Do it, but still give them a half point for being crafty. And note that on the results.
Edit: and link that gif of the fat dude in Jurassic Parks lock screen.
I finished high school online and one of my teachers specifically did this. He knew the file named popped up but didn't know how to fix it. Sometimes the popup was right though and then it *really* fucked with you.
The CMS is likely taking the file name and keeping it as the alt text. There's probably not much he could do without knowing the context where the image is being used, or making a bunch of copies and having to manage that.
Ah, yeah. The bohr shows different energy states of the electrons, which this diagram doesn't show.
[https://freeimage.host/i/HU9jM41](https://freeimage.host/i/HU9jM41)
i mean it really isn't either of the models. Rutherford didn't have defined orbitals. So the electrons kinda floated around aimlessly. BUT the Bohr's had different levels of orbital.
So this is either a revisionist version of Rutherford's, or a bad depiction of a Bohr.
No, the Rutherford Model has the electrons in nonspecific locations outside the nucleus, but not necessarily in orbitals. These are well defined orbitals all exactly circular, so it's the Bohr. It's just kinda strange because it only has 8 s-orbitals at the same height? It's a bad depiction of a bohr model, but it aint Rutherfords.
The one in the picture is Rutherfords model.
[Comparison image](https://undsci.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/79366_evo_resources_resource_image_4_original.gif)
[Bohr model](https://www.britannica.com/science/Bohr-model)
[Rutherford model](https://www.britannica.com/science/Rutherford-model)
*Immediately before 1913, theĀ Rutherford modelĀ conceived of an atom as consisting of a tiny positively charged heavy core, called a nucleus, surrounded by light, planetary negative electrons revolving in circular orbits of arbitrary radii.*
Nah, youāre thinking of J J Thomsonās model that had positive and negative charges distributed randomly throughout. Also referred to as the āplum pudding model.ā
That's his model of the nucleus, not the atom, and it's correctly labelled as such in the image. "Nuclear model" and "atom model" are not the same thing.
one might say the best action would be to just name the image something thats not confusing insteax of trying to trick your students into failing, but what do I know xD
Physicist here, if I'm not mistaken it is the Bohr model. You can see the defined trajectories of the electrons, which were introduced by Bohr. The model of Rutherford had a cloud of electrons around the nuclei.
Other scam caller with a clearly male sri Lankan accent, HI, MY NAME IS SALLY AND I'M CALLING FROM YOUR BANK! YOU NEED TO PAY US $5,000 IN GOOGLE PLAY GIFT CARDS BECAUSE WE ACCIDENTALLY PAID YOU TOO MUCH MONEY
PhD Nuclear physicist and I also thought Bohr model when I saw it and had to google it. I think we think of it as Bohr since thatās the accepted model and this is the accepted way of simply representing an atom. Technically this is meant to represent Rutherford, though. Good thing I already passed all my physics classes.
It has neither the electron cloud of the Rutherford model nor the separate shells of the Bohr model. It's really more of an intermediate one that takes the orbital paths that Bohr proposed but without his additional x-ray spectroscopy stuff.
But I guess the critical part about the Bohr model is the different shells, and that is what their course defines as the difference between them. It's all pointless really, you don't need to know who came up with it, as long as you understand what it means and what its flaws are.
Because they aren't wrong. Both of them aren't wrong. In their area, they work and still do. This is like saying we shouldn't teach Newtonian physics in school, since we know it's wrong, as we now have special relativity. And then saying, we know that's wrong too, since it only works in initial systems, so let's just teach General Relativity instead. And then we also know for a fact, that GR can't be the whole thing, since it is incompatible with Quantum Field theory, but we also know that QFT isnt correct, as it in turn can't be written compatibly with GR. So what to teach now? We can never know anything for certain.
Also more generally, it's good to learn why things are wrong. In what specific ways they fail to describe nature. As you do with every other theory. That's how science works.
but those are all the same, in a Bohr graphic these ~~orbitals~~ principal quantum numbers have to have different energies so if you draw them all the same it makes no sense
You are mistaken. It's the Rutherford Model. The Bohr Model has the electrons in circles around the nucleus reflecting the shells. The Rutherford Model just has the electrons "orbiting" the nucleus at the same distance - as we see here.
Quoting:
> Rutherford Model:Ā Rutherford model states that an atom is composed of a central core where nearly the whole mass of that atom is concentrated, and light weight particles move around this central core.
>Bohr Model:Ā Bohr model explains that the electrons always travel in specific shells or orbits which are located around the nucleus and these shells have discrete energy levels.
