4 ms·

I learned the wrong physics like the atom model for years and aren't using any of that knowledge. Well, it is wrong anyway. Luckily, I don't have crippling stu

• pknomad 5y ago
  > I learned the wrong physics like the atom model for years and aren't using any of that knowledge. To be fair - this is fairly common for most subjects and models are exactly that: models. I think of them as precise-enough framework to help an introductory learners to wrap their minds around the topic. In biology we teach the structure of the cell (golgi, nuclei, etc) in introductory classes and students are typically left with the impression that ALL cells are like this. It hit me that not all cells are like this when I took embryology :)
  • ergocoder 5y ago
    > To be fair - this is fairly common for most subjects and models are exactly that: models. At least, I would have expected the model to be either right or useful. Neil Bohr's atom model is neither.
    • captainredbeard 5y ago
      > Neil Bohr's atom model is neither. It enables stoichiometry, at least...
    • pknomad 5y ago
      It's just a simplified model. It's often used for teaching the context of chemistry (1900s?) and is used as a stepping stone for teaching orbitals and energy states so I think it's a useful tool for pedagogy at the very least :)
• lenkite 5y ago
  What is the "right" physics model ?