|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atom article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4|
|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.|
Please add 'positronium' as another example of exotic matter
- Done by adding the category:exotic atoms to the this section, which provides a list including Positronium. Also added the p. exotic matter with the same idea. (You could also get an account), Cheers, -- 08:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Changes in Atom #Energy levels
I explain why I made so radical changes in the section. It was apparently well-written (and referenced), but had a high density of errors. Namely:
- “Main articles: Energy level, Atomic spectral line” — a bad idea. The former is a universal, general concept. It does not (and should not) explain electron's levels in atoms. The latter is a redirect to a medium-sized section in Spectroscopy. So, there is no "main article" unless somebody goes to create it.
- “When an electron is bound to an atom, it has a potential energy that is inversely proportional to its distance from the nucleus” — first of all, it is not true because of interactions between electrons. Second, the potential in a dynamical equation does not depend on whether electron is “bound” or “unbound”, so this wording induces a confusion between the cause (the potential energy) and the consequence (the energy spectrum).
- “This is measured by the amount of energy …” — no, absolutely. The potential energy (i.e. its dependence on the position vector) is determined theoretically. No experiment can measure it on the atomic scale.
- “The lowest energy state of a bound electron is called the ground state” — it’s a crap. Is "1s" an “electron’s ground state”? Does somebody actually speak about the ground state of a single electron?
- “while an electron at a higher energy level is in an excited state” — the same crap. Anywhere higher than 1s an excited state? For lithium, beryllium, etc.? Can somebody open that book and paste here the actual text?
- “For an electron to transition between two different states, it must absorb or emit a photon” — from a factual (not QED) perspective, no. It can collide with something else.
- By the way, wouldn’t be better to merge the section with atom #Electron cloud to “Orbitals and electron shells”? One can’t understand atomic energy levels before understanding atomic orbitals and electron shells, and it is essentially the same topic. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
the english word that matches the greek word is individual. we dont say indivisible (αδιαίρετο) or uncuttable (άτμητο) in greek. and i think it is important cause the meaning changed with chemistry. i mean until the microscope was invented or Hook's Micrographia, people didnt talk about microorganisms Wassermagier (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Article name change?
Now, I know that people generally do not like their words to be "touched", so I hope that this simple suggestion will not offend anyone. After all, we do "touch" other people's words.
The Etymology section in this article reflects not only the etymological and morphological meaning of the word, "uncuttable" or "indivisible" (which we've hammered into "the smallest particle of a chemical element that retains its chemical properties"), but also the fact that the notion of chemical units being atoms is not unanimous across scientists (see references 5, 6 and 7 in the article).
Would it not be a move towards NPOV if the article's title were changed to something less debatable, such as "chemical element", or "chemical unit" if the former seems to suggest the substance, rather than the particles, and make the entry Atom a redirection to this page? As it stands, Wikipedia seems to be positioning itself with those who call chemical units "atoms", and only marginally recalling that there is an ongoing debate about the appropriateness of the name.
- Please "touch" them words :) It is nice that you chose to make suggestions here, rather than boldy touching. Indeed, the concept of atom has changed since Dalton and any definition provided now will likely evolve as we learn more. And that last bit of text in the article from The God Particle seems a bit off as we have no way of knowing what the ancient philosopher types were "really" talking about. The atom concept remains valid in chemistry even tho we know it is no longer "the smallest". We (as in Wiki editors) don't redefine things, we just report what is the usage in reliable sources. If and when the preponderance of sources say "atom" is defunct - then we can also. Until then: atom it is. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- In 2007 you said that you need to read guidelines. Really, read WP:POVNAME please – the problem does not exist. Also, atom represents a chemical element, but is not a chemical element, just like a molecule is not a chemical substance, a snowflake is not snow, etc. The proposed term , first, does not exist, and second, would be even more ambiguous – a unit of what? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that is why I posted the suggestion as a question here. But don't forget that this divisible "atomicity" only occurs in the context of those compound structures that combine protons, electrons and most often neutrons. In other contexts, such as order theory or concurrent application programming, the word keeps its meaning even in modern English. Regarding Incnis Mrsi's question, any such compound structure is a unit of matter that cannot be decomposed into smaller structures while keeping its chemical properties. True that it is not really a unit, as every one of these structures consists of at least two particles, but if calling it a unit is unreasonable due to that, then it also is calling it an atom, since any one of them can be divided into smaller constituents. However, the natural number 1 is often considered a unit but it can be divided into many different fractional values; calling these things units would be consistent with other uses of the word "unit"; not so much the case for the word "atom". But I see your point and appreciate your link, I was just wondering. Have fun! Abedul69 (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I think I understand what you are trying to say-- I was attempting to explain my own understanding of this facet of 'atomic theory', in a different section of this discussion board but have encountered significant hostility. I think a more coherent definition of the atom is 'the smallest possible stable unit of a chemical element'-- this definition, addresses, as you say-- the idea that an atom MAY BE further analyzed to reveal particle components -- 'particle physics' is a well-established and important contemporary science, as I understand it, much of what is referred to as quantum mechanics originated in this sub-branch of physics -- such as those conventionally referred to as 'protons', 'neutrons', 'electrons' -- these particles, however, are not, in and of themselves, stable in such a way as to be representative of a chemical element-- another way to refer to these particle structures may be to suggest that elementary atoms possess a 'bi-nucleic' structure, which is essential to their stability (that protons require neutrons, electrons may be produced as a consequence of nucleic action-- that without this, as a minimal structure, the individual particles are unstable as a result of 'physical forces) -- Anaceus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
What about the Ionian School and Anaxagoras?
Why is the history section bungled?
More elaboration is needed about Ionian Greek Atomic Theory (philosophy). This article has it wrong, or very incomplete.
The error was obvious and the article does not give an old enough date for the ancient Greek atomic theory. Anaxagoras was born 510 BC and as many know the Ionians are the creators of the atomic model and cosmic mind. Democritus was from the Traki city state in northern Greece and lived slightly later (at least 50 years).
- Many philosophy readers have just botched to find the atomic theory article. Reading clever books does not improve their cognitive abilities enough. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This article consists primarily of inacurrate information-- its pedagogical utility is questionable. The perpetuation of fallacious reasoning and disinformation may be rationalized under certain circumstances-- however, as a comprehension of 'atoms' is essential for all post-primary course work (all work beyond the k-12 level), it is difficult to rationalize under such circumstances. I would like to nominate this article for deletion. -- anaceus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I would agree that unless its quality can be substantially improved, it merits massive reduction in size. For instance, in the Size section, it is claimed that size is "the distance out to which the electron cloud extends from the nucleus" RISIBLE. This is FACTUALLY FALSE.184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree: this ★★★ed article is bollocks. For example, it contained the statement “an electron… is not included in calculating atomic mass of an atom.” Let’s hypocrites in Wikipedia enjoy how much “featured content” does it have. Though, I do not think deletions are a right way. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
As editing is currently being restricted-- I am posting these recommendations, if simply for the purposes of comparison. This draft contains fewer factual errors and may serve as a more useful starting point-- though, it may be necessary to include the origin of the concept of the 'atom' as belonging to ancient Greek thinkers, who did not possess the scientific tools to prove 'atomic theory', prior to including the more recent work of such researchers such as Heisenberg and Planck-- 'the action' : The ATOM is the smallest identifiable stable form of matter that may be found of any of the chemical elements. Atomic stability is the result of electro-magnetic and gravitational relationships in the atomic nucleus. The density, mass, and atomic weight of an atom are the primary determinants of the sub-atomic structure which lend to its specific chemical properties. Atoms are the primary constituents of molecular compounds such as air or water. The atom is composed of sub-atomic particles, these particles are differentiated, in modern chemistry, primarily by their mass and electrical charge. The primary sub-atomic particles in contemporary physics are alpha, beta, and gamma particles. Alpha particles are sub-atomic particles which possess a positive charge, such as an gamma particle-- as electrical current may be conducted through any medium that functions as an efficient transistor, gamma particles may be either contained or free. A alpha particle is a particle of solid matter which contains an gamma particle: as a result of possessing a positive charge, a alpha particle behaves differently in a sub-atomic system than a beta particle, which does not possess a gamma particle. gamma particles may be generated as the result dynamic relationship between solid particles; solid particles above a level of density are capable of retaining positive and negative charges-- the result of polarization in bi-nuclear atoms is both strong nuclear bonding, as well as potential release of energy in the form of loose gamma particles as the result of 'friction'. Loose gamma particles may dissipitate or become contained within other atomic systems.
Efforts during the early 20th century to provide direct empirical evidence of atomic structure resulted in the field of quantum dynamics, and the famous postulate of Erwin Heisenberg, who's Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to directly observe sub-atomic particles without influencing their state, or 'the more one knows of the position of a sub-atomic particle the less one knows of its direction'. His famous scientific principle is the result of attempts to mathematically define and predict the location of sub-atomic particles within a nucleic structure, and the resulting difficulties, in his work, Heisenberg attempted to create accurate predictive models of nuclear behavior and eliminate the interference generated in working at the sub-molecular level. His work helped to establish the mathematical basis for contemporary chemical and molecular engineering, creating a interdisciplinary foundation for the study of the physics and chemistry of elements in the context of advanced computing and mathematics.
In practical terms, atoms are infrequently found independently of molecular structures. It is useful to think of atomic structures are pertaining to chemical form, and molecular structures as pertaining to physical identity. Stable atomic structures are the individual components of more complex molecular systems which determine the physical charateristics of every form of matter: it is possible to observe significant physical differences between objects which are essentially similar in terms of their chemical composition, but differ structurally. One example of such structural difference can be found in wood: all forms of wood are at the molecular level based in hydro-carbon compounds, however, the wide range of expression found in these hydro-carbon groups leads to the wide range of observed physical differences. At the atomic level, such molecular compounds are composed of atoms of hydrogen and carbon. -- anaceus.
- "Atomic stability is the result of electro-magnetic and gravitational relationships in the atomic nucleus." This is nonsense. Gravitation has nothing to do with atomic nucleus stability. "The density, mass, and atomic weight of an atom are the primary determinants of the sub-atomic structure which lend to its specific chemical properties." More nonsense. Density, mass and atomic weight have almost nothing to do with chemical properties, as the tiny isotope effects in larger atoms demonstrates (Li-6 and Li-7 have quite different densities and masses, but cannot be separated chemically). "A alpha particle is a particle of solid matter which contains an gamma particle: as a result of possessing a positive charge, a alpha particle behaves differently in a sub-atomic system than a beta particle, which does not possess a gamma particle." This is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin, but I hope you're not a teacher somewhere. Gamma particles can be contrained or free, you say? What? "the famous postulate of Erwin Heisenberg, who's Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to directly observe sub-atomic particles without influencing their state". Erwin Heisenberg?? One example of such structural difference can be found in wood: all forms of wood are at the molecular level based in hydro-carbon compounds, ... At the atomic level, such molecular compounds are composed of atoms of hydrogen and carbon. What? Wood is 50% carbon, 6% hydrogen, 44% oxygen by weight. There's a reason you get wood alcohol when you distill wood, and not hydrocarbon. Wood is mostly carbohydrate.
In sum, anaceus, you need to step back and learn some chemistry and physics before you edit this article. Start by reading gamma ray. In fact, it might profit you to read this article and learn something from it. Most of what you think are the errors here, are actually errors in your own understanding of the basic subject. Or so it seems. Sorry. SBHarris 22:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
-- okay-- the name I was looking for was Werner Heisenberg-- I believe that appears to be more accurate-- I have confused the names of Erwin Schrodinger and Werner Heisenberg-- the work of both of which, though recent, is relevant to an understanding of the atom.
Hydro-carbons and carbo-hydrates are both compounds of hydrogen and carbon-- I understand that these terms differ in popular usage.
I have not had the pleasure of weighing wood by chemical element-- I cannot testify to the accuracy of the numbers you provide.
As for what you refer to as 'nonsense'-- 'gravitation has nothing to do atomic nucleus stability': we may, for our purposes, conduct a brief mental experiment-- suppose we take an atom of any sort, a theoretical atom of hydrogen, for instance-- we place this theoretical atom outside the context of the contemporay universe-- we place this atom prior to cosmogenesis-- for our experiment, the many stars of the universe do not exist-- this atom must exist independently of the mass of the universe-- thus the sub-atomic particles of this atom may have gravitational relations only to one another-- what is there to lend these particles stability and mass? do they possess stability and mass? does this theoretical atom have stability? may it exist? or does it lack something which is essential for its stability? though, this 'pre-cosmogenesis' experiment places us in a situation which is certainly exotic, it should provide us with some insight into what some of the nuclear forces essential to nucleic stability are -- after all, we are dealing with particles and energy in nano-spaces. gravitation is essential to atomic nucleic stability-- *is in fact*, one of the basic nuclear forces which allows for atomic stability and for stable matter. -- though, this line of reasoning-- which forces us to consider the origin of the universe in our consideration of the primary forces which allow for the existence of what is otherwise 'mundane reality', by rights, should require more space then i am allowing it for the purposes of this argument.--anaceus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Blah-blah. Cite a good chem or physics text that says any of this. SBHarris 20:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Hydro-carbons and carbo-hydrates are both compounds of hydrogen and carbon-- I understand that these terms differ in popular usage." Not in popular usage, but in scientific usage (but neither word has a hyphen in either usage). Hydrocarbons are compounds of hydrogen and carbon. Carbohydrates are compounds of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen. The suffixes -ate and -ite in chemistry indicate the presence of oxygen in a compound. WaxTadpole (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
grading this article
Grading “The Atom”
the first sentence in the article is inaccurate. There is no such thing as 'clouds of negatively charged electrons' the second sentence is confusing – it introduces new materials without a contextual background – we are introduced to 'the stability of nuclides', and forced to differentiate between protons and nuetrons without any anecodotal or empirical evidence which may allow us to do so effectively. The third sentence of the introduction is incomplete – the 'electromagnetic force' is only one of the nuclear forces – the article makes no mention to any other nuclear force. The fourt sentence – is inaccurate, it suggests that 'chemical bonds' are electromagnetic in nature – suggesting that molecular stability (the stability of mult-chemical compounds) is electro-magnetic-- for instance, that the electro-magnetic bond is most essential to molecular AIR. The following sentence is false – furthermore, the usage of the term “proton” “neutron” and “electron” which referred to different kinds of sub-atomic particles, is not pedagogically useful, without corrborating information which may serve to DEFINE these particles in function and effect (the term ION is useless, and it is only confusing and does not help to clarify anything in this context). The following sentence is a mis-statement: atoms are classified on the basis primarily of WEIGHT – atomic weight which corresponds to atomic number – less dense atoms (such as hydrogen or oxygen) versus those which are HEAVIER (salts, iron) – as aforementioned, the terms PROTON and NEUTRON are not useful in this context.
- Chemical bonds ARE electromagnetic in nature! "Molecular air" is a mixture not a compound-- the only chemical bonds in "molecular air" are between atoms in air molecules (at least those air molecules that contain more than one atom; this isn't true in argon). Atomic weight does NOT correspond to atomic number. If you order atoms by atomic weight, you will run up against next door pairs that are the same or even reversed in weight (potassium/argon, cobalt/nickel, tellurium/iodine) but of course different in number (place on the periodic table). This was a big problem in the days before people knew what atomic number was besides place on the periodic table. It was not understood until 1914. SBHarris 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The Next Paragraph!
The opening sentence posits the existence of “objects” with the diameter of a few nanometers – suggesting that “atoms” may also correspond to such a description, without any supporting evidence or providing information regarding the manner in which measurements may be achieved (though it does suggest the existence of a tool referred to as a “scanning tunneling microscope” – a thing which may or may not exist – this raises an important issue, but fails to resolve it or explore it at sufficient depth – the integrity of “atomic theory” depended on the ability to provide empirical evidence which confirmed the atom's existence.
- The scanning tunneling microscope may or may not exist?? Maybe you should read the article? SBHarris 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
It may be true that an atom's mass is concentrated in the nucleus – but again, the usage of protons and neutrons and their possession of 'equal mass' is not relevant if we have ignored the issue of 'ATOMIC STABILITY', which proves to be more important – a discussion of nuclear forces may be more appropriate in this section. Modern “atomic theory” – (and it may be useful to reference the idea, that for MOST PEOPLE, atoms remain theoretical, as these were for early Greco-Roman scientists, becauase WE as amateur scientists and theoreticians, LACK the ability to indisputably prove their existence) – includes the idea of the weak and strong nuclear forces – the forces relevant to the stability of the atom include the electro-magnetic force, the gravitational force, as well as the 'physical force' (as in physical bonding)
- "Physical force"?? "Physical bonding"? What? Are you making up your own terms? Gravitational force has nothing to do wtih the stability of atoms. SBHarris 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
a understanding of the creation of photons/electrons at the sub-atomic level presupposes a understanding of nuclear forces – it is not practical to introduce the idea of orbitals, at this stage of argumentation – furthermore, the inclusion of this idea suggests a non-NPOV argumentation – these development borrows rigorously from established APE curriculum (and includes the fallacious reasoning, sometimes used for 'pedagogical' purposes).
Given the problems in the introduction of the material – I do not believe that this article at present may pass a fair review. Furthermore, the introduction should include some of the historical background of atomic theory – or provide a link to “atomic theory” – as for example, by such a device, : “the 'atom' is the smallest unit of stable matter of any chemical element supposed to exist in the universe, as described in 'atomic theory'” (and here the link) --- it may be useful to include this in the introduction, as this is where that sort of material belongs, rather than, in one of the body paragraphs.
I would also like to know why this article has been "locked" to prevent editing -- as it is in such a obvious state of disrepair. Is there an "administrator" who is responsible for this? Please step forward and respond to these queries-- I would appreciate this. -Anaceus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- You misunderstand what WP:Verifiability means. It is not about “evidences which indisputably prove” something. It is about reliable sources. Can you, as an amateur geographer, prove indisputably that Pacific Ocean is larger than all other planet’s bodies of water combined? Or, as an amateur historian, prove the existence of Thirteen Colonies? I am sure than the answer to both questions is “no”. Then, why are you so preoccupied with atom while numerous things exist beyond your personal experience? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
certainly-- i have no problem with what you are suggesting. however-- to re-write an article on the atom, consistent with the wikipedian philosophy of expressing NPOV -- a neutral perspective -- would require for us to work with the essential facts as they are reported to us -- for instance, to accept that there are, lets say, 3 sub-atomic particles which are essential to an undertanding of the atom. we can accept this. to suggest, that these particles in their function, collectively, allow for 'atomic stability' -- furthermore, to include well-documented and important information -- such as the existence of 'nuclear forces'-- which is to say, of forces essential to nuclear stability (the stability of an atomic nucleus)-- in all cases, in the physical sciences, it is not merely a question of sources -- but we are charged with the responsibility of interpration -- in order to re-write a clear and accurate article, it is necesary for us to accept as credible some of the basic constituent parts, as related to us in the atomic theory of some conventional sources, while of necessity arranging them in a manner that is most consistent with PHYSICAL REALITY, such as we understand it.
likewise, it is necessary for us to reject information that is incomplete, misleading, causes confusion, makes a shallow usage of the "nomenclature" of the physical sciences, and leads to a superficial comprehension of the material.
