Jump to content

Talk:Atom/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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.

But it is only a suggestion. Have a good day. Abedul69 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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 Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, 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 68.51.85.203 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The atom

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 68.51.85.203 (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)

missing letter

Read the first line under 'electron' section. 'Electron is charged particle'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.165.127 (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

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 68.51.85.203 (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.216.96.79.61 (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)

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:

  1. “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.
  2. “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).
  3. “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.
  4. “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?
  5. “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?
  6. “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.

Objections? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2014

Could someone delete the four nonexistent references at the bottom of this page? There are four references that are included in bibliography at the bottom, but not used in the text. This is causing the error message "Cite Error: A list defined reference named "Reference name" is not used in the content (See help page)" to be displayed.

Granstund (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Granstund (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thankd for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014

In the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom, section "The structure of atoms", please add the missing plural s, i.e. change:

.. under the direction of Ernest Rutherford, bombarded a metal foil with alpha particle to observe ..

to

.. under the direction of Ernest Rutherford, bombarded a metal foil with alpha particles to observe ..

PalNilsson70 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong information here. Subatomic particles and NOT bound by the Electromagnetic force, but by the Strong Interaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.142.177.255 (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2014 (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).[1]

"

//

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

//


(point_6)

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.

(point_5)

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.

(point_4)

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.

(point_3)

as from point 1, electrons are most gainfully thought of, or are pedagogically useful, outside of the debate of particle x. wave photon emissions, as a form of electrical induction. for our purposes, within in the context of particle physics, we may prefer to think of electrons as a form of electrical induction and a unit of energy, rather than as a sub-atomic particle and unit of matter, from this perspective, we confirm our thesis regarding atomic structure (that the atom is the smallest basic unit of stable matter), though we may question the extent to which units of energy may appear in some instances to possess some of the characteristics of matter, from this perspective, the use of the term 'bound' may be inaccurate, as it suggests that electrons are a form of stable matter.

(point_2) in the cases of stable matter, as for instance in stable gases, a di-polar nuclear structure is considered to be common: in such cases as a multi-polar nuclear structure exists, it is not unreasonable to think of the nuclear components as possessing both positive, neutral and negative charges

an atom with a positive charge may be referred to as a proton an atom with a positive charge in a bi-polar atomic structure would possess a neutral charge, and could be referred to as a neutron

as a result of English semantics, the term 'negatitron' is uncommon, but may be adopted though its usage is considered informal and it not widely accepted, as a contrasting term to 'positron'


(point_1) -- electrons are generated as the result of gravitational and magnetic force -- in most cases, we may suppose magnetic force (attractive and repulsive magnetic force) is the result of electric induction -- is it reasonable to describe a /central/ nucleus as being surrounded by 'negatively charged electrons'? -- in most cases, outside of the repulsive magnetic force, it may be useful to think of electrons, not as a form of matter, as like a sub-atomic particle (a particle of matter), but rather as a unit of energy, in such cases, a more accurate description, would involve positive electrical current in possible single or multie-polar atomic systems, these units of energy may be referred to as 'electrons'

in cases in which atoms have been isolated outside of other solid matter, it may be possible to imagine, 'electrons' emitted as the result of gravitational and magnetic

electrons may be generated through the application of force in units that possess electro-magnetic potential

electrons may be produced, thus, through the forces generated both by gravity as well as by magnetism, not BY gravity or magnetism itself, -- it may be more accurate to describe electron emissions as being equal to the force of the sum of these relations

electrons, as units of energy, may appear as emissions from a stable single or multi-polar atom, as sub-atomic particles, however, even in such cases, these emissions should not themselves be considered a form of stable matter (?) -- in complex multi-atomic, multi-polar systems of stable matter, electrons would not appear as 'sub-atomic particles', but rather would be electrical induction, as a form of electrical induction, electrons may positively and negatively charge matter in such a way as to induce magnetism,

a higher e/m potential corresponds to atomic density

more dense atomic elements may produce, through relation, a great electron emission (a form of beta decay, in which cases, alpha decay is considered to be (molecular decay) organic or physical decay, and beta decay is understood to be sub-molecular decay), and consequently possess a greater potential as electrical conductors and magnets (as for example, the electro-magnetic potential of iron vs. that of carbon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaceus (talk • contribs) 22:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that I could make absolutely no sense of the above in terms of accepted modern chemistry and physics, and most of your statements are flatly wrong. There are so many errors it is not worth answering them all. Perhaps you wrote the above as a joke. Oh, nevermind. I see you are a general science crank. [1] SBHarris 01:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

