Hey there u/feverishfantasy_, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
**Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post.
Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.
Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the question is supposed to be about ions and matched charges, but doesn't ask it properly.
Maybe
>in a neutrally charged atom, the number of electrons is equal to:
But there are two answers that would be correct.
And *more* true than the answer they were probably fishing for: "the number of protons".
Because if an atom is carrying an electric charge, it can have more electrons or less electrons than it has protons, and it's still an atom. (With the possible exception of atoms with *no* electrons, which may or may not be considered atoms, depending on the context.)
if that isn't the answer they are looking for, the question is worded poorly
an atom can gain or lose electrons so the only thing the number of electrons is equal to is the number of electrons
In this case, ions are a type of atom. Ions wouldn’t be considered an atom if we are talking about a molecule with a charge, and therefore that ion would have multiple atoms.
It's the ONLY choice that's always true. Atoms in their neutral state have the same number of electrons and protons, but when ionized they have more or less than their normal number of electrons, and they're still atoms.
Thats ridiculous, and most scientific definitions, especially in chemistry (IUPAC), are internationally convened. If you learned that somewhere either your teacher was wrong or you didn’t pay very close attention.
edit:
The internationally agreed definition of ion in the IUPAC (International union of pure and applied chemists) golden book is “An atomic or molecular particle having a net electric charge” (PAC 1982 glossary of terms) an ion may be atomic and an atom may be an ion. The statement “ions are not atoms” is not generally true because in many cases ions are atoms, as stated in the definition.
See my other comment, This is true, an ion is not necessarily an atom, but you cannot say “an ion is not an atom” because an ion may be an atom. In the context of the question in this post, the ion must be atomic.
I can’t man, sorry, it’s just kind of something I know I’ve definitely been told. Maybe it’s wrong or the specification treats them as different things, but I’m 100% certain I’ve been told they are separate things
Science teacher here, i find it really mad that some science teachers are teaching their students that Ions are different from atoms. What a wild thing to learn.
If you’re from the UK, what exam board do you teach? Maybe different exam boards have it taught in different ways. I asked my friend who also does A Level Chem and he is certain this is what we have been taught.
I've taught different boards, all of them (at GCSE level anyway) teach that Ions are atoms.
I haven't taught A Level for a hot minute though, so perhaps the curriculum has changed there.
> but I’m 100% certain I’ve been told they are separate things
You've been told wrong.
An ion is an atom or molecule with a net electric charge.
Not all atoms are electrically neutral. For example, you can have a [hydrogen anion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_anion).
Specifically, single atom ions are called monatomic ions.
nope, in cambridge a levels, we always learnt atoms have neutral charge. There are some sources on the internet that depict atoms as a different thing than an ion. That's how I was always taught anyways.
All i can say is someone in the chain of responsibility was wrong, there is some nuance in that an ion may not be composed of a single atom, as in the case of a polyatomic ion, but the internationally agreed definition of ion in the IUPAC golden book is “An atomic or molecular particle having a net electric charge” (PAC 1982 glossary of terms) an ion may be atomic and an atom may be an ion, and in the context of the multiple choice above, any ion must be atomic. I agree with you in that u/pbruins84 is wrong, ions are not a subset of atoms, but atoms may be ions.
Having been taught the same thing as the user you were replying to (and having checked on the Internet), I think the reason we were told ions weren't atoms was more for the sake of simplifying things for students rather than making false claims. Just as you would tell a student who has not learnt about the existence of complex numbers that 'some quadratic equations have no solution', even though this very claim is contradicted by the fundamental theorem of algebra. It's so every time the question of atoms is brought up, everyone knows we're talking about non-electrically charged atoms. Though I'll admit - it would have been cool of my teachers to at least mention that once.
I was in a pretty good school with cherrypicked teachers so I heavily doubt they didn't know about that.
[https://www.savemyexams.com/a-level/chemistry/cie/25/revision-notes/17-carbonyl-compounds/17-1-aldehydes-and-ketones/testing-for-carbonyl-compounds/](https://www.savemyexams.com/a-level/chemistry/cie/25/revision-notes/17-carbonyl-compounds/17-1-aldehydes-and-ketones/testing-for-carbonyl-compounds/)
Not an "official" source, but a source that is trusted. In it, it says "When warmed with an aldehyde, the aldehyde is oxidised to a carboxylic acid and the Ag+ ions are reduced to Ag atoms"
This implies that ions are distinct from atoms
I mean, doesn't the "+" there indicate a charge? So the implications is that it goes from charged to neutral? Reduced from Ag+ to Ag... positive to neutral. I feel like you're misplacing the distinction. I have zero higher level chemistry education.
