Skip to main content

Which of these is not true about the proton? A. When a neutral hydrogen atom loses an electron, the proton remains. B. A proton is about 2000...

Choice C is the right answer.


Let us look at each of the choices in detail.


A. When neutral atoms (hydrogen or any other) lose an electron, the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus still stays the same. This is the reason the ions have the same atomic mass as the neutral atom. In other words, H+ or Cl- will have the same number of protons as H and Cl, respectively. Thus, this is not the right choice.


B. The mass of a proton is 1.7 x 10^-27 kg, while that of an electron is about 9.1 x 10^-31 kg. The ratio of masses of proton and electron is about 1836. Sometimes, for simplicity, we take this ratio to be about 2000 times. Thus, this is not the right answer.


C. If the electrons were to be pulled into the nucleus of an atom by the protons, we will not see any electron at all and there would be no possibility of forming any cations or anions. This is not true (as we have cations and anions) and electrons move around the nucleus and are not pulled into it. Thus, this is the right choice.


D. Protons exist within the nucleus along with the neutrons, so this is not the answer.


Hope this helps. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more