B Fundamental Questions about Atoms

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sciencelad2798
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atoms Fundamental
AI Thread Summary
Atoms are not mostly empty space; they are filled with strong fields that govern their interactions. The discussion challenges the notion that atomic structure supports simulation theory, emphasizing that simulation theory lacks scientific validity and cannot provide calculable evidence. It is noted that this concept is often deemed "not even wrong," meaning it does not adhere to the principles of scientific discourse. Additionally, the forum has rules against discussing simulation hypotheses due to their speculative nature. Engaging in further threads on this topic is discouraged.
Sciencelad2798
Messages
46
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
How is it even possible for atoms to function like they do?
I can't help but find the concept of atoms a bit weird. If everything is made of atoms, and atoms are mostly empty space, couldn't that be evidence towards simulation theory? If we can never actually touch anything, and everything is just "levitating" on a force field, couldn't that also be evidence? I am not great at expressing my ideas, I've just been struggling with this, having kind of an essential crisis and could use some reassurance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sciencelad2798 said:
Summary:: How is it even possible for atoms to function like they do?

I can't help but find the concept of atoms a bit weird. If everything is made of atoms, and atoms are mostly empty space, couldn't that be evidence towards simulation theory?
First, atoms are not mostly empty space. They are entirely filled with strong fields.

Second, no, why would it be evidence towards simulation theory? Again, remember what constitutes evidence as described previously.

By the way, I notice that this is your second thread basically looking at some theoretical prediction and asking if it is evidence towards simulation theory. There really is no evidence for simulation theory because it is not actually a theory in the scientific sense. I.e. you cannot use "simulation theory" to calculate a probability for any observation. So there will not be anything that can possibly be described as evidence towards simulation theory. It simply is not the type of idea for which evidence can even exist. This type of idea is often described as “not even wrong”
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Motore, jim mcnamara, russ_watters and 2 others
Note also that the forum rules specifically disallow discussions of simulation hypotheses, basically for the reasons that @Dale states above.

So please don't start another thread on the subject? Please?
 
  • Like
Likes Dale and russ_watters
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top