New lede too simple

The new lede was no more complex than the lede for this article in Simple English Wikipedia. [2]. Which is fine, but we're not Simple English Wikipedia here. Those who cannot understand an English Wikipedia lede might instead try reading the Simple English Wikipedia entry first, then come back.

To quote Einstein, a thing should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. When you get so simple that you're saying wrong things, you need to backtrack. That was the case here. The weak force does not help hold the atom together (it powers beta decay). Most things on Earth are actually not made of chemical substances (like the core and mantle), and the word matter has no good definition, so we can't define atoms as stuff that makes up matter, and then go define matter as stuff made up of atoms. Atoms define chemical matter, made of chemical elements. At least we know what those are. It is not dark matter (of which there is even more in the Universe than chemical matter, and it also is not made of atoms). Nice chemical substances with defined formulas are actually fairly rare on Earth (even most minerals have varying formulas, and quite a few are solid solutions and network solids). It would be nice if nature were made of nice molecules, but it just isn't. Living organisms and the air and ocean are, but most of the planet is not.

Anyway, I had to complexify it a little. SBHarris 23:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Seemed like a good approach. Start with a skeleton, add what is necessary, then stop. Works better than trimming the old stuff, I believe.Kurzon (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014

Kindly add this link on this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.102.198 (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014

Kindly add this link on this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.102.198 (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014

Changing the quote "Most matter on Earth is made up of atoms." It is erroneous as all matter consists of atoms, no matter what (matter and energy). "All matter on earth/universe is made up of atoms"

Flavius256 (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I have reinstated the earlier wording "Every substance, be it solid, liquid or gas is made up of atoms" - Arjayay (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of matter on Earth that is made up of free sub-atomic particles not bound to atoms. Beta radiation and alpha radiation, for instance. In neutron stars atoms can't exist because the conditions are too extreme (or so I've heard). Also at the end of the lede itself it says most of the matter in the Universe is made of dark matter, and we have no idea what dark matter is made of.Kurzon (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Over 99%" is misleading

As at least 99.946% of an atom's mass is concentrated in the nucleaus, it is HIGHLY misleading to state just "over 99%". I suggest to restore the old value "over 99.94%". --KnightMove (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. SBHarris 03:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Atom composition definition is not easy to read and understand

I got confused while reading about atom composition definition.

Currently it is written like this:

"Every atom is composed of a nucleus made of one or more protons and usually an equal or similar number of neutrons (except hydrogen-1, which has no neutrons)"

The bad thing about sentence above is that reader can easily misinterpret composition of atom with composition of nucleus because of "atom is composed of a nucleus made of one or more protons and usually an equal or similar number of neutrons" part in the sentence.

My opinion is that it would be so much easier to read and understand if atom composition definition would be separated into more sentences. For example I would write it like this:

"Every atom is composed of a nucleus and one or more electrons that surround the nucleus. Nucleus is made of one or more protons and usually an equal or similar number of neutrons (except hydrogen-1, which has no neutrons). Protons and neutrons together are called nucleons.Over 99.94% of the atom's mass is in the nucleus"

I think that is much more easier to understand atom composition in the text above than what is currently written on atom page on wiki.


