![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
In your picture of the helium atom would it be possible to label the nucleons conseculatively 1,2 3, and 4, and then draw an arrow through each of the nucleons to show the spin orientation relationship?WFPM WFPM ( talk) 18:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC) It would be really nice to have a real image of an atom. I know it is done, I even think I saw it in O'Hanian.
"If an apple was magnified to the size of the Earth, then the atoms in the apple would be approximately the size of the original apple." - If satilites can view people from outer space, then surely we will soon have the technology to see the atoms in an apple? (Seb-Gibbs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb-Gibbs ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Atoms are smaller than the wavelength of visible light, so even if you had an unbelievably powerful microscope, it will always be impossible to see without special imaging techniques (that's why we use electron microscopes). 24.131.183.162 ( talk) 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC) darkstaruav, 10 February, 2008
hey, i dont get why you would write 100k fm in the picture - it's meant to be accessible to anyone and a femtometer doesn't mean much to most people.. would be better to express it in millimeters, or even in nanometers, which most people have heard of i think (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popffabrik ( talk • contribs)
In the article there is an image that is said to be a picture showing individual atoms, is this true? Does this picture actually show the atoms that make up that sheet of gold?
Sorry if this isnt the propper way of asking this, but I'm just dumbfounded by this, as far as my limited knowledge went, they hadnt been seen nor pictured in any form yet. 200.109.43.50 ( talk) 01:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to talk here about the article's paragragh about Electron orbit energy levels. These are supposed to be occurring to the orbiting electrons in the electrostatic attractive field areas and involve a concept of the existence of a zero or free electron level from which the involved electron can fall into discrete levels of lost free energy or minus incremental energy values. The incremental units of these values are usually given in Electron volts, which is both an energy times time (erg-second) and an equivalent angular momentum (MVR) unit. In Bohr's original orbit theories the orbits were considered to have actual angular momentum magnitude values, but in the orbital theories no values of angular momentum are considered. And the radiation emissions are usually indicated as being emitted from the center of the atom. This obscures and damages the ability of a person to conceptualize as to how the atom is able to get rid of angular momentum and wuld indicate that some constituent of the atom, hopefully the electron should be retheorized in some manner to allow it to emit radiation at the end of a lever arm, vis a vis the whip principal or whatever. If you'll look at my pictures of real physical nuclear models((Talk:Nuclear model)) you'll see that I had gotten as far as that question in the models, but not far enough to answer the question. But I think it's a worthy subject for discussion in your discussion about Orbital electron energy levels in your evolving artical about the atom.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 21:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)WFPM WFPM ( talk) 14:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I Just guess that I cant concieve of a kind of physical motion of the electron that isnt some kind of radial motion involving a conic radial orbit with constant angular momentum and a constant value of lost potential energy. And if the electron was causing the emission of some of the mass of the atom in the form of radiation particles or radiation waves as goes the theory then a reasonabally correct description of the electron's motion would be desirable for conceptual purposes. And I think it would involve an orbit with a conserved amount of angular momentum. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 21:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Another aspect of this radiation concept problem has to do with what might be called compartmentalism of concepts. So when discussing radiation from the atom it may me adequate to just discuss energy difference values. But when you want to discuss radiation from the center of the ((Whirlpool Galaxy)) you get involved with whether or not the emitted radiation is carrying off some of the observed excess angular momentum in the system as some scientists think it does. And so the process of radiation from matter in that system in terms of MVR change values rather than MVsquared values would have to be conceptually discussed.WFPM 66.139.107.38 ( talk) 16:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)WFPM WFPM ( talk) 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I might even add to that the problem in or own solar system where the sun has managed to acquire 99+ percent of the matter of the original solar gas system but now has only a small portion of of the system's angular momentum.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 16:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a little difficulty trying to solidify this value, so I moved it here for the moment. The estimates fluctuate depending on the author and I can't find a really solid scientific paper on the topic. Here are some examples:
Value | Reference |
---|---|
1079 |
"The Universe". National Solar Observatory.
May 21,
2001. Retrieved 2008-02-15. {{
cite web}} : Check date values in: |date= (
help)
|
1080 | Champion, Matthew (
September 11,
1998).
"How many atoms make up the universe?". MadSci Network. Retrieved 2007-01-02. {{
cite web}} : Check date values in: |date= (
help)
|
1081 |
deGrasse Tyson, Neil (1994). Universe Down to Earth. Columbia University Press. pp. p. 10.
ISBN
023107560X. {{
cite book}} : |pages= has extra text (
help)
|
Any suggestions? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 17:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the sun's mass at 10E33.3 grams times 10E23.8 nucleons/gram we get 10E57.1 nucleons/sun. Then if we buy the 10E11suns/galaxy and 10E11galaxies/universe theories, we get 10E79.1 nucleons/universe; plus whatever amount of unknown matter you want to add. But I think we ought to start out with a large amount of neutrons. Like maybe 90%?WFPM WFPM ( talk) 02:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)WFPM WFPM ( talk) 19:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Kind of depends on which physical problem you're worried about? Galactic rotation? or Red Shift? or what? WFPM WFPM ( talk) 02:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Is that matter what we're looking at in the center of the whirlpool galaxy? What I see is matter with a lot of excess angular momentum. And how are we supposed to gid rid of that?WFPM WFPM ( talk) 13:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The topic of the article is atoms, and the picture of the center of M51 appears to me to be one of the best in showing the environment in which the process of accumulating matter into atoms is occurring, and I really would like to understand the process, like the matter recipe and how the system is getting rid of what appears to be excess angular momentum. And after all the universe is theorized to be made up of approximately 10E11 of these or similar galaxies. and they just recently discovered a supernova in M51. So if we could explain the recipe and process in it we would be well on our way to understanding the processes of the universe at large. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 23:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by completely stable in "The heaviest completely stable atom is that of lead-208"? Don't all atoms have a limited lifetime (although some are indeed quite long)? Randomblue ( talk) 18:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the statement that the wave-particle duality was used to model the atom. Though it takes no stretch of the imagination that the two are related, the statement is vague. The sentence that remains is clear and sufficient. Also I removed the reference Harrison (2003). Without a title or a publisher this could be any of a hundred articles os books. -- V. ( talk) 05:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | The atom is the smallest building block of ordinary matter, that is the gases, liquids and solids that comprise the macroscopic world in which we live. | ” |
I had another go at clarifying this, as discribed at the bottom of the page, but it has been rather curtly reverted by User:Rracecarr, who declined to describe why he didn't "think this ... an improvement". The issue of inaccuracy is something I discuss at length at the bottom. Essentially, there are no independet atoms in covalent matter. The Britannica's description of an atom as the smallest uncharged unit of ordinary matter is about as simple as one can get while still being true. We need some intellegent discussion about this, rather than curt reverts. Che Gannarelli ( talk) 15:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The 9th edition of the EB has two very informative articles about the Atom and the theory of the force of universal gravitational attraction by Prof. G Clerk Maxwell (Atom & Attraction) that explain the development of the classical concepts related to this subject matter. They are very much worthy of review and consideration. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous poster made the suggestion that we use the image at right as it uses a radial decay proportional to e-r for the electron cloud. Is there interest in using this image in place of the current helium atom diagram? I'm not sure whether the listed units are best for this purpose.— RJH ( talk) 17:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The following additions, while probably correct, are also unsourced. To avoid a FAR, I would like to make sure that this page continues to satisfy the FA criteria.
