The presumed Invariance of the atom

In summary, the physics building is constructed with the belief in the invariance of the atom, supported by numerous experiments. While there is no specific law or principle that validates this belief, it is a fundamental concept in physics and is continuously tested through experiments. Some theories suggest that fundamental constants may vary with time or position, but so far all experiments have shown negative results. However, there may be limitations to these experiments as they cannot vary the quantities of mass, length, and time independently. Ultimately, this belief in the invariance of the atom is a fundamental principle in mainstream physics, regardless of the outcome of these experiments.
  • #1
heldervelez
253
0
The physics building is based on the invariance of the atom.
Is there any principle or law or experiment ?
I think that we only presume.
What if there is no foundation for our 'truth' ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
heldervelez said:
The physics building is based on the invariance of the atom.
Is there any principle or law or experiment ?
I think that we only presume.
What if there is no foundation for our 'truth' ?

If you are asking whether all atoms of a given element have identical properties (mass, charge, etc.), there are numerous experiments verifying that. For example the use of cesium atoms in atomic clocks, because of the precise frequency of one of the transitions in cesium.

We do not just "presume" in physics. The laws of physics do get tested experimentally, in fact performing these experiments is how many physicists earn a living.
 
  • #3
All experiments are done in a local lab frame. Testing the general 'invariability' of the rulers we made with that atom can not be done from a local lab.
I agree with you that all atoms of a definite isotope that we can compare, at the same excitation level, seems fairly equal.

How can we be sure that an atom (H to simplify) from the distant past is 'equal' to the lab H?

What I think is that we use to apply the rulers to all times and positions, and I do not know a law/principle that validates the practice.
 
  • #4
There is no law that says atoms in the distant past or at distant places are physically the same. There are theories that fundamental constants may vary with time or position. Does that make you happy? All you can do is make measurements to try to detect this variation. As far as I know, all of them, so far, come up negative.
 
  • #5
What is not written can be very important.
And there are a natural trend to disregard what is left outside the papper.

All of the tests you mention are like:
There are 'tests' on the possible variation of 'c', 'G', 'alfa', and the test results are negative. None has achived a construction of a stable universe based in 'laws' where those constants (one at a a time ?, or combined,..) could be 'not constants'.

The exercise of varying things is pertinent because we have 3 basic physical equations and have more incognits (quantities M,L,T, and 'constants' epsilon,alfa,G,c)
The quantities are related to 'objects', say atoms, and constants are related to space (the way the space let thinghs go).

The 'tests' based on the quantities are doomed to fail, as they did, because there is something not written in the equations that matters:

We can not vary independently one or two of the quantities M,L,T, as they did in those tests. They can only vary at the same time because they are 'attached' to the 'atom scale'. It is so because it is the way we make 'rods', or rulers.

We will have a large/small 'metre' definition [L], and by 'c' constraint a larger/small time unit [T], naturally a 'large/small atom' will have a grater mass [M].

But this test was already made and claims to fit both local and cosmic data, with no break of known physical laws.

I think that those tests are mainstream physics, independent of the outcome 'fit/no fit', in particular if there is no break of laws.
 
  • #6
heldervelez said:
What is not written can be very important.
And there are a natural trend to disregard what is left outside the papper.

All of the tests you mention are like:
There are 'tests' on the possible variation of 'c', 'G', 'alfa', and the test results are negative. None has achived a construction of a stable universe based in 'laws' where those constants (one at a a time ?, or combined,..) could be 'not constants'.

The exercise of varying things is pertinent because we have 3 basic physical equations and have more incognits (quantities M,L,T, and 'constants' epsilon,alfa,G,c)
The quantities are related to 'objects', say atoms, and constants are related to space (the way the space let thinghs go).

The 'tests' based on the quantities are doomed to fail, as they did, because there is something not written in the equations that matters:

We can not vary independently one or two of the quantities M,L,T, as they did in those tests. They can only vary at the same time because they are 'attached' to the 'atom scale'. It is so because it is the way we make 'rods', or rulers.

We will have a large/small 'metre' definition [L], and by 'c' constraint a larger/small time unit [T], naturally a 'large/small atom' will have a grater mass [M].

But this test was already made and claims to fit both local and cosmic data, with no break of known physical laws.

I think that those tests are mainstream physics, independent of the outcome 'fit/no fit', in particular if there is no break of laws.

This sort of thing really doesn't belong in the Homework Help section. Why did you feel a need to put it here?
 
  • #7
heldervelez said:
The physics building is based on the invariance of the atom.
Is there any principle or law or experiment ?
At which university? Do you know who was the architect?
 

What is the presumed invariance of the atom?

The presumed invariance of the atom refers to the idea that atoms are considered to be unchangeable and indestructible particles. This concept has been widely accepted in the scientific community since the early 19th century.

What evidence supports the presumed invariance of the atom?

The presumed invariance of the atom is supported by several lines of evidence, including the law of conservation of mass, the law of definite proportions, and the law of multiple proportions. These laws demonstrate that matter behaves in a predictable and consistent manner, indicating that atoms are indeed unchangeable.

Are there any exceptions to the presumed invariance of the atom?

While the presumed invariance of the atom is generally accepted, there have been a few exceptions discovered in the study of nuclear reactions and quantum mechanics. These exceptions do not negate the concept of the atom's invariance, but rather provide a deeper understanding of its behavior.

How has our understanding of the atom changed over time?

The concept of the atom has evolved over time, with advancements in technology and scientific discoveries. Early theories of the atom proposed by scientists like Democritus and John Dalton have been refined and expanded upon by scientists such as Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, and Werner Heisenberg.

Why is the presumed invariance of the atom important in scientific research?

The presumed invariance of the atom is a fundamental concept in chemistry and physics, providing a basis for understanding the behavior of matter and the formation of chemical compounds. Without this concept, it would be difficult to explain and predict the behavior of atoms and molecules, hindering scientific progress in these fields.

Similar threads

Replies
49
Views
3K
  • Other Physics Topics
2
Replies
57
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
602
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
27
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
6
Views
909
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
14
Views
1K
Back
Top