Regards,

Časlav Šabani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardcoremore (talk • contribs) 2015-02-04T17:26:13‎

I agree, the text suggested by Časlav Šabani would be an improvement. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done I agree too, so I've made the change. It sounded like the atom was being defined as the nucleus, and that the electrons around it were not considered to be part of it. —Quondum 23:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Broken template thing

the thing around the top image is not working right. Its stretched really far and gives this message: Error: Expression error: Unexpected * operator This is not a valid number. Please refer to the documentation at for correct input.10−10 m or 100 pm). 74.128.43.180 (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes to Template:Val that seemed to be the source of this problem. —Quondum 21:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Spelling ... incresingly

HI

Para. 2 first sentence vague ? What does sentence refer to ?

which results, why incorrect

Atoms are small enough that classical physics give noticeably incorrect results. Through the development of physics, atomic models have incresingly incorporated

spelling ... incresingly

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

According to stats.grok.se, this time of year is when instances of vandalism to this article spikes. The school year has started. Editors, be on your toes.Kurzon (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Kurzon: Fortunately vandalism is easy to detect and revert. I have the article in my watch list. Where do you see the vandalism statistics in stats.grok.se?. Thanks. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC).
Clarification: I notice intuitively that vandalisms occur often this time of year, when the page views for this article spike.Kurzon (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I see. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

Dark Matter

There's statement about dark matter in the summary that reads: "Not all the matter of the universe is composed of atoms. Dark matter comprises more of the Universe than matter, and is composed not of atoms, but of particles of a currently unknown type." This gives the impression that dark matter is a real matter while the article about dark matter states that it is hypothetical matter. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.5.162 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the article on matter and the word "matter" itself does not have a rigorous, universally-accepted definition. Until physicists sort out the semantics, "dark matter" can be as real as "ordinary matter".Kurzon (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Tuyisenge Daniel Tuyisenge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.5.112 (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

PM

Someone please define "pm" - picometres in the section about atom size, pm = 1 trillionth of a metre. This is not at all obvious to the average reader. Avoid unexplained tech abbreviations/jargon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.160.219 (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Theoretical

the first section is "history of atomic THEORY", yet nowhere in the opening paragraph does it mention that the atom is theoretical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lymphoid (talk • contribs) 02:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Copy-edit queries

I've just changed a few minor things. Question: "Atoms are small enough that classical physics gives noticeably incorrect results." Results on what? Size? Mass? Tony (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

History

Is this video worth referencing in the article? I thought it might complement the history section section with the visuals http://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-2-400-year-search-for-the-atom-theresa-doud Jcardazzi (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

First evidence-based theory

For instance, there are two types of tin oxide: one is 88.1% tin and 11.9% oxygen and the other is 78.7% tin and 21.3% oxygen (tin(II) oxide and tin dioxide respectively). This means that 100g of tin will combine either with 13.5g or 27g of oxygen. 13.5 and 27 form a ratio of 1:2, a ratio of small whole numbers.

This explanation for 100g of tin confused me to expect the quantity of Oxygen to be 11.9g and 21.3g respectively for 11.9% and 21.3% Oxygen. It would be better if it was shown how the value was derived.

Quantity of Tin + Quantity of Oxygen = Quantity of Compound

Quantity of Compound = Quantity of Tin /  % of Tin in that compound * 100

For 100g of tin;
Quantity of tin(II) oxide = 100g ÷ 88.1 × 100
Quantity of tin(II) oxide = 113.50737797956867196367763904654 g


∴ Quantity of Oxygen = 113.5g - 100g
Quantity of Oxygen = 13.5g

Simillary we get
Quantity of tin dioxide = 127.06480304955527318932655654384 g
and Quantity of Oxygen = 127g - 100g
Quantity of Oxygen = 27g

Ajoe.blk (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Brownian motion

Botanist Robert Brown looked observed pollen grains not dust grains.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.45.221.97 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Tin Dioxide naming

Under the heading "first evidence-based theory", there is a reference to tin(II) oxide and then a reference to tin dioxide. To comply with standard IUPAC naming conventions, tin dioxide should be shown as tin(IV) oxide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick0927 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Nuclear fission is mentioned a few times in the article. We should create links to the nuclear fission wiki page. 174.117.121.225 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Atom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Atom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2017

I think the article should talk about the atomic structure Atharvatiwari (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The article already talks about the structure of an atom. What do you want to add? Gulumeemee (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

things like Femtometre, Ångström or Nanometre could be hard to visualize for imperial/customary units system users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.177.174.229 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018

50.227.5.90 (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for permission to edit the article. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article; however, you can do one of the following:
  • If you have an account, you will be able to edit this article four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
  • If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this article.
  • You can request unprotection of this article by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. An article will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Since I am new to this article, I want to check with the other editors that have contributed to this article. It is very good. I have found at least one dead link in the External links section. Since this article is FA, I hesitate to be bold. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Is the first phrase correct? Atom has the properties of a chemical element?

