Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GreatWyrmGold]

((Because stability isn't a determining factor in what is or is not an element?

Which wasn't a particularly significant part of my argument?

Chemists and physicists both love the strange things which exist out there, Ps tops that list, and so I'm excited about it.))

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you're allowed to be excited about it but don't call it a robot.

[Remuthra]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you're allowed to be excited about it but don't call it a robot.

There is nothing in that statement to suggest the duck isn't a robot.

280

[Samarkand]

((Because stability isn't a determining factor in what is or is not an element?

Which wasn't a particularly significant part of my argument?

Chemists and physicists both love the strange things which exist out there, Ps tops that list, and so I'm excited about it.))

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you're allowed to be excited about it but don't call it a robot.

((GWG, I really respect you as a semi-anonymous entity on this forum, so please don't get offended by this friendly debate. That being said, you totally turned my argument into a strawman. A) at that moment it was your statement. I was not characterizing your argument as being all about stability, but if I can summarize what you wrote prior to that statement it reads something like this "Remuthera wrote its obvious that it is unstable. If that's obvious than why are people calling it an element." To which I responded stability wasn't a criterion. B) You skipped over the part where it behaves chemically like an element, at least from the physical chemistry perspective. I'll admit that in organic chemistry or in electrochemistry its probably a non issue. But in physical chemical experiments and modeling it is essentially an element. That was the thrust of my argument and you left it out so that you could C) take my statement of my fascination with it and reduce my argument to consist entirely of that.

Not cool))

[GreatWyrmGold]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you're allowed to be excited about it but don't call it a robot.

There is nothing in that statement to suggest the duck isn't a robot.

Robot ducks wouldn't quack like a duck. They might quack in a manner reminiscent of a duck, but the mechanism would be different. And I highly doubt that a robo-duck would be capable of duck-like walking or appearance.

((GWG, I really respect you as a semi-anonymous entity on this forum, so please don't get offended by this friendly debate. That being said, you totally turned my argument into a strawman. A) at that moment it was your statement. I was not characterizing your argument as being all about stability, but if I can summarize what you wrote prior to that statement it reads something like this "Remuthera wrote its obvious that it is unstable. If that's obvious than why are people calling it an element." To which I responded stability wasn't a criterion. B) You skipped over the part where it behaves chemically like an element, at least from the physical chemistry perspective. I'll admit that in organic chemistry or in electrochemistry its probably a non issue. But in physical chemical experiments and modeling it is essentially an element. That was the thrust of my argument and you left it out so that you could C) take my statement of my fascination with it and reduce my argument to consist entirely of that.
Not cool))

Aa. You implied that your point countered my whole argument, which it didn't, which was my point.
Ab. It's "Remuthra".
B. It behaves chemically like an atom. Atom =/= Element, which was my point. "Element" is a classification that is meant to describe a certain set of things, described by things like proton number and valence electron count/type which simply don't apply to positronium. It simply doesn't fit. (And the "acts like an atom" argument rings hollow when you consider that it's pretty damn unstable.)
C. I was arguing against all of the argument in that post.

[Samarkand]

Aa. You implied that your point countered my whole argument, which it didn't, which was my point.
Ab. It's "Remuthra".
B. It behaves chemically like an atom. Atom =/= Element, which was my point. "Element" is a classification that is meant to describe a certain set of things, described by things like proton number and valence electron count/type which simply don't apply to positronium. It simply doesn't fit. (And the "acts like an atom" argument rings hollow when you consider that it's pretty damn unstable.)
C. I was arguing against all of the argument in that post.

Aa. If I did I didn't mean to.
Ab. CRAP I'VE BEEN WRITING IT WRONG ALWAYS (thanks for pointing that out).
Ba. It is fair that there is a difference between an atom and an element, although the difference might be hard to articulate given most atoms are individuals contained within the group of one element or another.
Bb. To incorporate this understanding of proton number would have to be broadened, perhaps by introducing a category of exotic elements which do not have classical nuclei. As for valence electrons it is true that they do not bring electrons into bonding species, but because they have interactions with the atomic orbitals on the other constituents in a bond they do in fact have electrons occupying their orbitals in bonded species. Not quite valence electrons, but similar.
Bc. There are atoms with similar stabilities (see: ¹⁵Be), and ones which are far less stable (see: ⁵He). They are still regarded as atoms.





Z. (to give us space) If this gets annoying I can stop. (addressed to crowd)

[GreatWyrmGold]

Aa. Well, let's hope we can avoid that kind of mistake in the future. It's not pleasant for anyone.
Ab. Yeah, let's try to avoid that too.
Ba. Well, all conventional atoms are elements, but that doesn't mean that all particles which act kinda like atoms are elements. That's like saying that since all aquatic creatures you know of are fish, everything from whales to water-boatmen* are also fish.
*They're insects.
Bb. Or we could admit that you're trying to classify a round peg by the length of its (square) sides.
Bc. Wasn't addressing this point what started this? And those are isotopes, not elements, so you're not helping your case any...

