Talk:Atomic physics

Untitled[edit]

I'm certainly not a specialist in this area of physics, but I've studied Nuclear Engineering and have been personally interested in the subject for many years. In my opinion it is pedantic to attempt to create a meaningful distinction between Atomic Physics and Nuclear Physics. As the article states, in common English most people use the two terms interchangeably.

What if the article used language similar to: "Atomic Physics" is a common, non-technical term referring to what is more properly called "Nuclear Physics". The exact distinction between the two terms derives from the classic Bohr theory of the atom in which a dense nucleus is surrounded by a "cloud" or shell of electrons.

In the early days of "atomic science" researchers discovered many characteristics of the atom and developed theories regarding the interaction between them. A great deal of the research dealt with the properties of the electron shell. For example: valence, chemistry, emission spectra, electrical conduction, photo-electricity, structure of crystals, etc.

All of these areas of investigation have become discrete scientific disciplines, even though they might be thought of collectively as "atomic physics."

Nuclear physics, on the other hand, is explicitly concerned with the part of the atom that remains when the electron shell is discarded. It is the realm of two of the four major forces in nature: the strong and the weak force. It is the principal area of investigation by particle accelerators. It's study led to the development of the atomic bomb (poorly named, as it happens) and nuclear energy.

I thoroughly disagree with the suggestion that the distinction between Atomic and Nuclear physics is overly pedantic. The general public may consider the terms interchangable, but practicing physicists certainly do not. Not only are they regarded as distinct areas of specialization, but this distinction is a fairly high level one. They're not nearly as closely related as, say, atomic physics and quantum optics. The main reason for this, I would guess, is that they deal with different forces -- electromagnetic vs. nuclear forces.

As one example of this distinction, note that the American Physical Society maintains separate journals for Atomic physics and for Nuclear physics: http://pra.aps.org http://prc.aps.org

In defining the scope of Physical Review A through E, the APS has basically sliced physics into five large sectors -- and Nuclear physics and Atomic physics are in different pieces of the pie. Tim314 01:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that there isn't a distinction is without any merit. In any case, as none of these comments are explicitly dated or signed it is difficult to take them seriously. AtomBoy 22:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in here should be mentioned the "standard model" of the atom, the fundamental particles, radiation, Madame Curie, quantum theory, fission and fusion, the Sun, and Richard P. Feynman.

Link suggestions[edit]

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Atomic_physics article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Atomic_physics}} to this page. — LinkBot 01:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A Good Idea[edit]

Do you beleive it is possible to intertwine atoms so that the electrons are going around and around and if you use this idea in a radioactive substance such as uranium them it could create energy.Matthew Perry SA 11:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

I am a laymen and have no background in the learning of physics. But it seems to me that if particle reassignment is used to creat new atoms, then particle farming is not far fetched and is in so doing were to amass the two base componants of the atom whitch is common to all,and in theory free unbound entergy particals detween as pure particle masses sepparit from each other. then with a signifigat mass of each, prabrably of eaqual mass. then set at close proxsemitry to each other a reaction would accur producing electrons as is the case with an atom but on a much higher level depending on the mass of the particles. enabling a basic battery with the shelf life of the particales like is the case of an atom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.82.66 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Kampmannpeine (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)small changes for better format of printingKampmannpeine (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atomic physics. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 00:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References/In-text Citations[edit]

This page contains no in-text citations and/or references, it only contains a bibliography. If you have edited this page previously, please make an attempt to move your references out of the bibliography and into the body so that readers can see what content is attributable to which reference. And if you edit this page in the future, please, put your citations in the text, not bibliography. In-text citations are the more accepted and professional way to cite things. Thanks for helping out here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewAwesome (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic physics degree[edit]

As I write this, a Google search in quotation marks for "atomic physics degree" produces just TWO results for the entire English-language Internet. On the web page for Princeton University's Department of Physics: https://phy.princeton.edu/graduate-program/degree-requirements it says, as I write this: "PHY 551 Atomic Physics (not taught every year)." It seems like atomic physics is covered by other more glamorous sounding degrees today. 5Q5 (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]