--- as for the pacific ocean-- yes, we have merely to consult available information, such as referring to any of the available satellites which provide geographical information on the internet-- supposing we accept the formal definition of "pacific ocean", we then have merely to find an acceptable means of measurement, and draw our conclusions. as for the 13 colonies-- we may find sufficient anecedotal evidence to support the existence of the 13 colonies in published literature to accept the usage of the term-- and if we are interested as historians to uncover further corrborating evidence, we may look for the historical artifacts of that period-- we start with some hypotheses, that there were people, perhaps english-speaking people, who lived in a place that we may loosely define as the east coast of america, during a specific period of time, and that these people were the predecessors of the contemporary nation-state that is the USA, and with this as our point of departure attempt to find supporting evidence in order to confirm our hypotheses (or, perhaps, to our disappointment, find that there is no evidence to support such an idea)-- what if we, for instance, stared with the idea that vessels had departed the great oceans of barsoom during the 75th century by the ancient (*$*$*$*) calendar and that THESE settlers were the founders of the nation which currently occupies the territories we consider as specific to the United States of America (as between a certain latitude and longitude, ... )-- in order to prove this hypothesis, we would need to uncover evidence and prove its authenticity.
this is besides the point. for our purposes, we have the evidence of our senses-- in physical reality, all matter maintains its stability irrespective of the rotation of the earth, and our orbit, and the phases of the moon, and all the rest of that-- we suppose that matter must be composed of something, we attempt an analysis-- we accept the theses of "atomic theory" rather than accepting the idea that "all rocks are made of grains", "all socks made of strands" and so forth-- the atom is the proposed answer to this question-- what is the atom? the atom is the proposed, hypothetical "smallest possible unit of a chemical element that maintains its stability" -- this hypothesis includes our understanding of the existence of chemical elements-- we suppose that an atom of hydrogen may differ from an atom of carbon, or an atom of iron -- or we may reject this theory entirely, and create something which is more satisfying to our reasoning and intellect. this is our choice.
Throughout history there have been questions as to the “verfiability” of the existence of the atom – this question is as essential to the study of atomic theory as the electrons and photons which are speculated to be emitted from an atomic nucleus. This article does not concern itself with any of the advanced research and science which relates to particle physics – we can, however, use the starting point which is our definition of the atom – rather than our definition of the “material grain” or “cotton strand” – to draw useful conclusions regarding atomic structure and particle physics – for instance, that if the atom is the “smallest possible unit of any chemical element to function as stable matter”, that sub-atomic particles such as neutrons, protons, and electrons do not function as “stable matter”, for instance.
- It's hard to say what "stable matter" means, but it usually it is a term is taken to be the "stuff" of which everyday objects are made. Neurons, protons, and electrons alone will not do to make such stuff. The charge on protons and electrons, if they were collected together withough equal amounts of the other, would blow even small collections of them. And (except in incredible mass) neutrons are radioactive, when alone. SBHarris 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
My criticism is of the incompleteness, vagueness, poor use of terminology, inaccuracy, and structural weakness of this article. Your criticism appears to be of my interest in this article.
It is reasonable to take any text which concerns itself with the physical sciences as a possible source – all of them will make reference to positive and negative electrical charge – to alpha and beta decay – to gamma radiation – to positively changed particles, to negatively charged particles, to particles of a neutral charge – to nuclear forces.
