Reconstruction of Wave-Particle Duality and its Implications for General Chemistry Textbooks

Abstract

Most general chemistry textbooks consider wave-particle duality as important for understanding atomic structure. The objectives of this study are: (a) A historical reconstruction of wave-particle duality; (b) Formulation of six criteria based on the reconstruction; and (c) Evaluation of 128 introductory, university-level general chemistry textbooks (published in U.S.A.), based on the six criteria. The following historical aspects were evaluated: (1) Einstein and de Broglie suggested wave-particle duality before there was any conclusive experimental evidence; (2) De Broglie suggested how matter waves could be observed experimentally; (3) Importance of Davisson-Germer experiments and their struggle to interpret experimental data; (4) Role of similar experiments by G. P. Thomson; (5) Controversial nature of wave-particle duality and de Broglie’s reputation as an obstacle in the acceptance of his theory; and (6) Why was it Schrödinger who developed de Broglie’s ideas? Textbooks were classified as Satisfactory (S), Mention (M) and No mention (N). Results obtained revealed that none of the textbooks described satisfactorily aspects 2, 3, 5 and 6. Some textbooks described satisfactorily the postulation of wave-particle duality before there was any conclusive experimental evidence and very few textbooks referred to similar experiments being conducted by two groups of scientists. In general, historical details are generally ignored or distorted by most general chemistry textbooks. This study provides science teachers with various historically based presentations which provide the necessary background for improving students’ understanding of wave-particle duality. It is plausible to suggest that the topic of wave-particle duality can facilitate students’ classroom discussions and understanding of the following questions with respect to nature of science: (a) If there is no one way of doing science, which of the following two is more important for scientific progress: experimental evidence or theoretical insight? (b) When scientists do experiments do they always know beforehand what they are going to find? (c) If two groups of scientists interpret the same experimental data differently, does that mean that one of them is not being sufficiently ‘objective’? (d) Is it possible for two groups of scientists to use different experimental techniques and arrive at the same results and conclusions? and (e) If two theories are proposed to understand the same phenomenon, can the scientific community help to resolve the controversy?