Are Atoms Real? Investigating the Existence of Subatomic Particles

[khemix]

I've studied enough of physics and chemistry to find out this question has not yet been answered. All theories derive mathematical formulas that deal with point particles. But how are scienstists convinced that nature is made of point particles.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think you may have ended your studies a wee bit soon. Atoms can be handled one-at-a-time, so "how we know they exist" has the same answer as "how do we know gumballs exist" - hold out your hand and I'll give you one.

Atoms, however, have definite size and are not points.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Well spectra of atoms, Solid state physics, molecular physics, electron microscopes etc.

This is a picture of atoms in a solid: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/can-see-atom/

One has even written "IBM" with 35 atoms... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Eigler

Ok KID, back to school... what did you mean by "enough"??

 

[DaveC426913]

I think you may have ended your studies a wee bit soon. Atoms can be handled one-at-a-time, so "how we know they exist" has the same answer as "how do we know gumballs exist" - hold out your hand and I'll give you one.

Atoms, however, have definite size and are not points.

I believe though, that the OP's question might better apply to subatomic particles, which are point particles.

The answer to "how we know they exist" is that we only define them by their effects on the world around them. We may not be able to say exactly "what" an electron is, but we can definitely describe its properties such as mass and charge, etc.

Q: What is an electron?
A: That whateveritis which is observed to have a given charge and a given mass.



... Well, that's not quite true is it? We do say things like "electrons do not have substructures" and "electrons are not distinguishable from each other". So we are claiming to know something about them beyond what we can directly observe. Though I do believe this is where empirical observation ends and theory begins.

 

[Renge Ishyo]

If we know atoms to be what they are, then we certainly know that they are NOT point particles. Atoms have a 3D shape or volume, they can translate, rotate, and vibrate etc. We also know that these atoms are not the ultimate "smallest" particle of matter as they are built up out of even smaller particles.

The "point particle" in classical physics is used as a simplification so that the translational motion of an object can be considered by itself without also considering the rotation of an object (anything larger than a point particle will exhibit rotation unless it is pushed precisely along its center of mass). Just because the concepts of physics are originally introduced with point particles does not mean that the truths of the laws are limited to point particles! The point particles are used as an approximation to simplify the analysis of the first few laws for beginning students, you can do all the same analysis with "real" objects that are not point particles...it would just be more difficult to do it this way for a beginner (as you would now have to consider the ideas of center of mass and rotation along with translational motion all at the same time if taught this way).

 

[DaveC426913]

If we know atoms to be what they are, then we certainly know that they are NOT point particles. Atoms have a 3D shape or volume, they can translate, rotate, and vibrate etc. We also know that these atoms are not the ultimate "smallest" particle of matter as they are built up out of even smaller particles.

The "point particle" in classical physics is used as a simplification so that the translational motion of an object can be considered by itself without also considering the rotation of an object (anything larger than a point particle will exhibit rotation unless it is pushed precisely along its center of mass). Just because the concepts of physics are originally introduced with point particles does not mean that the truths of the laws are limited to point particles! The point particles are used as an approximation to simplify the analysis of the first few laws for beginning students, you can do all the same analysis with "real" objects that are not point particles...it would just be more difficult to do it this way for a beginner (as you would now have to consider the ideas of center of mass and rotation along with translational motion all at the same time if taught this way).

I am not so sure their point-particleity is just a simplification for clarity, as you are suggesting.

I do believe that in SR, the subatomic particles have to be point particles or the math doesn't work. In fact, the pointness or non-pointness is an important factor in why SR and QM are currently incompatible. String theory was invented partly in an attempt to explain how point particles could interact without generating numbers that approach inifinity.

 

[tim_lou]

I feel that the problem with the question is... what is a point-particle? Do you mean an eigenstate of the position operator x in QM, or the one particle states |p> in QFT?

If you are considering the first one, then nature certainly isn't made of point particles, in fact, most objects have a finite width in their position representation.

The latter (the QFT case) can hardly be considered as a "point" particle at all, since it's wave function is spread out and none of them has a definite position.

The concept of particles in physics can best be described as an intuitive notion rather than something that's like a solid particle existing at a point with infinite density. The classical case is merely an approximation to the quantum ones.

 

[Renge Ishyo]

The concept of a dimensionless "point" particle comes from classical physics. That's all I really know for sure. So far there is no experimental evidence of a dimensionless subatomic particle within the nucleus. So the question more or less becomes is SR an approximation? or is it exact, and is the approximation being made with QM? Most of us want to believe that the approximation is made with QM because it just "feels" incomplete (and most of the new theories are trying to "complete" it), but if the last century indicates anything it is that the answer (if we even get one) is not going to be what we want.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I believe though, that the OP's question might better apply to subatomic particles, which are point particles.