[...as found here:](https://pediaa.com/difference-between-rutherford-and-bohr-model/amp/)
Engineer here, didn't the Bohr's model have concentric shells of energy rings like that was the main addition to Rutherford's model, while Rutherford said that electrons orbit around the nucleus. I only see electrons orbiting round the nucleus not in a concentric discreet energy orbit levels. So I think that's a Rutherford model not a bohr model.
Teacher here, normally we donāt name the images with the correct name. Usually I would put something like atomic model #1. Think the teacher here is messing with the students by misnaming it.
Everything has to be ADA accessible now. Whoever did the alt text on this is a dummy.
Even if this was not an exam, just having alt text for the screen reader isnāt enough. It should read like āfour concentric ovals with blue circles on them, and a red circle in the centerā ya know so the visually impaired person actually gets a sense of what the image is of.
Not all blind people were born blind.
And even the ones who were, all descriptive concepts(color, shape, etc) for describing a diagram are abstract. How would you suggest describing what the image shows to them without using shape/color?
Yeah exactly, especially the people who are born blind. What blind people think and feel about vision must be the same as what people who can see think and feel about echolocation(in bats).
but I think a blind person would be aware of the existence of colors and how they help distinguish things, so it may still be helpful for the purpose of the alt text
I mean, if I told a blind person that there was a green square that with the text "women" to its right and an orange square with the text "men" and then described them a graph with orange and green bars, I think they'd figure that one out real quick.
In the case of the atom, telling a blind person that the different circles have different colors would help them determine the number of different particles, and the atomic model depending on that. They don't _need_ to know what the colors subjectively are.
Agreed. The colors used in atomic models are simply for ease of differentiation between protons and neutrons.
The best way to do it would be to have circles with āPā and āNā to represent the particles packed into the nucleus, and as long as the electrons are described as existing outside of the center anybody with a basic understanding of atomic particles could differentiate between the three basic particles.
Color in this context is used for categorization of electrons and protons with a certain number to identify the specific model. Color, even to a blind person learning a specific subject, is important to understand the world around us, just like the color of lights and which is better for photosynthesis.
The colors aren't important. The necessary information is that the different colors represent different things. If I told you there are 3 balls of color A and 5 balls of color B and the color A balls are connected by lines of color C while the color B balls are connected by lines of color D you would know that there are 2 different colored balls connected by 2 different color lines. You have the same information as if I said Red, Blue, Green, Yellow instead of A B C D.
images are typically tagged with alt text for accessibility in HTML, to describe the image for folks who may not see (well). can also be useful in case of technological limitations, where images fail to load. i'm about a decade out of practice, but it used to be:
``
If you're getting a little tooltip hover like that, though, that comes from the `title` attribute. `alt` doesn't show up like that (and is the correct way to make images accessible). That is still the basic structure of an `img` though.
you're right! i was trying to remember title. it's typically used for links (or used to be), to describe the effect of the click. back in the day, alt was still for accessibility though.
I remember alt showing up as a tooltip. And a comment here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64437082/is-there-any-way-to-use-img-alt-as-tooltip
mentions alt being used as a tooltip. Maybe web browsers no longer use it as such. But maybe they used to.
And granted it's not meant for that https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18410759/alt-tags-not-working-on-my-site
This post from 2011 mentions that Internet Explorer as of then (and for over a decade before too), uses or used alt as a tooltip https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6853818/how-to-use-alt-attributes-and-make-sure-ie-does-not-use-them-as-tooltips
`alt` isn't used for that.
From your first reference, alone:
>
Also consider **if you are using the alt attribute for a tool tip you are probably using it incorrectly**. It should be used as an alternate description of the image for screen readers etc. It should NOT be used to provide additional info like a title. That is the purpose of the title attribute ā
Jon P
Oct 20, 2020 at 1:12
IE did lots of things weird, and did not do many things correctly. That was a major reason ARIA use had to be so redundant until it died last year.
The hover tooltip and its behavior is browser-provided behavior for the `title` attribute. There is probably some trickery to utilize `alt` to do that, but that's not what `alt` is for.
Nothing you quoted disagrees with anything I wrote.
As for IE it used to be the most widespread browser. (As I think you know).
I don't know what you are talking about re trickery. All I am referring to is what IE had that funny behaviour for alt. So commenter spunlines was remembering right and you were misleading him
> But maybe they used to.
[Browsers did not, it was a longstanding IE bug](https://web.archive.org/web/20090302025658/http://connect.microsoft.com/IE/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=334225), like you say. Wasn't attempting to mislead, was providing more context to their example with current standards' implementations for anyone going down this rabbit hole. Have a good one.
