Talk:Atomic physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance within physics. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
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)
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)
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.
[edit] Link suggestions
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)
