The theory of what an atom looks like has evolved over time. From the ancient Greeks, to Dalton, to Rutherford—no idea was exact
ly the same. However, as more information is gathered, new ideas can build on the old. Sometimes new ideas can completely replace the old ones. Even today, there may be new advances that have changed our understanding of the atom that are not reflected in this course. Answer one of the following prompts to begin your discussion:
You claim that the atomic model should not be continually changed. What reasoning would you give someone to help them understand your claim?
You claim that a new atomic model should always build on an old one. What reasoning would you give someone to help them understand your claim?
You claim that a new atomic model should completely replace an old one. What reasoning would you give someone to help them understand your claim?
You claim that the continuous evolution of the atomic model is beneficial, but you think it should be a mix of the old and the new. What reasoning would you give someone to help them understand your claim?
To being my discussion, I claim that a new atomic model should always build on an old one with the following reasons of mine. That is option B.
<h3>What is an atomic model?</h3>
An atomic model is a model that describes how the interior of an atom looks like. This first atomic model was developed by William Thomson.
To start my discussion, I claim that a new atomic model should always build on an old one with the following reasons of mine:
The modern scientists exploited the ideas of the ancient scientists to arrive at a better atomic model.
This method is proven the the works of Bohr in the Bohr atomic model which relied on quantum mechanics, built upon the Rutherford model to explain the orbits of electrons.
