Continuing the mission to bring the Manhattan Project articles to Featured, I present one of the most famous physicists of all time: Niels Bohr. The Bohr model is what comes to mind when most people think of atoms. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Comments from Hamiltonstone
This is, on my brief initial view, an excellent article. But I want to query a threshhold issue:
I would invite a defence from Hawkeye of the extensive reliance on the 1991 Pais biography, when several more recent bios are available. I note in particular that at least three biographies post-date the release of the Heisenberg archive items, whereas Pais precedes it.
My starting point was Suspended in Language, and excellent and highly readable and entertaining account. But it's a graphic novel. In its notes, it provided a literature review. It recommended French and Kennedy (1985) ("No single volume gives a better overview"), and also Pais ("The most comprehensive book about Bohr"). So I picked up these at second-hand bookstores in Canberra. It did not recommend a more recent bio, and none is listed in the bibliography. Is there one that you would recommend? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to Pasachoff (2003) and Spangenburg and Moser (2008). Spangenburg postdates both Pais and suspended in language and although Pasachoff is 2003, it is unlikely that Ottaviani was aware of it prior to finalising a book released in 2004. That is, both of these would have postdated Ottaviani's ability to recommend texts. I have no knowledge of the material, i just have something of a reservation about relying too heavily on a 22y.o. source in a situation where a historically singificant release of documents is known to post-date it. That said, I note the National Library of Australia has neither of the more recent books yet does have Pais, which makes me wonder about the importance of the more recent ones in the field. I am also not familiar with the two publishing houses that released them... hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Well I am, and I do have a copy of Spangenburg and Moser. Got it for four bucks from Lifeline. These are books for younger readers. Pasachoff is for tweens, Spangenburg and Moser is for young adults. I have used the Makers of Modern Science Series for scientists where sources are scarce, but Spangenburg and Moser follow French and Kennedy, Pais and Moore. In the unlikely even that a tween asked me about Bohr, I would give her Ottaviani. However, there are two recent books, although neither is a full bio. Finn Aaserud and John Heilbron have produced Love, Literature and the Quantum Atom: Niels Bohr's 1913 Trilogy Revisited (2013), which I am currently reading, and Helge Kragh has produced Niels Bohr and the Quantum Atom: The Bohr Model of Atomic Structure 1913-1925 (2102).
Thanks for that, I am happy with that explanation. Probably passed you somewhere at the book fair :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
"pleaded to the Swedish king". I'm pretty sure one pleads "with" someone, not to them? SImilarly I thought one "gives" refuge rather than "allows" it.
I've restored the original lead, which got lost somehow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
"Bohr resigned his membership in the Lutheran Church on 16 April 1912, and he and Margrethe were married in a civil ceremony at the town hall in Slagelse on 1 August." This is rather cryptic in its meaning. The words are plain enough, but the reader immediately reacts by understanding that there was some connection between leaving the church and marrying in the civil ceremony. But problems arise. In my country at least, one does not need to leave a church in order to be married in a civil ceremony: why is there a connection? Was Margrethe of another faith? But if so, why is it not mentioned? Then there is the phrase "resigned his membership" of the church. Why? My experience is that people who don't want to go to church any more just... don't go to church. How or why did he "resign"?
No, Margrethe was also a Lutheran. Her family were pretty upset at the couple's decision not to get married in a church. His brother Harald resigned before getting married too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The Lutheran Church of Denmark is an established Church, which is supported by the taxpayers. Anyone who is christened (as Bohr was) becomes a member. You can resign your membership if you wish, but you still have to pay your taxes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
All interesting, but I guess I'm hoping the article can be edited to clarify some of these things. Given the location of the information about resigning membership, in the middle of text about the marriage, the clear implication is that his resignation was connected to the wedding somehow. I was hoping that answers to my queries might be clarified in the text, not just here at the discusion page. Otherwise looking excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
My sources all agree that the resignation and the wedding were related. The implication seems clear in the text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, i'm obviously not articulating what I mean. Let me try again. My main issue is: why is there a relationship between resigning membership and getting married? If we can't explain the meaning of the connection, then the text mystifies the reader. It isn't a problem with the grammar or anything like that - it is a lack of an explanation of why Bohr linked these things. My secondary issue is the concept of "resigning" from a church. Your explanation above indicates this is to do with it being an "established church". I was wondering if it was worth somehow explaining this, but maybe that is excessive detail, and people will have to click through to Church of Denmark where (I assume!) it is explained. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
"where he met with J. J. Thomson, of Trinity College, Cambridge, and the Cavendish Laboratory." Just so i haven't misunderstood, the syntax of this sentence is that he met with Thomson and with the Cavendish Lab (a group of people). If what is meant is that Thomson was a member of both Trinity and Cavendish, then the sentence needs tweaking.
