Talk:Atom

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)

Definition revisted
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)