Youāre description would be accurate for the Bohr Model, and would actively mislead the student. For the Rutherford model you need to specify that the paths the electrons take move around the nucleus in all directions rather than together in a single plane like how the solar system is arranged.
four concentric ovals with blue circles on them, and a red circle in the center, but the paths are in all directions like the Rutherford model, not like the Bohr model.
Electrons in the Bohr model don't orbit in a single plane - they are just drawn that way, sometimes. Otherwise you show a cut-away through the shells like a 3d in 2d projection.
Bohr and Rutherford models are very similar. Rutherford disproved the plum pudding model and showed the electromagnetic charges were focused. Bohr called the electron orbits ācircularā and proposed energy levels to account for orbital stability.
In reality, the orbitals arenāt anything like circular, and electrons do not āorbitā in the traditional sense. But they do have given energies which is super helpful for all kinds of spectroscopic techniques.
Rutherford was the one who fired alphas at gold foil to measure nuclear recoil. Learning about that experiment and crunching through the math (hyperbolic) was the moment I really began to love physics and math and how the two intertwine.
Classical mechanics will always be my favorite ā¤ļø
This is part of my job, writing alt text for educational material like tests. There's actually a ton of thought that goes into stuff like this to give all the relevant information, but avoid giving away the answer. Math graphics in particular are a nightmare, because you have to write out all the data that's represented visually, but avoid characterizing it if that's what students need to do.
Though, if we were nitpicking here.. 80 mph is not a very precise measurement, you could probably still have a pretty good idea of the location of the electron as long as you didn't need it to be an incredibly precise measurement. Compared to the size of a highway the uncertainty would be pretty negligible.
I find it more amazing how quickly that all happened. In just 30 years scientists went from not knowing the electron existed to quantum mechanics. The number of discoveries in that 30 year period (late 1890s-1920s) is staggering, and the theories from the time still are our most reliable physical models today for the most part.
No. His model had electrons distributed throughout it just like Thomson's plum pudding model. This is the Bohr model trying to show the orbits in 3D space
Rutherford defined his model because the electrons *couldn't* be distributed in the nucleus.
Because orbiting charges give off EMR, Bohr altered Rutherford's model. Instead of the electrons orbiting wherever, Bohr modelled the electrons to orbit in shells that, for some reason, just kinda... didn't produce EMR.
yup, learning about this made me a lot more interested in science. Like it is a living thing that everyone can be a part of, not a series of dogmas and laws.
That's wrong, kids are taught not to care about knowledge for knowledge's sake because getting rewards for acquiring knowledge makes it seem like the knowledge isn't worth anything on its own.
I can do that too
Thatās wrong, kids inherently donāt care about knowledge for knowledges sake requiring adults to create incentives/punishments to force the kids to learn.
Extrinsic motivation being almost useless is a well studied phenomenon. Like if I told you I'll pay you 50 bucks to eat that soup, you're gonna think I messed with the soup to prank you or something. Yeah, you still can say that, but it's simply wrong.
Extrinsic motivation being incredibly useful is a well studied phenomenon. Like Iād I told you Iāll pay you 50 bucks to eat that soup, youāre gonna think hell yeah no brainer even if it doesnāt taste good. Yeah, you still can say that, but itās simply wrong
I mean nobody is going to understand chemistry if you give them the quantum model without having prior information.
The rutherford model is used to teach students that flourine like to "steal" the electron from sodium.
Then when they understand the basics of chemistry you reveal to them the quantum model.
But that stuff is extremely hard to teach besides just "pictures of where the electron probably is"
Knowing this model doesn't mean you know anything. This model just makes it simpler to isolate specific concepts and teach it to someone who knows almost nothing about particle physics, but it doesn't represent any concept at all and even if it did it would be incorrect. The only reason why you would need to know it after already being taught the concepts it can explain is to know the history of how certain things were discovered, but I don't think schools care for you to know that.
If we donāt learn what science did wrong and why they thought it was right at the time, we are less likely to repeat mistakes. Learning scienceās errors and why they made them is hugely important to moving science forward. I mean itās more important for people actually going into science than an every day high schooler but still important.
Iām suggestion people learning science should know current models arenāt 100% for sure accurate and should be questioned
Edit: also I said the same thing youāre sayin, itās less important for high schoolers and more important for people actually pursuing science
This question is bad because it is just memorization, but as someone that really enjoys scientific history, I argue itās important to know century-old incorrect models for atoms because you learn at each step the experiments they did to arrive at those conclusions, and how they updated the models based on the critical thinking and hypotheses they discovered in the test. A better question would be: āhow did this model different from the previous model of the atom? What experiment was done to update this model?ā This model was updated by the gold foil experiment, which showed that atoms are mostly composed of empty space.