It is often far easier to remove unsourced entries than it is to try and source somebody else's input, so I am hoping that citations are readily available for this material. Otherwise I think this should be pruned back. Thoughts?— RJH ( talk) 15:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There's some kind of glitch in the last sentence of the first paragraph: the grammatical construction's wrong, the content seems redundant given the previous content, and there are a couple of stray characters at the end.
Paul Magnussen ( talk) 15:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Smallest recognized division of a chemical element |
"Classification Smallest recognized division of a 'african'"
I'm not sure of what this refers to...'african' links to Africa, and although I am sure that quarks are a smaller division of Africa than an atom, I don't think this is what was intended to be discussed.
Buteo lineatus ( talk) 19:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Issue has been resolved. Previously, "chemical element" was "african," but this has been remedied.
Buteo lineatus ( talk) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
taken from the intro, is totally wrong. The only thing that determine the type of an atom is the number of protons. Turiacus ( talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)A chemical element is determined entirely by the type of atom it contains, which in turn is determined by the number of protons, electrons and neutrons that constitute the atom.
So for recap:
Z | Number of protons | Decides the "element" |
N | Number of neutrons | Decides the "isotope" of the element |
ne | Number of electrons | Decides the "ion" of the isotope of the element |
Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay I reworded things. How about now?
The thing that fascinates me about encyclopaedic approaches to studies about physical entities is that our egocentric bias makes us miss the basic question, which what is the logic controlling the entities and the processes in the first place. And the logic of atoms is that nature has created a process of reaccumulating difuse matter that it have previously difused for some purpose in the first place, and what are the significant details of that accumulating process. So we start with difuse matter (or energy if you like), and then after phase 1 have a lot of nucleons (or energy packages], and these are accumuleted into atom package, and behind that we have a large package of matter (energy) waiting to gobble the whole thing all up (phase 3} and the question is, What are the controling factors in that process? And when are we going to get around to discussing that? WFPM WFPM ( talk) 13:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC) And so, if we examine the logic of the process of accumulation of matter (energy) we see that nature first created matter (energy), then created a reaccumulation process, which incidently increases factorially as a function of the number of units of mass (energy) versus the direct one to one relationship of mass-energy creation. Then how could nature fail to be able to reaccumulate the difuse matter (energy) and defeat the original purpose? And do you have an article on this? WFPM WFPM ( talk) 14:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Atom&oldid=78921569 still has info that needs to be included in current version -- JimWae ( talk) 19:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Comparison & contrast with molecules needs to come much sooner in current version(is it even included?) -- JimWae ( talk) 19:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"In chemistry and physics, an atom ( Greek ἄτομος or átomos meaning "indivisible") is the smallest possible particle of a chemical element that retains its chemical properties. The word atom originally meant the smallest possible indivisible particle, but after the term came to have a specific meaning in science, atoms were found to be divisible and composed of smaller subatomic particles.
Most atoms are composed of three types of subatomic particles which govern their external properties:
- electrons, which have a negative charge and are the least massive of the three;
- protons, which have a positive charge and are about 1836 times more massive than electrons; and
- neutrons, which have no charge and are about 1839 times more massive than electrons.
Protons and neutrons make up a dense, massive atomic nucleus, and are collectively called nucleons. The electrons form the much larger electron cloud surrounding the nucleus.
Atoms can differ in the number of each of the subatomic particles they contain. Atoms of the same element have the same number of protons (called the atomic number). Within a single element, the number of neutrons may vary, determining the isotope of that element. The number of electrons associated with an atom is most easily changed, due to the lower energy of binding of electrons. The number of protons (and neutrons) in the atomic nucleus may also change, via nuclear fusion, nuclear fission or radioactive decay, in which case the atom is no longer the same element it was.
Atoms are electrically neutral if they have an equal number of protons and electrons. Atoms which have either a deficit or a surplus of electrons are called ions. Electrons that are furthest from the nucleus may be transferred to other nearby atoms or shared between atoms. By this mechanism atoms are able to bond into molecules and other types of chemical compounds like ionic and covalent network crystals.
Atoms ... are conserved in chemical reactions.
Atoms and molecules
For gases and certain molecular liquids and solids (such as water and sugar), molecules are the smallest division of matter which retains chemical properties; however, there are also many solids and liquids which are made of atoms, but do not contain discrete molecules (such as salts, rocks, and liquid and solid metals). Thus, while molecules are common on Earth (making up all of the atmosphere and most of the oceans), most of the mass of the Earth (much of the crust, and all of the mantle and core) is not made of identifiable molecules, but rather represents atomic matter in other arrangments, all of which which lack the particular type of small-scale order that is associated with molecules.
