Talk:Ernest Rutherford

• Change "as a New Zealand-born British physicist who came to be known as the father of nuclear physics" to "as a New Zealand physicist who came to be known as the father of nuclear physics" (Jan 2022)
• "Edit war" over nationality (July 2008)

Discovery of protons and neutrons

Presently, the article states that Rutherford's discovery of the proton ("hydrogen atom") occurred during his time at Cambridge. This page, however, states that this work was performed while at Manchester. It seems to me that the research may have begun at one institution and ended at another. I'm having a hard time deliberating as to how this discrepancy may be noted concisely and whether it is significant to the validity and structure of the article. Doughbo (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Edmund Whittaker starts his Vol II<ref name="Whittaker 1989 p.87">{{cite book | last=Whittaker | first=Sir Edmund | title=A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity | publisher=Courier Dover Publications | date=1989-01-01 | isbn=0-486-26126-3 | volume=2 | page=87}}</ref> with a chapter called "The Age of Rutherford".

He says that Rutherford published his idea that the "positive electron" was the "hydrogen atom" 1913-1914 and references the original articles.

Indeed we can read:

Rutherford, Ernest. "The structure of the atom." Philosophical Magazine 27 (1914): 488-498.

http://www.ub.edu/hcub/hfq/sites/default/files/ruth1914%285%29.pdf

It is well known from the experiments of Sir J. J. Thom- son and others, that no positively charged carrier has been observed of mass less than that of the hydrogen atom. The exceedingly small dimensions found for the hydrogen nucleus add weight to the suggestion that the hydrogen nucleus is the positive electron, and that its mass is entirely electro- magnetic in origin.

Therefore the concept that linked the hydrogen nucleus to the unit positive charge dates from 1914. From 1914-1918 Whittaker states that Rutherford was involved in WWI issues. In early 1919 he did a series of experiments pinning down the earlier "suggestion". In particular he showed that particles ejected by alpha particles colliding with hydrogen have unit charge and 1/4 the momentum of alpha particles.

The abstract of one of the key papers is available here:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786440608635917?journalCode=tphm17

In Summer of 1919 he moved to Cambridge and continued the work. But these experiments were to confirm that alpha particles breakdown Nitrogen nuclei and the nature of the products.

Therefore my conclusion is that the article mixes up the timeline. The proton discovery was in Manchester; the naming came after he was in Cambridge.

HTH Johnjbarton (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Johnjbarton (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your illuminating research. I've augmented the article text and cited your sources where appropriate. Doughbo (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

NP, hit me up if you run into a similar issue in the area of history of science of light and early QM. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Dismissal of practical use of nuclear energy

Shouldn't Rutherford's famous dismissal of the practical use of nuclear energy in 1933 be included in the article? It reportedly inspired Szilard to come up with his theory of a nuclear chain reaction. 90.143.21.126 (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Alleged doctoral student supervision

Greetings.

A recurring theme on the pages of Nazir Ahmed, Daulat Singh Kothari and Rafi Muhammad Chaudhry are the claims they studied under Ernest Rutherford.

1. The claim for Ahmed is definitely unsupported by what-was allegedly the reference that claimed he studied under Rutherford ("apparently at the University of Manchester").
2. For Muhammed Chaudry, we are given an incredibly simple website that provides no citations and makes a similar claim. How is this proof?
3. For Kothari, I could not find any evidence he was supervised by Rutherford.

* I did find that he had a PhD from a PRS paper, but this paper actually suggests he was supervised by Meghanad Saha (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rspa.1937.0200), who communicated/vouched for his work.

* I encourage readers to also view this critique of one of Kothari's later papers *at the time he published it* https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1655874

In my view, this type of work would not have met the expectations of Lord Rutherford.

In short, I continually find these names listed under Lord Rutherford, who is now stated as among the greatest scientists of all time, and yet each of these individuals' pages does not provide any adequate citation or evidence that they were indeed supervised by him.

To me, it seems politically motivated to keep these names on the list. There is no proof. The supplied proof is far from what we accept for other pages, why are they deemed acceptable here?

We require a very high bar to modify influences on scientists like Isaac Newton or Archimedes, so why aren't the same stringent criteria being applied to individuals allegedly supervised by Rutherford?

If this is all true, surely there's a wikipedian at Cambridge or the-likes who can provide us with the citation cards.