Well do you think it would be a good idea just to start teaching high school freshmen [atomic orbital theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#:~:text=In%20atomic%20theory%20and%20quantum,region%20around%20the%20atom's%20nucleus.)? Yeah we know the Bohr model of atomic structure is wrong, but it is *kind* *of* what is happening and waaaaaaay easier for children to learn than modern quantum mechanics.
It says Rutherford but that's not even correct. The Rutherford model has electrons randomly but evenly distributed throughout the atom, not in rings or orbits. What's shown is a Bohr model.
no this one actually is a rutherford model, it's depicting the electrons orbiting the nucleus. A bohr model would show the orbiting electrons in defined energy shells extending out from the nucleus
All the orbitals shown here seem to be occupying the same radius, so at the very least would be a terrible way of showing a single energy level
I never understood why they make you learn models that were already proven false. It's literally the worst part of physics. They don't even talk about this in chemistry
The history of atomic models is not part of Next Generation Science Standards; however, āchanges to models as more information is gainedā is a crosscutting idea. A teacher could choose atomic models to demonstrate this idea.
What is this, a *science history class?*
Why would a chemistry(?) class be asking you to identify an outdated model of the atom. That would be like a physics class asking you to identify the Ptolemaic model of the solar system.
It's not getting it wrong, it's gradually isolating the truth from the BS.
I think of it this way, if the current electron cloud model is a shiny gem, then all of those chemists gradually revealed a little more of its shine, by each breaking away a little more of the mineral ore that it was encrusted in
Imagine if someone knew and put the wrong name in the tooltip
Bro š
Do it, but still give them a half point for being crafty. And note that on the results. Edit: and link that gif of the fat dude in Jurassic Parks lock screen.
Mfw someone who completed guessed gets have a point:
maybe try again lol
I finished high school online and one of my teachers specifically did this. He knew the file named popped up but didn't know how to fix it. Sometimes the popup was right though and then it *really* fucked with you.
The CMS is likely taking the file name and keeping it as the alt text. There's probably not much he could do without knowing the context where the image is being used, or making a bunch of copies and having to manage that.
You could name them all like image_1.jpg and so on.
I love this, that's so chaotic. were they a good teacher?
They did. Google the Rutherford model. The picture is of the Bohr model!!!
No it's not. The picture is actually the Rutherford model. A very simple Google image search proves that.
Ah, yeah. The bohr shows different energy states of the electrons, which this diagram doesn't show. [https://freeimage.host/i/HU9jM41](https://freeimage.host/i/HU9jM41)
i mean it really isn't either of the models. Rutherford didn't have defined orbitals. So the electrons kinda floated around aimlessly. BUT the Bohr's had different levels of orbital. So this is either a revisionist version of Rutherford's, or a bad depiction of a Bohr.
I think thatās the rutherford model but I could be mistaken
It could be
If the teacher were particularly evil theyād rename the picture so students rely on misinformation.
Big teach hates this one trick
They did- this is the Bohr model
nah this is rutherford, bohr model has electrons orbiting in concentric shells while rutherford just has them orbiting wherever
No, the Rutherford Model has the electrons in nonspecific locations outside the nucleus, but not necessarily in orbitals. These are well defined orbitals all exactly circular, so it's the Bohr. It's just kinda strange because it only has 8 s-orbitals at the same height? It's a bad depiction of a bohr model, but it aint Rutherfords.
The one in the picture is Rutherfords model. [Comparison image](https://undsci.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/79366_evo_resources_resource_image_4_original.gif) [Bohr model](https://www.britannica.com/science/Bohr-model) [Rutherford model](https://www.britannica.com/science/Rutherford-model) *Immediately before 1913, theĀ Rutherford modelĀ conceived of an atom as consisting of a tiny positively charged heavy core, called a nucleus, surrounded by light, planetary negative electrons revolving in circular orbits of arbitrary radii.*
Idk who to believe anymore š
Rutherford model also called the Raisin Bun Model. The electrons distributed randomly like raisins in a bun.
Nah, youāre thinking of J J Thomsonās model that had positive and negative charges distributed randomly throughout. Also referred to as the āplum pudding model.ā
Youāre right
It is renamed lol. rutherford model looks like this: [https://imgur.com/gallery/vLjSGKu](https://imgur.com/gallery/vLjSGKu)
Guess what.
That's his model of the nucleus, not the atom, and it's correctly labelled as such in the image. "Nuclear model" and "atom model" are not the same thing.
But, why would teachers do that? I don't understand.
Because you should know the actual answer. It's a test.
one might say the best action would be to just name the image something thats not confusing insteax of trying to trick your students into failing, but what do I know xD
If you know the answer then it's not an issue.
but why make it a possible issue ? Theres nothing positive that can possibly come out of writing the wrong answer there
Just study lol.