Perhaps. There's a limit to how much second guessing one can do. "How do we know atoms exist?" might really mean "Are there such things as point particles?" Or it might mean something else.

I don't think anything in particle physics requires particles to be point-like. It's simply that quarks and leptons have shown no evidence at all of substructure at any scale we can probe.

 

[Renge Ishyo]

It's simply that quarks and leptons have shown no evidence at all of substructure at any scale we can probe.

Until the LHC or something experimentally demonstrates that quarks exist I am not necessarily sure that they exist much less that they have or don't have substructure. It could BE that the fundamental particles are simply the things that don't show evidence of decay such as a proton or an electron and that we are staring at them right now and don't even know it. Until (if) we actually smash a proton apart we won't know for sure.

Anyways, you can't even talk about sub"atomic" particles or what have you unless you first believe in the atom. The topic of how we "know" atoms exist is a very long one and would take quite a bit of time to develop properly. I suggest reading Issac Asimov's book "Atom" if you want an enjoyable easy ride from the initial discoveries to the present state of affairs.

 

[malawi_glenn]

tim_lou, a (charged) point particle is something who's charge distribution is dirac delta function, and that one can measure by scattering.

DaveC426913, If the OP claims to have studied physics on the level that he/she knows that proofs for existence of atoms don't exists, then I think it is adequate to answer that question since it was raised and formulated in that way.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Until the LHC or something experimentally demonstrates that quarks exist

• Deeply inelastic scattering measurements, beginning with the Nobel prize winning work of Friedman, Kendall and Taylor.
• Quarkonium energy levels, beginning with the Nobel prize winning work of Ting and Richter.
• Dozens of confirmed predictions of hadrons, beginning with the Panofsky prize winning work of Samios.

 

[malawi_glenn]

So far there is no experimental evidence of a dimensionless subatomic particle within the nucleus.

You should get updated, the existence of quark is old. The task of LHC is not to find quarks since that question is solved long long time ago.

And as far as we know, leptons and quarks are point particles, no furter structure has been found.

You should recapitulate scattering theory and form factors in quantum mechanics.

 

[DaveC426913]

Anyways, you can't even talk about sub"atomic" particles or what have you unless you first believe in the atom. The topic of how we "know" atoms exist is a very long one and would take quite a bit of time to develop properly.

It was covered in posts 2 and 3. Unless the OP chooses to disbelieve, I would say that part of the discussion is resolved.

 

[Renge Ishyo]

You should get updated, the existence of quark is old. The task of LHC is not to find quarks since that question is solved long long time ago.

I disagree here. One of the primary tasks of the LHC is to show clear *experimental* evidence that protons do in fact have a definite substructure. The math might tell you that its there, but there is no guarantee that the problem is not with the math (especially since our math does have holes in it that we do not understand such as the aforementioned infinities that are brushed aside). Most physicists agree that electrons for instance do not have a substructure. And yet aside from the mass, the electron is very similar to the proton in many observable ways (no evidence of decay for example, or the simple fact that the two things interact directly with each other in low energy matter).

I realize that being a modern day physicist is a frustrating thing in that you have to take "half answers" from untested theories (and the quark is still an old untested theory...despite the theoretical argument for it, we haven't directly detected a quark from any experiment thus far). However, I would urge caution...to bring up recent history, the michelson-morely experiment was supposed to confirm the existence of the ether at the turn of the century. If I was standing by waiting for that experiment to be performed at the time and chatting about it with a bunch of physicists, I am sure that the best and brightest of the bunch would be there trying to convince me that this would prove the ethers existence and that this whole thing was a formality. Except when they actually did the experiment they found out the interpretation of the experiment was something else that nobody had thought of. I would not be surprised if they found a quark in the LHC and that could put things to rest, but I would not be all that surprised if they found something entirely different either.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Renge_Ishyo, there has been Nobel Prices given to quark findings.

Before proceeding, please show your sources for your claim regarding what LHC are looking for.

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/Research/COMPASS-en.html

Compass is just "finetuning", its task is not to find the existence of quarks.

Under which stone have you lived?

 

[Petradog]

I also want to know if atoms or molecules truly exist. What proof do we have to substantiate this claim?

 

[malawi_glenn]

we have just discussed such evidence.

 

[JustinLevy]

Renge Ishyo,
The top quark has been detected, and it doesn't hadronize before decaying. So in that sense, we have seen free quarks in collider experiments already.

 

[Petradog]

I understand that we've seen atoms using Electron Tunneling Microscopy.