Most molecules are made up of multiple atoms; for example, a molecule of water is a combination of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The term "molecule" in gases has been used as a synonym for the fundamental particles of the gas, whatever their structure. This definition results in a few types of gases (for example inert elements that do not form compounds, such as helium), having "molecules" consisting of only a single atom. "
Because understanding the difference between atoms & molecules it key to understanding both concepts. Understanding how atoms can combine is part of understanding what atoms are -- JimWae ( talk) 21:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Disagree about the "halting & clunky". That's your POV. I'd say pointed & specific - it takes time to talk about each topic rather than trying to cover too may topics at once (sweeping & vague) - and thereby even needing to repeat itself -- JimWae ( talk) 21:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
AcceptAble or not, does not mean it does not need improvement. Correcting suggestion that proton numbers are key to formation of ions, and fixing omission of mention of nuclear reaction and molecules are not simply matters of personal preference. I also object to your suggestion that I have not been using tak page -- JimWae ( talk) 22:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It also adds information about how atoms can vary & does NOT suggest that proton removal forms ions -- JimWae ( talk) 21:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
-- a vaugeness that can easily be fixed -- JimWae ( talk) 22:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Saying the number of protons determines the chemical element and the number of neutrons determines the isotope of that element is epistemologically backwards. We do not count the number of protons & neutrons to determine the element or the isotope. We have determined that atoms of the same element have the same number of protons AND determined they sometimes differ in the number of neutrons. -- JimWae ( talk) 22:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
edit conflict--
Per the discussion with JimWae above, I think it makes sense to expand upon the following sentence in the lead:
JimWae's wording could be adopted by inserting the following text after the above sentence:
Does anybody object to this idea, or want to present some better wording? Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 14:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are the particles masses given in "g" instead of "kg" as in the International System of Units? I think that particles masses are given in kg in practically all textbooks. Eklipse ( talk) 15:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I created this template so people could quickly-browse atomic models. The skeleton is there, but little meat. Help is appreciated. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
How about looking at the picture of a real physical nuclear model, light in Talk:Nuclear model.WFPM WFPM ( talk) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I changed it into a navbox and expanded things a bit. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The article formerly in the "Size" section formerly included the text "The largest atoms observed, as defined by the distance of the outermost electron from the nucleus, have a diameter approaching one millimeter for several orbits of the outermost electron. [3] " This was deleted 16:48 on 14 August by BenRG with the comment "The article says they manually put an electron in a large semiclassical orbit from which it almost immediately decayed." The extremes of physics are not something to delete and ignore. The article, in Science Daily, from July 1, 2008 [2] is titled "Physicists Create Millimeter-sized 'Bohr Atom'." It says they intentionally created a Bohr-like atom with an electron in a defined orbit, (not "manually" since their hands are large and electrons are small) but by adding energy to the outermost electron. It is still an atom even if the outermost electron is at an unusually high energy level. Many substances in nuclear physics are "artificially" created and last for very brief periods before changing or decaying. The article said "Using laser beams and electric fields, Rice physicists coaxed a point-like, "localized" electron to orbit far from the nucleus of a potassium atom." Scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Vienna University of Technology collaborated with a team from Rice University led by Barry Dunning, and it was published in Physical Review Letters. It is said to have applications "in next-generation computers and in the study of classical and quantum chaos." I feel that this demonstration should be included in the article, and welcome any suggestions for how to make it as clear as possible. An atom with a diameter of about a millimeter and a localized electron in a well defined orbit is atypical but worth noting. Edison ( talk) 15:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the Bohr orbits were supposed to be stable and not involve energy loss radiation. The energy loss radiation was supposed to occur "per saltum" as the orbit fell from one level to another. WFPM WFPM ( talk) 16:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Tomorrow they will do some experiments on the subatomic level, is that worth it, is that on the level, why waste money, what kind of black hole can be created or r they overdoing things big time? I dont thing force is great enough to produce such effects?! Who cares what happened in first second, i think there were many big bangs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ornamentalone ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
An atom is everytihg in the world, air,liquid and,gas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.87.249 ( talk) 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Like charges repel. What are the forces that keep the protons with similar charges are so close to each other in nucleus of an atom. The distance among electrons and protons are greater as compared to the distance among protons in nucleus. 96.52.178.55 ( talk) 16:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Khattak
I have just now made some minor changes and have noticed other points that need expert attention. For example, there is a difference between electrons and orbitals that isn't obvious in places in this article. Also, the level of sophistication of the text varies quite a bit. Finally, chemists would argue about the article's first sentence since the stable macroscopic manifestations of many elements are not carried over to the atomic level. [Example: Elemental nitrogen is N2, so an atom (N) of this element doesn't behave like a mole of nitrogen in the room where you are now reading this sentence.] I'm not a regular contributor to this long article, so take these comments for what they are worth. - Astrochemist ( talk) 16:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Here are some of the definitions I found on the net:
Other definitions define the atom in terms of the element. However, the element is in turn defined in terms of the atom, which seems to result in a circular definition.
Here is the current definition:
Here is my first attempt at a definition to address Astrochemist's concern:
although I'm not sure if that would include the hydrogen ion. Does anybody have a better definition?— RJH ( talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay I reworked the lead paragraph it a little:
Does anybody see any further issues with this? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 18:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
An atom is a basic unit of matter consisting of a dense, central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons. The atomic nucleus contains positively charged protons and often, but not always, electrically neutral neutrons. The electrons of an atom are bound to the nucleus by the electromagnetic force. Likewise, a group of atoms can remain bound to each other, forming a molecule. An atom containing an equal number of protons and electrons is electrically neutral, otherwise it has a positive or negative charge and is an ion.
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 determine the isotope of the element.
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)An atom is a basic unit of matter consisting of a dense, central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons. 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 isotope with zero neutrons). The electrons of an atom are bound to the nucleus by the electromagnetic force. Likewise, a group of atoms can remain bound to each other, forming a molecule. An atom containing an equal number of protons and electrons is electrically neutral, otherwise it has a positive or negative charge and is an ion. 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 determine the isotope of the element.
"For unknown reasons, antimatter particles are rare in the universe, hence, no antimatter atoms have been discovered in nature.[130][131]"
Atoms are the basics of life. Everything we know is made of atoms. Do you know what an atom is? I don't. I do you know what a molecule is? It is a bunch of atoms put together just like our bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden014 ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
a link to Intel Atom requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.65.120 ( talk) 00:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
To date, although the theories on atom model are said quite established, there are still few unsolved questionable problems, such as the non-linearity in Moseley X-ray plot for higher atomic mass number, the 'V' shape of H2O molecule, the revolution of electrons in atom and etcetera. An alternative atom model is proposed for alternative understanding. More detail explanation is presented in an alternative atom model Kongkokhaw ( talk) 16:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
If everything is made of matter, of which the building blocks are atoms, of which the building blocks are fermions ( quarks and leptons) and gauge bosons and maybe Faddeev-Popov ghosts, of which the building blocks are what? ( Strings?). Still, we do not tackle what is in-between the fundamental particles? How is "empty space" accounted for? Are we currently just defining this into being (or some kind of non-being) and not talking about it? andersole ( talk) 00:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Element consists of atoms and atom consists of protons, neutrons, electrons depend upon the element. What are their masses made up of? Means what kind of material (matter) is in their masses? 96.52.178.55 ( talk) 02:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Khattak
In the Identification section, there is a line "Electrons tunnel through the vacuum between two planar metal electrodes, on each of which is an adsorbed atom, providing a tunneling-current density that can be measured.". I wonder why it is explicitly mentioned that there should be atoms adsorbed to the metal electrodes. What kind of atoms are they referring to? By the way, in STM, one measures a tunneling current, not a tunneling current density. And the metal electrodes are not planar, one of them is a tip and certainly not a plane. Erwin ( talk) 11:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
In the "Origin and current state" section, there is a line "Atoms form about 4% of the total mass density of the observable universe." This is not true, atoms form 4% of the total energy density of the observable universe, also according to the website which is given as reference. Erwin ( talk) 11:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
We need an etymology of the word "Atom" Faro0485 ( talk) 21:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Towards the end of the article there are references to Plutonium and Neptunium. To the Neptunium article a link is present, but not to the Plutonium article. Unfortunately I cannot edit it myself due to the semi-protected status. Arjan Mels ( talk) 18:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why does the article under size state, "Consequently, the smallest atom is helium with a radius of 32 pm, while one of the largest is caesium at 225 pm."
Yet the page on Hydrogen says it has a radius of 25 pm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.113.33 ( talk) 05:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"The atom is a basic unit of matter that consists of a dense central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons." Since an atom is matter, may a basic unit of antimatter also be called an atom, albeit with a qualifier? If so, the atom would not necessarily have a nucleus surrounded by negatively charged electrons, it would be surrounded by positively charged positrons. SpoilingRoot ( talk) 07:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Suggest that starting out the article by jumping to the subject of antimatter is immediately leading the discussion away from the subject. Which should start by the concept that the Atom is made up of an accumulation of one or more nucleons and then go on from there. And there are people who have the periodic table memorized. WFPM ( talk) 14:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The following edited text:
assumes familiarity with the periodic table on the part of the the reader. My suspicion is that most readers will not have the table memorized, and so this fails the WP:JARGON policy. Is there anybody who objects to me spelling these out, as is done in the remainder of the article?— RJH ( talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
My sense on the History section is that it should be a brief, WP:Summary style description of the key concepts in the Atomic theory article. It has show a tendency to grow over time, sometimes adding in what appear to be secondary details. For this reason I did some trimming back. Hopefully this didn't offend anybody. The details can always be expanded upon in the main article. I do think that the atomic theory article is in need of improvement and better referencing. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 17:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to know about the history of knowledge about atoms, you should read Maxwell's 14 page article about "atom" in the 9th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. WFPM ( talk) 22:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Basically agree with RJH's comment, but some key concepts require quite obvious names and dates, presented in quite obvious manners. for example, the originator of modern atomic theory (Dalton, 1803), needs to be boldly credited in this basic article introducing atoms and atomic theory. in this spirit, section 1.2 is entitled as obviously as possible:
1.2 John Dalton, originator of modern atomic theory (1803)
similarly, otto hahn and lise meitner's mentions in section 1.4 should be slightly expanded to include dates and details (e.g., german anti-semitism decreased german physicists):
"In 1938, the German chemist Otto Hahn (a student of Rutherford's) directed neutrons onto uranium atoms expecting to create transuranic elements. Instead, his chemical tests showed barium, a lighter element, as a product. In 1939, his physics colleague Lise Meitner (living in Sweden to avoid anti-Jewish persecution in Germany) and her nephew Otto Frisch verified Hahn's result were the first experimental nuclear fission. In 1944, Hahn received the Nobel prize in chemistry in which, despite the efforts of Hahn, Meitner and Frisch's contributions were not recognized."
ciao--
diremarc
(talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
A significant thing to note in this matter is how the lead and follow situation in science concepts wandered around all over Europe, with occasional inputs from other areas. See Gustave Le Bon's "The evolution of matter". WFPM ( talk) 15:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Electron - 1 e .00911 e-28 kg Protons - 1836 e 16.72596 e-28 kg + ----- 16.73507 e-28 kg Nuetrons - 1839 e 16.75329 e-28 kg - ----- -.01822 e-28 kg 1n(0) -> 1p(0) + 1e(0) + E(due to changes in momentum [KE] and position [PE]of the system) (0) is the ground charge state. For protons it is a + charge, for electrons -. a p+ is a proton with 1 less charge, a p- is a proton with one addicional charge. a n+ is a nuetron with 1 less charge, a n- is a neutron with one addicional charge. a p- ≠ n(0) and a n+ ≠ p(0) due to differences in KE and PE (spin, size, mass, etc). a proton is 3 electron masses less heavy than an nuetron (used to be different). 3 electron masses in energy Ee = KE(spin, orbit) + PE(gravitic well). The base to which the measurement of charges are made is the nuetron, no charge. If the base for charging was made from the perspecitve of the proton, then the neutron would be 1 electron charge above the proton and the electron, 2 electron charges above the proton. Obviously, neither the neutron nor the proton are the true zero line for charge measurement. If you use the base energy of an electron Ebe= KEe + PEe within a gravitic well (a standard 0 level mass that exerts gravitic energy on all three), then the electron would have a base of 1, the proton at 1836 and the nuetron at 1839 on a mass energy basis due to the influence of gravity. fractalhints: ( 190.38.108.98 ( talk) 22:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC))
PS: Sorry about the formatting, shows up correctly in edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.38.108.98 ( talk) 22:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Electron | 1 e | .00911 e-28 kg |
Protons | 1836 e | 16.72596 e-28 kg |
+ ------------------------ | ||
16.73507 e-28 kg | ||
Neutrons | 1839 e | 16.75329 e-28 kg |
- ------------------------- | ||
-.01822 e-28 kg |
The question is also as to how many times can this charge change take place in a single nucleon. The quark theory only allows two states of charge, + or -, (I think?) And for no reason. So a beta- change happens to neutrons and a beta+ happens to protons. And an ec doesn't involve a change in mass?. And the rest of the mass change is due to a mysterious change in the electrostatic/kinetic energy content. So it's kind of hard to explain it when you don't know what it is. WFPM ( talk) 15:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Do we have to use this dated non-SI unit? Can we not use picometres? JIMp talk· cont 21:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The Anbstrom happens to be 10e-8cm which is about the size of the organized area around an atom. So you get a convenient reference of other sizes related to the atomic function size. WFPM ( talk) 15:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.-- Oneiros ( talk) 14:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Around 1985, Steven Chu and co-workers at Bell Labs developed a technique for lowering the temperatures of atoms using lasers. In the same year, a team led by William D. Phillips managed to contain atoms of sodium in a magnetic trap. The combination of these two techniques and a method based on the Doppler effect, developed by Claude Cohen-Tannoudji and his group, allows small numbers of atoms to be cooled to several microkelvin. This allows the atoms to be studied with great precision, and later led to the Nobel prize-winning discovery of Bose-Einstein condensation.
Yes, but what great insight did they achieve? This paragraph is inconclusive.
Historically, single atoms have been prohibitively small for scientific applications. Recently, devices have been constructed that use a single metal atom connected through organic ligands to construct a single electron transistor.[44] Experiments have been carried out by trapping and slowing single atoms using laser cooling in a cavity to gain a better physical understanding of matter.
Another inconclusive paragraph. So they made a super-small transistor - what relevance is this to the article? Kurzon ( talk) 17:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Boy! you guys certainly have diverging opinions! One only about atoms and subcontents, and the other about any type of use of the atom. But we certainly need to keep our eye on the ball and concentrate somewhere on the properties of the atom. And as Dr. Pauling said, if you want good ideas you first get a lot of ideas and then cull them out. WFPM ( talk) 15:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Would also like to see this supercooling tried on atoms of OO9F18 to see if atom is still unstable at that low a temperature.
Someone wrote that Thomson thought the electrons rotated in rings within the atom. I've read elsewhere that Thomson believed electrons were vortex rings in the aether - they didn't move in rings, they were rings. Perhaps there was a confusion here (this happens easily with obsolete scientific theories). I welcome any clarifications. Kurzon ( talk) 18:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The explanation for the Bohr orbit model's being shot down was that it had to emit energy to stay in orbit. But in a conical orbit no energy is lost, and all conical orbits with the same major diameter have the same period of time and constant amount of lost free energy. Plus they all have a varying amount of angular momentum, except the circle which has a constant maximum amount for the concerned period. So the elimination of the Bohr orbit concept and the adoption of the Non angular momentum but energy containing "orbital" concept must have been for spectroscopic data or other purposes. WFPM ( talk) 22:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I don't like this much because I think that one of the functions of the electron is to allow the atom to get rid of excess angular momentum. WFPM ( talk) 22:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Like when a pitcher throws a fastball he may be emitting a particle with kinetic energy, but he's also gotten rid of a considerable amount of angular momentum. WFPM ( talk) 23:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC) This, of course, involves the "whip" principle which might indicate the necessity for some kind of structure of the emitting system. WFPM ( talk) 23:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes! But I'm noting that the conical orbit concept doesn't involve a loss in orbital energy until you get involved in the concept of electromagnetic activity, and that presumably conical physical orbits don't result in loss in energy. Now in the concept of electromagnetic energy, a charged particle is in a state of electrostatic potential in relation to it's location within an electrostatic field. And the question becomes as to whether a motion within that field results in a change in the electrostatic energy level. And I can't see how the circular orbit change of location of a particle around a centrally located electrostatic charge field would do it. And in an elliptical orbit the motion might involve an oscillatory change of position in the field, which might involve energy emissions, but that's not what the explanation says or explains. But maybe I'm nit picking. WFPM ( talk) 02:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC) And if you're willing to allow an attracted particle to move around without energy loss in an iso potential energy level in both the gravitational and electrmagnetic fields, why wouldn't you be willing to do so in an iso electrostatic energy level field. WFPM ( talk) 04:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC) How about a "reeled in" tethered electron in hydrogen? WFPM ( talk) 12:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that in the Larmor formula that particles in a circular constant velocity orbit theoretically aren't supposed to radiate. WFPM ( talk) 00:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC) And in the Gravitational wave I read with interest the controversy about the effect of wave properties of a nonexistent medium upon real matter and hopeful detection methods.
So you think that the statement that a circularly moving electron in an electrostatic field where it doesn't lose energy of either position or motion has to be radiating energy due to a "classical" concept is not challengable, but must be accepted as part of any discussion. I bet you don't do that about the stability of gravitational orbits. WFPM ( talk) 16:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm in favor of maximum understanding. So when I'm in your area please keep me in rein. WFPM ( talk) 20:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The following content has been tagged as unsourced for several months. In order to remain an FA quality page, FA criteria 1c needs to be satisfied so that the "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations". I'm moving the entries here until suitable citations can be found.
If this is objectionable, please clarify. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 17:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
"Though the word atom originally denoted a particle that cannot be cut into smaller particles, in modern scientific usage the atom is composed of various subatomic particles." However, earlier in the article it said part of the definition was that it couldn't be divided by chemical means. So if it is divided by something other than chemical means, an atom is technically true to its definition, yes? 96.25.31.89 ( talk) 17:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, when we are speaking about the electromagnetic forces inside the atom of any element, is at rest. In the nucleus, the protons and neutrons are held together by the strong interaction, which as far as I know is only attractive. That is, the nucleotides are attracting each other by the strong nuclear force, even though the electromagnetic force is trying to hold the protons apart . This is because the protons have a positive sign and positive signs repel each other. Nevertheless, at very short distances, the nuclear force is much stronger than the electromagnetic force and keeps the protons in the compound that identifies the nucleus. The cloud of electrons outside the nucleus which by the way are not influenced by the nuclear force, have a negative sign and they repel each other. The relative distances between the particles are as far as I know in this context not very important, nevertheless it will be worth to mention that the nucleons are much more massive than the electrons and the radius of the nucleus is relatively much smaller than the apparent diameter that make the outskirts of the swarm of electrons. Can someone explain to me: Why are the electrons not attracted to the protons? They have opposite signs and they should be attracted by the electromagnetic force. And if they are attracted, why don't they collide with the protons? What is holding the equilibrium? I will be grateful if someone can explain this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enciclopedikt ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Suggest a link be added to see also section for catoms, an attempt to create "synthethic" atoms using claytronics. 70.247.168.63 ( talk) 03:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
A hydrogen atom has now been successfully photographed, and the same technique can apparently be applied to all other atoms (since hydrogen atoms are the smallest). I think this is worthy of mentioning in the article, but do others agree? 203.45.33.202 ( talk) 07:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The same sentence with superlative “nationalist” adjectives exists in other articles of wikipedia. This sentence is partially indian nationalist POV.
“....The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BCE,[8] appearing first in Jainism.[9] The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories of how atoms combined into more complex objects.[10] In the West, the references to atoms emerged a century later from Leucippus,....”
The Nyaya school is relatively recent. See Nyaya school and Nyaya sutras.. The existence of Kanada founder of Vaisheshika is very controversial, sources ranging from the sixth century BCE to second century CE. The fact that he might have been born and lived in western part of India probably during Mauryan empire or during an Indo-greek kingdom could suggest a hellenistic influence. If he is lived in VI century BCE the question is different but at moment unfortunately we don’t know exactly when he was alived. I am agree that a theistic atomism might be born in India indipendently from Mediterranean world but there are not evidences to affirm “earliest” and “before”. If the atom tradition is present in Jainism before Kanada. I would like to know the name of composition explaining atoms before Kanada. I think that grammatical and verbal word compositions in Vedas is an another thing ( Wikipedia:No original research ) but no atomism as in Democritus book fragments or in Kanada sutras (that are written in advanced CE era).
And about the book of Gangopadhyaya, Mrinalkanti. Indian Atomism: history and sources. Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1981. ISBN 0-391-02177-X. If this book has been subjected to peer review, and if this book follows the scientific method. I do not think that it uses these superlative and comparative adjectives.
I think is necessary to remove the adjectives "earliest" and "first" and the “comparative sentence” with western atomism because there are no evidences. My proposed amendment is as follows (obviously the english can be better)
“References to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India probably in the 6th century BCE,[8] appearing in Jainism.[9]. The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories of how atoms combined into more complex objects.[10] In the West, the references to atoms emerged with Leucippus,....”
Andriolo -- 84.222.74.121 ( talk) 10:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Other sentence:
"Although the Indian and Greek concepts of the atom were based purely on philosophy, modern science has retained the name coined by Democritus.[7]"
The Scientific Method that is born in Western Europe and is based on classic culture (Greek and Latin) could use an another name ?
Andriolo -- 84.222.74.121 ( talk) 11:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don’t want cancel the sentence in question but only the adjectives
The Indian Culture during VI century BCE was oral. The range of datation of oral sources varies from VIII century BCE until II century and the oral sources have written during a period corrispondent advanced European Middle Age with interpolations. The same question is in Europe with the Norse Culture or about the datation of the Bible texts.
To much to affirm "earliest", “first” and “before” ecc, and to sentence: "modern science has retained the name coined by Democritus" . The science, can it make a choice ? Why, at this point, can not the Science use the sanskrit or maghadi name in the place of greek name ? This is the intentional nationalist message.
Other thing I would have the book in question to see if the adjectives “first” and “before” are used in the same way or if they are put, (out of originary context) in the articles of atom and atomism of eng. wikipedia with political intent. I would be grateful to Indian Chronicle if he could give me an extract of the text in question on my talk page Gangopadhyaya, Mrinalkanti. Indian Atomism: history and sources. Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1981. ISBN 0-391-02177-X. Only the pages where Gangopadhyaya use these adjectives, with the the references.
Is it possible to have an judgement of a specialist committee on this question ?
-- Andriolo ( talk) 09:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Androlio you are indulging in Original Research. Just becasue some things do not match your expectation that does not mean that it is wrong or POV. So you believe that everything good in this civilization is from Greeks? Maybe but you will have to reference it. You have tried this trick many times on the page of Atomism. Just take a break my friend.-- Indian Chronicles ( talk) 17:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear lovely friend (Indian Cronicles)
You use mirror style debate but your affirmation are without scientific evidences.
I have no expectations, and I am sceptic and relativist and as any good westerner I can conciliate these things with my faith living in the contrast with the doubt.
While you, you have the absolute truth in your mind.
Andriolo -- 84.222.74.121 ( talk) 18:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The Vedas are sacred texts and in them, as in the Bible, Qur'an or others sacred texts you can find everything and its opposite.
-- Andriolo ( talk) 09:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Page 317 and thereafter of The shape of ancient thought: comparative studies in Greek and Indian philosophies has an interesting discussion on the topic. Thoughts?— RJH ( talk) 16:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
---
In this book at pages 315-321 there is exactly the point in question. I have tried to use this book to explain to Indian Cronicles the question, in vain. (see Atomism talk)
In pag 317: " The canons of three [Indian] schools however, were systematized and written down centuries after the period in question, a situation which does not make easy. "
In pag 319 about Gangopadaya and Jain atomism the author says “...The Indian tradition places Jain atomism at least as early as the sixth century b.c.........Though there is no way at present to check the absolute dates of such texts, there is still reason to believe that Jain atomism is very early.....”
Infact to affirm " The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BCE,[8] appearing first in Jainism.[9]" is to much categorical, is better to write this sentence without the adjectives. For example: Other references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India probably (or second the tradition) in the 6th century BCE [8] appearing in Jainism.[9] and in other indian schools as Ajivika and Charvaka etc etc
If Indian Cronicles don’t want to change the sentence, I think is better to put near this affirmation to balance: "Though there is no way at present to check the absolute dates of [oral] composition of [Indian] texts. "
The Indian schools could be more ancient, contemporary, or recent than greek or hellenistic schools but the latter are identified from written sources nearly contemporaneous. Aristotle is practically contemporary to Democritus (50 years). We know that Democritus wrote numerous books (see Thrasyllus of Mendes). Unfortunately the books are destroyed, from religious fanaticism during the fall of Roman Empire (as the bigger part of classic culture see Libraries of Alexandria and Pergamon and not only). But lot of fragments survives as citation in other books of tens of hellenistic and roman authors that fortunately are arrived to us.
While in the Indian schools the difference between the traditional date of oral composition and written sources is enormous: from 900 to 1500 years after. And without interpolations ? Could be. But we don’t know and the answers are only speculations
So the question is complex and unresolved.... but i think that we must write that is unresolved.
-- 84.223.59.79 ( talk) 13:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry I haven't remember to firm with my wiki name. -- Andriolo ( talk) 14:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
And this sentence hasn't sense: "Although the Indian and Greek concepts of the atom were based purely on philosophy, modern science has retained the name coined by Democritus.[7]" infact we could use the Nahuatl word if the Scientific Revolution was born en Aztec Empire.
This atom article is good, but it is very important, there are lot of little students that see it so we must do it better. -- Andriolo ( talk) 14:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Infact in the Europe we have the boreal Forest, perhaps in future with global warming.....
Howewer could I modify the text in atom and atomism articles in the follow manner ?
..The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BCE,[8] appearing first in Jainism.[9] The more recent Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories of how atoms combined into more complex objects.[10] Though there is no way at present to check the absolute dates of oral composition of texts indeed the canons of Indian schools were systematized and written down centuries after the period in question. (x) In the West, the references to atoms emerged in 5th century BCE with Leucippus .....
With the references of the book in question
(x) Thomas McEvilley, The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies ISBM ecc ecc, pp. 317-321.
But this is confirmed but not only Thomas McEvilley book but also from other important Indian scholars. As in
S. Radhakrishnan (I have an italian translation), La filosofia indiana, vol 1, Dai Veda al Buddismo, pag 283. Le testimonianze più antiche a favore del Jainismo, di cui non si può contestare la veridicità, non risalgono oltre il V d.c. ;”
ISBN
88-85405-29-0
Substantially
S. Radhakrishnan claim that Ardha Magadhi probably is more recent than Pali. He gives other opinions as Colbrooke, Jacobi etc, but the author dubt. So the VI century BCE is not an absolute dating. It is only a plausible dating.
