Talk:Molecule

message: In the introductory paragraph, aggregate (a total considered with reference to its constituent parts) seems quite a bit more suitable than collection (an accumulation; a deposit) or even collective (this last one was masked vandalism).  
As for the diamond "molecule": the term molecule refers to a well-defined particle of a chemically pure substance.  Atomically pure diamond yields no well-defined molecular particle anyone could point to.  Moreover, a common diamond crystal will always carry lattice and surface defects that make its local chemical properties different than the bulk.  Even the most perfect diamond crystal will have surface terminal groups (hydrogens, hydroxyls, carbonyls, etc.) and so it will not be a pure chemical substance overall.  It will be a covalent structure, though.  
--Unconcerned 07:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me be devil's advocate. Assume a perfect crystal with no dislocations. That's possible, and it's even possible on quite large scales. The same is true for single polymer molecules, like the DNA making up a chromosome. Thus, you have one big molecule. As for "pure chemical sustance", this one molecule may be the only exemplifier of whatever chemical substance it is. If so, the word "pure" has no meaning. "Pure" applies when we're considering copies, but we might not, and nothing says we must. Any single molecule is by definition pure. If it's one molecule, and it has a formula, it's a bonafide chemical substance. There may not be another molecule in the universe like it, with the exact same formula. So? That might be true of any of your X chromosomes if they happen to have a unique mutation. Again, so? What is or isn't a molecule is a matter of aesthetics, not science. If they get too big, people don't like to call them molecules, is all. We might as well just admit this, and move on. SBHarris 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but if it gets too big then stability and/or "well definedness" become questionable :-)  "Purity" is at its best a rather vague concept.  From the general definition standpoint ("the smallest particle...") one could always imagine the most extreme case that fits the description; any grain of sand could eventually be considered a unique, pure molecule, right?  Kinetic theory of gases and the molecular vs. continuum treatments set the background for the definition of a molecule based on divisibility. (see )  I am being bold and so have added some of this discussion in the intro paragraph. As a side note, a chemist with some molecular modeling experience will definitely feel uncomfortable to accept as molecule a structure that has to be decribed using crystallography-specific "unit cells", or "periodic boundary condition" models.  Or one that simply won't entirely fit on a decent computer display ;-) --Unconcerned 07:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  collective, collectiion and diamond 

message: Despite the fact that the overwhelmingly vast majority of molecules are composed of greater than one atom this is not a requirement! The definition of a molecule is the smallest component of a pure compound that retains all properties of the compound. This is a practical definition. A pure compound is composed of only one kind of molecule. This is what scientists understood before they understood the concept that bonding. Of course noble gases are molecules despite the fact that the are monoatomic! If you use this definition then the questions that are being posed can be answered by the definition instead of intuition. If you don't believe me then try to stump me. M stone 00:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia does not publish your original thoughts - please provide references to reliable sources. Cacycle 01:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Common knowlege does not equal orginal research. M stone 07:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We did allow for monatomic molecules (one atom, no bonds) in the LEAD paragraph, though we didn't qualify the first sentence to allow for the qualifying sentence which would come right after (I think we should have). But simply defining molecules as the smallest unit which retains all the properties, or even all the chemical properties of the bulk compound, is not really an easy way out, either. The reason is that really small aggregates of atoms (of an element, for example) can have quite different properties than the same atoms taken singly or in bulk. Surface tension and wetness and viscosity are obvious physical properties which depend on sheer numbers. But even chemistry depends to a shocking extent on surface properties, and nanoparticles of network solids will have different properties the further you want to subdivide them. Metals in colloidal dispersions are famous for catalytic properties not seen in other forms. You may argue that this only means they never have molecules in the usual sense. But it's much easier to define a "molecule" as that common aggregate which you often seen flying through the vacuum, in a MALDI-TOF mass spectrometer.SBHarris 02:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * I think that the purity qualification addresses some of the points you have made. In other word if define the compound as being pure then you are implying that it is only composed of one type of component. However, you are correct that some properties do not scale. Thus I propose a revision that The definition of a molecule is the smallest component of a pure compound that retains all inherent properties of the compound. M stone 07:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I am reversing my earlier statement after checking around further it does seem that most definitions of molecules require at least one covalent bond.  I think as it stands the current definition is good.  Older definitions do seem to have some drawbacks. M stone 21:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of molecules does not require bonds! 