We also have good models concerning Brownian motion, Atomic Theory, and other Mathematical Derivations that according to the scientists prove it true without a doubt.

But, I still don't understand how this actually proves that that's an atom and not something else; which could create a bias in what we're seeing in these pictures.

However, I do admit that at least viruses have a certainty of existence, being the smallest things seen. But I'm not sure about molecules or anything smaller than that due to lack of proof.

Do the molecules appear to be the perfect geometric structures we see with the computers and instruments? And if this is so, back up why our instruments aren't falsifying the results with a bad way to measure the size of the molecule? Are we sure our measuring methods have the accuracy and true image we think they do?

Are you sure that other forces and fields aren't just making it "look" like an atom, when it could in truth be a much smaller or larger particle?

I'm not even sure about the existence of the electron. What if it were something else? What if light were something else too, what other imaging techniques and equations do we have that actually prove these assumptions true?

Please use whatever mathematical methods, figures, constants, and scientific proof or evidence to disprove me. I'm not a philosopher, I'm not sure about it if we haven't seen it with human eyes or photographic cameras instead of electron cameras.

I will listen to whatever you say, but I may question the truth in each of your statements.

 

[ZapperZ]

I understand that we've seen atoms using Electron Tunneling Microscopy and we have good basis on Avagadro's number and brownian motion.

But, I still don't understand how this actually proves that that's an atom and not something else that could create a bias in what we're seeing in these pictures.

And have we seen the molecules too? Are they actually the geometric structures that we have imaged them as using computers?

Are you sure that other forces and fields aren't just making it "look" like an atom, when it could in truth be a much smaller or larger particle?

I'm not even sure about the existence of the electron, what if it were something else, what if light were something else too, what other imaging techniques and equations do we have that actually prove these assumptions true?

Please use whatever mathematical methods, figures, constants, and scientific proof you can to disprove what I'm saying. I'm not a philosopher, I'm just not sure about it if we haven't seen it with our eyes.

What is so special about your eyes that it has to be the ultimate detector to qualify if something exists or not? You can't see heat, UV, etc.. in fact, the eye can detected a very limited range of EM radiation. So why do you have to SEE anything for something to exist?

The "atom" has a very well-defined theoretical description. When you measure ALL of the prediction and outcome of that description, then you say that such a theoretical description is valid. It has nothing to do with SEEING it with your own eyes. That would make for a very limited and narrow view of what is valid and what isn't.

You can't see lethal x-ray radiation. If that, in your book, constitutes to x-ray not existing, I invite you to sit inside a running particle accelerator for 5 minutes and prove to me that your eventual acute radiation sickness doesn't prove that x-ray exists.

Zz.

 

[atyy]

But, I still don't understand how this actually proves that that's an atom and not something else; which could create a bias in what we're seeing in these pictures.

That's an interesting point. "Early AFM images of atomic-scale structure, it turned out, proved to be deceptive." http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200305/prl-4.cfm.

 

[Petradog]

I think that our eyes are also what see our numbers and measurements. So yes, the eyes and your actual existence is the ultimate proof.

I believe you that radiation is a cause and the effect is sickness, given time. And, I understand we can use complex math to find things that aren't seen or aren't supposed to be happening.

But who's looking at those measurements? Just the machines? What are the machines connected to? Aren't the data and numbers what you see?

Of course dealing with variables that explain reality and the change within it.

But it's scientists own eyes that are looking at those numbers, looking at models, other things that were created with their minds (like equations) that so closely resemble the truthful reality.

I acknowledge the reality is real, but our eyes and brains that process this data are what is giving us the proof. I want to see the proof you have that shows data, equations, models, whatever that actually proves molecules exist in the geometric form that we describe them.

I won't be satisfied with only molecules though, I'll also need to see the proof you have of atoms, too.

I won't annoy you enough as to ask for the truth about things smaller than the atom and electromagnetic radiation, that will be another day.

 

[ZapperZ]

I think that our eyes are also what see our numbers and measurements. So yes, the eyes and your actual existence is the ultimate proof.

I believe you that radiation is a cause and the effect is sickness, given time. And, I understand we can use complex math to find things that aren't seen or aren't supposed to be happening.

But who's looking at those measurements? Just the machines? What are the machines connected to? Aren't the data and numbers what you see?

Of course dealing with variables that explain reality and the change within it.

But it's scientists own eyes that are looking at those numbers, looking at models, other things that were created with their minds (like equations) that so closely resemble the truthful reality.

I acknowledge the reality is real, but our eyes and brains that process this data are what is giving us the proof. I want to see the proof you have that shows data, equations, models, whatever that actually proves molecules exist in the geometric form that we describe them.

