Tell me more ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 1 down vote favorite
1

There appears to be a distinct lack of agreement in the physics community on what exactly Marie Curie did for atomic theory.

Many journals state that Curie was responsible for shifting scientific opinion from the idea that the atom was solid and indivisible to an understanding of subatomic particles. However, JJ Thompson had already discovered the electron prior to Curie's work, and Rutherford proved the nature of atomic structure - so what did Marie Curie really do for atomic theory?

share|improve this question
1  
1  
Maria Skłodowska-Curie, to be precise. – mbq♦ Aug 3 '11 at 9:20
Ah, wherever that "Math"student may live, obviously holidays began. – Georg Aug 3 '11 at 9:54
2  
If you find it so fascinating, why do you use this forum to cast aspersions on her scientific relevance? – Jen Aug 3 '11 at 20:04
1  
@MS - I support questioning attitudes, irrespective of scientific inclination. Nevertheless, you pose multiple queries of the form "what did Marie Curie do, really?" which questions her scientific relevance, even though you frame your queries as "critical analysis". You profess a lack of understanding in spite of claiming to have read the literature on the subject - therefore, my response below is drawn from a public source, which clearly and plainly states the importance of the discoveries of Marie Skłodowska-Curie. – Jen Aug 4 '11 at 13:51
show 5 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 5 down vote

From: NobelPrize.org

"Her continued systematic studies of the various chemical compounds gave the surprising result that the strength of the radiation did not depend on the compound that was being studied. It depended only on the amount of uranium or thorium. Chemical compounds of the same element generally have very different chemical and physical properties: one uranium compound is a dark powder, another is a transparent yellow crystal, but what was decisive for the radiation they gave off was only the amount of uranium they contained. Marie drew the conclusion that the ability to radiate did not depend on the arrangement of the atoms in a molecule, it must be linked to the interior of the atom itself.

This discovery was absolutely revolutionary. From a conceptual point of view it is her most important contribution to the development of physics. "

share|improve this answer
Thankyou - so now I'm sure you can see what my problem is! The source you quote is one that has confused me most. You will notice that, in fact, what you have put in bold is extremely vague. It states that this was 'absolutely revolutionary' and conceptually important - but what is it she actually discovered? That the ability to radiate did not depend on the arrangement of the atoms itself? If so, why was that revolutionary? JJ Thompson had already discovered the electron, so she didn't discover subatomic particles. How did she contribute to atomic theory with that observation? – MathsStudent Aug 4 '11 at 21:03
Can you offer any insight? :) – MathsStudent Aug 6 '11 at 10:28
Why don't you tell me what you think the statement "but what was decisive for the radiation they gave off was only the amount of uranium they contained. Marie drew the conclusion that the ability to radiate did not depend on the arrangement of the atoms in a molecule, it must be linked to the interior of the atom itself." means, and we'll go from there. – Jen Aug 6 '11 at 18:29
Well I assume it refers to the existance of smaller subatomic particles? Neutrons? – MathsStudent Aug 14 '11 at 0:24
I still can't see the critical idea which she contributed to atomic theory. – MathsStudent Aug 14 '11 at 0:25
show 3 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.