246:
Indian philosophy section needs more specific references.--
52:
04:34, 30 March 2007. You may be looking for what was at
266:
were more Greek atomists than
Democritus and Leucippus
324:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
332:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates
334:. No further edits should be made to this page.
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
128:would be a welcome addition to the article.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
293:fission, quantum electrodynamics, etc).
7:
58:Talk:Atomic theory/FAC archive sort
24:
1:
74:The article was nominated by
126:Image:Electron orbitals.svg
31:featured article nomination
351:
318:17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
306:04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
251:22:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
233:21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
209:04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
188:07:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
154:17:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
140:13:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
110:07:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
101:14:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
327:Please do not modify it.
36:Please do not modify it.
88:) with no commentary.
124:I think this image:
195:Quantum Generations
173:James Clerk Maxwell
165:Quantum Generations
342:
329:
177:Ludwig Boltzmann
137:
132:
105:Sorry, bad form.
93:
48:The article was
38:
350:
349:
345:
344:
343:
341:
340:
339:
338:
325:
135:
130:
91:
68:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
348:
346:
337:
336:
311:
310:
309:
308:
301:significant.--
294:
290:
283:
280:
277:
274:
271:
267:
256:
255:
254:
253:
244:
222:
221:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
168:
145:
143:
142:
122:
117:
115:
114:
113:
112:
67:
62:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
347:
335:
333:
328:
322:
321:
320:
319:
316:
307:
304:
299:
298:
295:
291:
288:
284:
281:
278:
275:
272:
268:
264:
263:
262:
260:
252:
249:
245:
242:
241:
240:
237:
236:
235:
234:
231:
226:
218:
217:
210:
207:
203:
200:
196:
191:
190:
189:
186:
181:
180:
178:
174:
169:
166:
162:
158:
157:
156:
155:
152:
148:
141:
138:
133:
127:
123:
120:
119:
118:
111:
108:
104:
103:
102:
98:
94:
87:
84:
81:
77:
73:
70:
69:
66:
65:Atomic theory
63:
60:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
326:
323:
312:
258:
257:
238:
224:
223:
198:
194:
164:
146:
144:
116:
82:
71:
50:not promoted
49:
47:
35:
28:
225:Weak object
197:as well as
230:Goldfritha
313:Regards,
220:theories.
315:The Land
303:ragesoss
239:Comments
206:ragesoss
151:ragesoss
131:=Nichalp
86:contribs
287:isotope
171:either
136:«Talk»=
92:Georgia
259:Oppose
185:Kurzon
147:Object
107:Kurzon
76:Kurzon
56:, see
161:ISCID
90:Sandy
16:<
97:Talk
80:talk
72:Note
248:ppm
175:or
204:--
179:.
99:)
33:.
289:.
95:(
83:·
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.