This question has been asked before Talk:Ernest_Rutherford/Archive_1#Doctoral_Students and no one had an answer. What is going on? 172.219.6.108 (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding: Rafi Muhammad Chaudhry

---

"Concrete Quarks" George Zweig

"All told, eleven of Rutherford's students, collaborators, and members of his laboratory went on to receive the Nobel Prize in Physics or Chemistry. Many more made remarkable but less recognized contributions. Rafi Muhammad Chaudhry went on to pioneer experimental nuclear physics in Pakistan, and with his student Mustafa Yar Khan, founded Pakistan's successful nuclear weapons program."

Status Of Theoretical Understanding And Of Experimental Power For Lhc Physics And Beyond - 50th Anniversary Celebration Of The Quark - Proceedings Of The International School Of Subnuclear Physics. Singapore, World Scientific Publishing Company, 2016.

--- Johnjbarton (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Also confirmed by:

Mahaffey, James. Atomic Adventures. United States, Pegasus Books, 2017.

Here is an online link the Zweig's chapter.

https://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2014/08/epjconf_icnfp2013_00146.pdf Johnjbarton (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The critique of Daulat Singh Kothari is completely bogus. The title of the linked article is "Comments on the Paper ``Grain Growth during Sintering of Tungsten" It concerns a paper by NC Kothari in 1967. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Cantor, Geoffrey. “The Making of a British Theoretical Physicist: E. C. Stoner’s Early Career.” The British Journal for the History of Science, vol. 27, no. 3, 1994, pp. 277–90. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4027599. Accessed 27 Aug. 2023.

Places Nazir Ahmed (physicist) in Rutherfords group. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, based on reliable sources, this claim that these eminent Pakistani nuclear scientist did not get their PhD with Rutherford is completely unfounded.

I am puzzled, based on the evidence that I found easily, what motivated this bogus claim?

Johnjbarton (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

In the words of the original poster: "seems politically motivated". I'd bet this unregistered account is an experienced user seeking to mask their islamophobia. Doughbo (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

A recent edit on Nazir Ahmed (physicist) from the same account has the edit summary:

(he wasn't pakistani either, just fyi. he ran with us for 25 years, so he's one of us. he's not one of them. pakistan's existence came at our expense and a broken promise) Johnjbarton (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

We now have sources showing that these three people got Cambridge PhDs and worked with Rutherford. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I admit error on Kothari. I didn't pay attention to the first initials.

Secondly, your claims about Ahmed are not supported by any WP:RS. Pegasus books? is that a joke?

The claim about Ahmed being supervised by Rutherford are allegedly in the "The Making of a British Theoretical Physicist: E. C. Stoner’s Early Career." is incorrect. The passage which you cunningly refer to as evidence is this:

Template:Quote

However the beginning of this passage merely states the person-of-interest, Stoner, was at Cambridge. So all this does is place Ahmed at Cavendish but it does not support any claim that he was supervised by Rutherford.

The Zweig source merely shows that Chaudhury was apart of the research group. It is established practice in Wikipedia that being in specific individual's research group does *not* constitute supervision. So, this would be "other students"

So correct me if I am wrong, you have not provided any reliable sources refuting my claims. You merely provided secondary sources, none of which conclusively state they were his students. What they state is that

1. Chaudhury was a part of the same research group as Rutherford
2. Ahmed was a member of the Cavendish laboratory at the same time as Stoner
3. Kothari miraculously remains unaddressed because apparently my request for real evidence is founded by politics.

It is YOUR job to show they were his students. the easiest way to do that is to pull the theses from the archives. the fact no one has proves they were not SUPERVISED by rutherford.

edit: I have done some more reading on E.C. Stoner. The source you provided suggests he was supervised by Rutherford, but I am not sure if that was the case. I know that your source does say Rutherford and Wilson were his co-supervisors. Anyways, I did follow some of that material which lead me to this:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rspa.1924.0050

but, this merely suggests that Ahmad and E.C. Stoner worked in the laboratory together, closely.

This is also supported by the source you are mainly relying on for Ahmad.

If we are to use inference, [b]then Stoner went on to complete his thesis shortly after the publication I've shared (Early 1924), with Rutherford as his examiner (September 1924). So, we could probably add this to Stoner and Rutherford's infobox.[/b]

That is a nice addition on your part, but we cannot infer something similar for Nazir Ahmad. It does move the goalposts, yes, but now Ahmad is in the category as Chaudhry, where you can say they were in the research group but not directly supervised by Rutherford. Kothari also needs support.

edit2: Again, more digging. This time I found something by Chadwick that I thought you would try to use as a weapon. Specifically Chadwick stated

Template:Quote

So, naturally, being who I am, I looked further.

