Are Atoms Truly Devoid of Random Details?

[nameta9]

Atoms have no random details ?

If you look at anything macroscopic there is a lot of random details. Like the leaves on a road, or the cracks in a wall etc. Why don't atoms have any random details? They are perfectly round with "points" (electrons) that circulate them. OK, they are not "perfect" but governed by quantum mechanical equations etc. But they seem so "unnatural" as everything macroscopic has rnadom details and atoms are perfect mathematical equations. True that even air and oceans don't have any random details, but the details are in the random measurements of pressure and temperature. Maybe we can't perceive the atom's random details. Maybe something is wrong with our descriptions...

If you look at pictures of proteins and cells you can notice how much random details are there or even pictures of integrated circuits.

 

[oldtobor]

It's like a DVD. It can contain a film with loads of random details but it's largest common denominator is the bit, 1 or 0. So nature's largest common denominator must be an invariant with no random details otherwise it would be composed of an infinite level of objects each possessing random details and no final invariant. Matter would be based on nothing then and there would be no physical laws at all.

 

[HallsofIvy]

There are a lot of misconceptions here! Atoms are not "perfectly round with "points" that circulate around them". You've probably seen electron microscope pictures of molecules (not atoms) that look round but that is more due to the limitations of the microscope than to "reality". In "reality" the very concepts of "round" or "not round" do not apply at that scale any more than it would make sense to say that one atom is "red" and another "blue"! At a still lower level, electrons, muons, etc., the very concept of "particle" becomes too vague to be useful. Electrons, atoms, etc. still have many "properties" (charge, hypercharge, strangeness, etc.)- they aren't just "round"!

 

[nameta9]

And in fact atoms do have random details and matter is composed of an infinite number of levels each having random details all the way down to the Planck level. Therefore there are no laws of physics and matter is based on nothing. That is why quantum physics is based on chance, "random" probabilities, to reflect this state of things.

 

[Gokul43201]

I hate seeing non-physical terms applied to well-defined, physical entities like atoms. What on Earth are "random details" ? Can you define this in a consistent, scientific way so that a "random detail" can be identified in a manner other than "I'll know it when I see it" ?

The "randomness" of things like cracks or leaves comes from the macroscopically large number of interactions which are by nature non-linear. This is the basis of Chaos theory.

 

[nameta9]

Random details are all those intricate little quirks you see in everything around you, like the stones on a road, the casual tree alignments, cracks and all the quirky patterns of car seats and textiles etc. Look at anything very closely and you will see all kinds of odd details. The beauty of the universe is in those details. Now if these details are no longer present for the atom, then what is left is a perfectly abstract item or should I say a perfectly mathematical item. In fact when we abstract concepts we are IGNORING the details so we can manage them logically and mathematically. So if the atom is a purely mathematical item, it is no longer a material item and hence matter does not even exist. If those details are present for an atom, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be since we are biased towards thinking the atom is just a set of equations, then the quirky odd details go on forever at all levels even at 10^-100000 mm and hence there are really no physical laws at all only approximations and "chaos". So matter is based on nothing anyways.

 

[Gokul43201]

Random details are all those intricate little quirks you see in everything around you, like the stones on a road, the casual tree alignments, cracks and all the quirky patterns of car seats and textiles etc. Look at anything very closely and you will see all kinds of odd details.

That's exactly what qualifies as an "I'll know it when I see it" kind of definition. There's no place for such descriptions in science.

 

[nameta9]

This is a metaphysical theory based on fake science which is the only real science since real science is based on invented ideas of an arbitrary mind structure.

On one hand the entire basic assumption of science is that we can simplify reality by ignoring the details and creating logical models. On the other hand, science does investigate exactly the many details that philosophers and artists have often ignored because considered "too low level and not worth the human spirit". But we are simply within a quirk range of size levels where the simplification - ignoring details method of science seems to work, but at the many infinite smaller levels there are no simplifying principles and in fact there may be an infinite increase of complexity and chaos and science would actually be inverted in the sense that the simple is based on the infinitely complex.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is a metaphysical theory based on fake science ...

That sounds like a disclaimer that what follows is crankery.

I thought the idea here was to discuss the metaphysics of what is considered real science. Anyway, I think I'm being disruptive to the flow of this thread, so I'll quietly leave...

 

[quantumdude]

I agree with Gokul on this one. This thread is just bad philosophy, if it can be called philosophy at all. Real philosophers of science actually learn a substantial amount of science first.