4 ms·

"The same applies to atoms, we all agree on what they are, and we can show pictures of them etc." This is where you bury the lede. It's clear if you read many

"The same applies to atoms, we all agree on what they are, and we can show pictures of them etc." This is where you bury the lede. It's clear if you read many of the comments here that there is no such agreement. Some people _think_ of an atom as something you can reach out and touch, or grok in some deep sense distinct from performing specific experiments. Others take an approach that's more in line with theory in the sense I use it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory). Your definition of theory is too loose: it's not just a body of work. That sounds like a pile of experimental evidence to me. A theory is a robust model or family of related models that match the experimental evidence. Atoms exist in that sense: they're a well tested model of experimental phenomena. I'm certainly not claiming that atomic theory is a wild speculative guess which you seem to imply I've done.

Voloskaya 6y ago
> It's clear if you read many of the comments here that there is no such agreement I guess I should have said "all experts agree" instead? Lack of knowledge about something by some people doesn't change the definition of that thing. I would add however, that you can reach out and touch an atom with a certain definition of touch (as touch is mostly a macroscopic concept). > I'm certainly not claiming that atomic theory is a wild speculative guess which you seem to imply I've done. You will have to explain this one to me then. You said "it's *even* called a theory" to reinforce your point that it was just a mathematical tool (and hence not real following your definition). This point is valid only if theory means guess, which it does not.
- slibhb 6y ago
  Touch isn't any different than measuring radiation interacting with something. These are metaphysical questions, not scientific ones. Scientists, like everyone, have a realist perspective. They consider reality to correspond with appearences. But this is a convention or a metaphysical belief or even a religous belief, it's not scientific.
- sfifs 6y ago
  > I would add however, that you can reach out and touch an atom with a certain definition of touch (as touch is mostly a macroscopic concept). Don't be so sure... atoms and even relatively large molecules definitely experimentally exhibit [1] wave particle duality in double slit experiments demonstrating they move as waves. Given that absolutely nothing is stationary at any temperature above absolute zero, what are you touching and with what? [1] see end of article https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/the-curious-observers-guide-to-quantum-mechanics/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/the-curious-observer...
- unanswered 6y ago
  > I would add however, that you can reach out and touch an atom with a certain definition of touch And unfortunately for your argument, the bit you elided here is the critical bit. If we understand "touch" meaning to interact with something "physically" rather than "chemically" or indirectly (light, sound), then "touch" refers essentially to electromagnetic force and the Pauli exclusion principle. Since the latter can only be defined in terms of yet more "matter", in fact we have no way to observe matter in any way but electromagnetism in its various forms, viz. "light" in a wide sense, chemical interaction, and via magnetic repulsion on macroscopic or microscopic scales. Given this, I would say it's largely correct to understand atomic theory as useful abstraction; indeed, an abstraction which dates back hundreds of years which has been refined and found still useful. That said, something being an abstraction doesn't make it not real! Indeed I'm not entirely sure I know what else "real" is supposed to be.
blablabla123 6y ago
Theory is indeed separated into several disciplines, speaking about mathematization: Phenomenology, Model building, Mathematical Physics. FWIW I think Phenomenology is where a lot is going on, it's about looking what is there and how it compares to the models. The fully formalized ("axiomatic") mathematical descriptions oftentimes lag behind the theoretical models ("postulated") in use that are used to compare with real data for instance. That said, I would say Atoms are as real as it can get. There are so many experiments about them and applications as well, for instant nuclear fission. How can they not be real? :-) Speaking about Spacetime, of course it is real. There is such a crazy amount of predictions based on Special Relativity.
- karmakaze 6y ago
  > Atoms are as real as it can get Well put, and also not any specific degree of real, if you accept that the simulation hypothesis can't be disproven. The specific 'real' discovered properties of atoms or spacetime are actually artifacts of simulation.
  - mycall 6y ago
    Is simulation time continuous or discrete? If there is only 1x forward speed for simulation time, perhaps relativity could continue to work, as that fixed single speed would be discrete (speed of light). I'm not sure how to postulate this idea further, but I've had it for years.
    - sdwr 6y ago
      I like to imagine the world as being like a distributed game engine running on a computer outside of time. That would mean that life could have existed before physical space or the earth did. History being built piecemeal and in reverse order, a past being created by collective effort and attention. And somewhere along the way Santa planted dinosaur bones. Maybe when you close your eyes you fade to black, and existing is a constant choice. Maybe situation and circumstance are handshake deals made in the collective unconscious, an onion growing layer by layer from the kernel. Just something to think about :)
randallsquared 6y ago
> Some people _think_ of an atom as something you can reach out and touch, or grok in some deep sense distinct from performing specific experiments. Right, with an atomic force microscope. ...but it almost sounds like you're suggesting that atoms and molecules are NOT something you could individually pick up with an AFM?
- iand 6y ago
  The parent was referring to the perceived physicality of atoms which you cannot touch or understand except in terms of the forces between your instrument and the bundle of quanta we call an atom.