message: I think that the statement "The smallest molecular species that has a bond is the hydrogen ion molecule H2+, comprised of two protons bonded together by the sharing of one electron" is incorrect.  I would assume that removing an electron would increase the bond length and thus H2+ would be larger in size than to nuetral H2.  H2+ is the molecule with the least number of total electrons, however I am not sure why this is important.  I think that this statement needs to be corrected or referenced. M stone 06:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put that there, because it is a very notable fact, according to Linus Pauling, from his The Nature of the Chemical Bond (the book known as the "bible of modern chemistry"), ch. 1, where he states that "the simplist of all the molecules is the hydrogen molecule-ion, H2+", and the "simplist of all the chemical bonds is the one-electron bond.  If you want to understand the quantum mechanical nature of chemistry, according to Pauling, this is the place to start.  Thats why its important. --Sadi Carnot 18:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: H2+ is important in theoretical chemistry because it is the "smallest" molecule in terms of numbers of particles. The Schrodinger equation for it can be solved without having to worry about electron-electron repulsion. Of course, all of this is not especially relevant for a section about molecular size, where the statement that you removed used to be. More than "smallest", I would say "simplest". Whether H2+ belongs in this article at all is not too clear to me, but I think that it would deserve mention if we had a short section about "quantum theory of molecules". --Itub 15:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that H2+ is relevant as the "simplest" molecule. M stone 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that H2+ is not even a molecule by the lead definition in the article, because it is not electrically neutral! ;-) However, theoretical chemists often call it a molecule. It all depends on the context. --Itub 09:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably in a new section. The sections are pretty independent so the order is not obvious. Perhaps after the overview? --Itub 10:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like someone has removed the "smallest molecule" tidbit from the article; I will re-add it per Linus Pauling's ref. --Sadi Carnot 12:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was never removed, I moved it to the Theoretical aspects section. Now that you added it back, there is a large amount of needlessly redundant repetition. ;-) --Itub 13:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see that bottom part. In any event, I cut a sentence out, it seems ok now.  Also, I think we should get some images in the "molecular size" header section, so that people can get a feel for what an "angstrom" is.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 18:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Stone. BTW, the bond length in H2+ is 1.06 Å. --Itub 04:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The smallest molecular species? 

message: ::::I didn't see that bottom part. In any event, I cut a sentence out, it seems ok now.  Also, I think we should get some images in the "molecular size" header section, so that people can get a feel for what an "angstrom" is.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 18:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Stone. BTW, the bond length in H2+ is 1.06 Å. --Itub 04:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size images (in angstroms)

message: I'm not sure I understand what Molecular compound is trying to say.  I think it is meaning molecules and so anything new should be here.  It apparently is to contrast with Ionic compound; but, I don't believe molecular compound is a common usage.  ChemGardener 02:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now a redirect, the content had many errors. Cacycle 04:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Molecular compound]] here 

message: Moved to Talk:Human molecule. --Sadi Carnot 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human molecule? 

message: In Molecular biology the "small molecule" name applies to organic molecule that are not biopolymers and that are not biologically inert (they are small as a consequence of not being a polymer). it redirects here, which is not good. So I will make an article and see what I can conjure up. Help very welcome.
--Squidonius (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Small molecule]] redirect

message: I know a few elements that combine with others to form a molecule, like:
* Hydrogen - 1 bond
* Oxygen - 2
* Nitrogen - 3
* Carbon - 4
What other atoms/elements are there? Please awnser Androo123 (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: see :Category:Homonuclear diatomic molecules some may also have more than two atoms, like trisulfur, tricarbon, ozone and allotropes of sulfur, allotropes of phosphorus. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now made :category:Homonuclear triatomic molecules. Most atoms of an element will combine with another or the same to make a di- molecule, but we do not ahve articles on most.  If there are more atoms, a tri- molecule will form for some, and some will form small clusters (eg metals). These are only stable as a dilute gas, and the metal will condense to a liquid or a solid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question, Atoms/Element 

