Timeline for Planetary model of atom still valid?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2012 at 4:29 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jan 16, 2012 at 5:22 | |||||
| Jan 16, 2012 at 4:24 | answer | added | joseph f. johnson | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 11, 2011 at 23:29 | comment | added | arivero | btw, It is definitely not Demokrit. His atoms were sizeless, structure was some internal properties "rithmos, diatigue, trop". Epicurus atoms had some minute size, and Copernicus makes the comparision between the size of an atom and the size of the solar system, but without implying any similarity, nor substructure. | |
| Nov 11, 2011 at 23:25 | comment | added | arivero | How is that you have problems to understand ionic bond in this model? | |
| Nov 11, 2011 at 15:14 | answer | added | AdamRedwine | timeline score: 5 | |
| Nov 11, 2011 at 15:11 | answer | added | voix | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 11, 2011 at 14:48 | comment | added | Marton Trencseni | It's valid in the sense that it's a geometrical picture to help you visualize its scale. It's not valid in the sense that all processes going on at this scale are described by the quantum theory, which is not like gravity at all. | |
| Nov 11, 2011 at 14:21 | history | edited | FrankH |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 11, 2011 at 14:21 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/134999118425751553 | ||
| Nov 11, 2011 at 14:12 | comment | added | Georg | 1st, this is not from Demokrit. Because we do not have original texts, we do not know whether he had ideas to some "structure" of his "atoms". 2nd this model of Bohr was never really "valid", (by todays standards) because it had more flaws than goodies. It was only after DeBroglies ideas, that Bohrs model gained some respect. And to the rest: Ever heard of quantum mechanics? For chemistry use best by Schrödingers equation. | |
| Nov 11, 2011 at 13:17 | history | asked | user854 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |