<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ep. 164: Inside the Atom</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.astronomycast.com/physics/particles/ep-164-inside-the-atom/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.astronomycast.com/physics/particles/ep-164-inside-the-atom/</link>
	<description>Take a weekly facts-based journey through the cosmos with Astronomy Cast.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:05:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Derek</title>
		<link>http://www.astronomycast.com/physics/particles/ep-164-inside-the-atom/comment-page-1/#comment-5377</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:17:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.astronomycast.com/?p=1059#comment-5377</guid>
		<description>Howdy,

Thanks very much for this intro, it was very helpful and gladly I seemed to recognise most of the content (I must be learning something).

One thing that I thought you might have at least addressed if not concentrated on was the reasons for creating large atoms at the end of the show. Why do we do it? Yes, there&#039;s the &#039;because we can&#039; line, of course, but are there any practical benefits to creating elements heavier than 300 units? Just curious really. I felt like I was left hanging a little.

The same question applies, I guess, to the attempts to make new sub-atomic particles out of different quarks. Other than &#039;because we can&#039; are there any practical benefits to the new particles, even if they are short-lived? Also, can sub-atomic particles have more or less than 3 quarks or is there a limit at 3, and if so why?

Perhaps this could have been two episodes.

Excellent work though, keep it up. You guys are great. Hope you&#039;re enjoying your snow and I&#039;m very jealous of you being able to see the aurora.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Howdy,</p>
<p>Thanks very much for this intro, it was very helpful and gladly I seemed to recognise most of the content (I must be learning something).</p>
<p>One thing that I thought you might have at least addressed if not concentrated on was the reasons for creating large atoms at the end of the show. Why do we do it? Yes, there&#039;s the &#039;because we can&#039; line, of course, but are there any practical benefits to creating elements heavier than 300 units? Just curious really. I felt like I was left hanging a little.</p>
<p>The same question applies, I guess, to the attempts to make new sub-atomic particles out of different quarks. Other than &#039;because we can&#039; are there any practical benefits to the new particles, even if they are short-lived? Also, can sub-atomic particles have more or less than 3 quarks or is there a limit at 3, and if so why?</p>
<p>Perhaps this could have been two episodes.</p>
<p>Excellent work though, keep it up. You guys are great. Hope you&#039;re enjoying your snow and I&#039;m very jealous of you being able to see the aurora.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Nerlich</title>
		<link>http://www.astronomycast.com/physics/particles/ep-164-inside-the-atom/comment-page-1/#comment-5358</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Nerlich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:34:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.astronomycast.com/?p=1059#comment-5358</guid>
		<description>Hi - not a biggie, but note the id tag on this file says Ep 165.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi &#8211; not a biggie, but note the id tag on this file says Ep 165.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