yes, that is what is meant. Tweaked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
"One aspect, the idea of modelling atomic behaviour under incident electromagnetic radiation using "virtual oscillators" at the absorption and emission frequencies, rather than the (different) apparent frequencies of the Bohr orbits, led Max Born, Werner Heisenberg and Kramers to explore mathematics that strongly inspired the subsequent development of matrix mechanics, the first form of modern quantum mechanics." Argh. First of all a para should not being by referring to "one aspect" of a thing from a previous para without stating what the thing is. Apart from that, the sentence is complex in structure making it challenging, even though I do not dispute its grammatical precision. Split it into at least two, and begin it with something like "One aspect of the BKS theory..."
"However, the most provocative element, that momentum and energy would not necessarily be conserved in each interaction but only overall, statistically,..." I think i got this, but the use of "statistically" as a one word subordinate clause is pretty weird. What about simply stating: "However, the most provocative element, that momentum and energy would not necessarily be conserved in each interaction but only overall,..."
Reworded. The is the real crux of the debate. Problem: the numbers don't add up. Solution no. 1: Add in a fudge factor (Pauli and Fermi). Solution no. 2: Say that the numbers don't always add up. (Bohr and Kramers). Okay, we know Fermi was right. But his neutrino was a particle of negligible mass that is unaffected by gravity and electromagnetism and therefore will travel through the Earth like a bullet through a fog. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
"...that Bohr was influenced by Kierkegaard via Høffding, who was strongly influenced by Kierkegaard." Is there a way of rephrasing this to avoid the rapid repetition of the philosopher's name?
Dropped the subordinate clause. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
"that items could be separately analysed as having several contradictory properties, such as a wave or a stream of particles depending on the experimental framework – two apparently mutually exclusive properties – on the basis of this principle". Something is wrong with the grammar here - the material from the dash onwards doesn't seem to match the preceding sentence structure.
that items could have apparently mutually exclusive properties, such as being a wave or a stream of particles, depending on the experimental frameworkHawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
For an article with such extensive notes and resources (ELs, Bohr's own writings etc) I would query the appropriateness of a 'further reading' section that includes biographies of Bohr that have not been cited at all in the text. Either 'use them or lose them' would probably be my inclination.
Agree with much of what Hamiltonstone says above. I can't currently support as there are too many minor errors (we don't capitalise elements, it should be "Niels's", not "Niel's" for the possessive). That is easy to copy-edit out. The point about the sources is a more serious one. I am sitting on the fence for now. John (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I cannot find a single occurrence of either of these flaws. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to find flaws in your own work, isn't it? "...where me is the electron's mass, e is its charge, h is Planck's constant and Z is the atom's atomic number (which is 1 for Hydrogen)" is one, and "His other sons were Hans Henrik, a physician; Erik, a chemical engineer; and Ernest, a lawyer, who, like Niel's brother Harald, became an Olympic athlete, and played field hockey for Denmark at the 1948 Summer Olympics in London." is the other. There are a bunch of silly errors like this and collectively they fail the article on prose at the moment; of course they can easily be fixed. The sources question needs more thought though. --John (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Question: I've thoroughly read and copy-edited the article and am much happier with it now. Can I query the spelling and capitalisation of "privatdocent"? Is this correct in the sources? --John (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
It matches the spelling and capitalisation in Pais, p. 135, which is the source, and is correct. See the Danish wikipedia entry for more details. Should it be italicised as a foreign word? Left a message on Wikidata about the inter-wiki links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if we need 21 entries in the "Known for" section of the infobox? --John (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduced to the most significant twelve. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Nice one. It is looking great and I am almost ready to support. --John (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Support A great article, it just had a few rough edges which have now been cleaned up. Good work. --John (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I have performed a thorough copy edit of the entire article. I have to say, I found very few actual errors – fewer than many successful FACs, in fact. I did find several places, however, where I thought a rewording would be useful to make the text read more smoothly. (For instance, I changed "Now known as the Niels Bohr Institute, it opened its doors on 3 March 1921, with Bohr as its director and his family moving into an apartment on the first floor" ever so slightly to "Now known as the Niels Bohr Institute, it opened its doors on 3 March 1921 with Bohr as its director. His family moved into an apartment on the first floor." Some of these are matters of opinion. Hawkeye7, please review my changes and undo any that introduce any errors (or if you just don't like the style).