I won't be satisfied with only molecules though, I'll also need to see the proof you have of atoms, too.

I won't annoy you enough as to ask for the truth about things smaller than the atom and electromagnetic radiation, that will be another day.

All all those physical evidence, ranging from atomic spectra to core-level photoemission, etc.. etc. are not convincing enough to you? And on your part, to what extent have you done your own homework to actually look at the body of knowledge that have been published? I have no idea what you have attempted to go look for yourself and could not found, or where you have looked.

The properties of atoms are not something esoteric. It is USED in the very material that is contained in the semiconductor that you are using in your computer and modern electronics. Look up "atomic layer deposition" and see to what extent that is already being used to make some of the stuff you are already using. So you one of my evidence of the validity of the model, even if you are unaware of it.

Zz.

 

[alxm]

I also want to know if atoms or molecules truly exist. What proof do we have to substantiate this claim?

Historically, the definitive death-blow to the anti-atomists came in 1913 with Jean Perrin's "Les Atomes".
He explains 16 very diverse and mutually independent experiments that all give approximations of Avogadro's number.

At the end of the book there's a table which triumphantly summarizes the results: (Avogadro's number/10²²)
Viscosity of gases (kinetic theory): 62
Vertical distribution in dilute emulsions: 68
Vertical distribution in concentrated emulsions: 60
Brownian displacement: 64
Brownian movement, rotations: 65
Brownian movement, diffusion: 69
Density fluctuation in concentrated emulsions: 60
Critical opalescence: 65
Blueness of the sky: 65
Diffusion of light in Argon: 69
Black-body spectrum: 61
Charge as microscopic particles: 61
Radioactivity, Projected charges: 62
Radioactivity, Helium produced: 66
Radioactivity, Radium lost: 64
Radioactivity, Energy radiated: 60

Now.. either this is all one HUGE coincidence, or atoms exist. (As far as chemists were concerned this was generally accepted by 1854, actually)
(and of course, today we could add any number of new experiments to this list, and more accurate values)

 

[Shackleford]

What exactly is this? What's the atom/molecule? I assume the round/spherical looking object is the nucleus or the molecule?

 

[atyy]

I think that our eyes are also what see our numbers and measurements. So yes, the eyes and your actual existence is the ultimate proof.

So do sound waves which you don't see with your eye exist?

I think most scientists don't care whether atoms exist or not. One just makes a model, uses the model to make predictions, and if the predictions match experimental results closely enough, then the model is accepted as a good approximation of reality. Atoms are just the name for something in some model.

 

[Petradog]

"One just makes a model, uses the model to make predictions, and if the predictions match experimental results closely enough, then the model is accepted as a good approximation of reality. Atoms are just the name for something in some model."

I think all 4 of you have enough evidence to convince me that the existence of atoms in physical space is fact.

Avogadro's number in particular.

But even if atoms don't exist, atyy brings the most logical explanation I've ever seen about whether it matters. And the truth is that it doesn't, he's right.

What does matter is the effect and phenomenon we can measure due to these "atoms" and their movement.

Theory accompanied with experimentation really IS all we need to understand the nature and underpinning cause of anything from Newtonian Mechanics to String Theory.

It's about getting as close to the reality as we can, because we accept we'll never actually get there, but we try to get close as we can, explaining only a percentage of observable phenomenon that we are so lucky to witness and re-produce.

What atyy said about having a prediction and a real result is the proof that there is NO BETTER METHOD then using statistics and probability to explain any data we've measured or obtained.

Thank you for opening my mind.

I will now search for the theories that approximate reality at all locations in time for every phenomenon that we've observed and compare them with experimental results.

My goal is to find the hole in these theories that we have, and hopefully through the holes a better explanation will be necessary to explain certain things. With the better theory, I'll have helped mankind achieve an ever closer approximation to the truth, but know that I'm only close and haven't arrive there yet, giving me the will to search for more kinks to get rid of in the new theory I've made.

That's what science is about, trying to get to perfection through reality, but realizing you'll only get close.

 

[Petradog]

ZapperZ, I acknowledge that I haven't done my homework.

The forum and its kind netizens are my shortcut to answers!

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ, I acknowledge that I haven't done my homework.

The forum and its kind netizens are my shortcut to answers!

.. and how can you tell that we haven't pulled a fast one on you?

Based on your post in here and in other threads on PF, you are trying to come up with your own "theory", and without putting any effort in studying the existing body of knowledge. Your "effort" so far consists of putting out "feelers" in forums such as this. This is not the way one would go about in studying what we already know to be able to identify when something new and unexplained emerges.

Rather than learning physics from established sources, you are doing it from strangers in an open public forum. Think about that for a minute.

Zz.