Textbook myths about early atomic models

TL;DR

This paper critically examines inaccuracies in textbook histories of early atomic models, revealing significant distortions and omissions that misrepresent the true scientific developments leading to quantum physics.

Contribution

It highlights the discrepancies between textbook narratives and historical facts about early atomic models, advocating for more accurate science education.

Findings

Textbooks misrepresent Thomson's atomic model

Rutherford's atomic model is inaccurately portrayed

The textbook history omits key scientific details

Abstract

Most physics textbooks at college and university level introduce quantum physics in a historical context. However, the textbook version of this history does not match the actual history. In this article, the first in a series of articles looking at the textbook description of the quantum history, we follow an exceptional student through her endeavors to understand the early atomic models that led up to the work of Niels Bohr. We experience her disappointment when she discovers that the description of the famous atomic model by Thomson, is a mere caricature with almost no trace of Thomson's work and that the supposedly important radiative instability of Rutherford's atoms, is not there at all; how could it be? Rutherford did not even discuss the motion of the electrons. These flaws in the narrative are not just cosmetic inaccuracies, the main narrative is centered around claims that are simply wrong or non-existent in the real story and thus rendering the whole telling mere fiction. We as a physics community should do better.