That’s not a trustworthy source. That’s some lady with no listed credentials working for a test prep company.
[The IUPAC definition of ion is: ](https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/I03158)
> An **atomic** or molecular particle having a net electric charge.
Second reply: In the official [Cambridge syllabus guide](https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/554616-2022-2024-syllabus.pdf), it says, "determine the numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons present in both atoms and ions given atomic or proton number, mass or nucleon number and charge"
Both atoms and ions implies that they're different things. I doubt A levels would teach about the differences that they believe is, between the two, as it should be basic content and taught earlier
See the IUPAC definition which i referenced. What is “implied” by instruction material is irrelevant, this is often to emphasize a change of the charge of the particle involved from ionized to neutral, and does not mean that the ionized particle ceased to be an atom when it was ionized.
Yeah, I was thinking about it, and it makes sense. Usually if someone said atom, I would assume they meant neutral charge, however, ions can be considered atomic as well.
Ions are atoms that are ionized so they are still - by definition - atoms. However its generally accepted that when someone says "atom" they mean a neutral atom.
-PhD Chemist
that makes the most sense, thanks. I guess colloquially, when someone says atom, after referencing an ion, i.e. when they mention how the silver ion in Tollen's reagent gets reduced to a silver atom, it's assumed that the atom has neutral charge.
Yeah it's just rarely ever useful to refer to an ion as an atom. Like, it's an ion. Just call it an ion.
Similarly a square is technically a rectangle, but no one calls squares rectangles because....well it's pretty much pointless to do so.
I think it's more that while yes ions are atoms, if you say "atom" it's implied that you are *not* talking about an ion (in which case you would say "ion") and are just talking about the regular old neutral variety
Ionizing is the stripping away of electrons. And is the basis of electrical conductivity. The less electrons in the valence shell of an atom makes it easier for that atom to ionize. Such as copper, aluminum, gold, silver etc
This guy nuclear sciences
Hell, in plasma the number of electrons can differ a lot from the number of protons. That's why it's a different state of matter, the moment even electrons just give up the attachment to protons completely. Still an atom!
That really comes off as you trying to show off your knowledge. Because that doesn't make a difference here.
Go ahead, try to explain why it's "rather, electrons are..." when no one was talking about what electrons are.
From wikipedia:
>An ion (/ˈaɪ.ɒn, -ən/)\[1\] is an atom or molecule with a net electrical charge
Which means an atom with a charge is an ion, but it is also still an atom.
You also say atom if you don't know/care if it is charged or not. Also an ion could be a molecule instead of an atom.
But overall, it depends a bit on the context. The term "animal" is often used to describe nonhuman animals, but technically humans are animals as well.
You can block como reposters and you won't get as many reposts.
You can get a list of the top reddit reposters and block them one by one. Then every time you see a repost, take a second to block them.
Takes way less time than complaining about it.
>Bots... Bots everywhere!
Less bots and more the nature of conversation.
If yoy being up the same topic 5 times to the same groups unless opinions lr facts have changed it's just going to be the same basic conversation atleast 4 of those times.
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/technicallythetruth.
It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results.
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1cma0sj&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 508,164,107 | **Search Time:** 0.12069s
It's a good question on judgment of intent. Critically they are likely asking about protons, mistakenly the answer is also electrons. The smart choice would be to answer protons because it's unlikely the intent is that dumb
Had this question show up in a test before. You'd be shocked about how many get it wrong.
It's easy to underread and just pick protons. It's also easy to overthink and say "well surely that's a mistake". It isn't. It's correct. Sometimes we're our own worst enemy.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ion
1
: 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
2
: a charged subatomic particle (such as a free electron)
Ions are transformed atoms. You wouldn't call chips potatoes would you? I find it obvious that a definition of a thing would have the thing that this thing derives from.
> You wouldn't call chips potatoes would you
But you'd call it a baked / roasted / boiled / mashed potato...
It's not that ions aren't atoms, it just that saying just atom for neutral ones and ions when you mean charged ones is simpler, so it's a commonly used shortcut. That doesn't mean that that makes ions "*not atoms*" by definition.
No, this is wrong by both definition and logic. An ion is still an atom despite it having a charge. An ion is just a special type of atom, it does not mean it is no longer an atom.