A chemical element has properties like density, melting point, electric conductivity... that a single atom can't have.--Malore (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree. Dlesos (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
"Chemical element" has two meanings: a type of atoms and an elemental substance. The first sentence is correct for the first meaning. Ruslik_Zero 17:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: So the first sentence means "An atom is the smallest constituent unit of ordinary matter that has the properties of a type of atom"? It seems obvious.--Malore (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The last sentence may sound strange but chemical elements were defined before atoms were actually discovered and observed. Ruslik_Zero 04:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

Craggzilla0242 (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpgjhpjm 04:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2018

This is not a proposed word by word change - its just an innacuracy I picked up from wikipedia itself. I'd leave it to someone else who is better informed to work out the phrasing.

There seems a good case to be made for mentioning Robert Boyle as a precursor to Dalton in introducing the concept of atoms into chemistry. The history of science seems not so clearly demarcated by individual "great men" as by continuing process. So its a tad misleading potentially to cite Dalton in a way that neglects the previous history of the theory that he may have established.


according to this wikpedia article on Robert Boyle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sceptical_Chymist which states:

"the Sceptical Chymist presented Boyle's hypothesis that matter consisted of atoms and clusters of atoms in motion and that every phenomenon was the result of collisions of particles in motion. For these reasons Robert Boyle has been called the founder of modern chemistry by J. R. Partington.[1]" 115.70.131.79 (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  spintendo  07:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

atoms

they are little things made up of stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.86.21.248 (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2019

Change

For an electron to transition between two different states, e.g. grounded state to first excited level (ionization), it must absorb or emit...

To

For an electron to transition between two different states, e.g. grounded state to first excited level (excitation), it must absorb or emit... Williamstrong1 (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for Williamstrong1’s attention to this “featured” abode of misery and despair. Qualified Wikipedians deserted the article many years ago. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect mass of neutron

In section 2.1, mass of neutron is given as 1.6929×10−27 kg which is inconsistent with the value given on the page devoted to neutrons, 1.674927471(21)×10−27 kg which appears to be based on a very reliable source, NIST. Should the value given on this page be updated?82.34.125.111 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh coolness… the article states that neutron’s mass (in SI) is more than 1% greater than proton’s! During sixteen months since the report at talk! Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
It would probably be more productive if you just fixed the problem, rather than complaining about it.--Srleffler (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I looked into the history. The incorrect value has been in the article since 2007. Ironically, the article used to also give the correct value for the mass of the neutron, until you deleted it in 2014.--Srleffler (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Not among the best my achievements, but anyway I tried to improve the article which, at the time, contained ignorant rants like “an electron is therefore considered to be mass-less in comparison with proton and neutron and is not included in calculating atomic mass of an atom” all the way. Where the WikiProject Physics was, or users who voted to confer ★ upon the article? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

IiKkEe’s changes in headings

@IiKkEe: no, “cosmic” is about confusion, not clarification. Radiogenic isotopes aren’t cosmic; how are they? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yet another “clarification” by the same author. What the heck is the user doing? Unsure what would be better: leave the poor article as it was by June, or tolerate edits of such quality. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

“trying is not possible”

