Talk:2100: Models of the Atom - Revision history

FaviFake at 07:51, 21 April 2025

2025-04-21T07:51:58Z

172.68.205.179 at 19:37, 20 April 2025

2025-04-20T19:37:29Z

162.158.166.231 at 08:08, 22 March 2023

2023-03-22T08:08:29Z

Avesmx: /* Underline error, also Tiny Bird Model */ new section

2019-02-18T21:03:16Z

‎Underline error, also Tiny Bird Model: new section

These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For at 08:43, 20 January 2019

2019-01-20T08:43:41Z

A(l)Chemist: Just spotted that this is already discussed above.

2019-01-19T11:20:45Z

Just spotted that this is already discussed above.

A(l)Chemist: Is a table necessary?

2019-01-19T11:16:26Z

Is a table necessary?

172.68.2.76: Added comment on significance of 173

2019-01-19T05:46:53Z

Added comment on significance of 173

173.245.54.25 at 01:47, 19 January 2019

2019-01-19T01:47:57Z

173.245.54.25 at 01:44, 19 January 2019

2019-01-19T01:44:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:51, 21 April 2025
Line 60:		Line 60:
	**That was my 'excuse' for replying in the (limited space of the) edit-summary, following your lead. But, it occured to me, that ''if'' you objected to ''word-dash-word'' having been expanded to ''word-space-dash-space-word'', then removing a few double-spaces in the article would more than make up for it. (A petty change, I admit, but I had to do something, and adding/removing some other whitespace didn't seem appropriate. And I don't think source-size was even in your mind.)		**That was my 'excuse' for replying in the (limited space of the) edit-summary, following your lead. But, it occured to me, that ''if'' you objected to ''word-dash-word'' having been expanded to ''word-space-dash-space-word'', then removing a few double-spaces in the article would more than make up for it. (A petty change, I admit, but I had to do something, and adding/removing some other whitespace didn't seem appropriate. And I don't think source-size was even in your mind.)
	...does that make more sense? Now that I don't have the limitations of the edit-summary box? At least I can spell out a lot more of what I'm carefully considered about this issue (not just with regards to your edits, but over decades of habit and experience and of understanding what people tend to both mean and understand to be meant. And style-sheets tend to like spaced-ndashes almost as much as mdashes (spaced or otherwise), not that we need to subscribe to those to still be clear enough for easy reading here or elsewhere.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.179\|172.68.205.179]] 19:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)		...does that make more sense? Now that I don't have the limitations of the edit-summary box? At least I can spell out a lot more of what I'm carefully considered about this issue (not just with regards to your edits, but over decades of habit and experience and of understanding what people tend to both mean and understand to be meant. And style-sheets tend to like spaced-ndashes almost as much as mdashes (spaced or otherwise), not that we need to subscribe to those to still be clear enough for easy reading here or elsewhere.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.179\|172.68.205.179]] 19:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Yes, it's clearer now! I don't like space-dash-space but I don't mind if it's used.--[[User:FaviFake\|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake\|talk]]) 07:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:37, 20 April 2025
Line 45:		Line 45:

	Could we use a chart, as in the recent comic on cells? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.231\|162.158.166.231]] 08:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)		Could we use a chart, as in the recent comic on cells? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.231\|162.158.166.231]] 08:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
		+
		+	==What I said==
		+	Ok, the conversation this refers to happened alongside edits, and ''requires edits'' to continue in the same (minimlist) fashion, and I have nothing else that I feel could stand being editing. So bringing it out here rather than inventing new ways to reply via edit-history summaries of otherwise useless edits...
		+	*"Whether they're em-dashes or en-dashes or whatever,"
		+	**Just because I called them "non-hyphens", doesn't mean I don't know the difference between "-" and all the rest (to my knowledge, there's &hyphen;/&dash; (hyphen/dash), &hybull; (hyphen-bullet), – (ndash), — (mdash), &horbar; (horizontal bar), &boxh;/&HorizontalLine (horizontal box line); and (of course) − (minus sign), not all of which actually render for me (maybe they do for you, or maybe a different subset does). But I'm sure there's also more. For simplicity, I'll just group them all as "dashes", for the font-reasons below.
		+	*"the point being that "foo - bar" doesn't actually look as much like "foo-bar" as "foo—bar" does,"
		+	**What was originally there was effectively a ''word-space-dash-space-word'' which does looks neither like a compounding hyphen nor a range-indicating ndash. Replacing that with ''word-dash-word'' ''does'' look like an attempt at a hyphen.
		+	*"especially with certain fonts."
		+	**I know that mdash ''should'' be as wide as an "m" and ndash should be as wide as an "n" (which may or may not be as wide as a 'true hyphen', or the minus-sign which 'is used as a hyphen/dash' in many situations), but sometimes you can't easily tell the difference. It's significantly different (or, rather, it can be significantly ''similar'') on my Android device compared to when viewed on my PC.
		+	**If you're a stickler for the right dash-type, you still have your desired dash-type (at least the mdashes, all the required ndashes (for range) and literal minus signs (rather than the 'lazy' all-purpose minus-stroke-hyphen that does it all on your standard keyboard) may be considered still wrong. Either that or using "-" in the place of the true-hyphen. (Oh, and don't tell me that it's acceptable to use "--" for long-dashes, given the gap that this produces, as if a ¦ but horizontal.)
		+	**Anyway, on Android, I've 'easy' access to various dashes other than the 'minus/hyphen' all-rounder switch on-screen keyboard to the first 'punctuation' screen, long-press the "-" and get some of the other variations on the theme). Under Windows, one is forced to either spell out with &entityName; literals or open up charmap and look around for the desired extended charactr. It is tradition and ''entirely'' expected to use "-" for grammatical-aside dashes (the kind that you might use instead of either comma-clausing or parenthisising or using literal/dot-dot-dot ellipsis alternatives) and is inconsistence with the conversion of smart-quotes (the work of the devil!) with the generic 'standard' dual-use quote.
		+	**So it's just a silly edit, that I'll allow but would humbly suggest should at least retain the spaces to make it obvious that it's not a words-conjoining hyphen but a clause-separating dash.
		+	*"To contrast the extra spaces, I've now also removed other unused ones."
		+	**That was my 'excuse' for replying in the (limited space of the) edit-summary, following your lead. But, it occured to me, that ''if'' you objected to ''word-dash-word'' having been expanded to ''word-space-dash-space-word'', then removing a few double-spaces in the article would more than make up for it. (A petty change, I admit, but I had to do something, and adding/removing some other whitespace didn't seem appropriate. And I don't think source-size was even in your mind.)
		+	...does that make more sense? Now that I don't have the limitations of the edit-summary box? At least I can spell out a lot more of what I'm carefully considered about this issue (not just with regards to your edits, but over decades of habit and experience and of understanding what people tend to both mean and understand to be meant. And style-sheets tend to like spaced-ndashes almost as much as mdashes (spaced or otherwise), not that we need to subscribe to those to still be clear enough for easy reading here or elsewhere.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.179\|172.68.205.179]] 19:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:08, 22 March 2023
Line 43:		Line 43:

	[[User:Avesmx\|Avesmx]] ([[User talk:Avesmx\|talk]]) 21:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)		[[User:Avesmx\|Avesmx]] ([[User talk:Avesmx\|talk]]) 21:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	Could we use a chart, as in the recent comic on cells? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.231\|162.158.166.231]] 08:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 18 February 2019
Line 35:		Line 35:
	[[User:ProphetZarquon\|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon\|talk]]) 20:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)		[[User:ProphetZarquon\|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon\|talk]]) 20:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
	: Will merkle trees help us find reality or are they a false flag? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.25\|173.245.54.25]] 01:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)		: Will merkle trees help us find reality or are they a false flag? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.25\|173.245.54.25]] 01:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Underline error, also Tiny Bird Model ==
		+
		+	I just wanted to point out that Randall forgot to underline 1913 above the Bohr model - I'm assuming it's a mistake and has no significance to the meaning of the comic, but.
		+
		+	Also, regarding the tiny bird model, I think it's largely a combination of the idea that scientists really had no clue what was going on inside the atom, combined with finding tiny birds humorous. The nunchuck model does have a feasible explanation, as proposed in the article itself, but it's really no more sensible than the tiny bird model. I doubt there was any further intended meaning to it.
		+
		+	[[User:Avesmx\|Avesmx]] ([[User talk:Avesmx\|talk]]) 21:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:43, 20 January 2019
Line 8:		Line 8:

	:We seem to be missing the {{w\|Acorn Atom}} as well. [[User:Kazzie\|Kazzie]] ([[User talk:Kazzie\|talk]]) 10:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)		:We seem to be missing the {{w\|Acorn Atom}} as well. [[User:Kazzie\|Kazzie]] ([[User talk:Kazzie\|talk]]) 10:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	::And the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Atom Ariel Atom] [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 08:43, 20 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.		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.

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ::I strongly disagree: When any column except the last contains phrases of differing lengths, using a table (instead of a list presented in proportional width unformatted text) greatly increases legibility. Lists are fine for conveying a series of single items, but tables are superior for matrices with two dimensions or more.
 ::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 : 173 could also be referencing the fact that Z=173 is theoretically the point where the 1s orbital goes all weird. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_periodic_table The Wikipedia article gives a good explanation.] [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.76|172.68.2.76]] 05:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@@ Line 31: / Line 33: @@
 [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 : Will merkle trees help us find reality or are they a false flag? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.25|173.245.54.25]] 01:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:16, 19 January 2019
Line 31:		Line 31:
	[[User:ProphetZarquon\|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon\|talk]]) 20:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)		[[User:ProphetZarquon\|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon\|talk]]) 20:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
	: Will merkle trees help us find reality or are they a false flag? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.25\|173.245.54.25]] 01:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)		: Will merkle trees help us find reality or are they a false flag? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.25\|173.245.54.25]] 01:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	Do we really need the table for the “Small hard ball surrounded by math” model? It seems a bit of a contrast to the rest of the explanation and there is nothing linking it to the paragraph before - it wasn't immediately obvious to me where these numbers have come from until I scrolled back up to the comic. [[User:A(l)Chemist\|AlChemist]] ([[User talk:A(l)Chemist\|talk]]) 11:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 :When cartoon characters are dizzy, they are often depicted with stars or birds circling their head. Since xkcd is a comic & thus shares the hand-drawn aesthetic, I presume that Randall is referencing [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CirclingBirdies the "Circling Birds" trope].
 :[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:23, 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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:44, 19 January 2019
Line 28:		Line 28:
	Of course, in the more distant "future", we know that subatomic particles are actually science fiction tropes suspended in an amorphic field of negatively biased reviews, known as the "universally unsatisfactory" model. Nobody's entirely happy about the implications that the fundamental laws governing the nature of our reality were written largely by unpaid interns & compiled by a committee, but almost everyone agrees that it's the only explanation which matches our observational data.		Of course, in the more distant "future", we know that subatomic particles are actually science fiction tropes suspended in an amorphic field of negatively biased reviews, known as the "universally unsatisfactory" model. Nobody's entirely happy about the implications that the fundamental laws governing the nature of our reality were written largely by unpaid interns & compiled by a committee, but almost everyone agrees that it's the only explanation which matches our observational data.
	[[User:ProphetZarquon\|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon\|talk]]) 20:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)		[[User:ProphetZarquon\|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon\|talk]]) 20:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
		+	: Will merkle trees help us find reality or are they a false flag? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.25\|173.245.54.25]] 01:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)