Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Multifaceted on 06/07/2021 19:30:36
-
I've heard that atoms exist in multiple, even infinite places at once.
Today, when I googled it, I kept getting articles about atoms existing in 2 places at once. Is that because 2 is the maximum number of places it can be in or is it just because we're all familiar with the phrase "I can't be in 2 places at once"?
And then I read that atoms are only ever in 1 place and anything else is just a misunderstanding.
So which is it?
And please try to put it in layman's terms.
Also I read someone say that quantum physics is like religion, there are zealots on each side of the arguments with claims their side is right. And that the quantum realm is so different to how we normally think, we don't even have language to adequately describe it.
-
I've heard that atoms exist in multiple, even infinite places at once.
Today, when I googled it, I kept getting articles about atoms existing in 2 places at once. Is that because 2 is the maximum number of places it can be in or is it just because we're all familiar with the phrase "I can't be in 2 places at once"?
Your google results are mostly pop articles and such and are a poor source of information.
Atoms are essentially quantum objects and the articles are trying to express an quantum concept using classical terms, which is a mistake.
So atoms existing at a place at all is something that cannot be demonstrated. In the quantum world, there may be equal probability that the atom will be measured here or there or elsewhere (more than two places), but is is never 'existing at those places all at once'. It cannot be simultaneously measured in two different places.
And then I read that atoms are only ever in 1 place and anything else is just a misunderstanding.
This is true only under counterfactual interpretations of quantum mechanics, and cannot be proven. A counterfactual interpretation denies locality (that cause must precede effect and cannot be separated faster than light). The principle of counterfactual definiteness says essentially that a given thing, even unmeasured, is in a definite state at a given moment in time.
Also I read someone say that quantum physics is like religion, there are zealots on each side of the arguments with claims their side is right.
There are those types, yes,. but real quantum physicists concentrate on the observables and not on assertions of what goes on unobserved. Anyone who claims their interpretation is necessarily correct is making nonsense claims since there are no falsification tests for any of the valid interpretations.
So I'm not going to tell you that either the principle of locality or the principle of counterfactual definiteness is necessarily true or false, but it has been shown that they can't both be true.
Personally I favor the locality principle, but I'm not a zealot about it, demanding that alternative views must be wrong.
-
Hi.
It depends on the model(s) you are using. From what you've said, it looks like Quantum Mechanics is the main topic under consideration.
It's more interesting if atoms can be in 2 places at the same time, so that's why you'll see that quite often in the Popular science articles and videos. Although an atom is quite a big particle, a composite particle made up from many smaller particles. You're more likely to see Quantum Mecahnics discussed with respect to partciles smaller than an atom where the effects of Quantum Mecahnics are more obvious. Anyway, you've done well just realising that there isn't a clear answer or universal agreement on these issues.
(looks like Halc has just put in a reply. I'll stop)
-
One famous test of the nature of light is the "Double slit experiment"
- and indeed it applies to all quantum systems, including atoms (and even molecules)
- It's just that you have to look at lot closer at more massive particles like atoms and molecules to see these quantum effects than with less massive particles like electrons or photons (photons are particles of light)
- The idea of this experiment is that you may expect a particle to go through one slit or the other, and produce two clumps behind the two slits.
- In fact, it produces a more complex pattern - as if it were a wave, and went through both slits at the same time.
- We say that, in the quantum world, matter exhibits "wave particle duality" - it has some properties of both, and it doesn't exist in just one precise position
multiple places at once, 2 places or 1?[
Because the double-slit experiment looks like the particle took 2 paths, it is common to say that the particle looks like it was in 2 places at once (even though it is only ever detected in one place at a time, as Halc said).
You can also do a 3 slit experiment (but it's trickier to set up), so you may as well (loosely) say that an atom can be in more than 2 places at once.
Some of the new 5G mmWave antennas act like a 256-slit experiment (but it takes a lot of electronics and number-crunching to configure it properly!).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
-
Anyway, you've done well just realising that there isn't a clear answer or universal agreement on these issues.
Actually I've not quite realized that. To me, science is all about absolutes and it's full of people, including scientists who say "This is true, this is the way this exists, we know this and anyone who says otherwise is wrong."
I put that part about uncertainty in partly because I wanted people to open mined and partly because I wanted people to tell me if that were true.
So is there no current answer? Do people not know either way? Is there one way that most people agree on but might be changed?
-
So I'm not going to tell you that either the principle of locality or the principle of counterfactual definiteness is necessarily true or false, but it has been shown that they can't both be true.
Personally I favor the locality principle, but I'm not a zealot about it, demanding that alternative views must be wrong.
I'm confused, which way do atoms exist?
-
like religion, there are zealots on each side
including scientists who say "This is true, this is the way this exists, we know this and anyone who says otherwise is wrong."
I think you maybe need to give some specific examples of such claims. The religious zealots are not scientists if they're claiming things for which there are alternate interpretations, but I'm unsure of which statements are thus qualified. QM itself (not the interpretations) is about the science that is taught in the college courses, and not the philosophy that surrounds it.
I'm confused, which way do atoms exist?
Things exist because they are measured. That's pretty much how I would define it. It's all about the measurement, which is a relationship between the measuring thing (M) and the thing measured (X). A measurement of X by M makes X exist to M at the moment of measurement.
There is no known requirement for X or M to be any type of thing in particular, such as a person for instance.
-
Hi again.
I'm confused, which way do atoms exist?
Well that's the thing. Atoms don't have to exist in the way you (or we) might imagine them. Historically, we were quite sure that atoms were solid little things with the properties of a particle. These days, we're aware that they are nothing like this.
I think it was Halc that first mentioned this. An atom does not have to have a definite location until such time that an observation is made which forces a single definite location to be assigned to it.
This is confusing, so let's just consider a smaller simpler idea: An atom may not be a particle, it might be a wave of energy and like most waves you should usually expect to find it spread out or smeared over a region of space.
There are many theories in Physics. The PopSci articles and videos will always favour the most interesting and frequently simplify some arguments - sometimes simplifying to the point that they just aren't especially correct or useful.
(Many scientists say...) "This is true, this is the way this exists, we know this and anyone who says otherwise is wrong."
Scientists (the good scientists) don't usually claim to know "the truth". There are some theories which are well tested and can make predictions. It's nice if these models match up with some underlying truth about the universe but it's not required. Provided we can model various situations and make predictions that turn out to be verified later, then the theory is useful science.
Most early scientific theories (for example the extraordinary work of Newton) have now been modified; completely replaced or shown to have a limited range of applicability. It would be unwise to assume that the current theories of today are going to fair better in the future developments of science.
-
Well that's the thing. Atoms don't have to exist in the way you (or we) might imagine them. Historically, we were quite sure that atoms were solid little things with the properties of a particle. These days, we're aware that they are nothing like this.
Actually that was going to be my next question. If atoms aren't in many places at once, does that mean they're like the grains in a sand castle or uniform marbles? When they come together do they knock up against each other until they can go no further like this? (https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-3zw3s8rnm9/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/1141/5647/magnetic-balls-500x500__61912.1599492521.jpg?c=2)
This is confusing, so let's just consider a smaller simpler idea: An atom may not be a particle, it might be a wave of energy and like most waves you should usually expect to find it spread out or smeared over a region of space.
To me a wave is something that you find at the beach, it's not exactly a thing, its a disturbance that dissipates back into the water. I know about how light has a wave length but I don't understand how anything solid can be made out of it. If things were made of waves shouldn't they dissipate too?
Scientists (the good scientists) don't usually claim to know "the truth". There are some theories which are well tested and can make predictions. It's nice if these models match up with some underlying truth about the universe but it's not required. Provided we can model various situations and make predictions that turn out to be verified later, then the theory is useful science.
Most early scientific theories (for example the extraordinary work of Newton) have now been modified; completely replaced or shown to have a limited range of applicability. It would be unwise to assume that the current theories of today are going to fair better in the future developments of science.
So are you saying no one knows what atoms are like?
-
If atoms aren't in many places at once, does that mean they're like the grains in a sand castle or uniform marbles?
Atoms are pretty large things, as has been pointed out by several posters. A big atom in a crystal (like the Oxygen in an ice molecule) is fairly locked into a narrow range of mobility and the probability of measuring it significantly away from that narrow range is pretty slim. In other words, atoms are practically classic particles in many cases.
There are clear exceptions. They've gotten bucky balls (C60) to interfere in a double slit experiment. That's a really big molecule, bigger than any huge atom, and yet when passing through the slits, there is no evidence that it passes through one slit or the other. If you measure which path it takes, the interference pattern goes away. This seems to demonstrate that there is no clear boundary between the realm of classic vs quantum behavior.
When they come together do they knock up against each other until they can go no further like this?
No two particles can physically 'touch', so there is never a case of them being actually up against anything, or having no freedom of mobility. It just gets more probably that the particle will be measured near point X as the structure gets solid and the temperature lowers.
To me a wave is something that you find at the beach, it's not exactly a thing, its a disturbance that dissipates back into the water.
A disturbance in a field is actually a pretty good description of something fundamental like a photon. An atom is more complex, and isn't one disturbance. Quantum things may have some particle-like and wave-like properties, but they're not actually either of those classic things.
So are you saying no one knows what atoms are like?
I think that's a reasonable statement, along the lines of “The Universe is not only queerer than we imagine—it is queerer than we can imagine.” - J. B. S. Haldane
Science is about making predictions, and it is very good at that. It isn't about proof or 'knowing' about things to the extent that it could be categorized as 'truth'.
-
I think you maybe need to give some specific examples of such claims.
Ok, I'll tell you a few personal experiences I've had on other forums. But I'm only mentioning them as examples, I don't want to debate these in this particular subjects is this thread.
I asked if the universe will come to end, not how or when but if. And the first reply I got was "Of course it will."
I was talking with someone on a similar site to this and somehow the conversation turned into weather there was an afterlife, this 2nd party was absolute in his opinion that there was no afterlife, he diddn't even think of it as an opinion. I said that science had no proof to the negative and he said there was no proof there was one and that plus the fact no one had ever come back from the dead was proof of no afterlife.
On the same site I got into another debate with someone over atoms. He to was extreme in his position and provided a link to a site backing up his claim. Interestingly, his reference source said that was they were saying was just a theory.
I googled if there was a limit to how many memories a person's brain could store and I found an answer written by a neurologist that the answer was absolutely yes. And just now I saw the same thing on Scientific American "There must be a physical limit to how much the brain can store."
There is a theory that matter can only be arranged a finite number of ways in a finite space. There are finite number of different objects that can exist and events that can happen within that space. This also means that somewhere out in the universe there are exact copies of Earth, you and me doing exactly what we are doing right now. By pure coincidence.
My father told me that, he was a scientist, he worked for a chemical company and later as consultant setting up laboratories. He subscribes to multiple science magazines, he has a hobby in astronomy. He's the most intelligent, knowledgeable and scientifically minded person I've ever known. And he talked about this theory like it was gospel, a perfectly known fact, he diddn't even call it a theory. There is no doubt in his mind about it at all. And later he told me his scientists friends believe it too.
I looked on the web to find out if it was true and the reply I go was quote "Yes, next."
I asked on a science website and most of them said it was true, including one who said it was true, certain and obvious "as 2+2=4."
-
Hi again.
Firstly, forums are one type of environment. I wouldn't judge all scientists on what you find there.
I think many people do originally get interested in science because they were trying to find out some truth about how things work and why they are the way they are. Some of that desire or interest remains in most scientists. However, science doesn't offer absolute truth, just some models which explain some things and allow some predictions to be made.
We've already had some discussion on what science is and there is actually no universal agreement on that. Atoms are a very useful theoretical idea so we can (and still do) use the concept but we recognise that the model is limited.
You've listed examples of questions and answers where you presumably already know there are many interpretations or possibilities. If you're still interested in any of them, you might like to post those questions again in this forum. You might also like to ask them again in 20 years and some of the answers will have changed again.
-
There is a theory that matter can only be arranged a finite number of ways in a finite space. There are finite number of different objects that can exist and events that can happen within that space. This also means that somewhere out in the universe there are exact copies of Earth, you and me doing exactly what we are doing right now. By pure coincidence.
Non sequitur. You can only be certain that an arrangement is reproduced somewhere if both space and the number of objects in it are infinite. However if you accept that there is nothing unique about any one local arrangement of objects, then all local arrangements must be replicated somewhere, including the arrangement of arrangements, so there must be more objects than there are in your infinite space, which must be bigger than itself..
-
I was talking with someone on a similar site to this and somehow the conversation turned into weather there was an afterlife, this 2nd party was absolute in his opinion that there was no afterlife, he diddn't even think of it as an opinion.
You can safely categorize them as zealots, yes. Science just says there's no evidence either way. In fact, it is completely outside the realm of methodological naturalism under which science has made most of its progress. That means its a philosophical topic, not a scientific one at all.
I said that science had no proof to the negative and he said there was no proof
Sounds like you're in agreement with this other guy then. Science has no proof of anything. Proof is for the mathematicians. Science makes predictions based on evidence. It does not assert truth or demonstrate proofs.
plus the fact no one had ever come back from the dead was proof of no afterlife.
He apparently lacks a logical argument if he thinks that the absence of evidence is proof (not even evidence) of absence. Nobody's ever come back from Mars either, but it doesn't prove Mars doesn't exist.
On the same site I got into another debate with someone over atoms. He to was extreme in his position and provided a link to a site backing up his claim. Interestingly, his reference source said that was they were saying was just a theory.
Not sure what the claim was. X is possible? X is the only answer? Regardless of what X is (you just said it concerned atoms), the latter is wrong. It doesn't sound like you're talking about the assertions of knowledgeable scientists, but rather the assertion of some random guy on a web forum (like me). People on forums make all sorts of random claims and assert their absolute truth despite self-contradictions and evidence to the contrary. This site certainly has its share of these types.
I googled if there was a limit to how many memories a person's brain could store and I found an answer written by a neurologist that the answer was absolutely yes.
Interesting to try to demonstrate that. It seems actually a pretty outlandish claim to suggest otherwise, so I'd actually be more interested in hearing the counter-argument to it. Maybe we ditch the assumption that a given brain is confined to a reasonable volume in a human head.
There is a theory that matter can only be arranged a finite number of ways in a finite space.
Really? I can think of an awful lot of ways 3 balls can be arranged in a room. Can't think of a limit in fact, but given a Planck limit, there seems at least to be a limit to the number of arrangements that are measurably distinct. Based on that, you don't need to be a neurologist to expand the argument to the brain-memory thing.
There are finite number of different objects that can exist and events that can happen within that space. This also means that somewhere out in the universe there are exact copies of Earth, you and me doing exactly what we are doing right now. By pure coincidence.
In fact, it's been calculated (Tegmark) how far away the nearest such copy is, and it unreasonably assumes counterfactual definiteness, without which the nearest copy of you is* much closer. The interesting thing is that the exact copy of you also has an exact copy of me nearby.
* Depends heavily on your definition of what 'is' is - Clinton.
I digress.
My father told me that, he was a scientist, he worked for a chemical company and later as consultant setting up laboratories.
That makes him a scientist, but it doesn't make him an expert on all the opinions he might express. I certainly know many things that some real scientist (like my sister-in-law) does not, but she certainly can out-jargon me in her field.
He subscribes to multiple science magazines, he has a hobby in astronomy. He's the most intelligent, knowledgeable and scientifically minded person I've ever known. And he talked about this theory like it was gospel, a perfectly known fact, he diddn't even call it a theory. There is no doubt in his mind about it at all. And later he told me his scientists friends believe it too.
I looked on the web to find out if it was true and the reply I go was quote "Yes, next."
I asked on a science website and most of them said it was true, including one who said it was true, certain and obvious "as 2+2=4."
You sound like you doubt it or at least refuse to accept the absolute truth of it. Do you have a reference so I can add my humble opinion? I try not to say loaded comments like 'it's gospel', but you make it sound like a very well accepted thing and not some crackpot idea or philosophical interpretation of some scientific topic. Yes, there's a theory that predicts the sun rising tomorrow, but technically it's still a prediction of a theory and not a proven thing.
Non sequitur. You can only be certain that an arrangement is reproduced somewhere if both space and the number of objects in it are infinite.
Non sequitur, yes, even given your infinite space and matter. What is mathematically certain is that if there is a defined state to all that matter (a huge and unreasonable if, but one that Tegmark assumes when making his calculation), then there will be pairs of observable universes which are identical within a finitely calculable separation distance (along lines of constant cosmological time) from each other.
That's kind of like saying that (without peeking) we cannot prove there is a second '3' in the decimal representation of Pi, but there will be a dup digit somewhere in the first 11 digits.
However if you accept that there is nothing unique about any one local arrangement of objects, then all local arrangements must be replicated somewhere, including the arrangement of arrangements, so there must be more objects than there are in your infinite space, which must be bigger than itself..
Which is the mathematical equivalent of saying something like ∞² > ∞ which is wrong. It doesn't even have a different cardinality.
-
It seems to me that Halc and alancalverd both believe in this theory about matter and I find that upsetting.
To be honest, all the things on that list were things that filled me with dread, that's why I went out into the internet desperately searching for someone to tell me they weren't true. I was going to put that in the post but I thought it might not be a good idea to go public with such powerful feeling with people I don't know anything about.
When my father told me about the matter theory, it was the worst thing I'd ever heard. I'm a creative person and the idea that all possibilities are finite, that everything I or anyone else have or will ever create are part of a limited set... it sent me into a spiralling depression unlike anything I'd ever experienced. It was the worst thing that ever happened to me and I still haven't gotten over it years later. And it doesn't help that most people, including my father, don't understand why it would bother me no matter how painstakingly I explain the reason for my feelings.
And I really hope you wont ask for that now because it's so upsetting, frustrating and exhausting.
Incidentally, this thread started because I was looking into a specific aspect of the theory. One thing that gave me hope the theory might not be true is what I'd heard about atoms not existing like the marbles in the picture I posted.
I specifically said that I diddn't want to discuss these things here because I diddn't want to get drawn into obsessively debating it with people again, as I have done so many times in the past.
And now, thanks to Halc and alancalverd, I am faced with a renewed feeling that this theory is 100% true because I can't help but believe people who say things, especially if I think they know more then me. Frankly, what you said was not unlike the zealots I was talking about before.
And yes I know I've argued with people before but that was going against the grain for me and I never know if my arguments are justified, valid or even permittable.
I posted that list because I wanted you to tell me they at least have room for doubt and now you've just told me one of them is true.
Also, I am still waiting for Eternal Student to reply to when I quoted him about atoms.
-
It seems that you are rebelling against a theory that your father espoused some time ago.
- This theory hasn't been stated very clearly here, so we are just guessing (and it sounds like the guesses from alancalverd and Halc were somewhat close)...
- But it seems that you are concerned that the possibility of a finite universe constrains your creativity...
- And/Or the possibility of an infinite universe limits the uniqueness of your creativity
- Both possibilities seem to cause you deep distress
These two possibilities arise from opposite and incompatible assumptions, and we can't tell which assumption is correct, because it has no practical impact on our day-to-day lives. This is because, as Douglas Adams said...
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
- It's so big that we can't tell if it is finite or infinite
- Even in a finite universe, the number of arrangements of atoms is so huge that the finiteness of space imposes no limitations on it (or on your creativity)
- Even in an infinite universe, the number of arrangements of atoms is so huge that we have no possibility of finding, let alone meeting someone who created the same artwork as yourself. The infiniteness of space imposes no limitations on it (or on your creativity).
So you may have unresolved issues with your father, but don't blame the universe for it...
-
It seems to me that Halc and alancalverd both believe in this theory about matter and I find that upsetting.
What theory? That "atoms exist in multiple places at once"? There's no such theory and nothing called "the matter theory" and I never said I held a belief in such a statement. I didn't see any such statement from Alan either. If that's not the theory you're talking about, then you need to be a lot more clear about which theory it is that you and possibly your father are talking about.
Yes, matter is generally accepted as often being composed of atoms, but not all matter is. Somehow I don't think that that's what you're calling "the matter theory".
When my father told me about the matter theory, it was the worst thing I'd ever heard. I'm a creative person and the idea that all possibilities are finite, that everything I or anyone else have or will ever create are part of a limited set... it sent me into a spiralling depression unlike anything I'd ever experienced. It was the worst thing that ever happened to me and I still haven't gotten over it years later. And it doesn't help that most people, including my father, don't understand why it would bother me no matter how painstakingly I explain the reason for my feelings.
Ouch. So ignore science then and hold whatever beliefs are required for you to keep your marbles together. That seems to be one of the primary benefits of being religious: to hold beliefs that one finds comforting rather than ones based on evidence.
I was looking into a specific aspect of the theory. One thing that gave me hope the theory might not be true is what I'd heard about atoms not existing like the marbles in the picture I posted.
I defined existence as being measured. We can measure atoms, so they exist, no? We can't measure one in two places at the same time, so they don't exist in multiple places. That's what I said. Still totally unclear exactly which theory you think all this is a part of.
If it has something to do with another 'copy' of you out there somewhere, that's actually impossible by my definition of existence since anything you can measure cannot be identical to you unless the universe is locally perfectly mirror-symmetric which it isn't.
And now, thanks to Halc and alancalverd, I am faced with a renewed feeling that this theory is 100% true because I can't help but believe people who say things, especially if I think they know more then me.
Unless it is about airplanes, Alan might not know more than you. I'm unclear what you're talking about, so I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with this unspecified theory or not.
Frankly, what you said was not unlike the zealots I was talking about before.
I said that my opinions are not in any way 'gospel'. I try to limit my opinions and only talk about what the scientists actually observer, and not what they might believe because of it. This hardly seems like zealot talk.
I wanted you to tell me they at least have room for doubt and now you've just told me one of them is true.
I told you no such thing. I deny any evidence of the bit about atoms being in more than one place at once, but you seem to read the opposite from my posts.
-
It seems to me that Halc and alancalverd both believe in this theory about matter and I find that upsetting.
What theory? That "atoms exist in multiple places at once"? There's no such theory and nothing called "the matter theory" and I never said I held a belief in such a statement. I didn't see any such statement from Alan either. If that's not the theory you're talking about, then you need to be a lot more clear about which theory it is that you and possibly your father are talking about.
It seems @Halc and @evan_au have beaten me to it. I spent some time last night reading through your posts and couldn’t see what theory you are talking about; even having slept on it I am at a loss to understand how you could misinterpret the replies you’ve been given.
We cannot help you with any mental problems you have, but we can answer your questions about physics. However, you need to be clear about your questions and take the trouble to read and understand the replies. If you don’t understand some of the jargon say so.
- Even in a finite universe, the number of arrangements of atoms is so huge that the finiteness of space imposes no limitations on it (or on your creativity)
This is an important point. It’s worth remembering that the great master painters often worked with a limited palette of colours. Vermeer for example used only 5 basic colours in one of his famous paintings and the portion of the colour gamut he used is extremely limited, but it didn’t limit his creativity.
-
It seems that you are rebelling against a theory that your father espoused some time ago.
- This theory hasn't been stated very clearly here, so we are just guessing (and it sounds like the guesses from alancalverd and Halc were somewhat close)...
- But it seems that you are concerned that the possibility of a finite universe constrains your creativity...
- And/Or the possibility of an infinite universe limits the uniqueness of your creativity
- Both possibilities seem to cause you deep distress
These two possibilities arise from opposite and incompatible assumptions, and we can't tell which assumption is correct, because it has no practical impact on our day-to-day lives.
I thought I'd explained it adequately. I don't see how they are incompatible. The theory says matter can only be arranged a finite number of ways in a finite space. It works weather the universe is finite or infinite. It may not have an impact on your lives but it had a huge one on mine, that's something few people understand or respect. They either don't understand why it bothers me, don't think it should or think I'm crazy for feeling this way.
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
I can't begin to tell you how much I HATE the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
So you may have unresolved issues with your father, but don't blame the universe for it...
This is not some daddy issue.
-
What theory? That "atoms exist in multiple places at once"? There's no such theory and nothing called "the matter theory" and I never said I held a belief in such a statement. I didn't see any such statement from Alan either. If that's not the theory you're talking about, then you need to be a lot more clear about which theory it is that you and possibly your father are talking about.
"atoms exist in multiple places at once"? was what I was talking about before but I also wanted you to clarify your position on this other one. And I wash I had a better term then "The theory" for the other one but it's all I've got.
-
Ouch. So ignore science then and hold whatever beliefs are required for you to keep your marbles together. That seems to be one of the primary benefits of being religious: to hold beliefs that one finds comforting rather than ones based on evidence.
I detest the idea of people adopting whatever belief they want, especially if they're only doing it because they find reality unmanageable. If someone I knew became a flat-earther and it brought them comfort, I would tear that away from them without a moment's hesitation. No belief should be acceptable if it's a lie, no matter how beneficial it is. It's why I don't like the DaVinci Code, Wicked or the musical The Book of Mormon.
-
To clear things up,
I thought atoms might exist in infinite positions at once.
Then Eternal Student said some things that suggested they weren't.
I quoted him and asked some new questions expecting him/her to respond.
Halc responded instead.
Then I posted a list of examples Halc had asked for earlier. I specifically said they were just examples of how people I'd talked to were so absolute in their opinions and I diddn't want to discuss them here. But people did anyway.
Then Halc and alancalverd said some thing that supported one of the theories I had listed and since this one is such a huge concern for me I wanted them to tell me if they really thought it was true.
So I asked Eternal Student to answer if atoms are like compacted marbles and Halc and alancalverd to answer if matter is finitely arrangeable or not.
In the past I have found little compassion, been strung along and even called mentally ill by people on forums like this. And now I'm afraid that's the reputation I'll have here too.
-
Hi again.
Also, I am still waiting for Eternal Student to reply to when I quoted him about atoms.
Sorry. I've been stuck on something else. I'm rushing this reply out now.
Actually that was going to be my next question. If atoms aren't in many places at once, does that mean they're like the grains in a sand castle or uniform marbles?
In some models but none of them are perfect representations of reality. For example, when two atoms are in close proximity they feel electromagnetic forces from each other. This deforms them (changes their shape). If we use Quantum Mechanics as our model then we would say that the first atom experiences a different potential when it's close to the other atom and so it's electron orbitals will be slightly different. In effect then if we pack a hundred atoms closely together like the steel marbles you showed in your diagram, then each marble could still be unique. The ones near the surface become a different shape to the marbles right at the centre of the structure.
So the atoms are more like the grains of sand in your castle rather than uniform marbles, examine each one carefully and it is not the same as the grain of sand next to it. This all depends on the model you're using and doesn't seem to be your main concern.
To me a wave is something that you find at the beach, it's not exactly a thing, its a disturbance that dissipates back into the water. I know about how light has a wave length but I don't understand how anything solid can be made out of it.
Well, that's you and me both then. As human beings we have a notion of what a solid thing is and waves don't seem to be solid things. However, we have to examine carefully what a solid thing might really be instead of just what we think it is. Let's take a simple idea and define a solid thing as something we can't push our finger into. Now what is stopping us pushing our finger into the table? If we look at a microscopic scale then particles in our finger never come into direct contact with particles in the table. There are negatively charged electrons around the atoms in the table and around the atoms in your finger. When you get them close to each other there is huge electrostatic force pushing them apart. That force is what prevents you being able to push your finger into the table.
So our understanding of what is solid might include an electromagnetic wave that repels your finger....
Ok, that was rushed. There is no way we can discuss atomic theory or quantum mechanics in 10 minutes.
- - - - - - -
Your main concern seems to be about the true nature of things.
1. Please remember that science doesn't offer absolute truth. Only some models that are useful and often allow predictions to be made.
2. Almost all experts in any area get depressed. I'll find some famous Physicist's quotes if you like. There are many theories that can be quite worrying. However, the same is true in most fields of study. Van Gogh was an artist who became quite troubled. Philosophy forces people to ask questions like "do you have free will". History often forces people to ask if we repeat things.
There are also many fantastic and cheerful ideas in science. For example, it is amazing that human beings have evolved and we are here.
I'll write more later and I need to read over this whole thread again to see what's happened. I have to go and be a taxi service for one of my children in a few minutes.
Bye for now and best wishes.
(Late editing to reduce the number of spelling mistakes).
-
this theory about matter and I find that upsetting.
A theory about the wave nature of matter has been upsetting physicists for a century.
- And the same discussion about the nature of light was upsetting physicists for centuries before that (back to Newton and beyond).
- But it has no impact on daily life - 99% of the world's population goes about their daily life without knowing that it is even a question. It just doesn't affect anyone's daily life in any way that you could detect
...unless you are a physics teacher without a $1 million budget, trying to dream up ways to demonstrate these subtle effects to physics students, .
You indicate that you are an artist (not a physics teacher), and yet this theory does appear to be affecting your daily life.
- So I would suggest talking to counselor, to get things in some perspective
I HATE the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
It is a parody - demolishing one house is equated to demolishing a whole planet...
It is important for us to be able to laugh at ourselves sometimes - it helps to put things in perspective...
-
Hi again.