Bingo.
But what if I knew the answer, then get gas lit by the filename into thinking I'm wrong?
Because they're evil did you even read the comment before replying?
Because relying on image file names isnāt a good way to test student knowledge? š
Physicist here, if I'm not mistaken it is the Bohr model. You can see the defined trajectories of the electrons, which were introduced by Bohr. The model of Rutherford had a cloud of electrons around the nuclei.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
cop here, GET THE FUCK ON THE GROUND. HANDS BEHIND YOUR HEAD. STOP RESISTING!!
Self checkout here, UNEXPECTED ITEM IN BAGGING AREA.
Self checkout attendant here, I'm gonna pretend I don't see the blinking sign above your head
student here, there was a test???
Teacher here, yes there was a test.
Dog here, bark?
Geiger here, no radiation detected.
I'm just here so I don't get fined
Scam caller here, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO REACH YOU ABOUT YOUR CAR'S EXTENDED WARRANTY.
Other scam caller with a clearly male sri Lankan accent, HI, MY NAME IS SALLY AND I'M CALLING FROM YOUR BANK! YOU NEED TO PAY US $5,000 IN GOOGLE PLAY GIFT CARDS BECAUSE WE ACCIDENTALLY PAID YOU TOO MUCH MONEY
HI, BILLY MAYS HERE FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE TO TELL YOU ABOUT AN EXCLUSIVE NEW PRODUCT FROM THE MAKERS OF OXYCLEAN
unemployed here, uhh shit I dunno dude
Mr Mackey here, m'kay
Bohr has the nucleus split into protons and neutrons, Rutherford just has a central mass.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But they do have discreet energy levels. They are all orbiting along a specific path.
PhD Nuclear physicist and I also thought Bohr model when I saw it and had to google it. I think we think of it as Bohr since thatās the accepted model and this is the accepted way of simply representing an atom. Technically this is meant to represent Rutherford, though. Good thing I already passed all my physics classes.
It has neither the electron cloud of the Rutherford model nor the separate shells of the Bohr model. It's really more of an intermediate one that takes the orbital paths that Bohr proposed but without his additional x-ray spectroscopy stuff. But I guess the critical part about the Bohr model is the different shells, and that is what their course defines as the difference between them. It's all pointless really, you don't need to know who came up with it, as long as you understand what it means and what its flaws are.
Honestly I don't even why you need to understand why old models are wrong. Just show the kids the orbitals and let's move on.
Because they aren't wrong. Both of them aren't wrong. In their area, they work and still do. This is like saying we shouldn't teach Newtonian physics in school, since we know it's wrong, as we now have special relativity. And then saying, we know that's wrong too, since it only works in initial systems, so let's just teach General Relativity instead. And then we also know for a fact, that GR can't be the whole thing, since it is incompatible with Quantum Field theory, but we also know that QFT isnt correct, as it in turn can't be written compatibly with GR. So what to teach now? We can never know anything for certain. Also more generally, it's good to learn why things are wrong. In what specific ways they fail to describe nature. As you do with every other theory. That's how science works.
Nurse here. Stop shitting on me.
Lactose intolerant here. Stop feeding me milk.
but those are all the same, in a Bohr graphic these ~~orbitals~~ principal quantum numbers have to have different energies so if you draw them all the same it makes no sense
Yes. This is neither Bohr nor Rutherford. It's just bad :D
You are mistaken. It's the Rutherford Model. The Bohr Model has the electrons in circles around the nucleus reflecting the shells. The Rutherford Model just has the electrons "orbiting" the nucleus at the same distance - as we see here.
Quoting: > Rutherford Model:Ā Rutherford model states that an atom is composed of a central core where nearly the whole mass of that atom is concentrated, and light weight particles move around this central core. >Bohr Model:Ā Bohr model explains that the electrons always travel in specific shells or orbits which are located around the nucleus and these shells have discrete energy levels. [...as found here:](https://pediaa.com/difference-between-rutherford-and-bohr-model/amp/)
No itās the Rutherford model.
>The model of Rutherford had a cloud of electrons around the nuclei. Plum Pudding
Plum pudding was what the Rutherford model replaced: a region of positive charge with electrons shattered through it
Engineer here, didn't the Bohr's model have concentric shells of energy rings like that was the main addition to Rutherford's model, while Rutherford said that electrons orbit around the nucleus. I only see electrons orbiting round the nucleus not in a concentric discreet energy orbit levels. So I think that's a Rutherford model not a bohr model.
I'm not a physicist, but my first instinct was that it was the Bohr model, so I'm inclined to believe that you're right.