I'm very happy with your edits. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Consider this sentence in the lead: "He predicted the existence of a new zirconium-like element, which was named hafnium, after Copenhagen, when it was discovered." It's quite unintuitive that Hafnia is a name for Copenhagen, and it would introduce so much grammatical complexity to the sentence to describe the relationship. I think it would be better to simply say "He predicted the existence of a new zirconium-like element, which was named hafnium when it was discovered." The rest is described perfectly well in the body of the article.
Changed to: "which was named hafnium, after the Latin name for Copenhagen, where it was discovered". Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Good enough. – Quadell(talk) 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
"He went beyond the original task, incorporating improvements into both the theory and the method". I don't know what theory and method you mean. Could you reword? The original task was to "investigate a method for measuring" things. So do you mean this? "He went beyond the original task, improving the existing theory of surface tension measurement and incorporating such improvements into the methods he used." Or something else?
The original task was to "investigate a method for measuring the surface tension of liquids that had been proposed by Lord Rayleigh in 1879". (Looks up what this involved in Pais.) incorporating improvements into both Rayleigh's theory and his method.Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Much clearer, thanks. – Quadell(talk) 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Consider this complex sentence: "The idea of modelling atomic behaviour under incident electromagnetic radiation using "virtual oscillators" at the absorption and emission frequencies, rather than the (different) apparent frequencies of the Bohr orbits, led Max Born, Werner Heisenberg and Kramers to explore mathematics that strongly inspired the subsequent development of matrix mechanics, the first form of modern quantum mechanics." This needs to be split into at least two sentences, though I don't understand the concepts well enough to divide the sentence myself.
Split into two sentences. The problem is that the readers learned all about matrices in primary school, and are likely quite familiar with the determinant. Whereas at the time many physicists thought that Born was just out to bamboozle them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Consider: "Bohr pointed out that he had concerns about the interaction between the electron and the magnetic field." I find myself wondering: which electron, and which magnetic field? Would it be accurate to say "about the interaction between electrons and magnetic fields"?
One of the paragraphs of the Quantum Mechanics section ends with the direct quote "Shortly before his death [Bohr] complained that no professional philosopher had ever understood his doctrine of complementarity." The quote isn't attributed in text, but just in a footnote. I don't see the reason for a direct quote here, and I think rewording it in your own words would be preferable.
Note: this is the only remaining problem with the nomination, in my estimation. – Quadell(talk) 19:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Paraphrased the quote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
When you say "the phenomenon of beta decay once again had Bohr suggesting that the law of conservation of energy be abandoned", do you mean that Bohr had previously suggested we abandon the law of conservation of energy? The text doesn't mention that. (Either way, the sentence could use to be reworded.)
Yes it does. Back when I was talking about BKS. The most provocative element of BKS – that momentum and energy would not necessarily be conserved in each interaction, but only statisticallyHawkeye7 (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I'd missed that. I reworded the sentence in a minor way. – Quadell(talk) 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
It is a bit brief. I will have a go at expanding it. I'm not entirely confident (1) whether I understand it (2) whether Bohr understood it or (3) whether anyone understands it at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
You quote Bohr in a letter saying that he read Kierkegaard, and loved it. Do you really need to say "It is generally accepted that Bohr read Søren Kierkegaard"? You give reasons to doubt that Kierkegaard's philosophy influenced Bohr to a great extent, but is there reason to doubt that he read Kierkegaard? If not, I would drop the first sentence and start the paragraph with "Richard Rhodes argued in The Making of the Atomic Bomb that Bohr was influenced by Kierkegaard, the 19th-century Danish Christian existentialist philosopher, through Høffding."
In the "Philosophy" section, the second paragraph ends with an explanation (oversimplified, I'm sure) of Bohr's disagreements with Kierkegaard. That sentence should probably be at the end of the first paragraph of "Philosophy". In fact, I think it would flow best to end the first paragraph simply with "he had some disagreement with Kierkegaard's philosophy, mostly resulting from Bohr's atheism."
It doesn't appear so. The "Christian existentialist philosopher" issue is resolved, and the "generally accepted" issue is at least partly resolved (and is probably good enough now), but the location of the atheism explanation is not changed. – Quadell(talk) 12:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
It's much improved now. I still feel like the prose in that section could be improved, but I don't think it's an impediment to FA status. – Quadell(talk) 19:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Does the fact that Bohr was an atheist really merit five references? That's a bit of overkill.