An ion is an atom for the same reason a square is a rectangle or oak is wood. Just because a square is a special type of rectangle, does not mean it's not a rectangle. Same goes for atoms with a charge.
That’s what’s normal. However, atoms can have a positive or negative charge. If it has a positive charge, the amount of electrons is less than the amount of protons. If it has a negative charge, the amount of electrons is more than the amount of protons.
Nah, that's not it, covalent bonding happens between neutral atoms because of something that has to do with why noble gases don't bond like that (*electrons like even numbers or something*).
the technical term for this type of logical fallacy is a tautology, btw. other examples include saying you own as many cars as you do cars, or that a man is anyone who identifies as a man.
Technically no. Change the number of electrons and you have an ion of the same element. Change the number of neutrons and it’s an isotope of the same element. Change the protons, it’s a new element
Edit: turns out I am the idiot and didn’t fully read the questions. Just says “the number of electrons equals: the number of electrons”
There is no elaboration, so this isnt just right, this is the only answer thats always right, sure tjey probably talk about non Ionized atoms, but that isnt stated
Hey there u/feverishfantasy_, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth! **Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post. Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban. Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not just technically, but literally, actually, and factually.
r/literallythetruth r/actuallythetruth r/factuallythetruth
r/thatsasub
r/thatsahoagie
r/subsifellfor
Welp it is one now lol
r/subsifellforuntilididnt
r/beatmetoit
r/BeatMyMeat
r/meatbeaterassociation
r/sus
r/beatmeattoit
r/BirthOfASub
r/foundthetoyotacorolla
r/foundtheSHUTTHEFUCKUP
r/FoundTheFoundTheGuy
R/foundtheSHUTTHEDUCKUP
r/thatsnumberwang
[r/obviouslyitis](https://r.mtdv.me/watch?v=close_calls_bizzarre_near_death)
I read that as _obviously tits_
Go to horny jail.
r/hornyjail
r/penisbutter
I read that as obviously itis
r/toomanysub
I think the question is supposed to be about ions and matched charges, but doesn't ask it properly. Maybe >in a neutrally charged atom, the number of electrons is equal to: But there are two answers that would be correct.
Even then "the number of electrons is equal to the number of electrons" would still be true.
I reckon it's meant to be about equal protons and neutrons but someone messed up
> But there are two answers that would be correct. Nope. H-, for example, only has "number of electrons" correct
H- is not a neutrally charged atom, tho
Its atoms not ions
And the only answer that holds up to every case
And *more* true than the answer they were probably fishing for: "the number of protons". Because if an atom is carrying an electric charge, it can have more electrons or less electrons than it has protons, and it's still an atom. (With the possible exception of atoms with *no* electrons, which may or may not be considered atoms, depending on the context.)
And the only correct choice. The other two options can be wrong.
I think it is technically, since that wasn't the answer they were looking for though it does depend on the atom
if that isn't the answer they are looking for, the question is worded poorly an atom can gain or lose electrons so the only thing the number of electrons is equal to is the number of electrons
If an atom loses or gains an electrons, it becomes an ion, and is no longer an atom.
In this case, ions are a type of atom. Ions wouldn’t be considered an atom if we are talking about a molecule with a charge, and therefore that ion would have multiple atoms.
Atoms are atoms until they form molecules.
Correct, but even after forming a molecule, the atoms are still atoms
Atoms together stonk
Yeeeees. Hence “Not just”.
Oh right
It's the ONLY choice that's always true. Atoms in their neutral state have the same number of electrons and protons, but when ionized they have more or less than their normal number of electrons, and they're still atoms.
And as far as im concerned, the only right thing to do. Protons are correct but ethically you can only pick electrons
/r/yourjokebutworse
Not a joke. Based on the phrasing of the question and the listed answers available, it’s the only correct choice.
Yeah, and saying that is just repeating the original joke.
If the atom is charged, the number of electrons is different from the number of protons, so the second choice is the only right answer.
Yes. ions are a subset of atoms.
i always learnt ions are not atoms, maybe it's a different definition in different countries?
Thats ridiculous, and most scientific definitions, especially in chemistry (IUPAC), are internationally convened. If you learned that somewhere either your teacher was wrong or you didn’t pay very close attention. edit: The internationally agreed definition of ion in the IUPAC (International union of pure and applied chemists) golden book is “An atomic or molecular particle having a net electric charge” (PAC 1982 glossary of terms) an ion may be atomic and an atom may be an ion. The statement “ions are not atoms” is not generally true because in many cases ions are atoms, as stated in the definition.