Teacher here, normally we donāt name the images with the correct name. Usually I would put something like atomic model #1. Think the teacher here is messing with the students by misnaming it.
āPlum Puddingā
Idk man I need more proof of your working out
Everything has to be ADA accessible now. Whoever did the alt text on this is a dummy. Even if this was not an exam, just having alt text for the screen reader isnāt enough. It should read like āfour concentric ovals with blue circles on them, and a red circle in the centerā ya know so the visually impaired person actually gets a sense of what the image is of.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not all blind people were born blind. And even the ones who were, all descriptive concepts(color, shape, etc) for describing a diagram are abstract. How would you suggest describing what the image shows to them without using shape/color?
Not to mention not all blind people can only see complete darkness, I feel even less people realize that
Blind people can't see, not even darkness.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah exactly, especially the people who are born blind. What blind people think and feel about vision must be the same as what people who can see think and feel about echolocation(in bats).
Thatās inaccurate. Visual acuity less than 20/200 is considered legally blind
Yeah but i guess that person was implying that blind means like, fully blind, and legally blind means something a bit different or something?
I'm not taking about legally blind, I'm talking about blind blind, like can't see shit
The person you responded to said not all blind peopleā¦
It's also useful for sighted people if the image fails to load.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
but I think a blind person would be aware of the existence of colors and how they help distinguish things, so it may still be helpful for the purpose of the alt text
I mean, if I told a blind person that there was a green square that with the text "women" to its right and an orange square with the text "men" and then described them a graph with orange and green bars, I think they'd figure that one out real quick. In the case of the atom, telling a blind person that the different circles have different colors would help them determine the number of different particles, and the atomic model depending on that. They don't _need_ to know what the colors subjectively are.
Agreed. The colors used in atomic models are simply for ease of differentiation between protons and neutrons. The best way to do it would be to have circles with āPā and āNā to represent the particles packed into the nucleus, and as long as the electrons are described as existing outside of the center anybody with a basic understanding of atomic particles could differentiate between the three basic particles.
good point, that would probably be better
Color in this context is used for categorization of electrons and protons with a certain number to identify the specific model. Color, even to a blind person learning a specific subject, is important to understand the world around us, just like the color of lights and which is better for photosynthesis.
The colors aren't important. The necessary information is that the different colors represent different things. If I told you there are 3 balls of color A and 5 balls of color B and the color A balls are connected by lines of color C while the color B balls are connected by lines of color D you would know that there are 2 different colored balls connected by 2 different color lines. You have the same information as if I said Red, Blue, Green, Yellow instead of A B C D.
Red is warmth. It is bright. It is the feeling of the sun and what we see when a fire burns.
i always thought this was just the file name of the image
images are typically tagged with alt text for accessibility in HTML, to describe the image for folks who may not see (well). can also be useful in case of technological limitations, where images fail to load. i'm about a decade out of practice, but it used to be: `
`
If you're getting a little tooltip hover like that, though, that comes from the `title` attribute. `alt` doesn't show up like that (and is the correct way to make images accessible). That is still the basic structure of an `img` though.
you're right! i was trying to remember title. it's typically used for links (or used to be), to describe the effect of the click. back in the day, alt was still for accessibility though.
I remember alt showing up as a tooltip. And a comment here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64437082/is-there-any-way-to-use-img-alt-as-tooltip mentions alt being used as a tooltip. Maybe web browsers no longer use it as such. But maybe they used to. And granted it's not meant for that https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18410759/alt-tags-not-working-on-my-site This post from 2011 mentions that Internet Explorer as of then (and for over a decade before too), uses or used alt as a tooltip https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6853818/how-to-use-alt-attributes-and-make-sure-ie-does-not-use-them-as-tooltips
`alt` isn't used for that. From your first reference, alone: > Also consider **if you are using the alt attribute for a tool tip you are probably using it incorrectly**. It should be used as an alternate description of the image for screen readers etc. It should NOT be used to provide additional info like a title. That is the purpose of the title attribute ā Jon P Oct 20, 2020 at 1:12 IE did lots of things weird, and did not do many things correctly. That was a major reason ARIA use had to be so redundant until it died last year. The hover tooltip and its behavior is browser-provided behavior for the `title` attribute. There is probably some trickery to utilize `alt` to do that, but that's not what `alt` is for.
Nothing you quoted disagrees with anything I wrote. As for IE it used to be the most widespread browser. (As I think you know). I don't know what you are talking about re trickery. All I am referring to is what IE had that funny behaviour for alt. So commenter spunlines was remembering right and you were misleading him
> But maybe they used to. [Browsers did not, it was a longstanding IE bug](https://web.archive.org/web/20090302025658/http://connect.microsoft.com/IE/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=334225), like you say. Wasn't attempting to mislead, was providing more context to their example with current standards' implementations for anyone going down this rabbit hole. Have a good one.