Reduced to three. For some reason, many wikipedians regard this as a touchy subject. ("There is no God, and Dirac is His prophet") Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Fine now. (I had not heard that about Dirac. That's very funny.) – Quadell(talk) 12:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
In the "Meeting with Heisenberg" section, Supek alone claimed (based on his recollection of Bohr's wife's private statements) that von Weizsäcker was "the main character" of the discussion. I can't tell whether he's saying that von Weizsäcker was there, or simply that he was the main topic, or that he had instigated the conversation. That claim is not backed by Mrs. Bohr's memoirs, nor by Heisenberg's letter to Jungk, nor by Bohr's unsent letter. Is it really worth a mention?
Von Weizsäcker was in Copenhagen. Consensus among historians is that it makes more sense than Heisenberg's version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Really? That whole incident is very strange. Regardless, I don't suppose further changes are needed. – Quadell(talk) 12:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The phrase "the conversation went wrong" feels too casual to me, but I confess I can't think of a better wording. Can you?
When you say "Sweden's willingness to provide asylum", it isn't clear if you mean "to Bohr alone" or "to all Jews" or "to anyone who wants to flee German-controlled territory".
Corrected. Warning: This is a very touchy subject in both Denmark and Sweden. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand. I still feel like when you say "The next day, Bohr persuaded King Gustav V of Sweden to make public Sweden's willingness to provide asylum", it sounds like you mean "to himself." But the next sentence makes it clear enough that I'm not going to hold up the nomination on this point. – Quadell(talk) 19:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I've tweaked the wording to avoid giving this impression. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The sentence beginning "Historians are divided..." feels like it is preemptively heading off a challenge, and I think it could be worded better. I want to be careful here, since I haven't read the sources. But would the following wording be an accurate way to state the various historical views? (This would replace the entire sentence that currently begins "Historians are divided":
Some historians claim that Bohr's actions led directly to the mass rescue; others claim that, though Bohr did all that he could for his countrymen, his actions were not a decisive event in the rescue.
File:Niels_Bohr_Albert_Einstein_by_Ehrenfest.jpg needs US PD tag
I have fixed this. – Quadell(talk) 20:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't determine that it's PD in the U.S. I see that it has been removed from the article. – Quadell(talk) 15:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Solvay1933Large.jpg: licensing tag indicates author is anonymous, and yet an author is named in the description?
The author is not anonymous; the author is Benjamin Couprie, whose year of death is not known. I suspect we can't see the source right now because of the U.S. government shutdown. I can't determine the copyright status of this image. However, Bohr was also at the 1927 Solvay conference, and the picture of that previous meeting File:Solvay conference 1927.jpg has been confirmed to have been published in Belgium in 1927, certifying that it is PD. (It is also a featured image on the Commons.) Could it be used instead? – Quadell(talk) 20:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I see that it has been replaced. – Quadell(talk) 15:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Assistens_Kirkegård_Niels_Bohr.jpg: given that Denmark does not have freedom of panorama for non-buildings, what is the copyright status of the stonework? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Denmark does have Freedom of Panorama, at least for buildings. Added a tag. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, for buildings it does. But this image will probably be deleted as a derivative work of the sculptor Willumsen's copyright. It should be removed from the article. – Quadell(talk) 20:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Help! Don't know what to do about the middle two images. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
For the first, do we know if/when it was published in the US? If it was, the date will decide what tag is appropriate; if it wasn't, it's probably not free. For the second, I can't see the cited source - is the author attribution correct? If so, life+70 for EU, and refer to previous image regarding US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "the first" and "the second". – Quadell(talk) 20:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hawkeye said he didn't know what to do with the middle two - that's what first and second was referring to. Incidentally, your fix on the first of those (File:Niels_Bohr_Albert_Einstein_by_Ehrenfest.jpg) does not appear to be correct - the tag you added is typically used for pre-1923 publications, which this is not. Can you explain your usage? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's see, the photo was created in 1925 in Holland, and the photographer (a Dutch citizen) died in 1933. The source seems to be an expired link, and I don't know the publication history. If it was an unpublished private photograph (or if it was not published until 2003 or later), then it would be considered PD in the U.S. since the author died more than 70 years ago. If it was first published in the U.S., it would have to have been registered and renewed according to U.S. copyright law in order to still be under copyright, but that possibility seems remote. Are you thinking of URAA issues? – Quadell(talk) 20:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Potentially, as we're missing date and place of first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I need to be more careful. I changed the licensing information. The image has been removed. – Quadell(talk) 15:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Can someone check the two new images? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
FN63: publisher? Also, from what I can tell, Register would have been at most a master's student at that time - what makes this a high-quality source?
