Why do people think that electrons in atoms are tiny beads flying in circles around the nucleus?

[columbus]

Some people think that the electrons in atoms are tiny little beads flying in circles around the nucleus. Why do some people think that?

I vaguely recall illustrations in my primary school text books depicting electrons that way.
But by high school the science being taught was rather more sophisticated.

Maybe the problem is that many people have little interest in science, and just go with the primitive things that they learned while very young. That happens with a lot of things, especially religion and politics.
Tom

 

[QuestioningMind]

Some people think that the electrons in atoms are tiny little beads flying in circles around the nucleus. Why do some people think that?

Because that's how human beings go about comprehending new ideas. We compare them to some old idea that we already comprehend, with the understanding that there are differences. Some people simply comprehend the comparison and don't take the time to understand the differences, generally because a greater understanding isn't required for them to go about living their day to day lives in a meaningful way.

 

[Shaul]

The assumption that students today are only taught the simpler Bohr and Schroeder models is wrong. Students today are introduced to those and quantum models. I know this for a fact.

 

[nPeace]

Now don't get me started on the "stupid" dichotomy of objective versus subjective and all its other variants. Because you hit it right on the head of the nail.
Here is my short take: Every time you get in context to everything/reality/the universe/the world is an "one factor" claim. for which the other is wrong, you know it gets funny. Not the natural or spiritual world, but e.g. everything is physical or from God.

stupid" dichotomy of objective versus subjective
Thanks

 

[gnostic]

Some people think that the electrons in atoms are tiny little beads flying in circles around the nucleus. Why do some people think that?

It is mostly for visualization, these days.

You’ve heard of a saying “A picture is worth a thousand words”, haven’t you?

A single image can reduce complex idea into a meaningful picture.

It is outdated, but that’s how people used to learn about atom, in the pre-Quantum days. And though, this imagery isn’t accurate, there are still some educational values from knowledge of the past, that are still valid, such as ionization, chemical reactions, bonding of atoms in molecules and compounds, etc.

We are not living in those times now, so if you really want to learn about atoms, then you would have to read up on the current Particle Physics and Quantum Physics.

 

[Native]

It's not just an analogy. The evidence is that the electrons are in motion about the nucleus. They are just not simply point particles, going round in predictable Newtonian "orbits".

Well, maybe the motions around a nucleus is as simple electromagnetic field?

 

[exchemist]

The assumption that students today are only taught the simpler Bohr and Schroeder models is wrong. Students today are introduced to those and quantum models. I know this for a fact.

Agreed. The issue at what stage, though.

My son has just sat his GCSEs at 16yrs old and his model of the atom is more or less the Bohr one. It was the same for me: I learned about wave/particle duality and atomic orbitals (as opposed to orbits), during study for A level chemistry and physics, sat at 17-18yrs.

To be fair, the way he has been taught about the atom is quite careful: they speak of the electrons surrounding the nucleus at a distance and of electron shells, but they avoid drawing an explicit parallel with planetary orbits round the sun. So Newtonian ideas are not explicitly invoked, in fact.

 

[exchemist]

That was going to be my next question.

Well I think it is about time that you starting providing some answers of your own, especially in view of your rather tendentious questions.

What, then, is your view about the teaching of Newtonian mechanics and atomic structure through the Bohr model?

 

[Martin]

I learned about electrons in orbit round the nucleus, in different shells. What I didn't appreciate is how far away the electrons were from the nucleus with that model.

 

[exchemist]

I learned about electrons in orbit round the nucleus, in different shells. What I didn't appreciate is how far away the electrons were from the nucleus with that model.

Of the order of 0.1 nm, or 10⁻¹⁰ m, although they spend a portion of their time rather closer in to the nucleus and in the case of s orbitals they go right up to and possibly even through it.

We used to have a unit called the Angstrom for that, until IUPAC standardisation got rid of it.

 

[tas8831]

It’s for the discussion about faith in God, why people sometimes believe things without any evidence.

Fair enough.

I'm not a physicist, though I did take physics in high school and college. As others have mentioned, I remember being taught thew Bohr model in grade school, then in high school, having it explained that it was more complicated than that (shells and orbitals and all that jazz), and even more detail in college. As I recall, it was explained that the Bohr model was basically wrong, but had enough "truth" in it for general informational purposes. I don;t recall "believing" that the Bohr model was reality, but more of a representation, and I definitely did not consider it "a lie" (not your language, but man I see these "10 lies you were taught in school" garbage posts on social media every few weeks, and it drives me crazy!).

 

[sealchan]

Some people think that the electrons in atoms are tiny little beads flying in circles around the nucleus. Why do some people think that?

Because the idea that the solar system models the atom is an understandable metaphor and the image is a persistent meme.

 

[gnostic]

Well, maybe the motions around a nucleus is as simple electromagnetic field?

On the nuclei themselves? No.

Of the charged particles (eg protons and electrons)? Yes.

The EM fields are induced by charged particles.

But there other forces at work in atoms, particularly at subatomic levels, such as strong nuclear forces and weak nuclear forces.

How much do you know about particle physics and quantum physics?

I, or someone else here, can explain more if you don’t know much about the Standard Model for particle physics and their relationship to the four fundamental forces or four interactions.