@Megaman en m: please, don’t push such statements into Wikipedia articles. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand where the problem lies. I just rewrote it to be more concise. Was I wrong in saying that accurately predicting an atom's behavior with classical mechanics is not possible?--Megaman en m (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The main problem is that the “rewritten” statement becomes false. I can try to predict the flight of a crow using ballistics. I can try to predict, and even can predict that reaction of a metal chloride with hydrogen can produce water based on the phlogiston theory. I can try to predict diffraction using geometric optics. I can try to predict galactic orbits using the Kepler theory. Nowhere can we encounter an obstacle making a try very difficult, let alone impossible. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That is why I added the qualifier "accurately". The statement would indeed be incorrect without it. I could remove the part about "trying" and have it read: "accurately predicting their behavior with classical physics ... is not possible".
On a side note, do you have a problem with the rest of my edits? My goal was to improve the lead's readability while still keeping the same information.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
A lot.
  1. 1
    H
     is not “an exception”. Pay attention to exact formulation of which parts does a nucleus consist, just in the preceding phrase.
  2. Description of ions as “types of atoms” goes against physical (and chemical) common sense – they are rather specific states.
  3. “Chemistry is the discipline that studies these changes” – which namely? Certainly the phrase was very vague before Megaman_en_m, but breaking to smaller pieces degrades it further.
Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive criticism. Here are some improvements:
  1. "Only the most common variety of hydrogen has no neutrons." (Same as now, but as its own sentence. Avoids the word 'exception'.)
  2. "These atoms are called ions." (Evades the type vs. state issue)
  3. I don't see a problem here. The word 'changes' is only mentioned once in the lead, which leaves no room for ambiguity. Specifically, it refers to the previous sentence: "the physical changes ... where atoms associate and dissociate". This is not my field, but this seems to be a simple and adequate description of what chemistry is.
Do you have any more corrections?--Megaman en m (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Go forth. I will someday look on the result and discuss further, if warranted. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2019

Check for copyvios: see tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Atom&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 if you want to prove the statement "the content on the corresponding article may be in violation of WP:COPYVIO", then add {{copypaste}} if so. 69.160.29.71 (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what you're requesting. There are no apparent copyvios here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2019

Check for copyvios: see tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Atom&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 if you want to prove the statement "the content on the corresponding article may be in violation of WP:COPYVIO", then add {{copypaste}} if so. 69.160.29.71 (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what you're requesting. There are no apparent copyvios here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Loschmidt's work estimating size of molecules

Should mention Loschmidt's work estimating size of molecules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loschmidt_constant Keith McClary (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"This due to quantum effects."

Near the end of the first paragraph of the article, it says "This due to quantum effects." This should say "This is due to quantum effects."

Fixed. Good catch.--Megaman en m (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Above is now fixed, but isn't this still a sentence fragment? Shouldn't it be combined with previous sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.24.173 (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2020

Atoms are very small Smallestblaster9 (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Already mentioned – Thjarkur (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect inference

In Atom § First evidence-based theory, the following statements occur:

Dalton also believed the concept of atoms could explain why some gases dissolve in water better than other gases. For example, he observed that water absorbs carbon dioxide far better than it absorbs nitrogen. Dalton hypothesized this was due to the differences in the mass and configuration of the particles. Indeed, carbon dioxide molecules (CO2) are heavier and larger than nitrogen molecules (N2).

The final sentence (greyed here) suggests that Dalton was correct in his hypothesis in this instance, whereas the dominant mechanism behind the two orders of magnitude difference in solubility is unrelated to molecular mass ratio (44:28), but is instead due to chemistry (formation of carbonic acid). How can we rewrite this so that the reader is not drawn into an incorrect inference? —Quondum 22:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

On reviewing the source, I just removed the problematic (greyed) sentence from the article. —Quondum 14:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Quondum: What do you think of nitrous oxide in lieu of carbon dioxide? Kurzon (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I am frustrated by my failure to communicate. In view of others' lack of involvement, I am disinvolving myself with this article as a consequence. —Quondum 11:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Quondum: Wow, from reading your user page, it sounds like you've been through too many Talk page squabbles to give a fuck anymore. I can relate. Could anyone else answer my question? I want to know if Dalton's hunch about molecule sizes was at least mostly correct. If it wasn't we maybe shouldn't mention it at all. I'm no chemistry professor so somebody else must chime in. Kurzon (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone has since changed it to be NO2 instead of CO2, so it is less concern about the carbonic acid. I rewrote that bit of content, focusing on what he observed and hypothesized as a pattern, but not anything about the actual cause of this pattern (he didn't seem to dig down that deeply in his paper on the topic). DMacks (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks and Quondum: I removed that bit altogether because I don't think that was a pivotal discovery. It sounds like Dalton was just speculating. Kurzon (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No objection. DMacks (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Iron oxide

@DMacks: Regarding this line: 

In the case of the iron oxides, for every two iron atoms, there are either two or three oxygen atoms (Fe2O2 and Fe2O3).

