Talk:Atomic orbital model

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles

Chemistry

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles

Page Created

I created this article because there wasn't really any background/simplified explanation of atomic orbitals. The ideas was that the atomic orbital and electron configuration pages could be devoted to those particular topics, and that this page could give a more detailed description of how the model arose, and hopefully be more useful to people who do not understand quantum mechanics, but want to know about atomic orbitals. That way, atomic orbital and electron configuration can contain more advanced QM material, and this page can contain more hand-waving descriptions. Mattopia 07:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at German page

I find this page very useful and specifc, however bad it's condition may be.

It should be named "atomic model" or "history of atomic models".

Compare to the German page "http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atommodell", you don't need to know any German to get the idea, you will understand words like "Rutherford" or "Orbitalmodell". At least you can borrow some illustrations.

The German page is linked to be equivalent to "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Atomic_theory", which is in my opinion similar but different.

What made me look for this page was actually a history of the development of atomic models: How simple models were replaced by more accurate models; How science proves itself insufficient, improving itself. Some wiki-guru should sort this out, but please retain this aspect.

dierk.chaos.ohlerich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.204.126 (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Requested diagram"

Could anyone provide more specifics about what kind of diagram is requested for this page? For example, is there a similar one available elsewhere on the web or in a common textbook that someone can refer to? --pfctdayelise (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

There is a lengthy section in this article which is about the development of atomic models (ancient Greeks --> Dalton --> Rutherford --> Bohr), and not about the modern atomic orbital model at all. It would be better to move this into the Atomic theory article, which discusses the historical development of atomic theory, and keep this article on subject. Djr32 (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think there's still too much about the Bohr model in this article, might have another go at focusing the article on topic at some stage in the future. Djr32 (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal: Atomic orbital and Atomic orbital model

Does anyone have any views on merging the articles Atomic orbital and Atomic orbital model? I don't think that either of them work alone, and a combined article would seem more coherent. Djr32 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is deletion, as there's not much to combine. These two articles have been evoloving in parallel, and the atomic orbital article (the OTHER one) is by far the most complete and detailed, and I don't think this one atomic orbital model has anything at all that the much longer one doesn't. This one should (again) just be deleted, much as it pains me to suggest it to the people who've put in the separate work. If they can find a few bits that aren't mentioned in the other, they can put them in (so it's a "merge" in the sense that a bit survives from the much smaller article). But after a quick read of this article, I can't find anything that qualifies, save perhaps for some new references. S B H arris 23:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sbharris. We don't need two articles on this topic, Atomic orbital is much more complete (42K vs. 9K), and also Atomic orbital is a better title. (Yes, atomic orbitals are a model, but that can be said of the title subject of many articles.) Dirac66 (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the atomic orbital article is much more comprehensive, and any merger would probably want to add what material we want to keep from this article to that one. I suggested keeping "model" in the title because I would see the article as being about the modern QM model of the atom, rather than being about the mathematical solution to Schrodinger's equation for a central potential. (It also keeps the pattern Plum pudding model, Rutherford model, Bohr model, Atomic orbital model.) Likewise I would keep text from the atomic orbital model article that describes the model, though actually the model is probably described better in the atomic orbital article than in the atomic orbital model article! Djr32 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we name the result, our primary job is to find anything in atomic orbital model which is salvagable at all! That is, different or better than in the longer atomic orbital article. As for adding "model," to the name of THAT article, atomic orbitals are a feature of a larger quantum mechanical model of nature, but that article is called quantum mechanics not quantum mechanics model. Also, we do not have special relativity model, general relativity model, and so on. With precident for both systems of naming, I personally prefer the shorter one. Bohr model is better because it's old and outdated, and doesn't have an alternate name anyway. If atomic orbitals or quantum mechanics become old and outdated, that will be a better time to re-open this discussion. Not putting in "model" should not be taken to mean we're under the impression that this stuff is True, i.e., the Last Answer. Or that it isn't (in some sense) still a model for nature, instead of Nature Herself. S B H arris 01:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the essential gist of the above. We only need one article. It should be called atomic orbital, so atomic orbital model should become a redirect. Technically this would be a merge, but I too see little content to merge. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've started this process off. I have tended towards keeping everything from both articles, on the grounds that it's a lot easier to remove stuff that we don't want later, rather than to remember where it was and find it again. Opinions welcome. Djr32 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]