The nuclear atom does NOT exist.

Literally every atom is a nuclear atom.

It means having a nucleus often surrounded by electrons.

I've got no idea where grumpy is going.

The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, by Dewey B. Larson (North Pacific Publishers)

Since the beginning of the twentieth century we seem to have accepted, quite blindly sometimes, all experimental observations, whether they fitted into the general framework of Bohr and Rutherford, or not. Whenever they do not, present practice is to try and save the theory by adding further extensions and qualifications.

What Larson does, and with alarming simplicity, is to show that most of the “physical and chemical evidence” to which textbook writers refer, is equally consistent with many other hypotheses besides the theory of the nuclear atom, and is therefore no proof to any hypothesis. Where do we go from here? Bohr’s work was a marriage of Rutherford’s theory of the nuclear atom with Planck’s theory of the quantum. The decree that makes the divorce final is the abandonment of the last vestiges of Rutherford’s theory. All that is left is what came originally from Planck. We must go on from here, and the new atomic theory that replaces the nuclear atom must embody the quantum concept in some manner.

To all of us, steeped in the unquestioning adoration of the contemporary scientific method, this is a rude and outspoken book, which sometimes hurts. The frightening thing about it is that it rings true.

His thesis is that Rutherford, in deducing the existence of the atomic nucleus from his bombardment of metal films with alpha particles, made a possibly incorrect deduction. Rather than a tiny, massive nucleus at the center of a frothy, electron-filled atom, Larson suggests that the experiment could be equally well interpreted as indicating a tiny atom surrounded by nothing except energy fields. Larson thus suggests a return to the Daltonian atom, a featureless sphere of the size we associate with what we call the atomic nucleus.

Nope. Your posts haven't succeeded in compelling me to consider your opinion. You're not very good at this persuasion thing so far.

Quote:

What is a "nuclear atom?"

Like a Uranium atom?

https://ibalchemy.com/2-1/

I am curious as I am interested. What do you call what most people would consider a "hydrogen atom"?

I don't understand why you are so Old and Grumpy...you've been sitting on a POT OF GOLD for however long you've known about this.

I'd be Old and HAPPY-AS-****

This explains why something as crazy as the Internet would never work.

"I am here only sowing seeds"

.Nah...you are here to do a bit of fishing with what you naively think is attractive bait. You don't seem to have the brains to understand that the meaning of words like 'existence' or 'atom' are never independent of the context in which they are used. 'Existence' is relative, not absolute. 'Atoms' are functional entities for some processes and not others.