Looks okay to me, but I can source from elsewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations, and if so whether states are abbreviated
Check alphabetization of References and of Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
"He conceived the principle": Definition 5 of "conceive" in the SOED could be said to support this, but it's a bit poetic; personally, I'd insert an "of" or use a different verb.
a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Of course that would be considered socialist and un-American today, but it is a good use of "conceived". I can't imagine using "of" with "conceived"; although dictionary.com says you can, it doesn't give an example. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
If anyone is following my notes, I made this suggestion, then deleted it when I considered that "conceiving a principle" isn't so far off from "conceiving a notion of" (which is fine). - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
"The other four went on to lead successful lives.": I don't have any problem with this sentence per se, but I have a problem with the interpretation that some will put on it: that the sons weren't ditch-diggers. But who are they to judge whether a ditch-digger has a "successful life"? Not much would be lost by simply omitting this sentence, since you list their professions, unless the sources were saying something more, that they were all "celebrated" ... in which case, I'd be curious to know more.
What I'm actually saying is that in Wikipedia terms, they are notable. Hans became a professor of medicine and pioneered the development of tetracyclin. Erik became the Danish ambassador to Britain. They don't have articles on the English wikipedia, but they do on the Danish Wikipedia. Aage does, and I created the one on Ernest, an Olympian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
"model, and Bohr received an invitation to conduct post-doctoral work at Manchester. As a post-doctoral student there, Bohr met ... and was intrigued by a paper by Darwin on electrons.": We could lose some repetition here, if you like: "model. Bohr received an invitation to conduct post-doctoral work at Manchester, where he met ... who wrote a paper on electrons that intrigued Bohr."
Done, and moved the bit about Darwin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
"he became a privatdocent at the University of Copenhagen and gave lectures on": SOED italicizes privatdocent. Also, when many readers won't know what the word means, a participle often works a little better than "and": ", giving lectures on". If you say someone was one thing and did something else, it doesn't necessarily mean that one has anything to do with the other; the participle suggests (mildly) that they're related ... not a lot, but it's "at least a clue", as recommended by WP:Checklist#clarity. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
"He had a serious car crash, and was killed" (He was attacked by a bear while walking home.) I did ask above if they should be italicised. I think people like me were hung up on the spelling, which differs from the German. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
"lektor": I have no objection to the foreign spelling, but it's not in SOED or other dictionaries that way, so italicize it if you keep that spelling.
"He felt that that complementarity": I'd probably go with "He felt that this principle". (But then in the next sentence, to avoid repetition, I'd go with "and Bohr embraced it", or something similar.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Comments of Fowler&fowler: I am a big fan of Niels Bohr. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to offer detailed criticism in the manner above. Instead, in the next five or ten minutes, I will tweak the lead a little, and you can take or leave what you want. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've tweaked it a bit. I wish you luck. I may come back and take a look at the rest of the article some other time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I moved the Copley Medal into the Infobox. Restored the original wording about Denmark being occupied, which occurred without any fighting, and the text about his escaping arrest. Changed the wording about CERN as I did not wish to imply that he wanted it in Geneva rather than Copenhagen. The bit about him being a philosopher was the result of considerable haggling earlier on; originally it also said that he was a footballer. I was not sure about the bit about the Rutherford-Bohr Model. The article does not go into detail about the Rutherford Model. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The descriptions of both the Bohr Model and the Principle of Complementarity are highly inaccurate. Will come back and pick my way through the rest of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You say, "Bohr developed the Bohr model of the atom with the atomic nucleus at the centre and electrons around it" That was already known. It is Rutherford's model. Besides, what does "with the electrons around it" mean? Revolving around it? Fixed in space around it? You go on, "which he compared to the planets orbiting the Sun." OK, but that is not Bohr's model. Bohr's model, after all allows changes of energy levels. Planets aren't allowed that. You say next, "He helped develop quantum mechanics, in which electrons move from one energy level to another in discrete steps, instead of continuously." There are a number of problems:
It sound like the Bohr model and the quantum mechanics are separate; in fact, Bohr was the first to apply (pre-existing) quantum theory, (not "mechanics") to model atomic structure. All the previous models had used classical mechanics. That was his great contribution.
