Science. . trying to be more positive ehee: ls electrons and becomes highly unstable. ions are not unstable, just very reactive Science trying to be more positive ehee: ls electrons and becomes highly unstable ions are not just very reactive
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (55)
[ 55 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #1 - huffe
Reply +62 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
ions are not unstable, just very reactive
#16 to #1 - schreii
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
Reactive = Unstable

in certain elements
User avatar #30 to #16 - ryderjbudde
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
No, they are the same thing. They mean the same thing. When something is unstable, it doesn't mean it's going to blow up or cause mutations, it just means it is going to change. Reactive = unstable; period.

When something has an unstable electron configuration, as in it has more or less electrons than protons, it is subject to change,( gain or lose electrons), so that it can become more stable. When an atom has too many or too few neutrons, again it is subject to change by emitting radiation or splitting completely to become more stable.

In both circumstances they are both unstable and reactive, but they are so in different ways. One atom has instability of the nucleus, and the other of charge. These two instabilities are worlds apart, so the context in which they are referred to is sufficient for specificity. There's no need to pretend two synonyms have different definitions.
User avatar #23 to #1 - checkandmate
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
...very reactive is just another way of saying unstable.
User avatar #24 to #1 - veneficium
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
reactive = unstable
reaction occurs it is trying to reach a more stable state
User avatar #51 to #24 - huffe
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
the way i see it, reactive would refer to electrons
while unstable would refer to the nucleus
User avatar #57 to #51 - veneficium
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/21/2013) [-]
Nucleus and electrons work very much in the same way, both have energy levels. When not in ground state, it is unstable, hence it will undergo chemical reaction or radioactive decay in your case.
User avatar #58 to #57 - huffe
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/21/2013) [-]
a nucleus can't undergo a reaction, so i wouldn't call it reactive under any circumstance.
as for chemical reactions, you could use the word unstable, but it does imply something else than reactive does.
if a compound is reactive, i'd think it reacts well with other chemicals. if it's unstable, however, i'd think it decomposes into simpler compunds easily
User avatar #59 to #58 - veneficium
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/21/2013) [-]
"radioactive decay in your case." is what i said
both are unstable, one has electrons that are not in ground state, the other is the nucleus not in ground state. both will undergo a change to become more stable
User avatar #52 to #51 - trollchildxy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
Really you're just using two words to define the parameters of two separate concepts that he is only using one word to define those same two parameters. He uses his one word contextually whereas you simply have two separate words, so there cannot be any context error, at least in your own personal language.

I think you're both right, because language is incomplete and a very inefficient way of conveying meaning, unfortunately we haven't developed telepathy yet so it will have to do.
User avatar #53 to #52 - huffe
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
I am a chemist at heart, and it compells me to be very exact.
User avatar #54 to #53 - trollchildxy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
Mmm, understandable then, I would place my self in the general category. I have never delved so deep into any of them as I have electronics though, which would place me in physics I suppose. But also chemistry because different elements behave differently, and even an insulator can be made a conductor with enough power.
User avatar #2 to #1 - rakaka
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
one could consider someone who is very reactive to be emotionally unstable
User avatar #3 to #2 - huffe
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
dammit! this is science! not some girly feelings
User avatar #9 to #3 - zzforrest
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
It's a metaphor goddamnit.
User avatar #17 to #1 - jukuku
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
"prone to change, fail, or give way; not stable."

It is unstable.
User avatar #50 to #17 - stereojunkie
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
In scientific terms, unstable is usually referred to as that the particle will decay.
User avatar #56 to #50 - jukuku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
Maybe it's just me but in chemistry reactive and unstable were used to describe ions and cations. I know that it wouldn't be the same as an unstable element or a decaying element.
User avatar #18 - theusamajunk
Reply +51 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
All that will do is attract negativity!
#15 - pappathethird
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
#27 - payseht
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
I, too, am trying to be more positive, so I'm ******* Africans without a condom
User avatar #4 - djequalizee
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
***** you're thinking of shedding neutrons. Isotopes generally are considered "unstable".
User avatar #6 to #4 - cocainrain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
but you become more reactive with other atoms if you are positive or negative
User avatar #7 to #6 - djequalizee
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
Though that is true, reactivity does not mean the atom is unstable. At least from a technical standpoint. When an atom is an ion, it means that it has to link with atoms with an opposite charge in order to neutralize its own charge. This doesn't make it "unstable", just likely to react with other elements. An unstable atom, I.e. isotope, typically has extra neutrons. This created an imbalance, and reduces the binding energy of the atom. The atom will then not have enough force to hold the extra neutron in place, and it will be ejected this can also happen with protons, like when Uranium-235 splits into Ba and Kr after nuclear fission
User avatar #11 to #7 - cocainrain
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
i know and i were not disagreeing with you, and i'm sorry if it sounded like that but i was thinking that some people may look at it as unstable, i where just trying to exsplaining it to them
User avatar #12 to #11 - djequalizee
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
Oh i see. Yeah, it could be looked at as unstable from a regular point of view.
User avatar #8 to #7 - djequalizee
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
Also i'm kind of **** at chemistry so if there is anyone who is an expert feel free to correct me
User avatar #20 to #8 - turtlemensch
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
While for some atoms/molecules this may be the case, in other atoms (such as the Alkali/Alkali Earth Metals) shedding electrons makes the atom more stable, since it then goes to the nearest Noble Gas Electron Configuration. An example of this would be Sodium losing an electron and its Electron configuration then being the same as Neon.
#48 to #7 - anon id: ccdb9e2f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
Wrong.
Only charges particels get 'ejected'(alpha/beta). To get neutrons out of an atom it needs to split.
User avatar #49 to #48 - djequalizee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
Oh, i actually forgot to mention that. That's why i put it off to the side. Thanks.
User avatar #29 to #7 - ryderjbudde
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
They are both unstable, as in they are both prone to change, just in different ways.
You're using two different words that mean the same thing.
User avatar #35 to #29 - djequalizee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
Ah alright then.
User avatar #26 to #4 - gmarrox
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
Chemically speaking, any element that gains or loses electrons without bonding is considered unstable.
User avatar #28 to #4 - ryderjbudde
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
Unstable and reactive are synonyms.

The nucleus isn't unstable, but its electron configuration is.
#5 - FalseFalcon
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
At the risk of sounding frisky; just rub yourself with cat fur, that should give you a net charge...also be a glass rod...for scientific reasons...
User avatar #21 - wizzerdofaus
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
>unstable would require radioactivity
#32 to #21 - micekill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
did you even go to highschool?
did you even go to school?
was there not a library close to your house when you were small?
don't you have internet?
did you not have discovery channel?
did you not have curiosity as a little kid?
User avatar #25 to #21 - gmarrox
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
Not sure if bait, or lack of fundamental chemistry knowledge.
User avatar #39 - fishercat
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
User avatar #19 - destaice
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
What you you call a pessimistic atom?

Anion.
User avatar #46 - Crusader
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
But, wouldn't stability come from shedding those electrons and becoming an ion?
User avatar #55 to #46 - xanthenerrick
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/20/2013) [-]
it depends on whether it is to achieve the octet structure. Al3+ doesn't lose one more electron because its electronic configuration is already stable