I changed FeO to Fe2O2 because that flows better from the reasoning of the paragarph. It's not conventional but it's not wrong either, right? Kurzon (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Rescind FA status

This article became a Featured Article more than 10 years ago. Back then, Wikipedia's standards were weaker. This article has also changed a lot since then. Admins, please rescind its FA status, and we can submit it for a new review. Kurzon (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I second this. This unvital article must be demoted immediately. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
You're always free to nominate it for a reassessment. What FA requirement is it not meeting?--Megaman en m (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
No update on your decision Kurzon? 71.208.32.185 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

FA status

Can we remove this article's FA status? It won FA 12 years ago, when Wikipedia's standards were lower. I'm not saying it has gotten worse, but it's time to re-evaluate it by our current standards of quality. Kurzon (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Kurzon, as mentioned above, the process for delisting a FA is by starting a WP:FAR. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Kurzon any update? I agree with you, the article would have a lower class rating now. 71.208.32.185 (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Nothing. I maybe should go directly to an admin. Kurzon (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Law of multiple proportions

@RetiredDuke: When this article was discussed for being delisted as FA, you complained that the bit about the law of multiple proportions was too textbooky because it contained three examples. While I kinda get what you mean, could you make an exception? Let me explain.

This is the definition of the law: "the law of multiple proportions states that if two elements form more than one compound between them, then the ratios of the masses of the second element which combine with a fixed mass of the first element will always be ratios of small whole numbers." That's a mouthful and I couldn't wrap my head around it without reading examples, and I imagine other readers wouldn't get it either. It's gobbledy-gook to a kid in middle school trying to figure out atoms. So when I wrote up the section on the law in this article, I decided to explain it primarily through examples because that's the only way students will get it anyway.

Did I give too many examples? There's a reason. Look at the ratios in each example. The first is 1:2, the second is 2:3, the third is 1:2:4. These differences really hammer in what I meant by "ratios of small whole numbers". If I just had the one example of 1:2, readers might think it's just about doubles and triples, so I threw in one of 2:3. Now they understand it better.

I suppose we could delete these examples from this article and refer readers to the article dedicated to the law of multiple proportions, but why should we? Is it really so terrible to list these little examples here? They don't take up much space.

Also I had a lot of fun writing that bit up and I would be so sad if it were to go. :(

Do you have a kid? Have your kid read this section of the article and ask him if he understood it. I'd like feedback.

Kurzon (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Kurzon, are you trying to build this article up to FA status again? Because that review I left was only in regards to this article status as an FA, an example of "Wikipedia's best work". There's nothing inherently wrong about that subsection as it stands right now, but in my opinion, it could be improved, as to meet FA standards. And yes, it is my opinion that the subsection relies a bit much on textbook examples; it should have a "Main article" notice directing the reader to the Law of multiple proportions article, where these detailed examples and their breakdown would make more sense. Big, essential articles like this should not go into great detail about every single development; this is not an article on Dalton's Law, or an article on the atomic theory, it's an article on the Atom.
If you are indeed interested in getting this article back to FA status... there are bigger problems than that subsection in particular. See how the article looked when it was promoted way back in 2008. See how we have 2 solid paragraphs about Ancient History (and then a bit about chemistry) before we even reach Dalton? How the prose between all the different developments ties in together? I'm not saying we should go back to the 2008 version, but you get what I mean. I do not have kids, sadly. I think you should get some feedback from the Physics WikiProject, or even some editors more involved with Physics (there are some at FAC). This is just my opinion, after all. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@RetiredDuke: I kept the philosophical stuff short because I wanted this article to focus on the science. I just mentioned that the idea of atoms is old. Going into what the old philosophers thought atoms were like is not useful because there's actually no connection between Dalton's scientific theory and the traditional beliefs. Dalton's theory is not a development of the old philosophical ideas, he just borrowed the word "atom". Kurzon (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

