paganinio Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 <SFN logo isn't scientific?> I just read on my textbook that you can't draw an atom like that with some circles in that shape. That kind of picture is very common to represent an atom but it does mislead readers, because ELECTRONS AREN'T MOVING AROUND IN CIRCLES.
ydoaPs Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 it isn't necesarily an atom. it doesn't even have a nucleus. it is just some elipses crosing each other.
chatlack Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 who says electrons arent moving around in circles??? Who can proove they arent? Also its a very common shape...
Ophiolite Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 It's a logo, not a scientific dissertation. It conveys a scientific 'feel'. That's appropriate for the site, and that's exactly what logos should do.
swansont Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 who says electrons arent moving around in circles??? Who can proove they arent? Some researchers at NRC apparently can.
Deathby Posted May 30, 2005 Posted May 30, 2005 Quantum physics says they move about randomly. Unless you want an uninteresting ball, that's the best representation we can have because it does show the atoms in their shells (sort of) as well as their constant movement.
5614 Posted May 30, 2005 Posted May 30, 2005 That logo is a common representation although you are correct in saying that it is not technically correct.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now