The presumed Invariance of the atom

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter heldervelez
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atom Invariance
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the invariance of atoms, specifically questioning the foundational principles that support this concept in physics. Participants reference experiments involving cesium atoms in atomic clocks to demonstrate that atoms of a given element possess identical properties. Despite numerous tests indicating the consistency of fundamental constants like the speed of light (c) and gravitational constant (G), the conversation highlights the philosophical implications of assuming invariance across time and space. The consensus is that while current experiments yield negative results for variations in these constants, the underlying assumptions and untested aspects of physics warrant further exploration.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of atomic structure and properties
  • Familiarity with fundamental constants in physics (e.g., speed of light, gravitational constant)
  • Knowledge of experimental methods in physics
  • Basic grasp of physical equations relating mass, length, and time
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of atomic invariance in modern physics
  • Explore the implications of fundamental constants and their potential variability
  • Study the methodology of experiments involving cesium atoms and atomic clocks
  • Investigate philosophical perspectives on the assumptions in physical laws
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of physics, and anyone interested in the foundational principles of atomic theory and the philosophical implications of scientific assumptions.

heldervelez
Messages
253
Reaction score
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
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 

Similar threads

High School Thinking about a calendar epoch based on the field of physics
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
Undergrad Replacing the Measurement standards (SI units)
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
10K
High School How the atom was proven to exist?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Invariance of the laws of physics
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
High School Symmetry of parity: Mistake in the experiment?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School How Does Entropy Relate to the Arrow of Time in the Early Universe?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
High School Can we build a microscope to see an atom?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Does the Universe have a finite number of fundamentals to uncover?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Graduate Thought Experiment: Aether Medium
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Undergrad Principle of relativity in the proof of invariance of interval
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
5K