I ended up at Shenstone's memoir because I figured if I can show he wasn't a student of Rutherford's, in spite of investigating an idea spitballed by Da Baron, then you could not use this as an argument to support supervision for Ahmad.

Indeed the memoir conclusively states that while Shenstone intended to do research under Sir J.J, it never materialised because of the war, and Sir J.J. had retired and been replaced by Da Baron.

so my argument is getting stronger. I am NOT disputing that Kothari, Chaudhry or Ahmad were members of Rutherford's research group. I am arguing they were NOT supervised by him. It is one thing to investigate a few phenomena under recommendation of a principal investigator, and entirely another to be supervised by such a figure. I think Stoner's case is an eye-opener into this.

If someone at Cambridge wasn't lazy, we'd have the answer by now. As it stands it looks like we'd have to do some digging in Stoner's archives to better understand the relationship between himself and Ahmad, hoping this secondary source verifies supervision.

All you have is membership of a research group for Ahmad and Chaudhry, and nothing but (correctly) stated I was wrong about the author whom I thought was Kothari. I would appreciate that you do some deep research and come back with similar sources to the ones I've provided. No pegasus book crap.

edit3: it is EXTREMELY likely Kothari was supervised by Meghanad Saha, MAYBE Wilson, which would not be unusual given Wilson's prominence in both the memoirs for Stoner and Shenstone.</ref>

found the knock-out punch. Kothari must be removed, in his own words for the Memoir for Saha:

Template:Quote

what's my name Dougie? YOU KNOW MY NAME.

172.219.6.108 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I have used the reference https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rspa.1937.0200 to update Daulat Singh Kothari with information on his PhD. That page already points to his MS work with Saha in Allahabad University. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Nazir Amhed:

"University of the Punjab - Science". pu.edu.pk. Retrieved 15 September 2023. The expedition included Professor James Martin Benade (Professor of Physics at Forman Christian College Lahore) and Dr. Nazir Ahmad (a PhD student of Ernest Rutherford at Cambridge who later on became the First Chairman of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission in 1956).

http://pu.edu.pk/home/department/55/Department-of-Physics Johnjbarton (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I contacted the Cambridge University Library and they provided information on the PhD year and thesis title for the three people discussed here. I have updated the corresponding pages with the now referenced material. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

none of what User:Johnjbarton states satisfies the WP criteria of evidence of supervision by Ernest Rutherford. what they do demonstrate, is that these individuals graduated from Cambridge. as i stated at the beginning i don't care, or dispute, they were members of the Cavendish Laboratory (kothari's case seems difficult to make).

i'm betting that ahmed and chaudry were probably supervised by Wilson or the likes, and kothari probably milne or fowler. these aren't bad names to be under, but they are not Ernest Rutherford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.6.108 (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Kothari:

"He went to Cavendish Laboratory on a U.P. Government fellowship in 1930 and worked with Ernest Rutherford, P Kapitza, and R H Fowler"

Roy, A. Daulat Singh Kothari (1906–1993). Reson 25, 1179–1184 (2020). https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s12045-020-1037-4 Johnjbarton (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Chaudhri:

"The development of research in Physics started in 1948 with the immigration of Prof. Rafi. M. Chaudhri to Pakistan. He was a well known Atomic/Nuclear Physicist and a student of Rutherford at the Cavendish Laboratory of the University of Cambridge, U.K. He did his Ph.D under supervision in 1932."

Page 37:

Khan, H. A., Qurashi, M. M., Hussain, E. T., & Hayee, M. I. (2006). Physics in Developing Countries: Past, Present and Future. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

i'm sorry, a website from pakistan and another source (all of whom are pakistani) are not enough evidence. why not just get the info from the theses themselves and get this over with? i also find it comical that you deliberately omit the publisher of "Physics in Developing Countries: Past, Present and Future.", also pakistani. what an absolute joke.

so, as far as i can see, aside from your theft of my sources (you're welcome), you have provided three theses cards (my idea, you're welcome, alleged "nuclear physicist") that demonstrate they graduated from cambridge.

that's as far as those cards go. they do not support anything more than that. you should now provide more information.

for ahmad and chaudri, you rely on sources from pakistan.

i am sorry but that's not going to fly here. not for this calibre of supervisor. you should know better than that. they are not WP:RS, and that's what is required here. the best thing to do is to get the first few pages of each thesis to establish your claim (you're welcome, helping you out again.)