 

[dianaiad]

Some people think that the electrons in atoms are tiny little beads flying in circles around the nucleus. Why do some people think that?

Because the Atheist "atomic swirl' says so?

 

[gnostic]

Because the Atheist "atomic swirl' says so?

Wow!

What does this topic has to do with atheism?

Seriously, in high school and in university science subjects, there are no atheism this and no theism that. Both atheism and theism, and all other -ism are ignored, because they aren’t relevant in physics, chemistry or biology.

You are being paranoid and dishonest to bring up atheism here.

I am glad that not all Mormons are like you.

 

[Jim]

Seriously, in high school and in university science subjects, there are no atheism this and no theism that. Both atheism and theism, and all other -ism are ignored, because they aren’t relevant in physics, chemistry or biology.

I’m the one who started the thread, and I wasn’t thinking only about students. I was thinking of people of all ages who still think of the electrons in atoms literally as tiny beads. That symbol for atheism looks to me like a good illustration of that, and very helpful for my purposes.

 

[gnostic]

I’m the one who started the thread, and I wasn’t thinking only about students. I was thinking of people of all ages who still think of the electrons in atoms literally as tiny beads. That symbol for atheism looks to me like a good illustration of that, and very helpful for my purposes.

My reply was to dianaiad, not address to you, as to why bring up atheism at all, since physics and chemistry were taught to all students, not just to atheist students.

Atheism, theism, agnosticism, deism, etc, all have nothing to do with science.

The clumsiness in dianaiad’s argument is equating science and atheism as one and the same; dianaiad is just demonstrating his ignorance and his biases. Are you as backward as he?

Jim, you are Baha’i, like @shunyadragon, and you are both theists, but you two are nothing alike when it comes to understanding science. Of you two, shunyadragon understand science without messing science with his faith and belief.

And as I told dianaiad. Science isn’t about theism or atheism or other -ism, because all these religions and philosophies aren’t relevant in understanding natural science.

As to the illustration electrons orbiting around the nucleus, is merely oversimplification of what the atom might look like, as you should already know from Niels Bohr’s model. And such image is outdated.

But you seem to suffer from selective amnesia that the older model has been replaced by particle physics and quantum mechanics, something that you would learn in more advanced physics at universities and colleges.

While the Bohr’s model can served as history lesson of what physics was like at this stage, you cannot stop scientific advances or progresses by being obsessed with older and outdated theories.

You should be forward in science, not take 10 steps backward.

It would be like asking astronomers to ditch their powerful optical and radio telescopes and go back to star gazing with just the naked eye. You would be taking astronomy back to the Middle Ages.

Why are you so focused on Bohr’s model, and not the more advanced particle and quantum physics? Is there really a point to this thread?

 

[Jim]

@gnostic I thought that you were saying that @dianaiad was posting off topic. As the person who started this thread, I’m saying that it was on topic for my purposes in this thread.

 

[Jim]

My reply was to dianaiad, not address to you, as to why bring up atheism at all, since physics and chemistry were taught to all students, not just to atheist students.

Atheism, theism, agnosticism, deism, etc, all have nothing to do with science.

The clumsiness in dianaiad’s argument is equating science and atheism as one and the same; dianaiad is just demonstrating his ignorance and his biases. Are you as backward as he?

Jim, you are Baha’i, like @shunyadragon, and you are both theists, but you two are nothing alike when it comes to understanding science. Of you two, shunyadragon understand science without messing science with his faith and belief.

And as I told dianaiad. Science isn’t about theism or atheism or other -ism, because all these religions and philosophies aren’t relevant in understanding natural science.

As to the illustration electrons orbiting around the nucleus, is merely oversimplification of what the atom might look like, as you should already know from Niels Bohr’s model. And such image is outdated.

But you seem to suffer from selective amnesia that the older model has been replaced by particle physics and quantum mechanics, something that you would learn in more advanced physics at universities and colleges.

While the Bohr’s model can served as history lesson of what physics was like at this stage, you cannot stop scientific advances or progresses by being obsessed with older and outdated theories.

You should be forward in science, not take 10 steps backward.

It would be like asking astronomers to ditch their powerful optical and radio telescopes and go back to star gazing with just the naked eye. You would be taking astronomy back to the Middle Ages.

Why are you so focused on Bohr’s model, and not the more advanced particle and quantum physics? Is there really a point to this thread?

I’ve known about the probability cloud model for more than fifty years. but I personally know people who still think of tiny beads flying in circles around the nucleus as an actual physical description of the electrons in atoms. There might be many people who still think that. In any case, there was a time when most people of all ages believed it, without anyone claiming to have any evidence for it. The people who first proposed the model didn’t even believe in it themselves, as a literal description.

There was a question in another thread, about why people sometimes believe things without any evidence for them. The purpose of this thread was to consider something that multitudes of people once believed, and many still do, without any evidence for it, and what their reasons might be for believing it.

 

[gnostic]

I’ve known about the probability cloud model for more than fifty years. but I personally know people who still think of tiny beads flying in circles around the nucleus as an actual physical description of the electrons in atoms. There might be many people who still think that.

And yet, you have conversed with people here, and they already told you that this model is outdated.

So why are you persisting, when you already know other people’s answers here? Are you going to ignore them?