Then Eternal Student said some things that suggested they weren't.
I quoted him and asked some new questions expecting him/her to respond.
Halc responded instead.
1. I haven't seen much need to disagree with Halc or any of the others who have replied here.
2. You seem to be giving my opinion more importance than it deserves. I know Halc has made comments about being just "some random guy on a forum" but that's just him being polite and very modest. Most of the people who have replied here are "the moderators" - they run and manage this forum and they are the experts in one or more fields of science. I am a better example of "a random guy on a forum".
One of the problems of replying is that earlier replies get pushed further down and some important information in them can be missed because people often only read the newest replies. Evan_au mentioned something that shouldn't be buried under my reply:
this theory does appear to be affecting your daily life.
- So I would suggest talking to counselor, to get things in some perspective
That's good advice for everyone. Your (everyone's) health is a high priority.
You (Multifaceted) have already made comments stating that you didn't want to give too many details of past discussions. This is perfectly sensible. A public forum like this one is not a safe place to disclose personal information anyway. We're going to discuss science here because that is all we can do.
No belief should be acceptable if it's a lie, no matter how beneficial it is.
Then I will start with an apology. There are things that I think are true but I may be wrong.
Science teachers present simple scientific models and ideas to their students. Sometimes the students think that these are all true but they aren't. The models are useful and seem to work well in most situations. It is the best we (human beings) can offer.
So are you saying no one knows what atoms are like?
I'll support Halc's answer here: I think that's a reasonable statement
However, there are about seven and half billion people in the world. I haven't asked them all.
It's fair to say that Science has many different models of an atom. There's one called the "plum pudding" model which is quite old and fails to explain most things so it's not popular anymore. There's a model that is usually attributed to the scientists Rutherford and Bohr which is better in that it explains more things. The Rutherford-Bohr model is the one most people will learn about in school. There are more complicated models than this which are usually studied in University. Many of the replies in this thread are trying to cover the gap between the school model and the University model (where Quantum Mechanics is used to build a model of an atom). All of the models are still useful in some situations. Quantum Mechanics may be more accurate but it's much more complicated and sometimes we just need a simple model and rough answer.
- - - - - - -
To clear things up,
I thought atoms might exist in infinite positions at once.
.....Then I had a load of responses about various related and partially related topics......
Well, this is a good thing. This is a forum, a place for discussion and some exposure to new ideas. If you're really lucky you might identify some new questions that are worth asking. It'll be a sad day when (or if) science has all the answers because there will be nothing left to discover.
I know that sometimes it can get a bit confusing, especially if all you want is a straight answer but sometimes there isn't a straight answer that can be given.
Bye for now and best wishes to you.
-
In the past I have found little compassion, been strung along and even called mentally ill by people on forums like this. And now I'm afraid that's the reputation I'll have here too.
The only way people on forums such as this can form opinions about you is through what you type on your keyboard. So those opinions are very much under your control. If you keep your comments here to science questions you should have no problems.
It is worth mentioning that we get a lot of people here who are frightened by many scientific theories and sometimes become very angry, trying to deny relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution etc. It is also worth understanding that in science we have a very different meaning to theory than that used by the general public. To us a theory is a way of describing the way the universe around, us and the objects it contains, behave and for which there is a great deal of solid experimental and observational evidence to confirm the theory. To me these theories are not frightening, they are an opportunity to understand why things are the way they are; it is a real journey of discovery.
Some of these theories can run counter to what our senses or ‘common sense’ tell us are true. It took a long time for people to realise that the earth goes around the sun despite what our common sense tells us, which only goes to show how common sense can be fooled. This is also a good example of how, as more information becomes available, scientific theories are refined and updated.
It has also been mentioned that the popular press often misrepresents scientific theories in order to make them more exciting, this is particularly true in the area of electrons, atoms and quantum mechanics.
You have had a lot of good answers to your questions and probably need time to absorb the new information, but do continue take the opportunity to ask questions and increase your understanding of the world around us. Enjoy.
-
If we use Quantum Mechanics as our model then we would say that the first atom experiences a different potential when it's close to the other atom and so it's electron orbitals will be slightly different. In effect then if we pack a hundred atoms closely together like the steel marbles you showed in your diagram, then each marble could still be unique. The ones near the surface become a different shape to the marbles right at the centre of the structure.
So the atoms are more like the grains of sand in your castle rather than uniform marbles, examine each one carefully and it is not the same as the grain of sand next to it. This all depends on the model you're using and doesn't seem to be your main concern.
But if atoms are like that then there must come a point when you pack them in close as the can and they can't get any closer. Resulting in finite possibilities.
1. Please remember that science doesn't offer absolute truth. Only some models that are useful and often allow predictions to be made.
Really? I thought science was exactly about absolute truths. At some point I assumed that out there there is some kind of international council of scientists who deem what goes into books about science. What is officially true or false.
So when people say atoms exist in multiple places at once what they really mean is we can't find an atom until we look for it?
I used to know someone who has a physicist for a friend, she asked him about this matter-finite-arrangement theory and he said.
"We now accept that we cannot measure or predict the position or arrangement of any quantity with regards to particles and how they arrange themselves in the universe.
There are lots of attempts to bring order to this but all involve the understanding that there are an infinite number of arrangements of any space and that these only arrange themselves when we look at them. Therefore, there can be no limit to creativity only to our imagination of what is possible."
But if superpositions are just not knowing where the atom is, doesn't that void this statement?
Also it seems that the people here do not fully appreciate how much this theory has hurt me or why. My first reaction was to elaborate further but then I remembered that this may not be the proper place for it.
-
But if atoms are like that then there must come a point when you pack them in close as the can and they can't get any closer. Resulting in finite possibilities.
At room temperature, gold atoms are packed about as close as you can get them.
- But it turns out that if you manufacture them as gold nanoparticles, they can produce a lot of different colours (quite different from the traditional jewelry colour)
- It turns out that some makers of stained glass windows used gold nanoparticles to produce various colours in their creations
- So the finite arrangements of gold atoms did not inhibit the creativity of these craftsmen at all
- As I heard this morning, gold nanoparticles are used in pregnancy tests and rapid COVID tests - so the finite arrangements of gold atoms did not inhibit the creativity of the scientists who developed these tests, either.
-
Hi again.
But if atoms are like that then there must come a point when you pack them in close as the can and they can't get any closer. Resulting in finite possibilities.
Atoms resist being packed together too closely. If we are going to force the atoms to pack together closely then we have to include that force as part of the overall thing we are considering. You are an artist, so this is like saying we cannot consider a painting just as some different bits of paint in some order. We have to include the canvass which holds all the paint in that place. If you take the canvass away, the paint won't stay in the right places.
The obvious example of a force that can pack atoms together as much as possible is gravity. Neutron stars are thought to be the most dense matter in the universe. In a Neutron star the atoms are packed together so closely that we imagine the nucleus of the atoms are in contact. I should make it clear that this a very rough model of a Neutron star. No one has been to a Neutron star and no one could survive there. Certainly we haven't sampled and "looked" at the stuff a Neutron star is made of.
Anyway, there are two points of interest about Neutron stars:
1. If we could sample the material a Neutron star was made of and we took it away from it's original environment then it won't look or behave like Neutron star material anymore. We believe the atoms would quickly re-capture electrons and move apart to return to something more like ordinary atoms in ordinary matter. Similarly, even if two artists just happened to create the same painting, they won't look the same unless they are in exactly the same place and under the same lighting. Due to tonal differences perceived by the observers, the two paintings will not elicit exactly the same emotional response in the observers. Regarding the art as a dynamic exchange or phenomena between artist and audience, then the two pieces of art are different just as a result of being in different places.
2. Sometimes gravitational forces can be so strong that even though we were reasonably certain the atoms should not and could not get any closer, somehow and in some way.... something remarkable happens. The Neutron star is changed into something completely different, something that isn't like matter anymore - It becomes a Black Hole. This is a wonderfull thing for a Physicist and we would very much like to know what it is. However, it is like a poem that has been sealed inside a clay model by an artist. We can see the outer surface of the clay model and it's fascinating but we can't see the message that the artist had sealed away on the inside. It could be a whole other universe in there.
- - - - - -
Really? I thought science was exactly about absolute truths. At some point I assumed that out there there is some kind of international council of scientists who deem what goes into books about science. What is officially true or false.
There isn't an international council that I know of. However, there are procedures through which science maintains some standards. I'm mainly thinking about "peer review". New theories and new discoveries will tend to published in some recognised journals. The articles or "papers" submitted to those journals are reviewed by established, already recognised experts before publication.
Even after publication in some journal, the review process is effectively ongoing by the experts working in that field who will end up reading that article. If a University lecturer doesn't find the article sensible they won't tend to use it in their lectures and so they won't pass on that information. If other experts feel strongly that the article was wrong in some way, then someone will publish an article with a counter-argument or experimental proof against the original article.
If someone had new ideas or new information about some piece of art history - how would they get this information published and recognised by the other experts in art history? Scientific peer review is much the same as that, I would have thought (but I haven't studied much Art history and I really wouldn't know).
So when people say atoms exist in multiple places at once what they really mean is we can't find an atom until we look for it?
Maybe. Your understanding of this principle in quantum mechanics links to another statement you made later:
But if superpositions are just not knowing where the atom is, doesn't that void this statement?
We tend to say the particle was in a superposition of states until it is measured. This is different from assuming the particle was always in the place where we found it but we just didn't know it was there. Until the particle was observed it didn't HAVE to be anywhere, a precise location wasn't a property that the particle had to have. Let's try to re-phrase and re-explain this:
In a simple quantum mechanical model of a particle that exists inside some environment (physicists will want to say "potential" instead of "environment") then the particle does have a property associated with it. That property is called it's wave function. That's all there is for the particle, the wave function tells us everything about the particle.