barton is using a source equivalent to this one: https://www.amazingpakistanis.com/dr-rafi-muhammad-chauhdry.html and claiming it's WP:RS. it's not. amazing pakistanis lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.6.108 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

new topic for readability, continuing the topic above (supervision of ahmad, chaudrhI and kothari

unlike john, i am committed to an impartial assessment of the alleged students-in-question. i have shown that, no one can question my dedication to the truth and facts. i started out with a gut feeling, yes, but then i went and consulted the sources [i]fairly[/i] and with a level of diligence far above User:Johnjbarton.

if i really had an axe to grind, why did i share additional information about Ahmad that john could not? it did not help my case at all, did it? so, why?

further to this point, if i really had an agenda, why would i share these two articles authored by chaudrhI (notice his name is spelled with an I, not a Y? big difference on google search) communicated by Da Baron?

both are communicated by Da Baron, again which do not help my case at all.

• conversely, a paper authored by Shenstone, also communicated by Da Baron, shows that being in Da Baron's laboratory does not, in itself, establish supervision.

• Ahmad and Stoner was also communicated by Da Baron, so this does not establish anything (just using it as an example.

• Shenstone's case is a little more obvious, however this is why i keep insisting upon the theses cover pages because it's not unreasonable (at all) to think ChaudrhI and Ahmad were members of the laboratory and supervised by someone else (my bet is Milne for Kothari, not sure about the other two, but it could easily be Lennard Jones or Fowler)

i think what's being lost here, in spite of my innumerable efforts to emphasise it: [b] i never disputed these individuals studied at cambridge or cavendish laboratory[/b]. however, as i have repeated time and time again, these two criteria:

1. receiving a PhD at cambridge
2. studying in the group of Da Baron

[b] do not imply [/b] they were doctoral students supervised by Da baron. why is the example of Allen Shenstone, in this particular case, being overlooked? Shenstone wou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.6.108 (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

Template:Edit semi-protected The section concerning the re-evaluation of the transmutation credit is factually correct in that Rutherford saw long-range protons from which he understood that there was a disintegration of the nitrogen nucleus. And it is the case that Patrick Blackett was the first to understand the details of the nuclear reaction from cloud chamber photographs. But as written, it suggests that Rutherford had no input into Blackett's finding at all. In fact, the idea to look for the reaction in cloud chambers was Rutherford's. Rutherford, as head of the Clarendon, has come up with the idea and the project has been first assigned to a Japanese physicist Shimuzu before Blackett even started work in the Clarendon. Shimuzu developed parts of the apparatus, before unexpectedly having to return to Japan. Blackett took over the project and used some of Shimuzu's apparatus.

This is well documented in Blackett's own words (Rutherford Memorial Lecture 1958 PMS Blackett Proc. Royal Society Volume 251 A (1959) 293). Blackett's publication of the cloud chamber results also indicates that it was done at Rutherford's suggestion and he assisted with help and advice in its execution (Proc. Royal Society Volume 107 A (1924) 349). Given the words that Blackett uses in his Memorial Lecture, one might guess that he would be uncomfortable with the entire credit being allocated to him.

It would therefore seem appropriate to acknowledge Rutherford's influence in this work and I recommend adding the following words in CAPITALS to this sentence:

"Beginning in 2017, many scientific institutions corrected their versions of this history to indicate that the discovery credit for the reaction belongs to Patrick Blackett - ALTHOUGH BLACKETT UNDERTOOK THIS RESEARCH AT RUTHERFORD'S SUGGESTION AND BENEFITTED FROM HIS HELP AND ADVICE." 2001:1458:204:1:0:0:101:2289 (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: All caps is not allowed per MOS:ALLCAPS. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per MOS:ALLCAPS. M.Bitton (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that what editor 2001:1458:204:1:0:0:101:2289 meant was "I recommend adding the following words WHICH I HAVE PLACED in CAPITALS to this sentence." I don't think he actually meant to use ALLCAPS in the article. The edit seems constructive if the capitals are removed. So I have gone ahead and added a slightly shortened version to the article, but NOT in capitals. Dirac66 (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2024

Template:Edit semi-protected New Zealand Physicist to Kiwi Physicist 49.207.195.125 (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice try, not happening. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Does New Zealand have a peerage?

