Talk:Hantaro Nagaoka: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:40, 5 February 2011

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Physics: Biographies Start‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Is the planetary model right or wrong?

The article states "In 1904, Nagaoka developed an early, incorrect "planetary model" of the atom.[1]". However, in his 1922 Nobel lecture, Niels Bohr said, "In this picture we at once see a striking resemblance to a planetary system, such as we have in our own solar system." I am working on an electrostatic model of the electron cloud that does not necessitate electrons traveling in high speed orbits. Rather, electrons and protons/nuclei can coexist without orbiting to keep them separate. As we have learned, electrons only rarely collapse into the nucleus through electron capture (see the CRC, section11). And, it never happens with hydrogen nuclei outside plasma hot circumstances. (The decay of a neutron results in producing a proton and an electron, and releases energy in the form of a neutrino. Because of the release of energy the reaction is irreversible. Protons and electron do not spontaneously combine.) So who published that Nagaoka was wrong, or right? I am happy to hear discussion on whether the planetary model is correct with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My Flatley (talk • contribs) 22:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 22:38, 5 February 2011 edit My Flatley (talk \| contribs) 169 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:40, 5 February 2011 edit undo SineBot (talk \| contribs) Bots 2,555,254 edits m Signing comment by My Flatley - "" Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	==Is the planetary model right or wrong?==		==Is the planetary model right or wrong?==

	The article states "In 1904, Nagaoka developed an early, incorrect "planetary model" of the atom.[1]". However, in his 1922 Nobel lecture, Niels Bohr said, "In this picture we at once see a striking resemblance to a planetary system, such as we have in our own solar system." I am working on an electrostatic model of the electron cloud that does not necessitate electrons traveling in high speed orbits. Rather, electrons and protons/nuclei can coexist without orbiting to keep them separate. As we have learned, electrons only rarely collapse into the nucleus through electron capture (see the CRC, section11). And, it ''never'' happens with hydrogen nuclei outside plasma hot circumstances. (The decay of a neutron results in producing a proton and an electron, and releases energy in the form of a neutrino. Because of the release of energy the reaction is irreversible. Protons and electron ''do not'' spontaneously combine.) So who published that Nagaoka was wrong, or right? I am happy to hear discussion on whether the planetary model is correct with references.		The article states "In 1904, Nagaoka developed an early, incorrect "planetary model" of the atom.[1]". However, in his 1922 Nobel lecture, Niels Bohr said, "In this picture we at once see a striking resemblance to a planetary system, such as we have in our own solar system." I am working on an electrostatic model of the electron cloud that does not necessitate electrons traveling in high speed orbits. Rather, electrons and protons/nuclei can coexist without orbiting to keep them separate. As we have learned, electrons only rarely collapse into the nucleus through electron capture (see the CRC, section11). And, it ''never'' happens with hydrogen nuclei outside plasma hot circumstances. (The decay of a neutron results in producing a proton and an electron, and releases energy in the form of a neutrino. Because of the release of energy the reaction is irreversible. Protons and electron ''do not'' spontaneously combine.) So who published that Nagaoka was wrong, or right? I am happy to hear discussion on whether the planetary model is correct with references. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:My Flatley\|My Flatley]] ([[User talk:My Flatley\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/My Flatley\|contribs]]) 22:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->