|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atom article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|Atom has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as FA-Class.|
|Atom is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 9, 2008.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
- 1 Problems with the opening section...
- 2 New lede too simple
- 3 Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014
- 4 Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014
- 5 "Over 99%" is misleading
- 6 Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014
- 7 Atom composition definition is not easy to read and understand
- 8 broken template thing
- 9 History
- 10 spelling ... incresingly
Problems with the opening section...
The atom is a basic unit of matter that consists of a dense central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons. (point_1) The atomic nucleus contains a mix of positively charged protons and electrically neutral neutrons (except in the case of hydrogen-1, which is the only stable nuclide with no neutrons) (point_2). The electrons of an atom are bound to the nucleus by the electromagnetic force (point_3). Likewise, a group of atoms can remain bound to each other by chemical bonds based on the same force, forming a molecule (point_4). An atom containing an equal number of protons and electrons is electrically neutral, otherwise it is positively or negatively charged and is known as an ion (point_5). An atom is classified according to the number of protons and neutrons in its nucleus: the number of protons determines the chemical element, and the number of neutrons determines the isotope of the element (point_6).
Okay, I have read through some of the published material on the Atom, and have discovered some irregularities. This is from the 1st paragraph. I think there are some things we need to work on. (the points are in reverse-order, but this should not be a significant hindrance as going through the points requires scrolling ,,, does not include hypertexting) --- ANACEUS 14/17/01
atoms are classified in relation to their atomic weight and density. an atom may become electromagnetically active resulting in changes in weight and density -- for instance, chemical and physical reactions leading to resulting Fe+, from H76 + O76 + C76 (iron resulting from pressure and heat reactions, or electromagnetic thermal radiations leading to formal of iron molecules from complex hydro-carbons). the term isotope may be used to indicate common chemical elements that possess some propensity to electro-magnetic activity.
though usage varies, atoms of varies chemical elements may possess positive or negative charges -- in some cases, for the purposes of chemical equations, it is necessary involve transfers of electrical energy, in such cases, chemical elements are written as possessing a negative or a positive charge. a neutral atom may be referred to as a neutron (a larger, electrically balanced unit of matter, possessing the same characteristics of atomic chemical element) -- because atoms of different elements possess differing atomic weights and sizes, though the distinctions in some cases may be insignificant, it may be possible to refer to the electrically neutral 'neutron' as a atomic element, as the variance in nuclear structure is not significant (as differing from significant nuclear differences in more complex atomic elements). in some cases, the term 'ion' is used interchangeably or as a substitute for the term 'atom'. the term 'ionic theory', therefore, refers to the same body of concepts as 'atomic theory'. statements made in reference to the structure and function of ions should be seen as equivalent to statements made in reference to atoms.
molecular bonds are in some instances 'chemical', but in other instances may be 'physical bonding', such as in the case of pressure-based 'saturation', as for example, in the case of liquid water (h20), in which case physical pressure results in molecular bonding. in such cases, the molecular bonding is not chemical in nature, as it is not the result of a chemical reaction, but rather is physical bonding (similar to supersaturated liquids), resulting in the formation of a liquid, from multiple gases.
as from point 1, electrons are most gainfully thought of, or are pedagogically useful, outside of the debate of particle x. wave photon emissions, as a form of electrical induction. for our purposes, within in the context of particle physics, we may prefer to think of electrons as a form of electrical induction and a unit of energy, rather than as a sub-atomic particle and unit of matter, from this perspective, we confirm our thesis regarding atomic structure (that the atom is the smallest basic unit of stable matter), though we may question the extent to which units of energy may appear in some instances to possess some of the characteristics of matter, from this perspective, the use of the term 'bound' may be inaccurate, as it suggests that electrons are a form of stable matter.
