3 ms·

> 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 ab

> 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.

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.