There isn't a separate property that is the location of the particle. If that information (the location of the particle) exists then it is held or encoded within the wave function. We can try to get that information out of the wave function. If we are successful, then that information exists and the particle must have a definite position. However, sometimes we can't get that information out of the wave function and then the particle doesn't have to have a definite location at all. If we force an observation on the particle's location then we force the wave function to change. The new wave function does encode the location of the particle and so it does have a definite location. NOTE: This is based on what is called the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. There are alternative interpretations. This is another example where Physics isn't offering the truth just a model that is useful.
- - - - - - -
TIME is another wonderful thing in physics. It seems to flow only one way and makes everything dynamic and performable only once. Even if there was another artist like yourself somewhere else, they cannot produce the same work of art here and today. Only you were here today and there is no way that the other artists can wind the time clock backwards and repeat that.
Bye for now and best wishes to you.
-
You are an artist, so this is like saying we cannot consider a painting just as some different bits of paint in some order. We have to include the canvass which holds all the paint in that place. If you take the canvass away, the paint won't stay in the right places.
Similarly, even if two artists just happened to create the same painting, they won't look the same unless they are in exactly the same place and under the same lighting. Due to tonal differences perceived by the observers, the two paintings will not elicit exactly the same emotional response in the observers. Regarding the art as a dynamic exchange or phenomena between artist and audience, then the two pieces of art are different just as a result of being in different places
TIME is another wonderful thing in physics. It seems to flow only one way and makes everything dynamic and performable only once. Even if there was another artist like yourself somewhere else, they cannot produce the same work of art here and today. Only you were here today and there is no way that the other artists can wind the time clock backwards and repeat that.
I've heard similar augments before and they diddn't convince me that the theory wasn't true. If anything, statements like this only make it seem more true. But thank you for the rest of it.
We tend to say the particle was in a superposition of states until it is measured. This is different from assuming the particle was always in the place where we found it but we just didn't know it was there. Until the particle was observed it didn't HAVE to be anywhere, a precise location wasn't a property that the particle had to have.
Are you saying the act of measuring it is what places it there? That it's no place until we do that?
But like the old saying goes, everything's got to be somewhere.
-
Hi again.
Well it looks like you've done well getting over the usual crisis and concern that is intrinsic to art. Art still worries me a lot.
I went to the Tate Modern as a student and we (a few friends who dragged me along) saw a pile of stones arranged on the floor in one of the art installations. I was actually quite impressed with the pile of stones but something about it troubled me greatly. :-\
My concern was that there might be a work of art in the garden of my flat and I might accidentally destroy it by moving some of the stones around. I did this often when I needed something heavy to keep the lid on my dustbin. As an artist you might be able to grasp the catastrophic loss if, by chance, there was the greatest work of art in my garden and the whole world lost it just because I was worried about my dustbin lid coming off in high winds.
Anyway, I now have dustbin lids that you can push down and twist to lock them in place but that's not the main point. The main thing is that my artist friends said the following:
Even if, by chance, there was a pile of stones in your garden that was exactly the same as the arrangement we saw in the Tate Modern, it still wouldn't be art. To be art there has to be an idea involved and expressed. Since no artist put the stones in that place, there was no such idea and it wasn't art.
Art has got nothing to do with a particular arrangement of things (like atoms) that fall into a particular arrangement by random chance. It's about ideas and a dynamic exchange between artist and audience. Stop worrying too much about one theory in science, keep everything in sensible proportion and this concern might just give your art a bit more of an edge or uniqueness about it.
Are you saying the act of measuring it is what places it there? That it's no place until we do that?
Something like this is one reasonable interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Measurement can be the cause of change in the wave function. There are other interpretations.
But like the old saying goes, everything's got to be somewhere.
Old sayings and common sense are often quite good for human beings. They allow us to find food and shelter and react to events in a way that will tend to keep us alive. They are useful models but not necessarily the most accurate models. When we're considering very small particles, smaller than you can see with the naked eye, these simple models and old sayings don't seem to hold very well anymore.
Best wishes to you.
-
Are you saying the act of measuring it is what places it there? That it's no place until we do that?
Another interpretation of quantum theory says that until we measure it, it is everywhere.
- A weaker form is "it could be anywhere"
But in all interpretations of quantum theory, it is more likely to be in some places than in other places (that is defined by the amplitude of the wave function).
- And if you are talking about a gold atom in a solid block of gold, it is most likely to remain fairly close to its original position
- Unless you, as the artist, are working the gold into a piece of jewelry
- Gold is quite malleable, so the layers of atoms slide over each other fairly easily; in such a dynamic environment, the "original position" is not so easy to define!
The various interpretations of quantum theory have no day-to-day impact on Physicists, let alone on non-physicists like yourself.
Don't let it bother you!
-
I wonder how do they even get to a Total Vacuum state in the Double Slit Experiment...
What bout Virtual Particles?
Why does an Interference Pattern Always have to be a " At 2 places at 1 time " conclusion?
P.S. - Can the Phenomenon of being at 2 Different Places at the Same Time also be seen as being at 2 Different Times at the Same Place???
🤔
-
Double Slit Experiment...Can the Phenomenon ... also be seen as being at 2 Different Times at the Same Place???
Absolutely! That is the classical "wave" interpretation of the double slit experiment.
- A wave has a certain velocity and a certain wavelength.
- The wave front takes two paths through the two slits to reach the screen at behind the slits (the "detector")
- At most locations (ie not exactly in the middle), it will take a different amount of time for the wave to propagate from each slit to a single point on the screen. This time delay produces a phase difference between the two paths.
- At some points, one wavefront will be delayed by an integer number of wavelengths, resulting in reinforcement (including the exact middle, where the delays are equal),
- At some other points, one wavefront will be delayed by (an odd number of) half wavelengths compared to the other, resulting in cancellation
- Other places will be intermediate between these two extremes
So this is a case where a single point in space receives inputs at different times, reproducing the classical double-slit diffraction pattern.
It is easily demonstrated for photons, and macroscopic waves (>1026 atoms).
- It also has been demonstrated for individual atoms, but it requires much more careful experimental techniques!.
-
I wonder how do they even get to a Total Vacuum state in the Double Slit Experiment
Most of the time they don't. Light for instance simply needs a transparent medium. Air works fine.
A vacuum is needed for massive particles like say neutrons.
Why does an Interference Pattern Always have to be a " At 2 places at 1 time " conclusion?
It doesn't. I don't conclude that. Light is not a classic wave, even though a wave model nicely predicts the interference pattern, at least until you start emitting single photons at a time.
Can the Phenomenon of being at 2 Different Places at the Same Time also be seen as being at 2 Different Times at the Same Place???
Seems totally different. I was at Aldi Monday, and I was there again today. That's being at the same place at 2 different times, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with a double-slit experiment.
-
Sounds like you're in agreement with this other guy then. Science has no proof of anything. Proof is for the mathematicians. Science makes predictions based on evidence. It does not assert truth or demonstrate proofs.
I was never in agreement with him, I thought my words were clear.
-
I was at Aldi Monday, and I was there again today. That's being at the same place at 2 different times, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with a double-slit experiment.
The interference pattern in the Double-slit experiment is related to:
- the wavelength of the light you are measuring (or the de Broglie wavelength of the matter you are measuring)
- The separation of the slits
- The distance to the detection screen
- The divergence of the beam and angle of incidence on the slits (bored chemist has been doing experiments with this with his laser beam): this affects the phase of the light entering both slits
I've never previously had reason to calculate the effective wavelength of a human (let alone The Halc)...
- So here goes...
- Assuming a mass of 70kg
- Approaching the Aldi turnstiles at 0.5m/s
- The de Broglie wavelength is given by λ = h/mv
- Which works out around 10-35 meters
- See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave
Now the separation of the turnstiles at Aldi is about 1 meter, which is greater than the wavelength
- We can approximate the angular separation of the fringes as θ/d = 10-35 radians
- If the Aldi store is 50m long, the fringe separation on the back wall will be about 10-37 meters
- ie smaller than the Plank length, where (it is thought) some assumptions in quantum theory may no longer apply
- See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Classical_wave-optics_formulation
To get good diffraction fringes, it is best if the slit separation is within a half-dozen orders of magnitude of the wavelength you are using. This would imply that the turnstiles at Aldi would need to be positioned less than 10-29 meters apart.
To get good diffraction fringes, it is best if the wave enters the slits not too far out of phase, ie Halc would need to enter the store within about 10-37 seconds of his previous visit.
Also, to get diffraction patterns, the waves entering the slits must be coherent (effectively the same wave/particle), or at least entangled (the states of the two particles are linked, at a quantum level).
- Unfortunately, when Halc visited Aldi the next day, he had interacted with people, eaten a few meals, breathed in a bit of oxygen, breathed out a bit of carbon dioxide, etc, so it is no longer the same Halc who entered the store the day before.
- Any entanglement he may have had with the previous Halc has been lost through interactions with the environment
- He has "de-cohered"
- So you don't expect that Halc would form interference fringes with himself with a phase difference of 1 day
Finally, the turnstiles at Aldi have a counter, so they are a "measurement device", in quantum theory
- Placing a measurement device at one (or both) slits decoheres the wave, and banishes the diffraction pattern.
So I'm afraid that the Aldi turnstiles don't serve as a counterexample to the hypothesis
2 Different Times at the Same Place
I think this hypothesis is valid, since a phase difference is equivalent to a time difference
- And a phase difference produces the diffraction pattern
I've heard similar augments before and they didn't convince me that the theory wasn't true.
The arguments above don't prove that Halc can't be in two places at once.
- It just shows that any such quantum effect is so stupendously small and unlikely that in practice it makes no possible difference to our everyday lives.
Don't let quantum theory decohere your reality... because in practice, reality decoheres quantum theory
-
I googled if there was a limit to how many memories a person's brain could store and I found an answer written by a neurologist that the answer was absolutely yes.
