Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Zettel_]

Here's a story familiar to anyone who's read about the history of science:

For centuries there was a debate about the basic structure of matter. Was it atomic or composed of broader, more diffuse elements (eg: earth, wind, fire and water)? The argument rumbled on right up until the start of the 20th Century when Einstein's analysis of Brownian Motion was used to decide the issue in favour of the Atomists. Case closed.

But is that what really happened? My problem with it is as follows:

The original concept of the atom came not out of any empirical observations (much less out of any experimental findings); it was an entity that seemed logically necessary if matter was to be given a secure foundation.

The argument ran like this: objects we encounter in the world are (or seem to be) composite. They are made up of groups of smaller objects. And those smaller objects are themselves composite. But this analysis of reality into smaller and smaller bits cannot go on forever - sooner or later you have to reach a utterly simple object: the basic building block out of which everything more complex is constructed. Without such a simple object it is difficult to see how "reality" really is real. Therefore (the argument ran) a commitment to the reality of the external world entails a commitment to the existence of fundamentally simple objects.

Of course, ancient Greek and Indian philosophers had never seen such an object and had no idea how to go about looking for one. But one thing it seemed they did know: this object must be indivisible, because if it could be divided then it was composite and therefore didn't provide the necessary ultimate foundation. Hence they named it the "atom".

Fast forward to the early 20th Century and science claims to have finally discovered this mysterious foundational object. Except, of course, that what science calls "the atom" in no way fits the logically necessary job description laid out by the ancient Greeks. It is both divisible and composite. It may well be a fascinating and important thing, but it's not an atom.

So where does this leave the philosophical theory of the atomic structure of matter? Are we any closer to proving it? Are there any other contenders? How, for example, does String Theory fit in with such a claim?

[Cronos988]

Well first of all, atoms as such can be made visible today, so I would say that the theory that matter is made out of atoms is pretty much solid.

But we have discovered that what was thought to be the smallest block is really only another intermediate object, composed of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons, themselves composed of Quarks, which might be divisible

String theory presumes and even smaller "building block", the string, that forms the above mentioned.

In regard to the general Theory that "reality" is made up of tiny, indivisible building blocks, I think that modern research indicates that this belief is wrong. Once we go down to the level of quarks, there are no longer definitive objects as we know them. They have no fixes properties, and do not behave according to classical physics.

So I guess the idea that matter is made out of basic elemets like water, air and fire is not even that far from reality. Of course these are not the real elements, but it seems like the underlying fabric of reality is not made out of particles, but of energetiv waves and fields.

[Zettel_]

In regard to the general Theory that "reality" is made up of tiny, indivisible building blocks, I think that modern research indicates that this belief is wrong. Once we go down to the level of quarks, there are no longer definitive objects as we know them. They have no fixes properties, and do not behave according to classical physics.

Interesting, but why does that mean they're not "objects"? Why can't there be objects that don't behave according to classical physics?

[FALCON]

The human battle he intends to do everything passable and why it shattered brick (the Atom)., which is the basic element of all our building. We have found particles and waves in it and also concluded that there is uncertainty. So the search, that is the destination, finally we are ambiguous. Hypothesis: Could need a vehicle that walking down detect the border and give alarm. Put the vehicle on the red line, at the border start to do a scan: inward-looking you have a physics and looking outward to have another physics. On both sides, it is correct. You see the atom?

[Cronos988]

Interesting, but why does that mean they're not "objects"? Why can't there be objects that don't behave according to classical physics?

It's not so much that they do not behave according to classical physics, it is that they are not fixed objects. They have no distinct characteristics, being everywhere and nowhere at once. At times they exhibit particle characteristics, but they change constantly.

[Gregorygregg1]

The argument ran like this: objects we encounter in the world are (or seem to be) composite. They are made up of groups of smaller objects. And those smaller objects are themselves composite. But this analysis of reality into smaller and smaller bits cannot go on forever - sooner or later you have to reach a utterly simple object: the basic building block out of which everything more complex is constructed. Without such a simple object it is difficult to see how "reality" really is real. Therefore (the argument ran) a commitment to the reality of the external world entails a commitment to the existence of fundamentally simple objects.

Of course, ancient Greek and Indian philosophers had never seen such an object and had no idea how to go about looking for one. But one thing it seemed they did know: this object must be indivisible, because if it could be divided then it was composite and therefore didn't provide the necessary ultimate foundation. Hence they named it the "atom".

Fast forward to the early 20th Century and science claims to have finally discovered this mysterious foundational object. Except, of course, that what science calls "the atom" in no way fits the logically necessary job description laid out by the ancient Greeks. It is both divisible and composite. It may well be a fascinating and important thing, but it's not an atom.

So where does this leave the philosophical theory of the atomic structure of matter? Are we any closer to proving it? Are there any other contenders? How, for example, does String Theory fit in with such a claim?

I wouldn't mind a mathemetician who could answer my questions either. Is there a Mathemetician in the house?
You physicists out there have left us out on a limb. You have given us a lot of non answers and left us with a lot of questions which our conceptual minds have filled with theories we have no way to test. You have loaded our non mathematical minds with a lot of odd concepts like "String theory" and got us thinking. Conceptual thinkers are not often so good at math. Now is your opportunity to harvest the concepts your numbers have spawned. Step up and see what we have to offer. Who wants a free theory? It could be your ticket to fame and fortune. Either that or an opportunity to swat a fly. Come on, I dare you.
GG