Talk:Molecule/Archive 1

message: Do any Atoms and Molecules(?) stick to each other WITHOUT heating above 200 degrees F.
ANWSER: YES NO
THERE ARE: FEW MANY
Were(?) can I find the details.
How do you break ELECTRON BONDS, just methods used (passing one molecule over another (at room temp, while heating them))? I do not need to know the exact proccess.
thanks - Anonymous
: Certain atoms and molecules (technically, atoms fall into the class of molecules) will combine without heating. They can simply be put close to each other (i.e.: mixed in liquid, air passing over a solid, etc. whatever), although there must be some heat, such that it is not absolute zero, because if it's absolute zero the molecules are not moving, but absolute zero cannot be achieved according to the laws of thermodynamics. The question of whether there are "few or many" is rather vague. It could be a question of how many types of molecules will combine without heating and under what conditions, or it could be a question of how many molecules in the Universe or on Earth can do this, but it's not that useful a question anyway.
: The bonds between atoms in a molecule can be broken by inducing atoms to bond instead with another molecule by just putting them together, in the same way as above, or by adding some energy to the molecule, like light or heat, so that the bonds break.
: In all cases, the exact temperature for every reaction might be different depending on the molecule, so one cannot say universally that all reactions will take place "at room temp" or not, or whatever. I suggest you pick up a basic General Chemistry textbook and check it out. Note also that the way the universe actually works is probably more crazy than you have ever imagined. - Centrx 05:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: From the article: "An example of a macroscopically-sized molecule is DNA, a macromolecule"
Being a macromolecule has nothing to do with being macroscopic. You could manufacture a DNA molecule that was long enough to become a macroscopic object, but must DNA molecules are microscopic objects.  Memenen 14:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  macromolecules 

message: Abstractly, a single atom may be considered a molecule, as it is when referred to collectively with molecules of multiple atoms, but in practice the use of the word molecule is usually confined to chemical compounds, of multiple atoms.
I am removing this from the article -- Not only is it confusing, but it contradicts the preceeding definition of molecule (two or more atoms, or before a previous edit, multiple atoms). Tygar 06:55, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
:This is an older discussion.  By definition, molecules -- the smallest particles of a compound that still preserve its chemical and physical properties -- can consist of one atom or more atoms bonded together.  It is still a valid definition that can be found in most, if not all, chemistry and physics textbooks.  A peculiar use of the term molecular is as a synonym to covalent, which probably arises from the feeling that ionic bonds do not usually yield well-defined "smallest particles" consistent with the definition above.  However, a whole chapter of physics, dealing with thermodynamics and the kinetic theory of gases, consider monoatomic gases as composed of single-atom molecules (examples: monoatomic+molecule and monatomic+molecule).  Therefore, I feel that the article should include all aspects of the subject discussed as opposed to just a peculiar one and as such re-included the fragment above.  The discussion remains open, though.--Unconcerned 17:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't those forces then not rightly called intermolecular but instead interATOMIC interactions? I think something needs to be added that recgnizes the EXTREME obscurity of using the term "molecule" to refer not to atomic combinations but to individual atoms. --Deglr6328 01:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It iswas already there in the second para of the intro: "The concept of monatomic molecule is used in the kinetic theory of gases."  Monatomic meaning single-atom.--Unconcerned 04:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I have scrambled the paragraph a bit to emphasize on this only use of the monatomic concept, hope this sounds clearer.--Unconcerned 04:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro Paragraph

message: I believe that the DNA visibility example is useful in providing a feeling about the size and tangibility of molecules, and in making the concept less abstract.  The way it was formulated also allowed for a few useful wikilinks.  Therefore, I re-included the removed fragment.--Unconcerned 17:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DNA Example

message: Dr. Hallen, I am copying a question I have asked of you above, and you still have not answered.  Please check below: --Unconcerned 09:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You insist upon stating that a molecule is "the smallest particle of a pure substance composed of more than one atom".  Take for example the substance benzene; the fragment CH is the smallest particle of benzene that is composed of more than one atom.  Yet, CH is not a molecule, and particularly not a benzene molecule.  Your definition is flawed and therefore should not replace a perfectly valid one.--Unconcerned 17:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: more than one atom

message: Dr. Hallen, when did in your opinion the kinetic theory of gases abandon the concept of monatomic molecule?  From what I know the concept is still very much being used in physics. --Unconcerned 09:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: kinetic theory of gases

message: Dr. Hallen, please read through the following two fragments and explain why do you think the first one is not as concise and explicit as the second one?
*Molecules have fixed equilibrium (or average) geometries—bond lengths and angles—. A pure substance is composed of molecules with the same equilibrium geometrical structure.
*A molecule can be visualized as an entity having a fixed equilibrium geometry—bond lengths and angles— however this geometry is constantly changing in an ensemble of molecules (a sample of a pure substance). Thus, a pure substance is composed of molecules with varying geometries, but averaged out on time it is a geometrical structure. 
I've slightly re-worded the molecular geometry section in the hope to capture the idea of average geometry without conflicting with the rest of the paragraph.  Please let me know how that works. 
Many thanks and looking forward for a fruitful collaboration. --Unconcerned 09:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The changes are indeed welcome. I appreciate the attitude wholeheartedly. Charlie 07:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: equilibrium geometries

message: This will be an amusing and obvious answer for chemist, but nonetheless important for people discovering the entry of molecule.
Does the structural formula of a molecule represent, at any degree, the concrete, physical form of this molecule? If so, at what level does the shape is more precisely relating to the structural formula?
For example, one of the fatty acid in a phospholipid molecule seems to be a strait line because it is a chain of CH2. Does that mean part of this molecule is actually a real, concrete line(or a lineal form)?
Thanks in advance!
--Enigma 21:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding abstract or concrete representation of molecules 

message: A molecule really is the smallest unit of a substance which retains its chemistry. Thus, molecules of elemental He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe are monatomic. That's true whether these substances are in the form of gases, liquids, or solids. This isn't only a "kinetic theory of gases" thing; rather it's a general extension of the idea of a molecule as the last division you can naturally make and still retain the same chemical stuff (or the last division you can amplify and get the same chemical stuff). I think the article ought to start out that way, and then note that most molecules contain 2 or more atoms. There should also be mention of the fact that "molecule" has definition problems in many solids: where are the molecules in a salt crystal, a diamond, or bit of graphite?  Many common solids aren't really composed of classical molecules. They just aren't! The concept really is a fully natural one ONLY in gases, and it is there of course that some molecules consist only of one atom.
Wiki should be simple, but never so simple as to tell the reader what isn't so. Do you want me to make a first pass at fixing this?Sbharris 02:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Monatomic molecules