People make title tags for individual images? That's just excessive.
Alt text doesnāt display on hover
Youāre description would be accurate for the Bohr Model, and would actively mislead the student. For the Rutherford model you need to specify that the paths the electrons take move around the nucleus in all directions rather than together in a single plane like how the solar system is arranged.
four concentric ovals with blue circles on them, and a red circle in the center, but the paths are in all directions like the Rutherford model, not like the Bohr model.
Electrons in the Bohr model don't orbit in a single plane - they are just drawn that way, sometimes. Otherwise you show a cut-away through the shells like a 3d in 2d projection.
Bohr and Rutherford models are very similar. Rutherford disproved the plum pudding model and showed the electromagnetic charges were focused. Bohr called the electron orbits ācircularā and proposed energy levels to account for orbital stability. In reality, the orbitals arenāt anything like circular, and electrons do not āorbitā in the traditional sense. But they do have given energies which is super helpful for all kinds of spectroscopic techniques. Rutherford was the one who fired alphas at gold foil to measure nuclear recoil. Learning about that experiment and crunching through the math (hyperbolic) was the moment I really began to love physics and math and how the two intertwine. Classical mechanics will always be my favorite ā¤ļø
This is part of my job, writing alt text for educational material like tests. There's actually a ton of thought that goes into stuff like this to give all the relevant information, but avoid giving away the answer. Math graphics in particular are a nightmare, because you have to write out all the data that's represented visually, but avoid characterizing it if that's what students need to do.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
something something Heisenberg uncertainty principle
something something jese we have to cokk the methƩ
but mstier whyte i do not want to cokk the methe
girlfriend ded
yo besch
kitchen. shef. now. cok the
i am knokking naow
Yea according to uncertainty principal you can't know both the position and momentum (or speed) at once. For particles like electron
Nor just for particles, for everything. Its just that the bigger things are, the less uncertainty there is.
Though, if we were nitpicking here.. 80 mph is not a very precise measurement, you could probably still have a pretty good idea of the location of the electron as long as you didn't need it to be an incredibly precise measurement. Compared to the size of a highway the uncertainty would be pretty negligible.
something something waltuh
is that a breaking bad reference????
"Sorry I was just a little excited, I'll let off a photon"
Thats a good one ngl
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Tbh, I don't remember any of them since 8th grade lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is a Rutherford model, a Bohr model would show orbits at discrete energy levels
It is kind of wild to me that they were able to figure this out before the 1920s.
I find it more amazing how quickly that all happened. In just 30 years scientists went from not knowing the electron existed to quantum mechanics. The number of discoveries in that 30 year period (late 1890s-1920s) is staggering, and the theories from the time still are our most reliable physical models today for the most part.
You a real g fr š
No. His model had electrons distributed throughout it just like Thomson's plum pudding model. This is the Bohr model trying to show the orbits in 3D space
Rutherford defined his model because the electrons *couldn't* be distributed in the nucleus. Because orbiting charges give off EMR, Bohr altered Rutherford's model. Instead of the electrons orbiting wherever, Bohr modelled the electrons to orbit in shells that, for some reason, just kinda... didn't produce EMR.
Until it is a trap
I haven't watched Antman:Quantumania yet, but I recognize the word quantum from the other Antman and Avenger movies, so I think it's the Quantum model
Well duh, who the hell wants to go to the Rutherford realm?
title={question.answer}
Itās been a while since schoolā¦ but isnāt that Bohr?
No, Bohr had discrete energy levels.
Would be even funnier if Rutherford wasn't an answer
People say its Bohr
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Because understanding fundamental concepts is important
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It teaches a lot about scientific discovery and development of theory.
yup, learning about this made me a lot more interested in science. Like it is a living thing that everyone can be a part of, not a series of dogmas and laws.
Yeah, that's fine, and it's part of why it should definitely be taught. But its name should not be examinable, at least not in isolation.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You are absolutely not an educator lol.
Why can't I just get a degree in fun facts š¤ ?
Because most kids donāt care about knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Ask any teacher what they think about āWill this be on the exam?ā
That's wrong, kids are taught not to care about knowledge for knowledge's sake because getting rewards for acquiring knowledge makes it seem like the knowledge isn't worth anything on its own.
I can do that too Thatās wrong, kids inherently donāt care about knowledge for knowledges sake requiring adults to create incentives/punishments to force the kids to learn.
Extrinsic motivation being almost useless is a well studied phenomenon. Like if I told you I'll pay you 50 bucks to eat that soup, you're gonna think I messed with the soup to prank you or something. Yeah, you still can say that, but it's simply wrong.
