Are Atoms Real? Investigating the Existence of Subatomic Particles

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter khemix
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atoms
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of atoms and subatomic particles, questioning whether they can be accurately described as point particles. Participants explore various theories, experimental evidence, and philosophical implications related to atomic and subatomic structures.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that while atoms are not point particles and have a definite size, the question of subatomic particles being point-like remains contentious.
  • Others suggest that the definition of particles may depend on the context, such as quantum mechanics (QM) or quantum field theory (QFT), where particles may not be point-like in a classical sense.
  • A participant mentions that the concept of point particles is a simplification used in classical physics, but questions whether this simplification holds true in the context of special relativity (SR) and quantum mechanics (QM).
  • There is a discussion about the lack of experimental evidence for dimensionless subatomic particles, leading to questions about the nature of fundamental particles and their potential substructure.
  • Some participants highlight that the existence of quarks and leptons has not been definitively proven, and that the understanding of particles may evolve with future experiments.
  • One participant emphasizes that the inquiry into atomic existence is complex and requires a thorough exploration of historical and contemporary scientific discourse.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of atoms and subatomic particles, with no consensus reached on whether they can be accurately described as point particles or if this is merely an approximation.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in definitions and assumptions regarding particles, as well as the unresolved nature of certain mathematical and theoretical frameworks in physics.

  • #31
Ok so I don't have the Experience or the Knowledge, I know this.

Do you understand how hard it is to comprehend such complex mathematics in the papers that the scientists write about interesting things like string theory and unified field theories?

I would need so many years of college to get even a shred of understanding as to what those papers really mean. I don't have that ability. I'm ignorant. I'm here to learn, don't hate, everyone starts from somewhere.

I completely speculate for a definitive answer because it takes me much less effort and time than to learn the entirety of quantum mechanics and it's mathematical base.

It really would take me years to do this, and I'm interested now. I can't wait. However, I will look more closely into the physics, then go to the more advanced concepts of physics, accompanied with learning the math.

But, I'm telling you that even when I learn this math my understanding will be 1/1000 of yours, because I STILL won't understand the implications of those scientific papers, because together in all the fields of science and physics and stuff, I'm aware I can never learn all of it to comprehend the most meaning out of it.

You and others on the other hand, are primary candidates for a layman translation from technical and mathematical jargon to ordinary english that I can understand.

To me, you are nothing but a translator that let's me find the truth faster without having to learn EVERYTHING about quantum mechanics and EVERYTHING about the above-my-head math that it involves. It's too hard for me, I need a way to find the truth in these papers without having to know all that other stuff.

Believe me, people on this forum make the implications of papers and homework so simple that it really is a translation from incomprehensible to cutting-edge research stuff that I come to know as news to my ears.

If this forum doesn't help me, I have other human resources found on the internet that hopefully can help me find shortcuts to the truth of all this new research that I SO PASSIONATELY want to understand.

Will you help me learn? Will you let me understand? Or are you going to tell me to go away just because I seem to be wasting your time? That's up to you, I have other scientists to flock to to find the implications of modern research. The real news doesn't give enough. News from scientists, that's like getting information straight from the horses mouth!

I hope you don't see a problem with what I'm doing, but if you want me to stop spreading my complex assumptions and false theories to other people, I can change to just asking for the fundamentals and where to find the basics of the math and science.

It is you scientists and mathematicians that give me purpose to be here. You feed my intellect and supply it with truth which is what I want. The actual meaning of the most modern research man is currently performing. This forum is just another resource for me to learn.

And you know what I've learned that doesn't have to do with science? Is that I shouldn't bother the scientists with my own theories of how I think it works. So please let me ask my questions, but if you have something wrong with them let me know.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Petradog said:
I hope you don't see a problem with what I'm doing, but if you want me to stop spreading my complex assumptions and false theories to other people, I can change to just asking for the fundamentals and where to find the basics of the math and science.

Please re-read the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" before proceeding any further.

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
It would seem that people viewing certain physical phenomena as tangible "things" leads to such misconceptions. A wave is a disturbance, a "thing" that happens that transports energy materially or electromagnetically. Maybe this nuance would help in other areas.
 
  • #34
Yes I will take the time to study the most complex math, but I need to find what's after that.
 
  • #35
Petradog said:
Yes I will take the time to study the most complex math, but I need to find what's after that.

are you insane or cynic? You will not need the most complex math, you need only some basic calculus!
 
  • #36
It appears that the issue of whether atoms exist has been sufficiently addressed, and this thread is now becoming more of an "academic advice" thread. Therefore, it is done.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K