Is it true that some elements can only exist in nature of two or more atoms?
825846
Indeed; this has to do with atomic orbital structure. Atoms try to fill their outermost electron shell with electrons. All atoms will release energy when they accept an electron (this energy is called its electron affinity) and absorb energy when they free an electron (called the ionization potential). Atoms that are a few electrons short of filling their last shell (such as O, F, Cl and most of Group IIIA-VIIA on the periodic table) "will do anything" to fill this last shell, and will release a great amount of energy in the diatomic form (O2). Thus two single O atoms are not stable very long, they would immediately react to form O2 which is far more stable. O is so unstable it would even react with O2 to form O3 if it can't find another O atom.\n\nThe fact that some atoms "exist only" in diatomic form in nature does not mean it is impossible to single out an O atom. If you bombard O2 atoms with light that has a higher energy than the bond, you will break it. And, for a brief period of time, will have to single O atoms which will very quickly react with one another, or with another molecule to achieve stability.\n\nHope that helps; good luck with your studies.
493325
It is because a a shell can occupy only a maximum of 8 electrons which satisfies the octet rule.\n\n the rules are:\nHUND's rule of maximum multiplicity\nPAULI's exclusion principle\nAUFBAU principle
547549
From elementary chemistry it is known that the atomic structure of any element is made up of a positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons revolving around it. An element’s atomic number indicates the number of positively charged protons in the nucleus. The atomic weight of an atom indicates how many protons and neutrons in the nucleus. To determine the number of neutrons in an atom, the atomic number is simply subtracted from the atomic weight.\n\nAtoms like to have a balanced electrical charge. Therefore, they usually have negatively charged electrons surrounding the nucleus in numbers equal to the number of protons. It is also known that electrons are present with different energies and it is convenient to consider these electrons surrounding the nucleus in energy “shells.” For example, magnesium, with an atomic number of 12, has two electrons in the inner shell, eight in the second shell and two in the outer shell.\n\nAll chemical bonds involve electrons. Atoms will stay close together if they have a shared interest in one or more electrons. Atoms are at their most stable when they have no partially-filled electron shells. If an atom has only a few electrons in a shell, it will tend to lose them to empty the shell. These elements are metals. When metal atoms bond, a metallic bond occurs. When an atom has a nearly full electron shell, it will try to find electrons from another atom so that it can fill its outer shell. These elements are usually described as nonmetals. The bond between two nonmetal atoms is usually a covalent bond. Where metal and nonmetal atom come together an ionic bond occurs.\n\nhttp://www.tech.farmingdale.edu/depts/met/met205/atomicbonds.html\n\nhttp://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/5-bonds.htm
702712
An atom always wants to have 8 electrons in its outer shell (except for Helium and Hydrogen which want 2). An atom bonds with another atom so it can have a full shell. For example Oxygen has 6 electrons in its outer shell and Hydrogen has 1 , so if you put two Hydrogens and one Oygen together, the Oxygen will be able to have 8 part of the time and each Hydrogen will be able to have 2 part of the time.
647158
no.  The most anti-matter they can produce at one time is incredibly small, only a few particles the size of electrons.
563258
No, it is not possible to mix different elements on the periodic table to make a new element.\n\nAn element is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus of an atom.  A specific element has a specific number of protons in the nucleus of one of its atoms.  When you mix different elements, you are mixing atoms of that element, but the nuclei within the atoms are not mixing, they are staying separate and distinct, therefore you are only creating a mixture of two elements, not a new element all together.\n\nThe only way to create a new element would be to add protons to an atoms nucleus, something that is not easy to do, and if done, often creates a very unstable atom.\n\nA state of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma, Bose-Einstein condensate) are dependent on the physical conditions of the material, not the composition of the material.