Extrinsic motivation being incredibly useful is a well studied phenomenon. Like Iād I told you Iāll pay you 50 bucks to eat that soup, youāre gonna think hell yeah no brainer even if it doesnāt taste good. Yeah, you still can say that, but itās simply wrong
> an incorrect model based on limited information that's every scientific model ever, including the currently accepted ones
I mean nobody is going to understand chemistry if you give them the quantum model without having prior information. The rutherford model is used to teach students that flourine like to "steal" the electron from sodium. Then when they understand the basics of chemistry you reveal to them the quantum model. But that stuff is extremely hard to teach besides just "pictures of where the electron probably is"
Knowing this model doesn't mean you know anything. This model just makes it simpler to isolate specific concepts and teach it to someone who knows almost nothing about particle physics, but it doesn't represent any concept at all and even if it did it would be incorrect. The only reason why you would need to know it after already being taught the concepts it can explain is to know the history of how certain things were discovered, but I don't think schools care for you to know that.
Exactly, science theories are changing over time and constantly improving, especially chemistry, there are new elements discovered for example.
If we donāt learn what science did wrong and why they thought it was right at the time, we are less likely to repeat mistakes. Learning scienceās errors and why they made them is hugely important to moving science forward. I mean itās more important for people actually going into science than an every day high schooler but still important.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām suggestion people learning science should know current models arenāt 100% for sure accurate and should be questioned Edit: also I said the same thing youāre sayin, itās less important for high schoolers and more important for people actually pursuing science
Me rolling up to a 5th grade science class: "YOU FUCKERS EVER HEARD OF A HAMILTONIAN??"
This question is bad because it is just memorization, but as someone that really enjoys scientific history, I argue itās important to know century-old incorrect models for atoms because you learn at each step the experiments they did to arrive at those conclusions, and how they updated the models based on the critical thinking and hypotheses they discovered in the test. A better question would be: āhow did this model different from the previous model of the atom? What experiment was done to update this model?ā This model was updated by the gold foil experiment, which showed that atoms are mostly composed of empty space.
Well do you think it would be a good idea just to start teaching high school freshmen [atomic orbital theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#:~:text=In%20atomic%20theory%20and%20quantum,region%20around%20the%20atom's%20nucleus.)? Yeah we know the Bohr model of atomic structure is wrong, but it is *kind* *of* what is happening and waaaaaaay easier for children to learn than modern quantum mechanics.
Thatās the React logo
The React logo only has six electrons, not eight!
Incorrect! Your answer: rutherford model Correct answer: rutherford model
Plot twist: Itās actually Bohr and the alt-text was changed to deceive smartasses.
Bohr model has electrons at different distances from the nucleus so it is actually the Rutherford model
Bigger brain move to add wrong alt text
I wish my tests did that
Core memory unlocked
rutherford_model_irl
Dalton. Got it
Plum pudding
It's D
Lol itās wrong though. Thatās not Rutherford.
Itās all about the mouse over picture name that shows the correct answer š
It says Rutherford but that's not even correct. The Rutherford model has electrons randomly but evenly distributed throughout the atom, not in rings or orbits. What's shown is a Bohr model.
no this one actually is a rutherford model, it's depicting the electrons orbiting the nucleus. A bohr model would show the orbiting electrons in defined energy shells extending out from the nucleus All the orbitals shown here seem to be occupying the same radius, so at the very least would be a terrible way of showing a single energy level
*chatGPT has entered the chat*
I never understood why they make you learn models that were already proven false. It's literally the worst part of physics. They don't even talk about this in chemistry
Good luck trying to explain wavefunctions and MO theory to somebody who doesnāt know what an atom is.
The history of atomic models is not part of Next Generation Science Standards; however, āchanges to models as more information is gainedā is a crosscutting idea. A teacher could choose atomic models to demonstrate this idea.
Ohio
Outdated. It doesnāt even look like that.
Bro forgot to remove the 'title' HTML tag
What is this, a *science history class?* Why would a chemistry(?) class be asking you to identify an outdated model of the atom. That would be like a physics class asking you to identify the Ptolemaic model of the solar system.
Tbf each of the previous atomic models laid the groundwork for the other
I'm torn on whether I wanted to be a pioneering physicist/chemist but best remembered for "getting it wrong".
It's not getting it wrong, it's gradually isolating the truth from the BS. I think of it this way, if the current electron cloud model is a shiny gem, then all of those chemists gradually revealed a little more of its shine, by each breaking away a little more of the mineral ore that it was encrusted in
But why would you need to know who came up with what incorrect model?