Interesting to try to demonstrate that. It seems actually a pretty outlandish claim to suggest otherwise, so I'd actually be more interested in hearing the counter-argument to it. Maybe we ditch the assumption that a given brain is confined to a reasonable volume in a human head.
Are you saying you think there's a limit to how many memories were can store in our brain or not?
-
Hi multifaceted,
I'm not Halc but just putting in my opinion anyway.
Where are my memories stored? Not all of them are in my head that's for sure. I have pieces of paper stuffed into a few of my textbooks. I don't bother to remember those things, I just know that if I'm looking for something about "the geodesic equation" then the text book will automatically put my previous work and memories in front of me when I need them. I'm confident that I would automatically go to that text book, use the index and hence open up to the right page and have my bits of paper fall out when I need information about whatever it is... ("the geodesic equation" in my example).
The volume of my head doesn't limit my memories, if anything does then it's the volume of the universe and the amount of materials within it that I can order in a way to retain a record of my memories.
-
the fringe separation on the back wall will be about 10-37 meters
PS: To detect the fringes, you need to measure the position of a typical 70kg/1.8m customer on the back wall to an accuracy of better than 10-38 meters.
If we assume that there are something like 10+37 fringes over a meter of rear wall, you really need to get at least 10 (and preferably 100) impacts in every fringe to detect that it is there. That means you need to run the experiment at least 10+38 times to get a statistically significant result.
I fear that firing 10+38 70kg humans into your typical Aldi* store would turn it into a black hole, and you will never get a result out.
*Other supermarket chains are available!
-
I've heard that atoms exist in multiple, even infinite places at once.
Today, when I googled it, I kept getting articles about atoms existing in 2 places at once. Is that because 2 is the maximum number of places it can be in or is it just because we're all familiar with the phrase "I can't be in 2 places at once"?
And then I read that atoms are only ever in 1 place and anything else is just a misunderstanding.
So which is it?
And please try to put it in layman's terms.
Also I read someone say that quantum physics is like religion, there are zealots on each side of the arguments with claims their side is right. And that the quantum realm is so different to how we normally think, we don't even have language to adequately describe it.
Nothing can be in two places at one time under the current understanding of Physics
-
Are you saying you think there's a limit to how many memories were can store in our brain or not?
Physics says that even without a limit to the size of any system, there can be only limited information available from said system at a given point in space. So biology aside, there is a theoretical maximum amount of information, and thus memories, available for query from a given point.
I stress the 'given point' bit because an infinite classic system can hold infinite information (if it has an actual state, which seems to only work in classic physics), but that information cannot travel from where it is stored to any given point even in unlimited time, so it is unavailable to that point.
-
Physics says that even without a limit to the size of any system, there can be only limited information available from said system at a given point in space. So biology aside, there is a theoretical maximum amount of information, and thus memories, available for query from a given point.
When you say "Physics says" do you mean that it's indicated but not proven?
No offense to Halc but is any one else on this site going to dispute this?
-
Hi multifaceted,
1. You should worry less about things you hear.
2. Halc was quite careful to phrase things a certain way: He didn't say there is a limited amount of information, only that a limited amount is available at one place and time. (... and he said it so quickly and softly that there wasn't much empahsis on time).
3. There are equally interesting points that can be made based on the field of study called "Information theory". For example, we can encode a lot of information in a very small amount of data (or space). Also, a 2-dimensional surface like the event horizon of a black hole could encode all the 3-dimensional information required to describe a whole universe.
-
yes, as far as I know they can. https://www.livescience.com/2000-atoms-in-two-places-at-once.html
and the reason for it? https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-interference-the-movie/
-
1. You should worry less about things you hear.
Why?
2. Halc was quite careful to phrase things a certain way: He didn't say there is a limited amount of information, only that a limited amount is available at one place and time. (... and he said it so quickly and softly that there wasn't much empahsis on time).
Well that sounds like there is only a finite number of memories our brains can store to me. Is that what Halc was saying?
-
Hi.
To multifaceted ---> Why should you worry less about the things you hear? Because you seem to be the sort of person who is looking for answers, hopes to find absolute truths and may be troubled by some of what you hear.
Scientists are often looking for more questions and generally accept that their current understanding is just a model not necessarily an absolute truth.
I'm not Halc but, yes, I think it's fair to say that Halc was implying that our brains would hold only a finite number of memories. There were a lot of assumptions and simplifications in Halc's reasoning and you really shouldn't worry too much about the point he was making. For example, I don't want infinite memory, I want to be able to forget some things. What we are able to forget is as important as what we can remember and this helps to make each human being a bit more unique. Additionally, the operation of networks of neurones within your brain is not a property that your brain has in isolation from its environment. For example, sometimes people remember more details about something when they are back in the place where the original event happend. It could be that sensory inputs change the operation and responses of the network of neurones in your brain (effectively re-wiring your brain). This may allow your brain to work differently and reconstruct data that is not available to you anywhere else. Similarly it may prevent retrieval of some other memories while you are at that place. Overall then your memories may not be a simple function of what is in your brain but instead they could be considered as something stored within a bigger system which is your brain + the environment.
Best wishes.
-
you probably cannot voluntarily recall what you were doing 1000 hours ago, but hypnosis suggests that those memories are there, at least the important part
Optical illusions, blinking, eye tracking and physiological mishaps (like damaged vision) suggest that what our brains present to us as a continuous, detailed and complete image of the world is in fact fractured, and mostly low-resolution. Our brains turn this scrappy input into a high-quality image.
Hypnosis and various experiments in psychology show that what we recall as a detailed memory is in fact rewritten every time we recall it, and has context added that was not part of the original experience.
Neurones are tuned by many experiences over a lifetime, and, rather than recording like a movie camera, it mostly tweaks the weights of neurons that are already recording other memories. So what it records is the "gist" of the memory.
Our memories form a large part of "who we think we are", so some people may find it disturbing that a lot of what we experience and remember is partly fabricated by our brains.
That has major implications for our system of justice.
- I find it ironic that in a court of law, witnesses are banned from consulting notes, and are forced to rely on recollections.
- While the verbal "eyewitness account" that is considered most valuable evidence in a court of law, in science and technology it is considered the least reliable form of evidence.
-
Interesting ES. It's also so that neurons 'firing' seems to matters, not only the connections they make but the firing sequence of it. It gets 'multi dimensional' or layered information 'brain wise' .Like me looking at a some old cellophane, holding it against the sun, suddenly remembering a taste and emotions without being able to pinpoint the memory itself.
-
Neurones are tuned by many experiences over a lifetime, and, rather than recording like a movie camera, it mostly tweaks the weights of neurons that are already recording other memories. So what it records is the "gist" of the memory.
Totally agree with the whole post. The way memories are stored long term is more like a terse diary entry than a video. Language seems to have a lot to do with it since most people have trouble recalling memories from before they were verbal.
I lay no claim to any expertise on how mammals store memories. My argument rested on the conclusion that there are only a finite number of distinct arrangements of matter in a given proper volume. It goes without saying that most of those arrangements do not constitute a functioning human brain.
-
Actually I've seen some saying that we don't lose anything. It's all stored but we do 'forget'. And how we forget and why is a interesting question.
=
And I think this seems quite correct, 'encoding'. That is f.ex when I want to remember something, taking a extra look at the location of a key, glasses, something I want to know where it is, later. It's a technique that works for me, when I do it consciously.
http://www.thememoryinstitute.com/how-we-remember-and-why-we-forget.html
-
Nothing is proven by science. It's all done by induction, not deduction, and it's only as strong as its premises.
So is it weak or strong?
None of the things we say here has a negative impact on your life. If you find knowledge disturbing, then by all means make up whatever truth makes you comfortable. It's what humans do very well. I can think of nobody that doesn't do it.
I don't do it, I detest the idea of coming up with comforting lies and accepting them. The things said here do have an impact because I want to know the rules of reality. I can only ever be happy if I can say to myself that the things I fear are not true, that why I come to forums like this.
It's not all knowledge I find disturbing, just certain knowledge. Like the one you gave below.
No, my comment was a more general thing that there can only be a finite measurably distinct distribution of matter available at a point in space (which is a worldline, not an event). If the matter is too far away, it cannot be measured at all. So the radius is finite, leaving a finite set of measurably distinct arrangements for that matter.
Are you saying that matter can only be arranged in a finite number of ways in a finite space?
Because I have told you how horrific I find that and there is no way I'll ever be ok with it?
Is this an absolute truth?
-
Neurones
I lay no claim to any expertise on how mammals store memories. My argument rested on the conclusion that there are only a finite number of distinct arrangements of matter in a given proper volume.
Are you saying that there is a finite number of ways matter can be arranged in a finite space? Because that is one of my all time biggest fears, it's the most horrific thing I ever heard, I mentioned this some time ago.
Please be very carful in your answer because if this is a fact it will be devastating to me.
Is this an absolute fact? Do people know this for sure? Is there room for doubt?
I honestly can't tell when people are talking about truths or theories.
-
I've heard that atoms exist in multiple, even infinite places at once.
Today, when I googled it, I kept getting articles about atoms existing in 2 places at once. Is that because 2 is the maximum number of places it can be in or is it just because we're all familiar with the phrase "I can't be in 2 places at once"?
And then I read that atoms are only ever in 1 place and anything else is just a misunderstanding.
So which is it?
And please try to put it in layman's terms.
Also I read someone say that quantum physics is like religion, there are zealots on each side of the arguments with claims their side is right. And that the quantum realm is so different to how we normally think, we don't even have language to adequately describe it.
Do you exist in two places or one?
Answer one.
You are made up of atoms that exist in one place, just like you
-
Nothing is proven by science. It's all done by induction, not deduction, and it's only as strong as its premises.
So is it weak or strong?