Voloskaya 6y ago

> It's clear if you read many of the comments here that there is no such agreement I guess I should have said "all experts agree" instead? Lack of knowledge about something by some people doesn't change the definition of that thing. I would add however, that you can reach out and touch an atom with a certain definition of touch (as touch is mostly a macroscopic concept). > I'm certainly not claiming that atomic theory is a wild speculative guess which you seem to imply I've done. You will have to explain this one to me then. You said "it's *even* called a theory" to reinforce your point that it was just a mathematical tool (and hence not real following your definition). This point is valid only if theory means guess, which it does not.

slibhb 6y ago
Touch isn't any different than measuring radiation interacting with something. These are metaphysical questions, not scientific ones. Scientists, like everyone, have a realist perspective. They consider reality to correspond with appearences. But this is a convention or a metaphysical belief or even a religous belief, it's not scientific.
sfifs 6y ago
> I would add however, that you can reach out and touch an atom with a certain definition of touch (as touch is mostly a macroscopic concept). Don't be so sure... atoms and even relatively large molecules definitely experimentally exhibit [1] wave particle duality in double slit experiments demonstrating they move as waves. Given that absolutely nothing is stationary at any temperature above absolute zero, what are you touching and with what? [1] see end of article https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/the-curious-observers-guide-to-quantum-mechanics/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/the-curious-observer...
unanswered 6y ago
> I would add however, that you can reach out and touch an atom with a certain definition of touch And unfortunately for your argument, the bit you elided here is the critical bit. If we understand "touch" meaning to interact with something "physically" rather than "chemically" or indirectly (light, sound), then "touch" refers essentially to electromagnetic force and the Pauli exclusion principle. Since the latter can only be defined in terms of yet more "matter", in fact we have no way to observe matter in any way but electromagnetism in its various forms, viz. "light" in a wide sense, chemical interaction, and via magnetic repulsion on macroscopic or microscopic scales. Given this, I would say it's largely correct to understand atomic theory as useful abstraction; indeed, an abstraction which dates back hundreds of years which has been refined and found still useful. That said, something being an abstraction doesn't make it not real! Indeed I'm not entirely sure I know what else "real" is supposed to be.

blablabla123 6y ago

Theory is indeed separated into several disciplines, speaking about mathematization: Phenomenology, Model building, Mathematical Physics. FWIW I think Phenomenology is where a lot is going on, it's about looking what is there and how it compares to the models. The fully formalized ("axiomatic") mathematical descriptions oftentimes lag behind the theoretical models ("postulated") in use that are used to compare with real data for instance. That said, I would say Atoms are as real as it can get. There are so many experiments about them and applications as well, for instant nuclear fission. How can they not be real? :-) Speaking about Spacetime, of course it is real. There is such a crazy amount of predictions based on Special Relativity.

karmakaze 6y ago
> Atoms are as real as it can get Well put, and also not any specific degree of real, if you accept that the simulation hypothesis can't be disproven. The specific 'real' discovered properties of atoms or spacetime are actually artifacts of simulation.
- mycall 6y ago
  Is simulation time continuous or discrete? If there is only 1x forward speed for simulation time, perhaps relativity could continue to work, as that fixed single speed would be discrete (speed of light). I'm not sure how to postulate this idea further, but I've had it for years.
  - sdwr 6y ago
    I like to imagine the world as being like a distributed game engine running on a computer outside of time. That would mean that life could have existed before physical space or the earth did. History being built piecemeal and in reverse order, a past being created by collective effort and attention. And somewhere along the way Santa planted dinosaur bones. Maybe when you close your eyes you fade to black, and existing is a constant choice. Maybe situation and circumstance are handshake deals made in the collective unconscious, an onion growing layer by layer from the kernel. Just something to think about :)

randallsquared 6y ago

> Some people _think_ of an atom as something you can reach out and touch, or grok in some deep sense distinct from performing specific experiments. Right, with an atomic force microscope. ...but it almost sounds like you're suggesting that atoms and molecules are NOT something you could individually pick up with an AFM?

iand 6y ago
The parent was referring to the perceived physicality of atoms which you cannot touch or understand except in terms of the forces between your instrument and the bundle of quanta we call an atom.