(point_2) in the cases of stable matter, as for instance in stable gases, a di-polar nuclear structure is considered to be common: in such cases as a multi-polar nuclear structure exists, it is not unreasonable to think of the nuclear components as possessing both positive, neutral and negative charges
an atom with a positive charge may be referred to as a proton an atom with a positive charge in a bi-polar atomic structure would possess a neutral charge, and could be referred to as a neutron
as a result of English semantics, the term 'negatitron' is uncommon, but may be adopted though its usage is considered informal and it not widely accepted, as a contrasting term to 'positron'
(point_1) -- electrons are generated as the result of gravitational and magnetic force -- in most cases, we may suppose magnetic force (attractive and repulsive magnetic force) is the result of electric induction -- is it reasonable to describe a /central/ nucleus as being surrounded by 'negatively charged electrons'? -- in most cases, outside of the repulsive magnetic force, it may be useful to think of electrons, not as a form of matter, as like a sub-atomic particle (a particle of matter), but rather as a unit of energy, in such cases, a more accurate description, would involve positive electrical current in possible single or multie-polar atomic systems, these units of energy may be referred to as 'electrons'
in cases in which atoms have been isolated outside of other solid matter, it may be possible to imagine, 'electrons' emitted as the result of gravitational and magnetic
electrons may be generated through the application of force in units that possess electro-magnetic potential
electrons may be produced, thus, through the forces generated both by gravity as well as by magnetism, not BY gravity or magnetism itself, -- it may be more accurate to describe electron emissions as being equal to the force of the sum of these relations
electrons, as units of energy, may appear as emissions from a stable single or multi-polar atom, as sub-atomic particles, however, even in such cases, these emissions should not themselves be considered a form of stable matter (?) -- in complex multi-atomic, multi-polar systems of stable matter, electrons would not appear as 'sub-atomic particles', but rather would be electrical induction, as a form of electrical induction, electrons may positively and negatively charge matter in such a way as to induce magnetism,
a higher e/m potential corresponds to atomic density
more dense atomic elements may produce, through relation, a great electron emission (a form of beta decay, in which cases, alpha decay is considered to be (molecular decay) organic or physical decay, and beta decay is understood to be sub-molecular decay), and consequently possess a greater potential as electrical conductors and magnets (as for example, the electro-magnetic potential of iron vs. that of carbon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaceus (talk • contribs) 22:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have to say that I could make absolutely no sense of the above in terms of accepted modern chemistry and physics, and most of your statements are flatly wrong. There are so many errors it is not worth answering them all. Perhaps you wrote the above as a joke. Oh, nevermind. I see you are a general science crank.  SBHarris 01:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
New lede too simple
The new lede was no more complex than the lede for this article in Simple English Wikipedia. . Which is fine, but we're not Simple English Wikipedia here. Those who cannot understand an English Wikipedia lede might instead try reading the Simple English Wikipedia entry first, then come back.
To quote Einstein, a thing should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. When you get so simple that you're saying wrong things, you need to backtrack. That was the case here. The weak force does not help hold the atom together (it powers beta decay). Most things on Earth are actually not made of chemical substances (like the core and mantle), and the word matter has no good definition, so we can't define atoms as stuff that makes up matter, and then go define matter as stuff made up of atoms. Atoms define chemical matter, made of chemical elements. At least we know what those are. It is not dark matter (of which there is even more in the Universe than chemical matter, and it also is not made of atoms). Nice chemical substances with defined formulas are actually fairly rare on Earth (even most minerals have varying formulas, and quite a few are solid solutions and network solids). It would be nice if nature were made of nice molecules, but it just isn't. Living organisms and the air and ocean are, but most of the planet is not.
- Seemed like a good approach. Start with a skeleton, add what is necessary, then stop. Works better than trimming the old stuff, I believe.Kurzon (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014
Kindly add this link on this page.
Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Changing the quote "Most matter on Earth is made up of atoms." It is erroneous as all matter consists of atoms, no matter what (matter and energy). "All matter on earth/universe is made up of atoms"
- There is quite a bit of matter on Earth that is made up of free sub-atomic particles not bound to atoms. Beta radiation and alpha radiation, for instance. In neutron stars atoms can't exist because the conditions are too extreme (or so I've heard). Also at the end of the lede itself it says most of the matter in the Universe is made of dark matter, and we have no idea what dark matter is made of.Kurzon (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
"Over 99%" is misleading
As at least 99.946% of an atom's mass is concentrated in the nucleaus, it is HIGHLY misleading to state just "over 99%". I suggest to restore the old value "over 99.94%". --KnightMove (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014
Kindly add this link on this page.
Atom composition definition is not easy to read and understand
I got confused while reading about atom composition definition.
Currently it is written like this:
"Every atom is composed of a nucleus made of one or more protons and usually an equal or similar number of neutrons (except hydrogen-1, which has no neutrons)"
The bad thing about sentence above is that reader can easily misinterpret composition of atom with composition of nucleus because of "atom is composed of a nucleus made of one or more protons and usually an equal or similar number of neutrons" part in the sentence.
My opinion is that it would be so much easier to read and understand if atom composition definition would be separated into more sentences. For example I would write it like this:
"Every atom is composed of a nucleus and one or more electrons that surround the nucleus. Nucleus is made of one or more protons and usually an equal or similar number of neutrons (except hydrogen-1, which has no neutrons). Protons and neutrons together are called nucleons.Over 99.94% of the atom's mass is in the nucleus"
I think that is much more easier to understand atom composition in the text above than what is currently written on atom page on wiki.
- I agree, the text suggested by Časlav Šabani would be an improvement. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Done I agree too, so I've made the change. It sounded like the atom was being defined as the nucleus, and that the electrons around it were not considered to be part of it. —Quondum 23:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
broken template thing
the thing around the top image is not working right. Its stretched really far and gives this message: Error: Expression error: Unexpected * operator This is not a valid number. Please refer to the documentation at for correct input.10−10 m or 100 pm). 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've reverted the changes to Template:Val that seemed to be the source of this problem. —Quondum 21:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this video worth referencing in the article? I thought it might complement the history section section with the visuals http://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-2-400-year-search-for-the-atom-theresa-doud Jcardazzi (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
spelling ... incresingly
Para. 2 first sentence vague ? What does sentence refer to ?
which results, why incorrect
Atoms are small enough that classical physics give noticeably incorrect results. Through the development of physics, atomic models have incresingly incorporated
spelling ... incresingly