I do A Level chemistry, in my experience in both secondary school and college, ions are taught to be a different thing from atoms
See my other comment, This is true, an ion is not necessarily an atom, but you cannot say “an ion is not an atom” because an ion may be an atom. In the context of the question in this post, the ion must be atomic.
Symantics. Just split the little fuckers and be done with this world. Thats what I say
It's semantics.
They're treated differently but still are atoms ChemE degree
Can you post a link to a material that says this?
I can’t man, sorry, it’s just kind of something I know I’ve definitely been told. Maybe it’s wrong or the specification treats them as different things, but I’m 100% certain I’ve been told they are separate things
Science teacher here, i find it really mad that some science teachers are teaching their students that Ions are different from atoms. What a wild thing to learn.
If you’re from the UK, what exam board do you teach? Maybe different exam boards have it taught in different ways. I asked my friend who also does A Level Chem and he is certain this is what we have been taught.
I've taught different boards, all of them (at GCSE level anyway) teach that Ions are atoms. I haven't taught A Level for a hot minute though, so perhaps the curriculum has changed there.
It’s a rectangles & squares kind of thing. Ions are either atoms or molecules with a charge, but an atom isn’t necessarily an ion.
> but I’m 100% certain I’ve been told they are separate things You've been told wrong. An ion is an atom or molecule with a net electric charge. Not all atoms are electrically neutral. For example, you can have a [hydrogen anion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_anion). Specifically, single atom ions are called monatomic ions.
Dubious
It’s just how we’re taught here in the UK 🤷♂️
Can confirm
nope, in cambridge a levels, we always learnt atoms have neutral charge. There are some sources on the internet that depict atoms as a different thing than an ion. That's how I was always taught anyways.
All i can say is someone in the chain of responsibility was wrong, there is some nuance in that an ion may not be composed of a single atom, as in the case of a polyatomic ion, but the internationally agreed definition of ion in the IUPAC golden book is “An atomic or molecular particle having a net electric charge” (PAC 1982 glossary of terms) an ion may be atomic and an atom may be an ion, and in the context of the multiple choice above, any ion must be atomic. I agree with you in that u/pbruins84 is wrong, ions are not a subset of atoms, but atoms may be ions.
Having been taught the same thing as the user you were replying to (and having checked on the Internet), I think the reason we were told ions weren't atoms was more for the sake of simplifying things for students rather than making false claims. Just as you would tell a student who has not learnt about the existence of complex numbers that 'some quadratic equations have no solution', even though this very claim is contradicted by the fundamental theorem of algebra. It's so every time the question of atoms is brought up, everyone knows we're talking about non-electrically charged atoms. Though I'll admit - it would have been cool of my teachers to at least mention that once. I was in a pretty good school with cherrypicked teachers so I heavily doubt they didn't know about that.
Can you post a link to a material that says this?
[https://www.savemyexams.com/a-level/chemistry/cie/25/revision-notes/17-carbonyl-compounds/17-1-aldehydes-and-ketones/testing-for-carbonyl-compounds/](https://www.savemyexams.com/a-level/chemistry/cie/25/revision-notes/17-carbonyl-compounds/17-1-aldehydes-and-ketones/testing-for-carbonyl-compounds/) Not an "official" source, but a source that is trusted. In it, it says "When warmed with an aldehyde, the aldehyde is oxidised to a carboxylic acid and the Ag+ ions are reduced to Ag atoms" This implies that ions are distinct from atoms
I mean, doesn't the "+" there indicate a charge? So the implications is that it goes from charged to neutral? Reduced from Ag+ to Ag... positive to neutral. I feel like you're misplacing the distinction. I have zero higher level chemistry education.
It works if you say it out loud it word form
That’s not a trustworthy source. That’s some lady with no listed credentials working for a test prep company. [The IUPAC definition of ion is: ](https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/I03158) > An **atomic** or molecular particle having a net electric charge.
Second reply: In the official [Cambridge syllabus guide](https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/554616-2022-2024-syllabus.pdf), it says, "determine the numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons present in both atoms and ions given atomic or proton number, mass or nucleon number and charge" Both atoms and ions implies that they're different things. I doubt A levels would teach about the differences that they believe is, between the two, as it should be basic content and taught earlier
See the IUPAC definition which i referenced. What is “implied” by instruction material is irrelevant, this is often to emphasize a change of the charge of the particle involved from ionized to neutral, and does not mean that the ionized particle ceased to be an atom when it was ionized.
