We teach them electrons move around the nucleus of the atom in nice neat little concentric circles. They don't, they have complex interweaving orbits, and in fact the nulceus of the atom isn't the static blob we teach high school kids but another set of complex intervweaving orbits occupied by protons and nuetrons, and in fact with all the orbit movement going on it's kind of silly to discuss a nucleus at all because there really isn't one. Basically everything we teach about the interworkings of an atom, except the parts, is a lie, we teach them atoms work kind of like cells and that's not true. Complete bunk that must be unlearned.
I had to unlearn that one too.
I agree, having an incorrect oversimplified visualization is a real pain. It sticks. Sort of like those musical earworms.
The simplifed models work well with basic chemistry studies and allow students to understand basic reactions and their ramifications. The basic model works fine for a lot of college thermodynamic studies, also.
By your logic, we should not be teaching anything about the atom till we thoroughly understand the Schrodinger Wave equation. What year did you finally grasp that equation derivation?
I can tell you from experience, as my learning experience grew, I was not hampered with having to unlearn simple models. In fact, most of my career was working with only simplified models.
Not really. As a nuclear engineer, I have found that models of the nucleus work quite well for practical work. Since we really don't know what is going on in the nucleus, we should really teach NOTHING til we do, right?
"We teach them electrons move around the nucleus of the atom in nice neat little concentric circles. "
Actually, we learned a much more comprehensive model of the electron when I was in high school, and I graduated in 1963. It was still incorrect, but there were no orbiting electrons.
There may be some schools still teaching that nonsense, but I doubt that it's very many.