Talk:Attosecond

message: I'll remove
"24 attoseconds - the time taken for an electron to travel from one side of a hydrogen atom to the other"
This statement, while cited to a news service, seems somewhat senseless. What it refers to is the atomic unit of time which:
\delta t \approx \frac{\hbar}{ \Epsilon} \approx 24  attoseconds
Where E is the Hartree energy.
The only way to detect "position" is to decohere the electron.. ie scatter off it. But if you scatter off the electron, you impart it with momentum... One can talk about characteristic uncertenty in time associated with the ground state hydrogen atom, but that's it.
IlyaV (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to move around hydrogen

message: # 320 attoseconds – estimated time it takes electrons to hop between atoms
# 640 attoseconds – twice the estimated time it takes electrons to hop between atoms
Is it just me or is this pointless? Tomhosking (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Senseless repetition

message: I made some relatively large edits. I hope I have improved the quality of the stub.SpaceManDoom (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn.t the fact that you can create a visual use photon in a few attoseconds be an argument in favor of light being particulate? Because the amount of energy contained in an attosecond's length of an electromagnetic wave would be practically zero. WFPM (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Since the velocity of light is 10E10.5 cm/sec, a 10E-18s time period only allows a motion distance of 10E-7.5cm/attosecond, which is only a few atomic diameters. Boy!! Talk about close up viewing!!.WFPM (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Asimov was concerned with the time involved for an atom to react to a nearby fast neutron, and he created a time interval he called a "Chronon" which was the time for light to travel a distance of 1 fermi (10E-13cm). This time interval was thus 10E-23.5s, so there are smaller time intervals.WFPM (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: move all Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 E-18 s → Attosecond — "Attosecond" is a well known SI unit, and a word. Wnt (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support — I think that this is a simple clarity issue, personally. "Attosecond" is an actual word, after all... barring the citation of any guidelines or other information that would suggest that this is a bad idea, the reasoning supplied in the proposal is certainly sound.— V = I * R (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * 150 attoseconds – the time it takes for an electron to circle the nucleus of an atom.http://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/video/pressrelen.pdf
since this is physical nonsense.  In the case that the nucleus is HUGE, and the electron is valence, there may be an argument that this makes sense.  There must be some mention of the size for this to possibly be sensible.  Otherwise, the electron isn't moving!!!!!. /childish-annoyance-at-implicitly-broad-use-of-Bohr-model 129.107.227.215 (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Archived reference (original is dead):  Jimw338 (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support — I think that this is a simple clarity issue, personally. "Attosecond" is an actual word, after all... barring the citation of any guidelines or other information that would suggest that this is a bad idea, the reasoning supplied in the proposal is certainly sound.— V = I * R (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I just removed 
::* 150 attoseconds – the time it takes for an electron to circle the nucleus of an atom.http://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/video/pressrelen.pdf
since this is physical nonsense.  In the case that the nucleus is HUGE, and the electron is valence, there may be an argument that this makes sense.  There must be some mention of the size for this to possibly be sensible.  Otherwise, the electron isn't moving!!!!!. /childish-annoyance-at-implicitly-broad-use-of-Bohr-model 129.107.227.215 (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Archived reference (original is dead):  Jimw338 (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical Nonsense

message: This may be an odd question, but as I was looking through the level-5 vital articles I noticed this and some other fractions of seconds were marked as list-class articles, when they don't appear to lists. If I'm not mistaken, I should think this article would be a stub or start class, but I don't want to go changing the rating in case there was a reason behind it. If anyone sees this, please ping me if you have an answer, but if not I'm going to change all of these articles to proper ratings.
Thanks, Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 01:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say go for it – this certainly doesn't seem like a list.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Why List-class?

message: Maybe the real culprit is low accuracy, but I guess it would be good if Simple Wikipedia gave the same info as this article – or vice versa. Right now it reads:
It takes 1 attosecond for light to travel the length of three hydrogen atoms.--Geke (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleaned up this entry, but Simple English Wikipedia can burn to the ground for all I care. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Simple Wikipedia?