The premises are philosophical, so they're as strong or weak as you believe them to be. Pretty much all you're asking qualifies as philosophical questions.
I don't do it, I detest the idea of coming up with comforting lies and accepting them. The things said here do have an impact because I want to know the rules of reality. I can only ever be happy if I can say to myself that the things I fear are not true, that why I come to forums like this.
You need to go to a philosophy forum. They talk science there, but it is the implications you're after, and a science forum is going to be less help.
You seem to want to jump off a cliff because it is imperative that you know the experience, but you expect to be devastated if it hurts.
It's not all knowledge I find disturbing, just certain knowledge. Like the one you gave below.
I gave no certain knowledge since science doesn't do that. This is not the first repeat of that.
No, my comment was a more general thing that there can only be a finite measurably distinct distribution of matter available at a point in space (which is a worldline, not an event). If the matter is too far away, it cannot be measured at all. So the radius is finite, leaving a finite set of measurably distinct arrangements for that matter.
Are you saying that matter can only be arranged in a finite number of ways in a finite space?
No. I said what I said. There are unproven premises in the statement above, and I said "measurably distinct". There's no suggestion of an actual finite number of states of even a single particle confined to say a jar. Science cannot demonstrate any finite limit to it.
-
I would expect it, the brain, to be 'holistic,' although in principle limited by the/our skulls encasing it. We have about 86 billion neurons in a average human brain, according to the latest studies and they communicate with each other in several ways, 'simultaneously' or not. Various firing sequences is one way, and then direct chemo electrical inputs and outputs another, Then you have those linking it to quantum phenomena. Your 'self' is the combined output of all of those activities, known and unknown to you.
so don't let numbers confuse you. https://www.wired.com/story/a-new-way-to-understand-the-brains-intricate-rhythm/
and https://medvance.org/2020/11/23/new-study-reveals-a-holistic-way-to-look-at-neurons-in-the-brain/
=
There exist a example of guy getting his brain compressed inside the skull. It's a older story and I don't have a link to it but I read it. X-rayed after complaining of headaches they didn't see it at first, the skull looked empty. He took some IQ tests and they showed him to be of a average intelligence if I remember correctly. That brain was the size of a walnut according to the article, still working. And yes, operating on him installing a shunt to correct it the brain 'grew' and his headaches disappeared, all as I remember it.
and this one is interesting too. https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness
You can take a look at this one too. https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/neuronal-networks-brain-waves
-
You need to go to a philosophy forum. They talk science there, but it is the implications you're after, and a science forum is going to be less help.
You seem to want to jump off a cliff because it is imperative that you know the experience, but you expect to be devastated if it hurts.
The way I see it, the facts uncovered by science can have implications on our lives, regardless of what we think and how we live. I don't see how that is a matter of philosophy.
And no I do not want to jump off a cliff to have the experience, literally or figuratively.
I gave no certain knowledge since science doesn't do that. This is not the first repeat of that.
I ment certain as in particular.
No. I said what I said. There are unproven premises in the statement above, and I said "measurably distinct". There's no suggestion of an actual finite number of states of even a single particle confined to say a jar. Science cannot demonstrate any finite limit to it.
So if we try to measure something it has finite states, can only be finitely arranged? But naturally it's infinite? And this is unproven anyway?
-
I lay no claim to any expertise on how mammals store memories. My argument rested on the conclusion that there are only a finite number of distinct arrangements of matter in a given proper volume. It goes without saying that most of those arrangements do not constitute a functioning human brain.
The conclusion? Does this mean it's been proven? It sounds to me like this is saying matter can only be arranged a finite number of ways in a finite space.
-
Hi again multifaceted,
I'm concerned that my language will be too imprecise and may present something as a definitive conclusion while it is not intended to be that way. I think many other contributors have similar concerns.
There is no agreement on what an atom is. We certainly can't see one because photons of light don't resolve such small distances of separation. As a consequence we can't provide a definitive answer for the basic question you asked earlier "can atoms only be arranged in a finite number of ways?"
Personally, I don't know about truth or hope that science will provide it. Truth may not be a thing that exists independently, to use some scientific vernacular truth may be observer-dependent.
On the back of the first wave of modern scientific investigation, the philosopher Immanuel Kant floated the idea that there is the world as it is and the world as we represent it to ourselves, and we shouldn’t necessarily assume they have much in common.
[ Taken from: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432604-000-scientific-truth-doesnt-exist-but-we-must-still-strive-for-answers/ ]
Best wishes to you.
-
I'm not Halc but, yes, I think it's fair to say that Halc was implying that our brains would hold only a finite number of memories. There were a lot of assumptions and simplifications in Halc's reasoning and you really shouldn't worry too much about the point he was making.
Are you saying that Halc is erring on the side of limited memory but his argument for it is not very good? That I shouldn't worry because there is no proof of a limited memory capacity?
There is no agreement on what an atom is. We certainly can't see one because photons of light don't resolve such small distances of separation. As a consequence we can't provide a definitive answer for the basic question you asked earlier "can atoms only be arranged in a finite number of ways?"
So it's ok, even plausible to think that matter can be infinitely arranged in a finite space, despite whatever else people say?
I'm concerned that my language will be too imprecise and may present something as a definitive conclusion while it is not intended to be that way. I think many other contributors have similar concerns.
I admit I do have a tendency to take statements very literally, I've learned that a single word can completely change any statement. A single sentence can change the way you look at an entire franchise.
-
The conclusion? Does this mean it's been proven?
Your reading comprehension skills are exceptionally poor.
This is true only under counterfactual interpretations of quantum mechanics, and cannot be proven.
Science is about making predictions, and it is very good at that. It isn't about proof or 'knowing' about things to the extent that it could be categorized as 'truth'.
Science has no proof of anything. Proof is for the mathematicians. Science makes predictions based on evidence. It does not assert truth or demonstrate proofs.
Nothing is proven by science. It's all done by induction, not deduction, and it's only as strong as its premises.
Despite all these statements, you still ask if this thing has been proven.
No, science offers no proof of anything.
No, nothing can be demonstrated to be absolute fact. Even 2+2=4 requires some unproven axioms as premises.
Just no.
Your insistence on reading the comments otherwise suggests that you very much want to have an excuse to claim this horrific experience, "spiralling into depression", "devastated", but you seem to require this proof, and you shall not have it, not from science at least.
The way I see it, the facts uncovered by science can have implications on our lives.
What possible implication does the finite-measurably-distinct arrangements of matter have to do with our lives? I cannot picture how that would have any practical implication.
I meant certain as in particular.
The two words are not anywhere close to being synonyms. No idea what you mean by this statement.
No. I said what I said.
So if we try to measure something it has finite states, can only be finitely arranged?
It means that only a finite set of distinct measurements can be taken. It does not in any way imply finite states, but if two states are sufficiently similar, they cannot be distinguished. Planck got into this.
So it's ok, even plausible to think that matter can be infinitely arranged in a finite space, despite whatever else people say?
I said yes to that, quite clearly I think.
I admit I do have a tendency to take statements very literally, I've learned that a single word can completely change any statement. A single sentence can change the way you look at an entire franchise.
Then it probably isn't a good idea to change what others are saying by omitting words and qualifications.
Are you made of atoms?
Seemingly so, but we've no proof of it.
-
Seemingly so, but we've no proof of it.
[/quote]
Please explain that there is no proof that iron atoms give hemoglobin the strength to bind to oxygen in the blood.
-
Hi again.
Are you saying that Halc is erring on the side of limited memory but his argument for it is not very good? That I shouldn't worry because there is no proof of a limited memory capacity?
Is limited memory also something that concerns you? It might be possible to post a new thread in the Life Sciences section and see what they think.
So it's ok, even plausible to think that matter can be infinitely arranged in a finite space, despite whatever else people say?
I can't tell you what to think and you probably shouldn't believe everything people say. However, I am not an expert in any field that would make me qualified to give that sort of advice. It just seems like sensible advice.
The relevant science has been discussed already. Yes, it is reasonable to think that. However, as a scientist you should probably also know WHY that is reasonable. Science is less concerned with final answers and ultimate truths and more concerned with gaining some useful understanding. There are several reasons WHY it is reasonable to think that. Here are some of those reasons:
(i) Atoms - there is no agreement on what an atom is.
(ii) Quantum Mechanics - particles don't behave as you would normally expect.
(iii) Constantly changing ideas in science.
(iv) Outright recognition that science offers models and some limited understanding only, not absolute truth.
Best wishes to you.
-
I can only ever be happy if I can say to myself that the things I fear are not true, that why I come to forums like this....
Are you saying that [insert uncertain scientific hypothesis here]?
Because I have told you how horrific I find that and there is no way I'll ever be ok with it?
This seems like a contradiction, to me.
- You want the truth
- You want certainty
- Even if that truth has no bearing on your day-to-day life
- And yet, if it turns out to be true (something that we may not answer for decades, if ever), you can't accept it?
That's the problem with the truth - it doesn't care what we think.
-
That's the problem with the truth - it doesn't care what we think.
A famous writer once said that “the truth is rarely pure, and never simple”, and in this case the answer is not simple.
Does this mean it's been proven? It sounds to me like this is saying matter can only be arranged a finite number of ways in a finite space.
@Halc has already told you that it isn’t the role of physics to prove anything. We make reasonable predictions based on the evidence of observations. In most cases those predictions are very accurate and the predictions about atoms are among some of the most accurate we have.
The question you are asking really depends what you mean by an arrangement.
Let’s take a very simple example. Say we have 2 coloured blocks red & blue and we are going to arrange them along a straight line. We can say that there are 2 different arrangements of these blocks: red/blue or blue/red. On the other hand we could say that if the blocks are 1mm apart that is a different arrangement from being 2mm apart and as there are an infinite number of ‘numbers’ between 1mm and 2mm then there are an infinite number of ways of arranging these blocks - ignoring for the moment the discussion on whether you can differentiate between these arrangements.