To reference these terms is insufficient: it not acceptable to say, “ions are the byproduct of alpha decay” without placing such an idea in a context – it is even less useful to say “The electrons determine the chemical properties of an element, and strongly influence an atom's magnetic properties” (paragraph 2, sentence 7). --anaceus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- This encyclopedia works with hyperlinks, which place terms immediately in context. If you don't know what alpha decay is, you can simply click on the term and read the article, then come back. So it's not like the texts you're used to. SBHarris 23:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
yes-- I understand that is true-- however 'alpha decay' is a term that is relative-- in physics, such terms may be defined for different purposes-- they are interchangeable-- we designate something as 'alpha', something as 'beta', thus may refer to an alpha and beta decay-- there is, in organic and inorganic chemistry-- organic decay which is a molecular decay which occurs in such things as fruit and vegetation, as well as non-organic decay, such as the minor decrease in atomic weight which is the result of atomic radioactivity.
yes. i understand! wikipedia is rooted in html, of course-- it is the world's first encylopedia written entirely with the help of html, which allows for hyperlinks, well 'why didn't i think of that', haha?
it is not so hard to say what "stable matter" is-- our daily life provides us with direct experience of a great variety of stable matter.
my point is that this article is very conventional-- and furthermore, not very useful, from the purpose of improving a reader's understanding of nuclear forces, of atomic theory, of the structure/role of the atom. it does not challenge the reader to re-examine any of their beliefs regarding the fundaments of matter, and further makes statements that are inaccurate and wrong-- it is an article that is in need of serious editing. it was my recommendation that a project overview-- a kind of, well-mannered backing away from the accepted terminology of science, in order to allow for a more objective perspective, may be useful-- if we accept, for instance, the idea that 'neutrality' must be guide, and that furthemore that science requires of us that we only take as factual things which we are capable of empirically verifying, then, for many of us-- the atom is consigned to the realm of theory-- from this standpoint, what is the usefulness of thing of the equally theoretical sub-atomic particles by specific names-- we are better off, if we wish to improve our understanding, by using more general terms-- and by developing definitions which serve to refine our comprehension--- and yes, gravitational forces are quite important to atomic stability, SbHarris.
Is there a neutral arbitrater or some procedure to which we may appeal in order to resolve this issue? This article is essential, it is poorly developed, and I see no reason to waste a great deal of time bickering if it is with people who have no interest in working to improve this particular article-- or have no interest in the subject. --anaceus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
"Chemical bonds ARE electromagnetic in nature! "Molecular air" is a mixture not a compound" -- I suppose we should break this into two parts, I will respond in reverse order:
1. "molecular air" from this standpoint, would be both a mixture and a compound-- if we include in the phenomena of air, both clouds, which frequently include molecular compounds of hydrogen and oxygen, and 'air' which is the un-bonded mixture of hydrogen and oxygen 2. "chemical bonds ARE electromagnetic in nature!" -- well, if in this statement you mean to suggest that the *bonds* at the atomic level, between sub-atomic particles are electro-magnetic in nature, then yes, you are in part correct, because electr-magnetism is another primary nuclear force-- however, if you are suggesting, as in the previous example, that the bonds between for instance, molecular compounds of hydrogen and oxygen are "ARE electromagnetic", then no-- those are bonds that exist as the result of changes in atmosphere pressure, and physical processes such as preciptation, and are most certainly not electromagnetic. To rephrase this, some of the bonds which characterize the fundamental differences between chemical elements are electromagnetic, however, the bonds between molecular compounds, such as the bonds between hydrogen and carbon in hydrocarbons, or the bonds between oxygen and hydrogen in hydroxides are in no ways electromagnetic "in nature!" --anaceus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's sad that you don't even know that air is oxygen and nitrogen (not hydrogen). Or that the hydrogen bonds between water molecules are electrmagnetic as are all significant interactions between molecules. Read chemical bond and learn. Hydrocarbon and carbohydrate are well-defined very different chemical terms. Read and learn. Their atoms are held together no differently from H and O in water molecules (or hydroxides for that matter). The fundamentals of chemistry elude you and you want to edit the article on atoms. Your ideas on gravitational stability of atoms are fringe. You try to find textbook references and you will see how fringe. Wikipedia's job is to summarize the well-accepted. All these links are available, such as van der Waals interaction. Educate yourself. SBHarris 19:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
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)