In the 3rd lead paragraph, it states: "Rutherford was recognised as a baron in the peerages of New Zealand and Britain." Does New Zealand have a peerage? At the time, Rutherford's peerage gave him a right to sit in the British House of Lords, but did it give him any rights in New Zealand? Note that there's nothing stopping a British peerage from having a name drawn from outside the territory, to commemorate the reason for awarding the peerage, but that doesn't mean that there is a separate peerage for that country. For example, General Byng was ennobled as Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy for leading the Canadian and British troops in the Battle of Vimy in France in WWI; that didn't make him a French peer. Arthur Wellesey was given the British titles of "Viscount Wellington of Talavera, and of Wellington in the County of Somerset" and "Marquess Douro". Talavera is in Spain and River Douro is in Portugal, but these were British peerages, not Spanish or Portugese. The fact that Rutherford was given the title of "Baron Rutherford of Nelson", with Nelson being the town close to his birthplace, doesn't make it a NZ peerage, does it? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I edited the article to match the refs, which is all we can do. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Personal Life - Manchester

Whilst working at Victoria University of Manchester, Rutherford lived in the Withington district of Manchester, close to many other eminent academics. Both the University building in which he worked, and his home have a Blue Plaques reflecting his presence in the area. Source https://sebastienfritsch.wixsite.com/ernestrutherford150/manchester?lang=en Philip5dw (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Famous quote timeline

In this edit, @TenzilKem moved a famous quote that includes "It was almost as incredible as if you fired a 15-inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came back and hit you." from 1921 when Rutherford reportedly said this, to 1911 when the event he was discussing occured. He didn't say it in 1911.

The detailed history of Rutherford's work for the 1911 paper says about Marsden's result:

• "But though surprised and perhaps even puzzled, Rutherford could hardly have been as flabbergasted at the positive outcome of Marsden's enquiry as his later hyperbolical accounts of the episode implied."
• Heilbron, John L. “The Scattering of α and β Particles and Rutherford’s Atom.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences, vol. 4, no. 4, 1968, pp. 247–307. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41133273. Accessed 19 July 2024.

Thus the quote is not even characteristic of the time described. It was reflection.

I think the quote should be left in 1921 and context should be added to clarify that it was retrospective of the 1908 work. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I left the quote in 1908 but change the context a bit. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

As I read your text now, it doesn't actually say when he said these words - 1908 or 1921 or some other time. If it is true that we actually don't know, then perhaps it is best not to say. Dirac66 (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The Andrade source says "In one of the last lectures that Rutherford ever gave,...". Heilbronn says "In retrospect..." I wrote "Years later..." Johnjbarton (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Aha! So instead of "Years later Rutherford was quoted as saying", I suggest "In one of his last lectures, Rutherford said ..." Dirac66 (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok I did that, but it assume the reader recognizes that his last lecture was not in 1908. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for improving my edit. TenzilKem (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

But the quotation has no relevance to the ideas about solving the problem of unaccounted-for mass in the 1921 section. The clarification on the timing of it covers the issue as it stands now. TenzilKem (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that and fixing it! Johnjbarton (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Transmutation myth section.

I replaced section that tried -- unsuccessfully in my opinion -- to describe how some history websites incorrectly gave Rutherford credit for showing that

¹⁴N + α → ¹⁷O + p.

Rutherford showed the proton emerged but not the oxygen. (Blackett did that 5 years later). According to Steven B. Krivit on his own site the history sites were fixed when Krivit complained.

Rutherford did not create a myth so it's not directly relevant to his bio. The old section had no references to support the story, not even Krivit. Rather than repair the content I replaced it with a description of the work by Rutherford and Blackett with refs. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request on 24 August 2024

Template:Edit semi-protected Second line, replace Rutherford with He. Should look like “He has been described as "the father of nuclear physics", and "the greatest experimentalist since Michael Faraday" 2603:8080:D03:89D4:4978:A625:B69B:869E (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Ttwaring (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

legacy

No mention of him appearing on the nz bank note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_one_hundred-dollar_note 118.93.154.96 (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. I have now added a sentence, with a link to the article on the bank note for more details. Dirac66 (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

To this day

The article cites a web site that cites

• Nobel Lectures, Chemistry 1901-1921, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1966

for this sentence:

• "The resulting Rutherford–Bohr model was the basis for quantum mechanical atomic physics of Heisenberg which remains valid today."

In my opinion this does not reflect the modern understanding of the history of the atom. The Rutherford–Bohr model was an Old Quantum theory model completely revolutionized by Heisenberg and especially Schrodinger. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Change "Montreal, Canada" to "Montréal, Québec"

Under "Work with Radioactivity", it is noted in the second paragraph that Rutherford "...was accepted to the chair of Macdonald Professor of physics position at McGill University in Montreal, Canada...". I suggest that "Montreal, Canada" be changed to "Montréal, Québec", as "Montreal" is a grammatically inaccurate anglicisme and Québec will be a more precise geographical indicator of where Rutherford conducted his work with radioactivity. 132.216.243.181 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)