message: I think that external links are all spam.  I just noticed based on the most recent addition.  I think they should all be erased. M stone (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that "molecule of the month" is spam. This is an interesting site that is recognized by chemistry web pages across the world and has been for 10 years or so. It almost is notable enough for an article. I have no comment on the others. --Bduke (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it would be more appropriate to make a "Molecule of the month" article and list under "See also".  I will delete the rest and leave it up to you.   M stone (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links are all spam 

message: "... a molecule is defined as a sufficiently stable, electrically neutral group..."
"The simplest of molecules is the hydrogen molecule-ion, H2+ ..."   
P99am (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Does seem rather out of place as it is a polyatomic ion ... but it is used in the theoretical section as "the example" for the Schrödinger equation "easy solution". Not sure that it really needs to be here without further clarification as it is not a "simple molecule" and not neutral - just adds confusion as is. Vsmith (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  Definitions should place clear boundaries because they are meant to delineate simple concepts rather than objective truth.  Science has repeatedly shown that physical reality branches into layers of ever increasing complexity.  What we typically do is come up with additional sets of clearly defined concepts rather than tweak and redefine existing ones.  Thus, the molecule definition will never be capable of describing everything scientists call molecule these days without losing clarity and usability.  The definition has historically branched from simply molecule to monatomic and polyatomic molecule to the quantum chemical concept of everything in a potential well is a molecule, when, in fact, the simplest, original definition will always give the clearest picture of what this concept is all about: smallest particle of a substance still preserving its chemical properties. Just my $0.02. --Unconcerned (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Of course we need both definitions and explanations.  They're not mutually exclusive.  Just FYI, Wikipedia has a very good summary of what very smart people think a good definition is.  Definitions provide the skeleton, the structural framework for solid knowledge.  I don't see how one can build a good explanation of a concept without a crisp, solid definition at its foundation.  Just another 2 cents' worth.  Keep it goin' and soon there'll be enough cents to buy a beer ;-) --Unconcerned (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Can this image be added to this article? That is the best image of a molecule in existence. 85.65.69.166 (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not? SBHarris 05:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is a fair use image, which is copyrighted by a flickr user (probably IBM employee). It may not be used for more than one article on wikipedia - in this case, pentacene - as the only available image illustrating the object of the article. Materialscientist (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: i believe that an article about molecules should show at least 3-5 photos of molecules from microscopes...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.15.64 (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with adding images about molecules from microscopes is that the most powerful microscopes today can barely even see a molecule. What you would see is a huge glob that has fuzzy edges--i.e. not useful to the understanding of a molecule. Devinthepeng (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add some Photos of molecules from real life 

message: The text under this image is faulty. It states that the middle and left images are 3d, and that the right one is 2d. The problem is that the right one also is (partially) 3d. As you guys know the way the bonds are displayed gives information about the invisible z-axis. It's not very obvious and more of a wrong nuance, but I do think something should be changed.
Potential solutions are, change the text and change the image.
The information given by the text is valid and relevant, so I think it is preferable to change the image.
What do you guys think?
Bartiosos (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first image of the page 

message: Ionic bonds: Molecules with ionic bonds are quite uncommonly encountered, sure gaseous sodium fluoride may be ionic and a molecule, but any liquids or solids that use ionic bonds will form networks, and not be molecular.
: My feeling is that we should stick to talking about covalent bonding here, except to explain why it doesn't apply to ionic or metallic bonding. --Oolong (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for improvement

message: I think that the statement in the article that organic chemists include polyatomic ions in the definition of "molecule" is, clearly, not supported, according to my experience in organic chemistry for 50 years.  If this definition is found in one or two sources, it certainly should be considered an "outlier" ` Frankxxxx (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polyatomic ions 

message: molecule is made up of more than one atom Balabharathi.v (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  molecules short answer 

message: If two or more than two atoms combine to form molecule
Then how is He Ne molecule as they are monoatomic and no atoms are combined??? 
The right definition of molecule is the smallest particles of matter which can exist independently as separate unit Asadalimukhlis (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molecule  

message: — Assignment last updated by Ahlluhn (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: 4A Wikipedia Assignment