In High School chem wrong like HS Physics?

ZapperZ

Man! You weren't kidding when you said "No doubt our statements, like any other, are vulnerable to paradox in their finiteness.". Right after you felt sorry for "steering" this thread into philosophy, you immediately turn around and contradict yourself.

$10 says that this "Bas C. van Fraassen" has never done a single experimental physics measurement on an "atom". And yet, he has managed to sucker enough people to actually pay MORE attention to his ignorant statements than what ALL of physics has to say.

Zz.

Gokul43201

Far from doing any experiments, he doesn't even have a degree in physics.

From his website
But he seems to be a fairly reputed philosopher so I doubt he'd actually say that atoms "are not directly observable".



Below is an STM picture of xenon atoms on a nickel (100) plane measured by Eigler at the IBM Almaden labs :

Not only have the atoms been imaged, they were actually moved into the specific locations using an STM tip.

For more pictures, check out the picture gallery at their website

Gokul43201

And recently, Rugar's group at IBM detected a single electron spin using MRFM.

<just pre-empting anyone that might want to say that electrons are not directly observable>

Loren Booda

van Fraassen, whom I may have previously misrepresented, says more along the lines that atoms are theoretical entities because they cannot be observed directly by the senses.

I hope I honored what Up_Creek had said, however, previous to my post.

If you think van Fraassen a kook, start a thread on him in the Philosophy forum.

Anyone here done experiments on individual atoms? The closest I came were a Millikan oil-drop experiment with e/m to 1% of accepted value and using a 1 MeV van de Graaf generator to replicate Rutherford's experiment.

ZapperZ

That doesn't make it better. In fact, it is quite sad. It reveals even a greater level of ignorance. But I expect nothing less...

No, I'll let other people frolick in there with their own "theoretical entities". Now talk about ideas that are not directly observed!

Zz.

Locrian

That may be what he says, but no one with any understanding of the philosophy of science should take that argument as having any meaning at all. He should brush up on this topic.

Loren Booda

ZapperZ,

I suggest you explore your need to carry out ad hominem attacks on Physics Forums, since none of us is truly an expert in the field.

ZapperZ

And similarly, I would suggest you confine your philosophical musings to the Philosophy section, and this meandering off the topic would NOT have happened in the first place.

Zz.

KingNothing

Alright kids, stop fighting and sit back down. I think philosophy has its place in physics (philosophy was why einstein diverged from the beliefs at the time, not hard facts), however I don't think that place for philosphy is in this thread.

Does anyone have anything more to add to the original question? I'm a junior in high school, so I can probably take on some college chemistry/physics without much difficulty.

Loren Booda

Higher atomic numbers tend to involve greater relativistic effects, usually not considered in basic chemistry.

The properties of water and carbon, explored in biochemistry, are quite unique and lead to the bases of life. A biochemist here might be able to help you further in that regard.

somy

So sorry for developing the science, Mr KingNothing!!!

Loren Booda

Correction: greater electronic relativistic effects.

Ethereal

I found this website which does detail some of the misconceptions HS students acquire from textbooks and teachers:

http://www.rod.beavon.clara.net/chemistry_contents.htm

Among them:

Q10 is not 2; an exploration of the fiction that reaction rates double for a 10K rise in temperature

The real pH of H2SO4

As well as interesting articles such as:

Chemists' decline?
What is a syllabus for?

Does anyone else know of websites debunking popular science misconceptions?

osskall

Radial distribution functions are a good help in this context.

bjon-07

Why don;t the element if group 3 (Boron, ect..) don't need to have octects?

We refer to them has having open valance shells but why do they have open valance shells?

I am currently in O chem.

Zygotic Embryo

Enough Said