Is it wavelike? A particle? Or both? What subatomic particles compose it and is the standard model correct? What make the atom such a mystery? And what about those four forces of nature?
PhilX
What is the true nature of an atom?
-
Philosophy Explorer
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
-
Necromancer
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
- Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
- Contact:
Re: What is the true nature of an atom?
It is said that the model of the atom covers the reality of the atom and I think this is correct. Equally one can say that the Standard Model of Particle Physics describes correctly the parts that make up the atom as the bits are analysed from the particle accelerators. This happens under the assumption that the bits from the collisions tell us about the true nature of the atom, all quarks and other quants summed up.
This is the short answer in order to create one reply to this classical topic of Philosophy of Science. The four forces are deduced in a similar experimental way and I leave it to others to describe these and the fine history of their becoming in our World.
This is the short answer in order to create one reply to this classical topic of Philosophy of Science. The four forces are deduced in a similar experimental way and I leave it to others to describe these and the fine history of their becoming in our World.
-
Scott Mayers
- Posts: 2485
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: What is the true nature of an atom?
I just watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxRfDtaot5U.
It is a general overview and discussion on what quantum mechanics is. I find all guests valid for the most part. But I am disappointed with the presumption that entanglement is a sincere phenomena. Particularly, what most frustrates me is that if the claim that you a state of entanglement exists in some box of two separated in space, these particles are LITERALLY in two spins at once UNTIL YOU OBSERVE THEM. So how do you determine this indeterminate condition of being both without actually being able to observe them?
I get a practical interpretation that merely means that the nature of measuring limits us to. But this is not what some of the scientists are proposing.
Alan Alda asked a significant question to which Brian Greene responded to: Given that the lay person would reasonably question QM being privileged to actually participate in the experiments themselves, is it not reasonable for the lay person to think this means 'Anything goes' or is true no matter what you could imagine. The philosopher on the stage even made this point by using analogy with his water bottle. He said it is as if someone were to tell him that his bottle were Elvis Presley. Then if you try to feedback your understanding like "okay, so you mean that the molecules that made up Elvis when he lived is in this bottle in some part, right" to which you get, "no, I mean the bottle IS Elvis." He used this analogy to demonstrate the clearly lack of apparent rationale of the QM authority might try to argue.
Brian Greene responded to Alan's question that the difference between assuming anything is weird should equally be accepted is that the accuracy of prediction in QM is sufficient to justify it by contrast. However this still doesn't sufficiently answer the question. I could say that I predicted X to be 9.98863 in units of Y but without being able to be qualified to judge whether some such experiment even is relevant to anything interpreted of QM still requires understanding the experiment itself AND what X, Y, or any other factors going into it are.
I respect Greene's last summary comment of Alan asking what the scientists project a future society looking back on our present generation of science in this area would be. He responded that they might merely have a better perspective of interpretation that collectively makes what we are mysterious about clear. The Sun moving around the Earth was not, for instance, a misplaced rationale by perspective. We only altered our perspective to recognize that the Sun sitting in the center and having the Earth move around it made things more inclusively clearer by such perspective.
Personally, I believe I already see at least some perspective that does this in my own head. And it doesn't require quantum weirdness interpretations which to me sounds more like religion. I prefer the view by the many-worlds scientist there although I see value in all of them.
It is a general overview and discussion on what quantum mechanics is. I find all guests valid for the most part. But I am disappointed with the presumption that entanglement is a sincere phenomena. Particularly, what most frustrates me is that if the claim that you a state of entanglement exists in some box of two separated in space, these particles are LITERALLY in two spins at once UNTIL YOU OBSERVE THEM. So how do you determine this indeterminate condition of being both without actually being able to observe them?
I get a practical interpretation that merely means that the nature of measuring limits us to. But this is not what some of the scientists are proposing.
Alan Alda asked a significant question to which Brian Greene responded to: Given that the lay person would reasonably question QM being privileged to actually participate in the experiments themselves, is it not reasonable for the lay person to think this means 'Anything goes' or is true no matter what you could imagine. The philosopher on the stage even made this point by using analogy with his water bottle. He said it is as if someone were to tell him that his bottle were Elvis Presley. Then if you try to feedback your understanding like "okay, so you mean that the molecules that made up Elvis when he lived is in this bottle in some part, right" to which you get, "no, I mean the bottle IS Elvis." He used this analogy to demonstrate the clearly lack of apparent rationale of the QM authority might try to argue.
Brian Greene responded to Alan's question that the difference between assuming anything is weird should equally be accepted is that the accuracy of prediction in QM is sufficient to justify it by contrast. However this still doesn't sufficiently answer the question. I could say that I predicted X to be 9.98863 in units of Y but without being able to be qualified to judge whether some such experiment even is relevant to anything interpreted of QM still requires understanding the experiment itself AND what X, Y, or any other factors going into it are.
I respect Greene's last summary comment of Alan asking what the scientists project a future society looking back on our present generation of science in this area would be. He responded that they might merely have a better perspective of interpretation that collectively makes what we are mysterious about clear. The Sun moving around the Earth was not, for instance, a misplaced rationale by perspective. We only altered our perspective to recognize that the Sun sitting in the center and having the Earth move around it made things more inclusively clearer by such perspective.
Personally, I believe I already see at least some perspective that does this in my own head. And it doesn't require quantum weirdness interpretations which to me sounds more like religion. I prefer the view by the many-worlds scientist there although I see value in all of them.