Talk:2100: Models of the Atom

2019-01-18T15:30:39Z

Pevinsghost:

No mention of the Platonic solid model? [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 05:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Not yet. My favorite of those 5 is the double cube, AKA the Octahedron. [[User:Haph|Haph]] ([[User talk:Haph|talk]]) 06:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

:My good sir DanielLC: I presume that Randall neglected to mention it because the first evidence-based atom theory didn't come until 1810 and John Dalton. The atom theories of the ancient Greeks were mostly philosophical posturing, in my opinion.

:We seem to be missing the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Atom| Acorm Atom]] as well. [[User:Kazzie|Kazzie]] ([[User talk:Kazzie|talk]]) 10:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

According to [[https://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~trentham/cosmology/lec6.pdf|cosmology lecture notes by the astronomer Neil Trentham]], mass in the universe ist 75% H (mostly 1p+0n=1) and 25% He (mostly 2p+2n=4). As He is 4 times as heavy and 3 times as seldom, there is 12 times more H than He => The ratio n/p is 1/7.
We can assume that in the 538 model the statistics was done on atoms comprising few Hydrogene, e.g. only the earth's mantle. In heavier elements the ratio n/p > 1. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.70|172.68.110.70]] 07:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

What are the numbers? Is 173 an error for 137, the fine structure constant? [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 10:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
: It reminds me of the mass of the top quark (<s>even though the current best value is 172.44 GeV</s>, 173, as measured at the time at Tevatron, was used as a good approximation for a long time. The latest Particle Data Group review also gives something rounding to 173) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.174|141.101.107.174]] 13:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
:Do they really need a table for explanation? wouldn't a simple list be much easier to read? in my POV (which AFAIK is shared by many here) a table with just 2 columns is not useful at all --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 14:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The tiny bird model puzzles me completely. Is it a reference to any interim (even if obscure) scientific model or is it a completely facetious Randall's invention? Or is it a reference to something unrelated? Any ideas? -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 12:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The absolute scale of physical constants seldom has specific meaning. See h vs ħ (h bar). Neither is right or wrong and they can be used interchangeably (when putting the 2*pi in or removing it at the same time). The same is true for dimensionless constants. E.g. 4*pi *(h bar) = 2 *(h). So the 4*pi as dimensionless constant is as correct as 2 or any other dimensionless number, as you can rescale other constants. If you redefine some natural constants, the value 137 also changes. Most dimensionless constants can be deduced from mathematics with a known or yet unknown underlying physical theory. For example all chemical properties of elements (=chemical constants) can be calculated from the underlying physics by very complex mathematical terms. For an excursion that also mathematical constants are open for debate, see the [[1292: Pi vs. Tau|Pi vs Tau]] debate. Both are correct. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 15:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Any chance the 4i is a Four-eye Joke? Seems a little low brow amongst all the numbers with meaning, but maybe? Also, the square root of 2 goes back a long way in mathematical theory like the first proof that not all numbers are rational. [[User:Pevinsghost|Pevinsghost]] ([[User talk:Pevinsghost|talk]]) 15:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2100: Models of the Atom