Our modern atomic theory has its roots at the turn of the 19th century when it was

proposed that matter behaved as if it were comprised of discrete units or particles.

Although we now know that atoms are divisible into smaller components, by studying
such subatomic particles we may uncover the fundamental nature of the universe.
John Dalton developed the first scientific hypothesis to explain the then recent
discoveries in chemistry. He suggested chemical elements were composed of immutable
atoms that could combine to form more complex structures. The idea was a major
breakthrough, though not without severe flaws. Over almost a century, the theory was
refined; however, the structure of the atom would not be better apprehended until 1897
with J.J. Thomson’s discovery of the electron.
Thomson experimented with a Crookes tube and concluded that the “cathode
rays,” which made the tube glow, were negatively charged particles he called
“corpuscles” (later renamed electrons). Since the corpuscles came from the atoms of the
electrode, Thomson concluded that these were their building blocks. He went on to
create the plum pudding model of the atom. In the model, electrons (“plums”) are
surrounded by a positively charged “pudding”.
In 1909, Ernest Rutherford, a student of Thomson, disproved this model in a gold
foil experiment. Alpha particles were shot through a thin film of gold and were expected
to experience little to no deflection as they passed through the “pudding.” The actual
results showed a small percentage of particles were greatly redirected at angles much
larger than 90 degrees. Therefore, the atom must be mostly empty space with a tiny,
concentrated mass and charge in the center, a nucleus.
Over the next ten years Rutherford found that the positive charge of any atom
equaled an integer number of hydrogen’s charge. Because hydrogen is the lightest
element, its nucleus must consist of a single particle: a proton. Still, the nuclear mass
exceeded the mass of protons alone, so something else was there. Rutherford speculated
this was due to the existence of neutrons. James Chadwick verified this in 1932.
There were still many problems with this atomic model, despite its close
resemblance to the one we know today. What prevented an orbiting electron from
crashing into the nucleus? What accounted for discrete emission spectra? To answer
these questions, Niels Bohr incorporated the budding quantum theory into a new model
where electrons could only orbit the nucleus at certain distances. An instantaneous
“quantum leap” was required to move from one orbit to another. While it was a step in
the right direction, it couldn’t predict the spectral lines of multi-electron atoms nor could
it explain additional spectral lines present in hydrogen’s emission spectrum. Basically, it
was a problem of finding the electron in the first place!
During the 1920’s, Erwin Schrödinger conceived that an electron’s movement in
an atom could better be explained as a wavefunction instead of a point particle
(ironically, this is in direct contrast to Thomson’s discovery of electrons, “proof” that the
rays he observed were particles and not waves). Obviously the concept that subatomic
particles could be waves was met with some criticism. Rather than a visualization of an
electron, Max Born proposed that the wavefunction described all possible states of an
electron and could be used to calculate the probability of finding an electron at a given
place and time.
Coupled with the uncertainty principle, it became clear that Bohr’s model was
inadequate (since electrons subjected to photons [i.e. in a measuring experiment] will
have its momentum and position altered). The neat, circular orbits were replaced with
“orbitals,” giving rise to the charge-cloud or electron-cloud model that characterizes
electrons in terms of the three-dimensional shapes that their probability fields define.
Ultimately, scientists realize that any visual depiction of the atom will fall short of
the mark. The most accurate view would be to take a vibrating nucleus surrounded by a
huge, huge empty space between the nucleus and this buzzing, fuzzy cloud of electrons.
Of course, there is no color at the atomic level. Or light. Picture THAT!

plum pudding model charge-cloud model Bohr model

Faraday’s Law of Induction

The law states that the induced electromotive force (EMF) in any closed circuit equals the
time rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit. This law originated from
observations in experiments and was later formalized. It is the basis for understanding
electrical generators like wind turbines or alternators (convert mechanical to electrical
energy, or EMF is generated from the relative movement of a circuit and magnetic field),
as well as motors (generators in reverse) and transformers.

is the electromotive force (EMF) in volts

ΦB is the magnetic flux through the circuit (in webers)

Lenz’s Law
This law explains why there’s a negative in the above equation (why the induced EMF
and the change in flux have opposite signs). The simplest proof of it is by contradiction:
if a magnetic field (generated by the current) was the same direction as the change in
magnetic field that created it, the two fields would combine to induce a current twice the
magnitude. The small energy input from just moving a magnet would result in a large
energy output, violating the law of conservation of energy.