[Remuthra]

Aa. You implied that your point countered my whole argument, which it didn't, which was my point.
Ab. It's "Remuthra".
B. It behaves chemically like an atom. Atom =/= Element, which was my point. "Element" is a classification that is meant to describe a certain set of things, described by things like proton number and valence electron count/type which simply don't apply to positronium. It simply doesn't fit. (And the "acts like an atom" argument rings hollow when you consider that it's pretty damn unstable.)
C. I was arguing against all of the argument in that post.

Aa. If I did I didn't mean to.
Ab. CRAP I'VE BEEN WRITING IT WRONG ALWAYS (thanks for pointing that out).
Ba. It is fair that there is a difference between an atom and an element, although the difference might be hard to articulate given most atoms are individuals contained within the group of one element or another.
Bb. To incorporate this understanding of proton number would have to be broadened, perhaps by introducing a category of exotic elements which do not have classical nuclei. As for valence electrons it is true that they do not bring electrons into bonding species, but because they have interactions with the atomic orbitals on the other constituents in a bond they do in fact have electrons occupying their orbitals in bonded species. Not quite valence electrons, but similar.
Bc. There are atoms with similar stabilities (see: ¹⁵Be), and ones which are far less stable (see: ⁵He). They are still regarded as atoms.





Z. (to give us space) If this gets annoying I can stop. (addressed to crowd)

My name is so often misspelled I've almost stopped noticing. Other inventive spellings include Remthura and Remurtha.

[Samarkand]

Ba. That is a semi valid analogy. It is slightly problematic in that so far we have atoms containing only things which can be elements plus this single exception. The presence of a single exception, which in fact behaves very similar, is perhaps evidence that your definition should be broadened to include that exception.
Bb. Not entirely. It has a measurable polarizability, electronegativity, difference between electron states, orbital wavefunctions, and all sorts of other things. I'm suggesting measuring only by proton number may not be the most effective method.
Bc. Was in response to this:

(And the "acts like an atom" argument rings hollow when you consider that it's pretty damn unstable.)

Argument for atomic nature, not necessarily elemental in this case, and so isotopes represent a valid example.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Ba. Except that you're saying they're similar to atoms. You might be able to argue they should count as those, but the methods of classifying elements rely on bits that positronium doesn't have. Why classify it as an element, then?
Incidentally, the way you phrased that made me think of Ceres.
Bb. If has, what, two I think? The Wikipedia article didn't go too in-depth. And I doubt that the "electron states" are much like those of a conventional atom...and all the other bits apply to unbound electrons, quarks, and other clearly non-elemental thingies.
Bc. I know what it was in response to. And if you'll pay attention, I was arguing against positronium being an element. It acts enough like an atom that I'm willing to leave that decision up to trained quantum physicists.

[Samarkand]

Ba/Bc. Are we agreed that it is similar to an atom then?
Bb. Actually neither electronegativity nor polarizability are applied to unbound electrons or quarks. As for non-elemental things, I've seen it only discussed as it relates to Ps, but there bay be discussions of it as it relates to other exotic systems. The reason for this is that electronegativity relates only to binding, and Ps is the only exotic system that I know of which has formed bonds to classical atoms. And polarizability relates to the ability to change the electron cloud around a "nucleus" of some sort, and so again doesn't apply to those other systems.
Bd. Not a critique of your argument via your sources, more an aside on Wikipedia, it, like most free online sources, tends to be behind the research on things like this. For information on binding energies, polarizability, and electronegativity you have to go to journals.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Bac. I'm not going to say that it definitely is, because I'm not going to pretend I understand positronium enough to decide. Leave that to the people studying subatomic particles and their interactions.
Bb. I have what data I care about. Wikipedia tends to be essentially correct, and since I'm stopping my conclusions before the point that lacking the expert knowledge would come into play...

[Samarkand]

Ba-d. Okay, so basically the conclusion of this argument is that A)Ps is atomlike to some degree, but precisely how much is a matter beyond the expertise of even bay12, B)atomic nature is not sufficient to determine classification as an element, and C) aspects like proton number and valence electron designations are necessary for classification as an element.

Does that sum it up?

[IcyTea31]

Feed the world.

EDIT:

Make friends with phosphorus

In addition to above, accept friendship.

[Terrahex]

Make friends with phosphorus

[LongDongSilver]

Phase 4: Closed.