Are Protons Atoms? Is It True?

[PhDnotForMe]

Hello, my friend says a single proton would be considered an atom and I am saying it would not not. Technically protons are hydrogen ions, and my friend is referencing the definition of ions via WEBSTER -_-
Webster says ions are atoms with an uneven number of protons to atoms. Therefore, by that definition, a single proton is an atom. I believe this is due to the target audience that webster aims for, seeing as giving the true technical definition might be unnecessary and hard to understand for one new or inexperienced in physics.
I was under the impression that in order for something to be an atom, it needs to have neutral overall charge, and thus when ionized, they are no longer atoms, they are ions, and ions are not atoms. I can't seem to find any answers online. Am i incorrect?

 

[Dale]

Does it matter? Is there some formula or theory that applies to atoms that you are trying to apply to a single proton?

 

[phyzguy]

When I look up Webster's definition of an ion, I find:

"an atom or group of atoms that carries a positive or negative electric charge as a result of having lost or gained one or more electrons"

A proton is a hydrogen ion, as you said. It is not an atom. Atoms are electrically neutral.

 

[PhDnotForMe]

Does it matter? Is there some formula or theory that applies to atoms that you are trying to apply to a single proton?

Doesn't matter at all actually! I am merely wondering what the accepted definitions are within the physics community.

 

[PhDnotForMe]

When I look up Webster's definition of an ion, I find:

"an atom or group of atoms that carries a positive or negative electric charge as a result of having lost or gained one or more electrons"

A proton is a hydrogen ion, as you said. It is not an atom. Atoms are electrically neutral.

Yes, I agree with what you said. It is not an atom. Thanks for reassuring me. Webster says it is an atom, why is that?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Webster says it is an atom, why is that?

It does not.

 

[PhDnotForMe]

It does not.

It does. It states "an atom or group of atoms that carries a positive or negative electric charge as a result of having lost or gained one or more electrons"

 

[davenn]

It does. It states "an atom or group of atoms that carries a positive or negative electric charge as a result of having lost or gained one or more electrons"

NOTE my bolded ... it isn't as you stated much earlier a proton less or extra

An ion is a positively or negatively charged ATOM because it has lost or gained an electron

A proton on it's own (as per your thread title) couldn't be called an atom
there would have to at least be a neutron as wellBut as I have said elsewhere, I have been known to be wrong

 

[davenn]

A proton is a hydrogen ion, as you said. It is not an atom. Atoms are electrically neutral

dunno if I agree with that, it's still an atom, just has a charge so has a name to describe that situation ?

I need something better than Webster's dictionary

 

[Ibix]

It's context sensitive, I think. I've certainly heard chemists refer to acids as "proton donors" in some contexts, because their contribution to some process is their hydrogen ion. On the other hand I think particle physicists largely think of accelerated protons as just one more kind of particle, not as hydrogen ions.

Scientists, in my experience, are very precise with language when it matters and exceedingly flexible when it doesn't. This is a case of the latter, I think, so IMO the answer to the OP is "it depends who you are talking to about what".

 

[WWGD]

From American Heritage Dictionary of Science. P.527 ( Thank you street vendors selling better, cheaper stuff than most bookstores).
Proton:"n. Physics:
A subatomic particle charged with one unit of positive electricity,found in the nuclei of atoms and having a mass 1836 times that of an electron. The number of protons in each nucleus is the atomic number..."

So it seems not, since if it is found in the nucleus of an atom. It would follow an atom is in the nucleus of an atom. Or ,if considered as a stand alone, it is subatomic. I don't know, it seems like a stretch.

 

[vanhees71]

Yes, I agree with what you said. It is not an atom. Thanks for reassuring me. Webster says it is an atom, why is that?

With all due respect to Webster, it's not a scientific textbook. You cannot expect scientific accuracy from linguists ;-))). SCNR.

 

[gmax137]

If we agree to call a leg a tail, how many tails does a calf have?

The hydrogen ion doesn't care what we call it. The proton holds the same opinion.

 

[vanhees71]

Well, the "hydrogen ion" with charge +1 is a proton, a deutron, or a triton, depending on the hydrogen isotope. Of course nature doesn't care about how we call the objects we observe. For us mere human beings it's utmost important to keep clear meanings to the words we use. That's what dinstinguishes science from the humanities ;-)).

 

[gmax137]

Well, the "hydrogen ion" with charge +1 is a proton, a deutron, or a triton, depending on the hydrogen isotope.

Good point there.

 

[Demystifier]

Atoms are electrically neutral.

No, read the first sentence in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion

 

[Demystifier]

Doesn't matter at all actually! I am merely wondering what the accepted definitions are within the physics community.

I think most would accept the definition according to which the atom is a positively charged nucleus with some electrons around it. So proton is not an atom, but other ions are.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Seventeen posts about a definition that has been established for a century. There are far better topics for discussion around protons than what to call them.

Dictionaries and Encyclopaediae are never definitive sources of Scientific information and they shouldn't be quoted in order to prove anything scientific.

What 'friends' say is seldom a good way into a useful PF thread.