I am here to get more clarity on the current atomic model

[jmfrank63]

For work I am a technical support engineer, who solves all sorts of customer problems.

I do physics for fun, not for living.

From J.J Thomson 1904, to Rutherford 1911, Bohr 1913 and Mulliken 1932 the atomic model underwent four major changes (including its creation)

The more I read and learn about the latest state, the more I get doubts on its validity.

Every explanation I find ignores certain parts, and we easily jump back and forth at our convenience between models to explain the behaviour we are actually seeing.

That's the reason I am here and the invitation I got asked me to introduce myself.

 

[anorlunda]

Welcome to PF. I hope we can help you understand better.

We do not ask or answer questions in the New Member Introduction forum. Your questions might fit better under General Physics.

Also a tip. If you ask for help understanding, there are many members here who can help you. But if your question seems to challenge the validity of science, expect hostility or even deletion of your post. Our mission statement helps clarify that.

Our goal is to provide a community for people (whether students, professional scientists, or hobbyists) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/about-physics-forums/

You may want to start with this PF Insights article. It explains why multiple models do not mean something is wrong.
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/classical-physics-is-wrong-fallacy/