In The Chemical element page "In chemistry, an element is a pure substance consisting only of atoms that all have the same numbers of protons in their nuclei." On the Atoms page "An atom is the smallest unit of ordinary matter that forms a chemical element." THIS IS TOO PARADOXICAL !!!!! PLEASE THANK ME. 117.220.246.51 (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Maharishi Kanada

I believe it is important that the contribution of India to the theory of atoms should be identified with more clarity. Around the same time as the Greek philosophers, Maharishi Kanada had also theorized regarding a particle that is indivisible. The term "parmanu" was coined to identify this concept. I am unsure of how I can help more for this. Thus, please find below the excerpt from a Wikipedia page regarding Maharishi Kanada.

"Kanada, also known as Kashyapa, Uluka, Kananda and Kanabhuk, was an ancient Indian natural scientist and philosopher who founded the Vaisheshika school of Indian philosophy that also represents the earliest Indian physics. Estimated to have lived sometime between 6th century to 2nd century BCE, little is known about his life. His traditional name "Kanada" means "atom eater", and he is known for developing the foundations of an atomistic approach to physics and philosophy in the Sanskrit text Vaiśeṣika Sūtra. His text is also known as Kanada Sutras, or Aphorisms of Kanada. The school founded by Kanada explains the creation and existence of the universe by proposing an atomistic theory, applying logic and realism, and is one of the earliest known systematic realist ontology in human history. Kanada suggested that everything can be subdivided, but this subdivision cannot go on forever, and there must be smallest entities (parmanu) that cannot be divided, that are eternal, that aggregate in different ways to yield complex substances and bodies with unique identity, a process that involves heat, and this is the basis for all material existence."

The above text has been taken verbatim from the following page: [3] Additionally, all the citations present in the text above are present on the page and can be used as citations for the text. JC0307 (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC) JC0307

@JC0307: Put that stuff in the atomism article. This article here is for scientific atomic theory. We only mention philosophical atomism in passing to note where the basic concept came from. Kurzon (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
  2. ^ BBC Four - Atom, Episode 1: The Clash of the Titans, Jim Al-Khalili, 2007. DVD
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanada_(philosopher)

Maharshi Kanada gave the idea that matter consists of indivisible units and can not be divided further into smaller particles. The atom is the smallest particle that can not be destroyed and retains its original form under all situations. Complete Solution : Maharshi Kanada explained the atomic theory of matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwini Venka (talk • contribs) 04:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Science

What is inside the atom? 106.77.160.137 (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Protons, electrons, and neutrons. Kurzon (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Opening

The opening of this article is very odd compared to other articles. SushiSalad (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

atoms

What does the Greek word for atoms mean 104.246.64.144 (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

From our article Atom: The word atom is derived from the ancient Greek word atomos,[a] which means "uncuttable". Googling "atom etymology" gives: ...from Greek atomos ‘indivisible’, based on a- ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut’; subsequently reinforced by Old French atome . To answer your question strictly, the Greek word for "atoms" is άτομα which is the plural form of άτομο which means "individual". Hope this helps:) --DB1729talk 04:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Definition

An atom is the smallest unit of ... a chemical element. A chemical element is a species of atoms ...

So an atom is a species of atoms. That is not a definition. The smallest unit of the chemical element hydrogen is the molecule H2 that consists of two atoms.