The electrons don't move from one energy level to another in discrete steps (sort of like jumping up the rungs of the ladder from the first floor to the second); the energy levels are themselves discrete; the electrons jump directly from the first floor to the second without a ladder.
Why do you mention "continuously," if that notion wasn't already around (i.e. in Rutherford's model)?
I am suggesting my version, "Bohr radically changed the existing Rutherford model of the atom, in which electrons revolve(d) around a central atomic nucleus in continuously changing paths. Instead, in the Bohr model, he proposed that energy levels of the electrons, each associated with an orbit, are discrete, that electrons revolve in stable orbits around the nucleus, akin to planets around the sun, except when they jump from one energy level (or orbit) to another. Although the Bohr model has been supplanted by other models, its underlying quantum theory remains valid." (sorry it should have been "revolved") is not only more accurate but also cleaner. It can be tweaked some more, but it is important to point out that in Rutherford's model (and in a number of other contemporaneous models) electrons could spiral inward or outward relative to the nucleus. After Bohr, we know that can't happen. Rutherford is essential to Bohr, who, after all, was Rutherford's post-doc of sorts at Cambridge. I'll get to the other issues later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
PS, Here, btw, is Britannica's description of the "Bohr atomic model" which is very similar to mine: "The Bohr model of the atom, a radical departure from earlier, classical descriptions, was the first that incorporated quantum theory and was the predecessor of wholly quantum-mechanical models. The Bohr model and all of its successors describe the properties of atomic electrons in terms of a set of allowed (possible) values. Atoms absorb or emit radiation only when the electrons abruptly jump between allowed, or stationary, states." And, yes, you should definitely mention the emitted photon in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
You say in the lead sentence: "was a Danish physicist who made foundational contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922." Nope. He didn't make contributions to "quantum mechanics". He couldn't have received the Nobel for it in 1922, because QM was invented after 1922 by Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Born, and others. But mainly what does the sentence convey in concrete terms? Nothing. Contrast that with what I wrote (and I made a mistake, by not changing your "mechanics" to "theory"): "was a Danish physicist who was the first to apply quantum theory to the study of atomic structure. A key figure of early 20th century physics, he received the Nobel Prize in 1922." That tells you something concrete about what he did. Again, Bohr's only brush with quantum mechanics came later in the late 1920s, but his fundamental work was the application of "quantum theory." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
That sounds very reasonable. I've re-worded it to
Bohr developed the Bohr model of the atom, in which he proposed that energy levels of electrons are discrete, and that they revolve in discrete, stable orbits around the atomic nucleus, akin to planets around the sun, except that they can jump from one energy level (or orbit) to another. Although the Bohr model has been supplanted by other models, its underlying principles remain valid.
I'm hesitant to describe this as a radical departure from what Haas, Lorentz, Nicholson and Darwin were saying. The point is that Bohr was able to explain it and tie it all together so nicely. He received his Nobel Prize "for his services in the investigation of the structure of atoms and of the radiation emanating from them". I took the last bit to mean the old quantum theory. Let me know if you disagree on this point. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I've looked at the two crucial sections: Bohr model and Complementarity. You've clearly done a lot of good work on the article, but those two sections are weak. As a mathematically sophisticated reader (who already knows about Bohr's work), I'm unable to understand the physics they purport to convey. So, I'm not hopeful that the average reader will understand much (beyond the gossip). I can help you with them, but I'll be out of town this coming week. If you can wait until next Monday, I'll attempt to clarify the physics of those sections. Sorry, but if the physics sounds undigested, in an article about a physicist, the article doesn't look good. More in a week. I hope you understand. I am trying to help you, even if I sometime sound brusque. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
As for your remark above about quantum theory, yes, Bohr contributed to it, but it was already around (after Planck and Einstein). I think the important thing in a lead sentence is to state the scientist's main contribution, not what he got the Nobel prize for. The Nobel committee is traditionally conservative in its prize citations (Einstein, 15 years after the special theory, five after the general, and even after Eddington's experimental verification during the total solar eclipse in Antarctica in 1919), received the prize for the photoelectric effect and services to physics.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Einstein got his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect - quantum. It's true that Planck and Einstein had already introduced quantum. Bohr was the one who used it to explain atomic structure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I am specifically opposing on FA criteria 1(b), (c) and 2(a). Consider the statement on complementarity (which was Bohr's main contribution to quantum mehanics) in the quantum mechanics section, " that items could have apparently mutually exclusive properties, such as being a wave or a stream of particles, depending on the experimental framework." Now look at the statement about complementarity in the lead: "that items could be separately analysed in terms of contradictory properties, like behaving as a wave or a stream of particles." They are about the same length. You would expect the Quantum Mechanics section to have a detailed explanation of complementarity; instead it is mostly about who said what to whom. The same is more or less true for the Bohr model section. There are two mathematical formulas. The goal apparently is to show that by deriving the second Bohr provided an explanation for the first. But other than mentioning that fact, nothing is said why the second formula provides the underlying explanation for the first. It is not even explained what n is in Balmer's formula. These two sections will require a major rewrite. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
