Answer the following question in your comment below:
An atom is the smallest particle into which an element can be divided and still be that element. Now that scientists have learned that an atom is made up of even smaller particles (like protons, neutrons, and electrons), is this definition still accurate? Why or why not?
Upon the completion of this blog response, go to Ediscio and complete the "Atoms" cardbox. That way, you shall ace the standard check we have tomorrow. Then, on Thursday, we shall compete against other classes in the famous Human Bohr Model event. More details are to come.
Science Vodcasts
Where Our Visitors Come From
Monday, September 27, 2010
Defining Atom
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The World's QR Code
32 comments:
That would still be correct because if you divided an atom it would be missing a particle so it would not be that same element anymore.
It is not an accurate Defination, because it is no longer the smallest matter. The reason is because protons, neutrons, and electrons are inside of it to make up the atoms so they would have to be smaller then the atom to make the matter of the atom up.
olivia .T The atom is still the smallest partcal.Because proton neutrons and eletrons are just the insid of the atam.They are not a paritcal itself , but the inside of it.Which makes the atom the smallest partical.
That statement is still accurate. If an atom was divided down to its nucleus, it would have no electrons, which wouldn't make it that element any more. If an atom was split in half, then half the neutrons, protons, or electrons would be on the other side, and the two separate atoms would form a different element.
Yes, itd still be acurate because if you divided an atom then it wouldnt be the same element anymore.
Yes this is accurate. An atom in an elemnet that is so small it cannot be cut in half again but is still part of an element. An Atom cannot be seem by a bare eye, it is so small.
Yes it is still accurate because an element can not be a neutron, protron or electron. Also, an atom is the smallest there is and elements are made up of atoms. So yes this statement is still true.
Yes its right. But there are still electrons and neutrons and protons in a atom!
Me thinks this theory hast been proven false! It is now clear that you can infact divide matter into a smaller thing than atoms. Protons, Neutrons, Electrons and quarks all being supporting factors in this counter example!
This theory has been proven false. Atoms ARE made up of protons, nuetrons, and electrons, but are also made up of mostly of empty space.
I believe that atoms are no longer the smallest particles that can't be divided because there are even smaller particles inside of it.
Yes because the protons,neutrons, and electrons are equal to the whatever atom your making and then that atom is made into a molecule and so on.
I still think that an atom is the smallest particle that can't be broken because if you can divide the protons and other small particles, then it will only divide those particles, not the whole atom. So, in a result, the element would be destroyed and not be the same as before, only divided.
I think that the theory is still true because just the atom can tell you if the element is the same as before.
Brooke W
Yes because an atom is made up of those things and without them they wouldnt be the same element because an element requires an atom.
It is still acurate because it is the smallest particle. Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons.
The definition is still accurate but you can't keep dividing the the particles because then it wouldn't be the same element.
No because if atoms are made of even smaller things then it wouldnt be the smallest unit
i think it still is right because atoms are made of smaller parts. There is smaller parts of protons, nuetrons,and eletron though.
It is still accurate because atoms still can't be divided and still be the same element
It is still accurate because the atoms still can't be divided for it to be the same element. Protons, neutrons, and electrons are just what the element is made of.
I believe that this definition is not still accurate. This is not acccurate because scientists have proven it wrong and have counter examples. They have the research to prove that a atom is made up of even smaller particles, so a element can be divided into smaller particles than a atom. This statement has been proven false.
Scientists would still be right, since an atom is still the smallest particle possible. The Protons, Nuetrons, and Electrons are just ways of breaking up the atom, or seeing what an atom is made of, and because the Proton, Nuetron, or Electron itself isn't the resemblence of the element, so it can't be the smallest version of the element.
No, because there are smaller things inside it.
Bethany M.
Carson S.
Probably not. The proton is made of three smaller particles. Those three smaller particles are each a quark.
Yes, because if you took out the protons, neutrons, and electrons they aren't part of an element they are part of the atom that is part of an element.
no because atom comes from the word indivisible and an atom is so small that there nothing small enough to cut it
I dont think that the atom is the smallest particle anymore because the protons, neutrons and electrons are smaller than the atom. So, in conclusion, i think that that accusation is false, in my opinion.
Yeah. Electrons, protons, and neutrons are part of the smallest particle which is an atom.
The statement is false. The Atom is the basic building block to matter and it can be broken down into smaller particles known as potons, neutrons,and electrons.
No, because atoms are the smallest particles that exist. They are made up of smaller parts like protons, neutrons, and electrons, but they are parts of the atom.
True because if you put protons, electrons, and neutrons alone, they wouldn't be that specific element anymore. They just become sumbatomic particles
Post a Comment