Atoms should be defined in terms of protons, neutrons and electrons. Rwbest (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Rwbest: This is incorrect. A lone hydrogen atom, usually as an ion, is still hydrogen. Kurzon (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I propose to delete the first sentence: "An atom is the basic unit of matter that constitutes a chemical element."
1st sentence should be a concise definition. It is not because chemical element is defined as a species of atoms ... See circular definition. Rwbest (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rwbest: This is not circular definition. A circular definition would be something like "an atom is the basic unit of a chemical element, and a chemical element is something that is made of atoms." What I wrote in the lede is that the specific chemical element that an atom belongs to is defined by the atomic number. Kurzon (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"A chemical element is a species of atoms ..."
That is something that is made of atoms, right?
So the first sentence boils down to a circular definition. Rwbest (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rwbest: I think it's the first line of the chemical element article that needs rewriting. Kurzon (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that could help.
"An atom is the basic unit of matter that constitutes a chemical element." is a historic relic. It was a definition when chemical elements were known, what atoms are made of was unknown, and it conveniently catachorises them in the Periodic Table. But when subatomic particles were identified, protons, neutrons and later quarks, the smallest or basic unit of matter was no longer an atom. Rwbest (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rwbest: An atom is the basic unit of a chemical element. It is not an elementary particle. Kurzon (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The basic units of any matter are elementary particles, not atoms. Rwbest (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rwbest: You misunderstood the first line. The atom is the basic unit of matter that constitutes a chemical element. Kurzon (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Isotopes

For example, the isotopes of nitrogen having atomic mass of 15 can be written as what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.231.239.170 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

nitrogen-15 Kurzon (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Could you explain why my edit violated copyright? I'm pretty sure that stuff was my own words, not a cut-and-paste job. Kurzon (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Your addition was flagged as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. The iTenticate reports are loading slowly today so you may have to wait a while, or load the page a second time to get it to load. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

RELATION OF MOLECULE TO COMPOUND

ALL MOLECULES ARE COMPOUNDS BUT ALL COMPOUNDS ARE NOT MOLECULES. EX:WATER 39.61.155.30 (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Definition revisted

@Kurzon and Rwbest: Since the last discussion here, the first sentence of this article gives an incorrect definition of an atom. An atom is not "a nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded by an electromagnetically-bound cloud of electrons". This is too narrow a definition which excludes alpha particles (which does not have any electrons), but also most crucially it excludes the hydrogen atom making up 75% of all baryonic mass of the universe (because it has no neutrons). This is a pretty severe issue.

If we look at Britannica's definition we see their definition explicitly avoids both these mistakes. I suggest we discuss reverting to the previous definition ("An atom is the smallest unit of ordinary matter that forms a chemical element") or trying something else which addresses these problems. SFB 20:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a maths article, we don't have to be totally anal about precision. Kurzon (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, I would say you don't have to be precise, but you have to be accurate. That's an important distinction. Remsense聊 03:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
An alpha particle is not an atom, it is the nucleus of a helium atom. SFB is right about the hydrogen atom. I propose to rewrite the definition:
An atom is the tiny characteristic part of a chemical element, consisting of a nucleus and one or more electrons. The atomic nucleus consists of one or more protons and zero or more neutrons. Rwbest (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
'tiny characteristic part of a chemical element' and 'zero or more' are clunky.
Here's my pass, since it's a fun—and draining!—exercise:

An atom is the most basic unit of matter in ordinary conditions, and the most basic that has the characteristics required for chemical reactions to occur.

I agonized over the use of 'unit', but if every big, accredited definition I read can use 'building block', unit seems very acceptable. Please don't roast me, I'm actually particularly scared to hit reply on this one, it's so hard. Remsense聊 03:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Both unit and buildng block are vague about the size, micro-, nano-, pico-, femtometer ? Atom is well defined in physics in terms of proton, neutron and electron. Chemists see atom as basic for chemical element. Rwbest (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I think it's fine to be 'vague' about the size in the first sentence, because it's not useful intuitive information for human beings. Remsense聊 17:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
A definition should not be vague. Rwbest (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The definition is the whole article. Also, this is not a maths article. Kurzon (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. A definition should be useful. Remsense聊 03:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been bashing myself over the head over this. Consider these two lines:

This pattern suggested that the elements combine with each other in multiples of basic units of weight, with each element having a unit of unique weight.

and

This pattern suggested that the elements combine with each other in multiples of a basic unit of weight, with each element having a unit of unique weight.

Which is grammatically better? Kurzon (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

short description

"Smallest unit of a chemical element". This confuses me bc an atom _is_ a chemical element...  AltoStev (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok 108.48.65.122 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atom/Archive_5&oldid=1242050858"