@delegate: Please ensure that the nomination is closed on or before 31 October 2013. Thank you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
@delegate: Why should it be closed before 31 October 2013? If the principle author has regurgitated undigested physics in the two crucial sections in the article and has mostly gossip in the remaining (and I say that as someone who knows a thing or two about mathematics and mathematical physics (see who wrote it)), doesn't seem to know the difference between quantum theory and quantum mechanics, has a lead that is shabby by college physics standards (let alone encyclopedic standards), what rule says a nomination has to be closed 3 weeks after it began? Hawkeye7, please don't play hardball with me. Like I said, I'm trying to help you with the article. (Delegate: I'm happy to have an independent expert evaluation of the article.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I assume when you ask that the FAC be closed on or before 31 October, you're in effect saying that if consensus to promote hasn't been reached by then that you'd like to withdraw it?
No, we already have consensus to promote. The issue is only whether "actionable objections have not been resolved". There are none at present; simply saying that the work of many editors is "shabby" and "unencyclopaedic" does not constitute an actionable objection. If it is going to be promoted then I would prefer that it be promoted before 31 October; but if not then it should be withdrawn as soon as possible. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed those comments aren't helpful -- more the opposite, as I've noted below -- but the specific objections further above appear to deserve a response at the very least, and possibly action, so let's not get ahead of ourselves re. finding consensus, which doesn't follow a predetermined schedule. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Your comment just above goes beyond "brusque" -- it appears to from the earlier threads that Hawkeye has shown willingness to work with you on altering the article, so if you truly wish to help then please drop the cheap insults and stick to the specifics.
I believe Hawkeye and Fowler are misunderstanding each other. Fowler, Hawkeye is currently 3rd in the final round of the Wikicup, which closes October 31. He has a long, long list of A-class articles that haven't made it through FAC yet because "heavy" articles tend to take a while at FAC, and I know that's frustrating. It's worse when someone says that they need substantial changes to the article, but they don't plan on telling him what those changes are until close to the Wikicup deadline. Hawkeye, I don't think Fowler is being arbitrary, I believe the criticisms are (as far as I remember from my dusty college days) accurate. I don't think we need to wait a week to get started; there are a lot of people at WP:PHYSICS who would be more than happy to help; I can leave a request if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 01:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikicup should not be unduly influencing reviews one way or the other -- BTW, why isn't this labelled as an entry? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
It is normally labelled as such by the UcuchaBot. You should verify that the bot is running. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Mmm, it's doing its usual tasks of highlighting TFAs at WP:FA and moving the old noms marker at WP:FAC, odd that this routine's not working... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Message from Fowler and Fowler:
(I'm having a hard time connecting to the internet. I'm emailing this to my family. Someone there will post it to WP. I will be off Wikipedia until late Sunday night or early Monday morning.)
I didn't know anything about the Wiki trophy and Hawkeye7 did not tell me anything about it. I was assuming that the article had been submitted to FAC because 2013 is the hundredth anniversary of Bohr's famous trilogy (of papers in which he described the Bohr model, the third of which was published in November 1913). That, as far as I'm concerned, is the more important deadline. Anyway, I understand that Hawkeye7 needs his points. I suppose there are two ways to do this:
1) You can promote the article now, as long as I'm allowed to edit the physics sections (Bohr's model, Quantum mechanics) after my return and WP:OWN#Featured_article is not invoked at every step of my way.
2)If that is not agreeable to the delegates, and someone from the physics project is willing to help, it would be great. Here is what needs to be described in the Bohr's model section.
A) The background to Bohr's model. It doesn't have to be long, but it is needs to be touched upon to place Bohr's model in context and also to make the connection between Bohr's thesis and why he chose to go to Cambridge and then Manchester:
There was a long tradition of atom model building, especially in Britain, for a half century before the discovery of the electron by JJ Thomson in 1897. These models included astronomical or solar system models, which Rutherford and Bohr drew upon. (They didn't invent something out of the blue.