Have you (plural) an opinion ? Do you propose an adjustment ?
RJH, Can I post it ?
-- Andriolo ( talk) 22:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
For RJH. I am not a english speaker, so I wanted a confirm about good english and the “politically correct” form. Your rewrite proposal is better. I will try to put this sentence in the atom and atomism articles, but I'm sure it will be deleted. -- Andriolo ( talk) 08:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
But I just wanted to remove some adjectives..... only this. I agree the “balance sentence” should go to the footnotes. But first, to respect the Scientific Method and the Research, it would be necessary to modify the sentence of Indian Cronicles in probabilistic terms leaving the question open, as it is. My opinion is that the article must give evident informations of discernment especially for non specialists and children (little students for school research). They often take the article concepts as absolute.
I'm tired, I'm just an occasional and new editor of Wikipedia, I have not time but I have understand that this question is of “dogmatic importance” for them probably “for proselytism” and surely some sane editor will salvage the article and delete my edit soon.
Is it possible eventually to have a final judgement of a specialist committee on this question ?
-- Andriolo ( talk) 23:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I am the anonymous editor, I didn’t remember to make the login. I try to firm in the second time with minor modification.
If we put the "balance statement" at the footnote. The principal and evident sentence in the text remain unbalanced with its “faith message” and the dogma “we are more ancient than others”. Statement that does not pass the critical analysis.
If Indian Cronicle will modify his sentence in probabilistic terms, the “balance statement” must go to footnote. Otherwise if the sentence of Indian Cronicle remain categorical and determinative, it is better that it remains in the text, indeed this "balance statement" give us a discerning information.
In this talk, I don’t want dispute the oral composition dating propose from Indian Cronicle, indeed is a Pandora's box that I don’t want open. Indian Cronicles oral composition dating is not shared from all scholars, there are lot of different suppositions (with a range of 1300 years. From VIII BCE (black centuries of India) and V century CE without to consider the question of written sources ranging from 50 BCE(?) to 1500 CE. The datations of oral compositions are based on analysis of the
Prakrit languages used in the compositions or generally only on the tradition
How we can resolve the question at moment it is in a dead point ?
-- 84.222.75.240 ( talk) 10:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)-- Andriolo ( talk) 10:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
How much vanity....... OK, I agree:
References to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India probably in the 6th century BCE,[8] appearing in Jainism.[9]. The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories of how atoms combined into more complex objects.[10] The “balance sentence” is no more necessary but if you haven’t fear of it, and if you love the history, you leave it in the footnotes. Will you change the same sentence in atomism article ?
Finally I have a citation for you: "... you want to remove the immovable foundations of our faith in the gods, when you ask for each of them a rational demonstration. The ancestral faith of our fathers is based on itself.... we cannot to find clearer evidence of this..... if only a point is called in the analysis his solidity and the general belief are shaken.....” (Amatorius, 13, 756 B) Plutarch
Now I can go back into my greek well.
-- Andriolo ( talk) 13:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I do it, and I have finished. Thank you RJH, and Thank you Indian Cronicles I have studied a bit Indian philosophy for me is a new world. I think that contacts with roman-hellenistic world was absolute. Existed
Suez Canal and the cosmopolitan
Alexandria. I live in a city that has founded its richness on the pepper trade during the Middle Ages, without roman paved roads and the persian-hellenistic-roman Suez Canal. The marchants of my city knew goods, mathematics, mesures. You know Pegolotti "
pratica della mercatura". There are hundreds in the archives. Why in the the ancient world the commerce should be different ? The greek were merchants and mercenaires as in my medieval city they absorbed everything. For greek philosophy the concepts are no important but the method and the proposition of the mind and that has created a black hole, every knowledges is not enough.
Remain opens others question on atomism article, perhaps in future I will write something directly with references. The phoenician Mochus of Sidon the reference you can find in the specific article. The chinese atomism: Mohism haunted from Quin emperor. The Hermeticism tradition (Egyptian-Ptolemaic) (alchemy) more important than ancient atomism for modern concept of atom see Boyle Sceptical Chymist. There are a links between Hermeticism-Freemasonry and Courpoularism. To define the concept of ancient atom (because it is material and indivisible) other atomisms are non absolutely indivisibles and have theistic part). I see that jain atomism discriminates from material and immaterial and it is relativistic but I see that in other indian school could have atom concept resambling arché concept as probably in chinese Mohism. There is also a grammarian atomism but is it atomism ?
Sorry RJH for this outline.
-- Andriolo ( talk) 02:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not absolutely important for me, but Indian Cronicles have chosen to delete the footnotes in object... perhaps for some obscure reason he has fear of the phrase. It seems that democracy knowledge of wikipedia (often influenced from faith) perhaps could be in contrast with scientific knowledge. But I hope with the law of big numbers and aristotelian logic..... with time the science comes out.
(No offense intended)
« Veritas est adaequatio intellectus ad rem; adaequatio rei ad intellectum; adaequatio rei et intellectus. » Thomas Aquinas
In this dispute I see the inability to abstract the subject (not only the object). Or using the more simple metaphor of the elephant present in the Anekantavada that Indian Cronicles can to understand. ...He is constantly touching the elephant's nose....
Howewer the hard relationship between faith and reason divides my country from centuries and maybe I give too much weight on this thing. But often the “message” is not into the concepts but into the semantics. And often the citations are interpreted. -- Andriolo ( talk) 15:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No, for my friend was a great effort to accept the probabilistic sentence. I left him the freedom to choose about the notes. --
Andriolo (
talk) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
References to the concept of atoms date back to ancient Greece and India. In India, the Ajivika, Jain, and Carvaka schools of atomism may date back to the 6th century BCE. (McEvilley, p. 317) The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools later developed theories on how atoms combined into more complex objects. (King, pp. 105-107)
The sentence proposed by Spacepotato is better. It gives more information (about other indian schools) and it is probabilistic in the form. -- Andriolo ( talk) 10:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The 326 is intended as the date when India (the Ganges valley) becomes the object of study for the western style
historiography This historiography can not to be used before this date.
It is necessary to use others methods but these do not give us the same precision:
The India of
Mahajanapadas didn’t had complex painting, masonry or stone building, cities, sculpture, writing system (see
Brahmi),
coins. All sources considered from western historiography. Before, Indians surely used wood for temples and houses, palaces, but unfortunately the monsoon climate is destructive for everything that is organic.
From
Indica and other
classic authors and oral Indian tradition we know about the existence of a rich, powerful, divided and segmented civilisation.