920660
1a.) So you do not end up with more of one element than you started out with, elements cannot be created or destroyed in chemical reactions\n1b.) in a physical change, the elements do not combine with other elements- it remains the same substance (i.e. cutting paper or melting ice) a chemical change happens when chemical properties are changed, and new substances are formed (i.e. burning, baking soda and vinegar)\n2.) organic compounds an be found in living things, soil, or near anywhere living organisms are.\n3.) Carbon, Hydrogen
263220
1 but it prefers two, as do all atoms prefer to mimic the noble gases.  For instance, if a hydrogen is in a bond it actually has two electons that orbit its nucleus.
1017713
An atom is the smallest chemical entity and the part of an element which preserves its chemical character. \n\nIts parts are Protons, Neutrons, Electrons.
864116
1) is false, all the elements in living things can be found in non-living things\n\n2) this more tricky, what are these 4 elements most common in plants? I'm guessing: Hydrogen and Oxygen, (from water) Carbon, and . . .nitrogen???\nall these can be found in animals\nare you sure the question is asking about elements? elements in living things are pretty common to another. Its the compounds (hemoglobin, chlorophyll, etc) that get rather unique\n\ndo a little research, if some one cannot explain how they got the answer to a T/F question, you can't be sure they are just guessing
664567
One should not group antimatter particles all into the word element. It is possible to make any of the elements in the form of antimatter, and for any element the antimatter equivalent would be incredibly rare here on earth. Now to say the rarest is very hard because there could be at any given point in time a number of antimatter hydrogen atoms that might seem like a large number, to the human mind, here on earth. Anti hydrogen would be the most abundant anti element, although still inconcievably rare. However, some of the heaviest non-antimatter elements that have been created in the lab probably ocasionally briefly come into existence in nature here on earth. Some of these metals might be rarer than antihydrogen, the most abundent antielement here on earth. \nNote: positrons, anti electrons, are the most abundent easily observable antiparticle, but I have left them out because they are not an element.\n\nNow, as for the universe in general: It is a real curiousity that there does not seem to be an equal amount of antimatter as matter. We humans do not now how to create matter without also creating an equal amount of antimatter. Yet, it seems as though our universe is made up almost entirely of matter... What happened to all of the antimatter during the creation of the Universe??? I don't know, and as far as I am aware of there is not a solid leading theory to explain this enigma, but many ideas have been suggested with associated mathematics. Some of them propose that the antimatter went into another dimension. Others propose that there was a very slight inequality in the quantity of matter and antimatter with the difference being the matter that is currently in existence. Still others contend that the some total of matter and antimater within the Universe are still of equal quantities, but the areas where this antimatter is hiding is too far for light to have reached us from those locations. Although I have a preference between these ideas, I will not say what it is. So, lets just say that that might be a good topic for someone interested in the subject to do some real research.
811321
http://www.chemicool.com/definition/element.html\nis this what you mean? \n\nI don't think that this is a physical property although for the life of me I can't see why it couldn't be.
974643
Common elements that exist as diatomic molecules are H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, and I.\n\nSo these elements are most commonly found in nature as H2, N2, O2, F2, Cl2, Br2, and I2.
700100
Many other materials can be in three states. It depends on the temperature!\nNear the 'triple point' the three phases exist together.\n\nTh
963196
Many molecules have a lot more than two. You just have to keep counting. Don't forget the green ones.
1039705
The cell is still made up of many atoms, thats the only irrefutable link there. And the atom is not the elementary essential of matter, if by elementary essential you are referring to the smallest constituent of a matter. Atom is made of of sub-particles: protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks... And these are further made up of smaller sub-particles (our knowledge are always limited). Proton and nuetron have masses and volumes. Doesnt that mean they are matter too?
488000
I doubt we know it yet.  We know of a limited number of stable atoms that can be found in our solar system, and a few that have been made by man, though many of the nam made ones are not stable.  Most of the heavier atoms were created during several Supernova explosions.  It is reasonable to suspect that a planet system that formed from the debris left from extremely massive Supernova, the energy from those explosions may have created some exotic element we are not even aware of yet.  Perhaps such element exist on Earth, but in such tiny amounts that we are not even aware they are there yet.