Is there an antonym to "atom"? The only thing that comes to mind is "group of atoms", because that's literally what the antonym of "atom" should be, but that's a phrase. Is there any word for it? Also, the same thing with "atomic", the closest thing I can come up with is "relating to a group of atoms".
-
3Antonym means the opposite of something, like small versus large. atom has no opposite. So I really cannot understand at all what you mean....Not every object has an antonym. What an odd idea....– LambieCommented Sep 7, 2020 at 23:35
-
5Can you explain the context and why you (think you) need an antonym for “atom”?– StephenSCommented Sep 8, 2020 at 0:13
-
3Are you sure ‘antonym’ means what you think it means? Perhaps look it up in a dictionary, and define it in the question.– FivesideddiceCommented Sep 8, 2020 at 1:32
-
1The word "atomic" in the sense of "indivisible" has antonyms, such as "compound", but you don't seems to be asking about antonyms of that sense.– AcccumulationCommented Sep 8, 2020 at 4:28
Add a comment
|
4 Answers
The antonym of atomic (in the sense of atomic bomb) is non-atomic.
Atom has no meaningful antonym because a "non-atom" could refer to an electron or an eggplant or an elephant. There is no name for the set of objects that are not atoms.
This Quora post may interest you: Do nouns have antonyms?
-
3Weapons that are not atomic (or nuclear) are often called "conventional" in discussions about military history, politics, etc. Commented Sep 8, 2020 at 8:21
-
@MichaelHarvey I should have thought of that, because My Chemical Romance has a series of releases titled Conventional Weapons and each cover features a different non-atomic weapon. Commented Sep 8, 2020 at 16:47
There isn't an "antonym" for "atomic". Why would you need one? It is like asking what is the opposite of a zebra? A non-zebra? Obviously, there is no such thing - either something is or is not a zebra. Likewise with atoms.
Something that is atomic is related to atoms. Of course, everything in the physical universe is comprised of atoms! But not everything is about atoms. When we say that something is "atomic" we mean that it operates at an atomic level. For example, an atomic bomb works by harnessing the power of atoms. Arguably all explosive material is harnessing the energy within matter, but an atomic bomb directly access the energy held at that level.
Because atoms are a "level" of the composition of matter, some things are termed "sub-atomic" if they operate at a level below atoms (for example electrons are sub-atomic particles) and "super-atomic" if they operate at a level above atoms.
"Groups of atoms" as you mention could be a number of things. For example, if you are talking about a base element like gold, it is comprised entirely of the same atoms - atoms of gold. You wouldn't say "a group of gold atoms", you would just refer to it as a quantity of gold. As I'm sure you know, elements combine to form compounds - for example, one atom of hydrogen and two atoms of oxygen make water. The smallest unit of a compound is a molecule, which in the case of water would be 3 atoms but in other compounds, it could be as little as 2.
Really though, if you are not speaking about atoms as a level of a physical model, there is no need for an antonym.
Originally "atomic" meant that something could be divided into small, indivisible units. In this sense the antonym might be "continuous".
-
The antonym of continuous is usually given as discrete, but you might be on to something. Commented Sep 8, 2020 at 16:41
-
I like this answer, but I think the definition needs correction. Commented Dec 6, 2023 at 22:11
While indeed nouns do not generally have antonyms and most uses of atomic relate directly to its use as a noun, atomic does have another meaning in, say, computer science or philosophy: meaning "indivisible" or "irreducible". ( @Accumulation has a comment to this effect on the OP.) Corresponding antonyms would then include the obvious corollaries divisible and reducible, composite (as Accumulation suggests), and perhaps modular, in the sense of being made up of recognizable units that might be separately replaced.