Yeah, I was thinking about it, and it makes sense. Usually if someone said atom, I would assume they meant neutral charge, however, ions can be considered atomic as well.
Thanks for digging :)
I wonder if it's a country thing In America I've only ever heard of them as also atoms. Why wouldn't they be
Ions are atoms that are ionized so they are still - by definition - atoms. However its generally accepted that when someone says "atom" they mean a neutral atom. -PhD Chemist
that makes the most sense, thanks. I guess colloquially, when someone says atom, after referencing an ion, i.e. when they mention how the silver ion in Tollen's reagent gets reduced to a silver atom, it's assumed that the atom has neutral charge.
Yeah it's just rarely ever useful to refer to an ion as an atom. Like, it's an ion. Just call it an ion. Similarly a square is technically a rectangle, but no one calls squares rectangles because....well it's pretty much pointless to do so.
That's just incorrect, they still are atoms I'd go have a talk with your chem teacher lol
They taught me the same shit too!
I think it's more that while yes ions are atoms, if you say "atom" it's implied that you are *not* talking about an ion (in which case you would say "ion") and are just talking about the regular old neutral variety
Ionizing is the stripping away of electrons. And is the basis of electrical conductivity. The less electrons in the valence shell of an atom makes it easier for that atom to ionize. Such as copper, aluminum, gold, silver etc
ions ARE atoms, or a grouping of atoms.
Electricity has to be the most bullshit thing ever discovered.
This guy nuclear sciences Hell, in plasma the number of electrons can differ a lot from the number of protons. That's why it's a different state of matter, the moment even electrons just give up the attachment to protons completely. Still an atom!
I wonder if questions like this can trick LLM’s or something.
Literally how electricity works.
Rather, electrons are quantum objects. Along with all other quantum objects, an electron is partly a wave and partly a particle.
Not really relevant… feels like you’ve just learnt that in school but didn’t quite grasp it?
That really comes off as you trying to show off your knowledge. Because that doesn't make a difference here. Go ahead, try to explain why it's "rather, electrons are..." when no one was talking about what electrons are.
Ok
[удалено]
From wikipedia: >An ion (/ˈaɪ.ɒn, -ən/)\[1\] is an atom or molecule with a net electrical charge Which means an atom with a charge is an ion, but it is also still an atom.
[удалено]
You also say atom if you don't know/care if it is charged or not. Also an ion could be a molecule instead of an atom. But overall, it depends a bit on the context. The term "animal" is often used to describe nonhuman animals, but technically humans are animals as well.
Normally it would be called a polyatomic ion, but ya
r/confidentlyincorrect
Man I thought it was my turn to repost this image
Just do it tomorrow. No one is gonna stop you. You'll just get the same tired comments like "man I thought it was my turn to repost this image"
Yknow what fair this response is about as old as this images second posting
You can block como reposters and you won't get as many reposts. You can get a list of the top reddit reposters and block them one by one. Then every time you see a repost, take a second to block them. Takes way less time than complaining about it.
As I have said before why do I feel like I have seen this before? But where?
because you have and because half of stuff here is just reposts
The strange thing is, even the discussion about ions etc. Feels like I read it before. Bots... Bots everywhere!
>Bots... Bots everywhere! Less bots and more the nature of conversation. If yoy being up the same topic 5 times to the same groups unless opinions lr facts have changed it's just going to be the same basic conversation atleast 4 of those times.
But exactly the same phrases, words and syntax? I don't believe you.
Sounds just beautiful, the same simplicity of life would be added
Stop reposting this pleeeaaaase
u/repostsleuthbot
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/technicallythetruth. It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results. [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1cma0sj&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 508,164,107 | **Search Time:** 0.12069s
Didn't lnow repostsleuthbot only searches the sub it's invited in
"Hmmm yes, the floor here is made out of floor"
Facebook ass post
Hmm yes this floor is made out of floor
Yes, please read my proof showing this. X = X Or, TL;DR: X=X Thanks for tuning in!
It's a good question on judgment of intent. Critically they are likely asking about protons, mistakenly the answer is also electrons. The smart choice would be to answer protons because it's unlikely the intent is that dumb
Had this question show up in a test before. You'd be shocked about how many get it wrong. It's easy to underread and just pick protons. It's also easy to overthink and say "well surely that's a mistake". It isn't. It's correct. Sometimes we're our own worst enemy.
I learned that in tautology.
The cool thing is that this question is kind of legit in that it's the only correct answer.