The only sources (before 326) are:
1) the wonderful and well preserved
oral tradition (but indian historiography used it in a bit different manner than western historiography)(
Phylology-Anthropology)
2) villages’s pottery and manufacts. (
Archeology-
Anthropology)
3) linguistic analisys.
In Europe the same questions we have for the
Norse culture.
I don't know if in wikipedia there is a talk about this interesting argument.
Correct me if I am wrong. but that explain the 326
-- 84.222.73.144 ( talk) 21:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)-- Andriolo ( talk) 21:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Indian Cronicles don’t want to change the usual sentence that in this moment exist in atomism article 1/20/2011:
The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BC,[2] appearing first in Jainism.[3] The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories of how atoms combined into more complex objects.[4]
Can you help me Spacepotato ? I am tired to debate, he don't want to understand.
-- Andriolo ( talk) 11:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been implementing WP:LDR on a number of new and existing articles because I find that it makes editing and maintenance of an article easier. With LDR, the inline citation templates are all moved to the end of the article, thereby leaving mostly the article text in the body. (See the source for the Earth article, as an example.) Does anybody have an objection to implementing WP:LDR on this article? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 20:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Most non-bot edits are made to the text, rather than to the citations. With a massive clutter of inline citations, editing the text is made much more difficult. Thus, the optimum circumstances for most editors is having the references out of the way. I might also add that having the references together actually makes reading the history page easier and simplifies the task of performing mass updates to the citations. The benefits of WP:LDR outway the drawbacks, I believe, and so in most cases it makes sense to implement; especially for well-developed and stable articles such as FA'd topics.— RJH ( talk) 14:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This article says, "However, the hydrogen-1 atom has no neutrons and a positive hydrogen ion has no electrons." Isn't the electron necessary to call it an atom?
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk 20:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
There are two different references under one name ref name=schroeder, one for L.Meitner, the other for the magnetic properties.-- 77.85.4.229 ( talk) 11:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph the writing uses "less" when talking about things that can counted ("less electrons"). I suggest the corrected phrase should be "fewer electrons". Use "less" when talking about things that cannot be counted e.g. "less sugar means fewer sugar crystals". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.217.49 ( talk) 14:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there room in the book reference section for Asimov's book "Atom, Journey across the subatomic cosmos, Penguin Books 1992. WFPM ( talk) 22:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC) ISBN 0-452-26834-6
Well you know Asimov! He talks interestingly about everything. And he almost makes you think you should understand it! And remember that he died in April 1992 and the book was published in August 1992. WFPM ( talk) 10:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
You might note that the book is not among those listed in his biography. But it's a good chronological discussion of science progress, and probably his most up to date writing. And he must have had a fantastic memory. WFPM ( talk) 23:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
OK! At your instigation, I reread it, and it's a tour de force and chronological history of the physical/chemical history and concepts of atomic physics as only Asimov could write it, (328 pages). But he still models nucleons with spheres, which should be banned, and I like magnetized cylinders better.Regards. WFPM ( talk) 01:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Truman Talley Books/Plume
The large majority of an atom's mass comes from the protons and neutrons that make it up. The total number of these particles (called "nucleons") in a given atom is called the mass number. The mass number is a simple whole number, and has units of "nucleons." An example of use of a mass number is "carbon-12," which has 12 nucleons (six protons and six neutrons).
This statement should be changed. Mass Defect is an important concept of the mass of a nucleus and as such, should be included in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.134.163 ( talk) 09:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
In the article is the sentence:
I find this somewhat missleading: It sounds like there would be two types of particles: fermions and leptons. I would like to suggest to replace the sentence by something like:
It is maybe the best to leave the classification of fermions into leptons and quarks to the standart model page. That way the paragraph only contains the two distinct classes fermions and (gauge-) bosons.
-- Falktan ( talk) 15:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
For the same reason, we really don't want to discuss the origin of the atom's mass here, since that leads into the origin of baryon mass, which is a complicated and ill-understood subject. Save that for the baryon article, or the articles on proton and neutron, where it is needed NOW and doesn't exist . Only 1% (or so) of baryon mass is due to rest mass of quarks, but there exist also sea quarks (virtual quarks), the mass of the quark kinetic energy, gluons with their energy (and therefore invariant mass) and other fields (static electric fields have mass, even though made of virtual photons, not real ones).
Somwhat likewise, the "mass defect" of nucleon binding is also not worth looking at mechistically. It's not just "quarks." Just say that it never exceeds 1% of nuclear mass (as compared with the free baryon masses in toto-- that 1% figure occuring again here, is coincidental, and of course can be smaller). This missing mass would actually be twice as large as it is, if not for the mass of the static electric potential energy *added* (not subtracted) when the positive charges were squashed together to make nuclei. This electric added-mass is always more than made up for, by missing mass from nuclear force field destroyed, but this nuclear force field is made of virtual mesons (pions and some rho mesons) and we don't want to go THERE, either! No. We can (maybe) just note that nuclear force is more energetic (in terms of potential) than the electric field potential, and that's why nuclei stick together.
But fission destroys electric potential at the expense of creating nuclear potential, and fusion does the opposite (destroys nuclear potential and creates electrical potential, as charges are pushed together) and that is all a matter of discussion in THOSE articles ( nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, with perhaps some more in binding energy and atomic nucleus). But atom is not the place for it, as we haven't room. S B H arris 18:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I remember watching the talk show something from nothing with evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, Lawrence said that the first element created after the big bang were hydrogen helium, and a bit of lithium. Why did you not put hydrogen there, And protons and electrons were created 3 seconds after the big bang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastronomer ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
In the section on 'States', a correction needs made. The article is locked, so I can't. The article currently reads:
"Within a state, a material can also exist in different phases. An example of this is solid carbon, which can exist as graphite or diamond."
This is not a phase. It is an allotrope. See the Wikipedia article on Allotropy. The statement should instead be worded:
"Within a state, an element can also exist as different allotropes. An example of this is solid carbon, which can exist as graphite or diamond."
Perhaps even linking 'allotropes' to the Wikipedia Allotropy article.
Thanks!
66.62.194.228 ( talk) 00:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Positronium. I'd do it myself, but as you know the article is in lockdown. Thanks. 24.79.75.240 ( talk) 07:36, 5 August 2012 (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)
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).
The Ionian Atomic Theory is famous to anyone that reads philosophy; Wikipedia editors have just botched it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.6.62 ( talk) 05:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
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.
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.
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)
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 68.51.85.203 ( talk) 16:38, 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.
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 68.51.85.203 ( talk) 15:02, 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 68.51.85.203 ( 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 68.51.85.203 ( talk) 08:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
pdg2002
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).schombert2006
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).