Thomson was a classical physicist trained in the late 19th century tradition. In his model, the so-called "plum pudding model," published rigorously in 1904, an atom was a sphere filled with positively charged ether (a theoretical physics "fluid" permeating the universe, not the contents of the surgeon's bottle) inside which negatively charged electrons rotated in various stable polygonal configuration. Thomson's model was the widely accepted model during the period 1904 to 1910. Final experimental death blow was dealt by Rutherford.
In 1911, Rutherford (who had been primarily interested in radioactivity, for which he received the Nobel in Chemistry in 1908), noticed (or people in his lab did) that when beams of positively charged small alpha particles were directed at metal sheets, some
particles were deflected by the heavy metal atoms by large angles (>90 degrees). This couldn't happen if the positive charge was uniformly distributed through the ether (a la Thomson) and thus not strong enough at any one point, or line, to repel. Rutherford posited a high positive charge and mass at the central nucleus with electrons rotating around it (in the manner of the 19th century astronomical models). However, classical electrostatics and dynamics (inverese square law) implied that this system would not be stable, leading the electrons to spiral inwards.
B) For someone who clearly understands the physics, the development of the Bohr model (1912 to 1913) is described in great detail in:
Kragh, Helge (2012), Niels Bohr and the Quantum Atom: The Bohr Model of Atomic Structure 1913-1925, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN978-0-19-965498-7
Mehra, Jagdish; Rechenberg, Helmut (2001), The Historical Development of Quantum Theory: The Quantum Theory of Plank, Einstein, Bohr, and Sommerfeld, Its Foundations and the Rise of its Difficulties 1900–1925, Heidelberg and New York: Springer, ISBN978-0-387-95174-4
Nye, Mary Jo (1999), Before Big Science: The Pursuit of Modern Chemistry and Physics, 1800-1940, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, ISBN978-0-674-06382-2
Otherwise, they could use the mathematical appendix of John Polkinghorne's Quantum World or Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Polkinghorne niceley describes Bohrs innovation and how he was able to derive Balmer's forumula. (Seriously, you could even use George Gamow's Mr. Tomkins explores the atom (Cambridge), which I read in high-school, which has great intuition into quantum theory.)
C) The Quantum Mechanics and Complementarity: The complemantarity material is trickier and I'll get to that upon my return. If someone understands it, here is a useful book, but just quoting out of it will defeat the purpose: they could use: Plotnitsky, Arkady (2013), Niels Bohr and Complementarity: An Introduction, New York, NY; Heidelberg: Springer, ISBN978-1-4614-4517-3 if they have access to it.
Anyway, the main thing for me is that the article is strangely disconnected; it has a sequence of facts, but no intuitive connections and coherence to grab the reader and to communicate Bohr's achievement. Niels Bohr was primarily a great theoretical physicist. The article has as much space devoted to Bohr's two years during WWII (1943-45), as it does to Bohr's great period of creativity 1910 to 1930. (I do understand that this last objection (or regret) is not "actionable," but actionable is a relative concept, what is not actionable for someone might be very actionable for someone else.)
Fowler and Fowler 02:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
PS Portion left out by mistake from email (I think this might end of section A ): Whether the other models of Nagaoka, Haas, Nicholson etc are touched upon or not, this section will require a description of Darwin's alpha particle absorption paper which too was based on Rutherford's nucleus model and how Bohr's disagreement with it led to his breakthrough. For absorption (in contrast to scattering), it was the electrons which were important. But in Darwins (and Rutherford's model, the electrons were free). Bohr's objected that the slowing down of alpha particles would depend on the motion of the electrons, and they needed to be held to the nucleus by an elastic force. This led him to impose the quantum jump frequency condition. Fowler and Fowler 04:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is the 100th Anniversary of the Trilogy. Unfortunately, TFA is currently taking bids for 11 November through 11 December, so November is slipping away. Obviously it would have been better to have submitted the article earlier, but this wasn't possible in July, as I wanted to get a couple of books (including Kragh) that came out for the 100th. And I never imagined that an article submitted at the start of August would take until October to get through. Now it is going to be tough getting a slot in 2013 at all. :( Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Message from Fowler&Fowler. I am offering my support. Delegates please promote. This is a once in a century event, and with the exception of some hardy Greek islanders, none of us are likely to be around for the next one. Hawkeye, please reserve Thanksgiving (Nov 28) for Bohr. That will give us some time to tweak the fine details and have something to be thankful for. Fowler and Fowler Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)