Conductivity and Charge Potential at Atomic Level

Deja vu all over again?

I don't know which is worse.

I'd look at the atomic model!

The climate models might be off by thousands!

QM.

The first class I would expect that actually deals with the topic is solid state theory. To be able to understand this material one must master at least the topics of differential calculus, advanced statistical processes, undergraduate chemistry, Newtonian physics and some circuit theory would clearly help, too.

Since your clueless question asks for a model to study, I should remind you of the quote from the late, great mathematician George E. P. Box.

"Since all models are wrong the scientist cannot obtain a "correct" one by excessive elaboration. On the contrary following William of Occam he should seek an economical description of natural phenomena. Just as the ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the great scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark of mediocrity." From "Science and Statistics"

In my words, complicating a model to make it more correct is mediocre at best. At worst it is complete deception. Hoping for comprehension from one and only one model is to return to the Dark Ages where only the Gospel was approved.

....Amen....

Thank you for the inspiration.

I have arrived at the perfect model for Kulas/PeeeWee/Legolad/Anonymous Poster:

Parallels, isn't it? These guys when brought back to life today think of our technology as magic? Do you agree?

"To be able to understand this material one must master at least the topics of differential calculus, advanced statistical processes, undergraduate chemistry, Newtonian physics and some circuit theory would clearly help, too." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark of mediocrity." From "Science and Statistics"--------------------------------------------------------------------

Both conductivity AND charge potential are covered in old freshman Physics and Chemistry texts; and described at the ionic and atomic level.

Box was an interesting guy. Most people know him from the quote paraphrased as "All models are wrong, some are useful."

I remember reading years ago when first trying to learn QM or QED or Feynman, someone pointing out that the solar system model of the atom was proposed in 1925 by Bohr et al and abandoned by 1927. But it is such a useful model, it is still taught as a basic model of atomic structure. It is not accurate, but it is useful.

I like that. The planetary model of an atom is the perfect example of an inaccurate but useful model.

I wonder how many people at CR4 understand why the planetary model is wrong?