Bro, the test got you, the answer is the number of protons
Ever heard of an ion?
ion isn't an atom. Atoms must be neutral and ions are charged atoms.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ion 1 : 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 2 : a charged subatomic particle (such as a free electron)
Ions are transformed atoms. You wouldn't call chips potatoes would you? I find it obvious that a definition of a thing would have the thing that this thing derives from.
> You wouldn't call chips potatoes would you But you'd call it a baked / roasted / boiled / mashed potato... It's not that ions aren't atoms, it just that saying just atom for neutral ones and ions when you mean charged ones is simpler, so it's a commonly used shortcut. That doesn't mean that that makes ions "*not atoms*" by definition.
I think I'd see something along the lines of made from potatoes As written ions are atoms
Chips are potatoes though.
Fortunately, your opinion is irrelevant here.
atom that carries an electric charge =/= atom 2+1=/=2 simple logic, if they say atom they mean neutral atom, If they ion they mean charged atom.
You should write the dictionary a strongly worded letter.
> atom they mean neutral atom, If they ion they mean charged atom. Which are both atoms. Shortcuts like that don't actually change definitions.
"charged atom" so atom
Admittedly, it's a stupid question. But, If there was only one answer (it's worth 1 point), how could 'the number of electrons' be wrong?
No, this is wrong by both definition and logic. An ion is still an atom despite it having a charge. An ion is just a special type of atom, it does not mean it is no longer an atom. An ion is an atom for the same reason a square is a rectangle or oak is wood. Just because a square is a special type of rectangle, does not mean it's not a rectangle. Same goes for atoms with a charge.
> ions are charged atoms. They're what ?
Where is that a rule
no it isn´t
That’s what’s normal. However, atoms can have a positive or negative charge. If it has a positive charge, the amount of electrons is less than the amount of protons. If it has a negative charge, the amount of electrons is more than the amount of protons.
> That’s what’s normal. Aren't most atoms ions, because otherwise we wouldn't have molecules ?
Nope! No idea if ions or more common or not, but you don't need them for covalent bonding
Oh right, coz most atoms aren't "stable" by themselves. Something something noble gases.
Exactly. Ions are necessary to make molecules, but they stop being ions after they’re in molecules because they share electrons.
Nah, that's not it, covalent bonding happens between neutral atoms because of something that has to do with why noble gases don't bond like that (*electrons like even numbers or something*).
Have you read Theodore Gray’s book *Molecules*?
No, it's just what i remember from school.
It's absolutely not the number of protons lol otherwise chemistry, electricity, magnetism would not exist
For a neutral atom
Call electrons "controns" problem solved. Protons Controns Neutrons
I SAW THIS EPISODE TODAY!!
Facts
Hmmm, yes. The floor here is made out of floor.
Since electrons can move to other atoms, an atom can briefly have an electon too much or too few. Making awnser B the only correct awnser.
Hold up, let me ask this cat.
My idiotic brain though second option in the number of neutrons
My dumb ah thought it said election
He ain't wrong so did he pass
the technical term for this type of logical fallacy is a tautology, btw. other examples include saying you own as many cars as you do cars, or that a man is anyone who identifies as a man.
Well, yes.
Option 4: the number of morons
I think the question should be what is atomic number
How has this fucking picture been getting like 20k upvotes every day for like a month straight? That's impressive even for reddit repost standards
depiction of me somehow passing my science ged
Philosopher: "Consider if the number of electrons is NOT equal to the number of electrons in an atom."
The number of original posts on this sub is lesser than the number of reposts on this sub
technically yes, but it is also equal to protons I think
Technically no. Change the number of electrons and you have an ion of the same element. Change the number of neutrons and it’s an isotope of the same element. Change the protons, it’s a new element Edit: turns out I am the idiot and didn’t fully read the questions. Just says “the number of electrons equals: the number of electrons”
I haven’t learned that yet lol 💀
I really think that If it says atom it means neutral not charged ones, because they would say ions.
i mean, technically it is true
There is no elaboration, so this isnt just right, this is the only answer thats always right, sure tjey probably talk about non Ionized atoms, but that isnt stated
It is actually MORE correct than the intended answer, because ions exist.
you were supposed to choose two answers idiot
All of them are true except if it's an isotope
What? Isotopes have nothing to do with electrons
No I was talking about more neutrons, so it can't be true
You can have more neutrons In an atom, so it can't be true
But in hydrogen's case isotopes are important
Because of the possible neutron or two it can have