Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
Related to the original question about internal stability of atoms, nuclear physicists have clear criteria to distinguish between stable and unstable. Most atom species are stable, respectively supposed to live for ever, unless destroyed by any kind of high energy process they can't stand.
Ok so u r clever.
Then please tell me what is "Matter" in ur point of view ? is it just a condensed energy or something else ? Because it is said that the smallest part of Matter which could tell Matter's properties is Atom.
my_books, Please, we are not a replacement for teaching you intermediate high school level Physics. Learn that first, then ask more sensible
and valid questions.
Then please tell me what is "Matter" in ur point of view ? is it just a condensed energy or something else ? Because it is said that the smallest part of Matter which could tell Matter's properties is Atom.
It is also said that pigs can fly with the application of a large enough combustion engine. Your point? The atom was once thought to be the smallest indivisible thingie (*), which is why they gave it this cool "atom" label. You know, due to some etymological something or other. Or was that the other way around?
As xaccto already pointed out, now we know the atom is not the smallest part of matter. For one thing, an electron is smaller than an atom, and is part of an atom. An electron is common enough that you should know about it and be able to use it in your statements. What is that you say? You knew about the electron? Of course you did. And yet you make a statement like "Because it is said that the smallest part of Matter which could tell Matter's properties is Atom".
Oh I get it, the key part is the conditional "which could tell Matter's properties is Atom". So maybe you mean here that any smaller particle is not "which could tell Matter's properties is Atom" (whatever that exact phrase may mean). On that subject, what does that exact phrase mean? Anything smaller than an atom has no useful properties in your books?
And you ask for my viewpoint on what I think matter is, but what does that matter? Hah, get it? Both deflection and a pun.
Short version is that my viewpoint correlates fairly strongly with mainstream physics, if only because mainstream physics makes actual sense.
Besides, what's the point in furthering this discussion? You have already gotten a good reply by FvM here. So either reread that and be happy, or pose a less vague and more to the point question.
my_books, Please, we are not a replacement for teaching you intermediate high school level Physics. Learn that first, then ask more sensible
and valid questions.
Are you working under the assumption that you have asked this incredibly insightful question, and everybody here just seems incapable of providing you with the "right" anwser?
Incidentally, the first 2 moderately rhetorical questions were meant to make you take a look from this from the assumption that people just might actually think before replying, and that the perceived (by you) quality of the replies has something to do with the perceiver (you). Just saying.
mr_book's question has many layers, if you think about it. You are awfully evasive for a penguin with glowing eyes, attacking the obvious answer he isn't even really asking! I would like to see you retort the deeper ones.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