When we talk about arranging matter eg atoms we are usually talking about the first type of arrangement.
As @Eternal Student says, we cannot take photos of atoms; however we can map the electric fields they produce, which are responsible for the effect of making them appear solid. There are some excellent images on the net which show that atoms consistently arrange themselves in a limited number of ways. This is a good thing because if it were not so then our universe would never have formed, no molecules, no dna, nothing. Finite arrangements are essential for our existence.
So it's ok, even plausible to think that matter can be infinitely arranged in a finite space, despite whatever else people say?
If that makes you happy, then do so, but it has no effect on whether it is a reasonable assumption.
-
The question you are asking really depends what you mean by an arrangement.
Let’s take a very simple example. Say we have 2 coloured blocks red & blue and we are going to arrange them along a straight line. We can say that there are 2 different arrangements of these blocks: red/blue or blue/red. On the other hand we could say that if the blocks are 1mm apart that is a different arrangement from being 2mm apart and as there are an infinite number of ‘numbers’ between 1mm and 2mm then there are an infinite number of ways of arranging these blocks - ignoring for the moment the discussion on whether you can differentiate between these arrangements.
When we talk about arranging matter eg atoms we are usually talking about the first type of arrangement.
That's not how Eternal Student describes atoms.
-
That's not how Eternal Student describes atoms.
Hi again. Eternal Student here.
There were earlier posts about how much space exists between atoms and how it's necessary to consider a larger system which is the atoms + whatever environment is forcing them together. Reply #29 discussed neutron stars.
Colin2B's comments aren't too different from this, except he has gone for an example where the space between atoms is larger than usual not smaller than usual.
Atoms have no clear definition for many reasons but the radius of an atom is one thing that doesn't seem to be well defined. It's hard, if not impossible, to say where an electron cloud ends. Actually, discussing the radius of an atom is something that could fill a whole thread all on it's own. There are some definitions where a definite fixed size could be determined but these often demand changing the way you imagine a "contact force" between two particles.
I have no simple and unequivocal definition of an atom to offer you. There are several that I am aware of. Where the precise model of an atom or what properties an atom is assumed to have is important, then the scientist will make this clear in their writing. It is possible to imagine or mathematically model a universe where there are no particles at all but instead there are only fields. Some fluctuations in these fields give rise to regions of space where something that behaves like a particle would be found.
There is no grand unified theory of everything that I am aware of at this time. This is good news for scientists, since there are still things to discover and revisions to older theories that will be required.
Best wishes to you.
-
Early experiments bombarding two slits with one electron showed that it comes from both slits and makes interference with itself. Quantum physics affirms that electron 'dualism', as it can be going round the atom core only on certain orbits. And the actual position of the electron can be only described with a certain probability.
This probability issue was clearly pictured by Erwin Schrödinger with the cat phenomena.
-
Atoms have no clear definition for many reasons but the radius of an atom is one thing that doesn't seem to be well defined. It's hard, if not impossible, to say where an electron cloud ends.
This is going to sound really stupid and like I'm working really hard to cling onto something. But you did mean doesn't not does here right? You do mean it's hard, near impossible for atoms to be defined by science right?
It's just that, normally in this kind of situation, a person would make a statement and then use "BUT" to set up the explanation of a difference, opposition or exception.
Example "One by one the lands of Middle Earth fell to the power of the ring BUT there were some who resisted." You seem to be saying "Atoms can't be easily defined if at all BUT atoms can't be easily defined if at all."
I suppose I'm just so used to this device being used that I thought that, by talking about atoms being difficult to define then adding the word "BUT" you are making a statement going in the other direction.
By the way, I'd like to say I like your posts. I've been on several forums like this and not met many who have the open-mindedness to talk about how many grey areas there are in science.
-
You do mean it's hard, near impossible for atoms to be defined by science right?
No
The radius of an atom is hard to define.
It's like trying to measure a cloud or a ball of cotton wool.
It hasn't got a well defined "surface".
-
Hi @Multifaceted,
I'm sorry for the clumsy sentence construction. I must have edited and removed some things.
You have correctly identified the key points:
1. There are many different definitions of what an atom is. There are many problems defining exactly what properties an atom would have.
2. The radius of an atom is one thing that isn't well defined.
Thanks and best wishes.
-
"One by one the lands of Middle Earth fell to the power of the ring BUT there were some who resisted."
You cannot expect a work of literature to be precise in its meaning. You have interpreted this one way, but there are others. The 2 statements are not mutually exclusive; eg one by one the lands fell except those who resisted, or maybe they all fell, but some continued to resist - just like the French resistance.
I suppose I'm just so used to this device being used that I thought that, by talking about atoms being difficult to define then adding the word "BUT" you are making a statement going in the other direction.
If I say that “most swans are white, BUT some are black” it it isn’t making a statement going in the other direction, it’s giving you extra information. Also, it doesn’t mean we can’t know and describe what a swan is. It’s even worse with cars, because every car has a different colour so you can’t define the colour of ‘cars’; but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a pretty good idea what cars are, or are able to define the colour of an individual car.
When we are describing a car we are describing an image formed by light reflected from it and we can describe a number of properties (physicists sometimes call them observables) such as colour, number of doors, position of headlights etc.
With atoms it is harder as we cannot ‘see’ them in the same way, we rely on measurements of electric field, mass etc and often how they behave when they interact with other atoms or particles. So we build up a definition based on a description of their properties. Some of those properties are not clearly defined, but are described by the likelihood (probability) of it being a certain value and that value can vary depending on the situation. So, no one is going to give you the sort of definition you are looking for.
Take note, however of what BC says:
You do mean it's hard, near impossible for atoms to be defined by science right?
No
The radius of an atom is hard to define.
It's like trying to measure a cloud or a ball of cotton wool.
It hasn't got a well defined "surface".
When these clouds are put together in a group they space themselves into well defined patterns and we can use devices like a scanning tunnelling electron microscope (STEM) to give us a picture of what that pattern looks like. For example here is an image of a layer of an oxide which shows the pattern of atoms - in the bottom right someone has highlighted the different types of atom in the material. From this image we can measure the distance between the centres of the atoms, but as you can see the edges are fuzzy and ill defined.
All in all we know a lot about atoms and their properties, so much so that we can predict their behaviour very accurately in various circumstances.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
That's the funny thing about almost everything, from electrons to atoms. Atoms can be super positioned, electrons becomes a 'probability cloud' which also create most of a atoms 'size'. It's not until you photograph, or in some other way try to define, it that it will exist as a 'clear evidence' of it being there.
-
It's not until you photograph, or in some other way try to define, it that it will exist as a 'clear evidence' of it being there.
That’s an interpretation.
You have to be very clear what you mean by exist.
-
Hi again.
When these clouds are put together in a group they space themselves into well defined patterns and we can use devices like a scanning tunnelling electron microscope (STEM) to give us a picture of what that pattern looks like.
An interesting example of an emergent property. An individual atom does not have well defined radius but a massive number of atoms put together does show properties that were not there in the fundamental components. It is possible to find the average distance between atoms in this lattice but that still does not tell you exactly what the distance between any two chosen atoms will be (or provide a precise definition of the radius of one atom).
There are additional complications when the idea of entropy is introduced. Even a perfect crystal lattice has a non-zero and apparently random distribution of energy unless the temperature is reduced to 0 Kelvin. That is impossible to do in reality. A simple model of a crystal lattice could ("should") be considered as a dynamic object rather than a static thing. The atoms vibrate about their equilibrium positions and the precise distance between each atom is not constant. The electron micrograph that Colin2B provided is not a dynamic representation but instead it is inevitably just an average of the scatter or more complex interactions between electrons and atoms. I'm not an expert in electron microscopy but in general there are a lot of detectors and a lot of things that can be detected including electrons that are given off by the atoms as a result of excitement. This multitude of data is processed in a computer system and a final image is produced. I'm simplifying this processing by just saying that an "average" distance between atoms is obtained.
There is also a complication when impurities are introduced. For example, Semiconductor substrates like silicon have significantly different properties and behaviours when an insignificant number of atoms of Gallium are present in the lattice. These impurities are enough to make some silicon wafers act as microprocessors inside the computer device you are using now, while less impurities would have made the wafer act like sand or glass and quite incapable of processing data in a useful way.
I don't think anyone has mentioned the Pauli exclusion principle yet. We could use this to argue that no two atoms could have precisely the same set of quantum numbers that describe their fermions (e.g. their electrons). In effect no two atoms can be identical at a quantum level.
Overall, science has many models of atoms and the behaviour of atoms. They are useful and allow many predictions to be made. It is possible and sometimes desirable to use increasingly complicated and detailed descriptions. Many of these descriptions go over my head. I'm certain that there are more models and complications then you (Multifaceted) will have seen in this thread or any other forum you have used.
There have been previous discussions on the nature of science. It may be desirable to strive for absolute truth in science but most scientists do not realistically expect to obtain it. We have some good models and and fair level of understanding.
Best wishes to you.
-
Depends on how you look at it , is seems Collin. Using indirect evidence goes out from that they 'exist' even without being 'touched'. I'm not particularly convinced by that sort of reasoning, The probability cloud have a existence, it must if physics are correct, but the 'particle' getting defined needs a outcome. If we go by the Copenhagen interpretation it needs you, photographing it.
=
What I mean by that is that I doubt you getting any evidence of a outcome without a interaction, thinking of those types of 'indirect measurements' presuming that you can leave the thing you study in a pure 'indeterministic' state. If you get all parameters you either 'touched' it or you're dreaming. F.ex doing it over a time sequence on several particles doesn't change it, the way I think of it.
And to me it seems as we still haven't accepted what physics tells us, when we use indirect methods. We want them to be 'classical' so that we can treat them that way.