|
Atoms: what are they?
Link |
by
on 2006-01-29 19:49:26 |
|
I remeber reading somewhere that atoms actually move in and out of exsitance at random points. Wish I could remember wher it was that I heard it. If I remeber correctly, it said something on the order of how the electron that moves at close to the speed of light actually crosses out of this dimension at certain points depending on the energy of that electron. As a result the protons and neutrons are pulled along with it, moving the entire atom out of our percivible exsitance. It also went on to say that this is why matter is not "real," but rather a perception of a atom at a time and place, and upon your removal of observation it proceeds to "pop" in and out of exsistance. I also remember in one of the counters against Einstein, again I forget the man's name, that the act of observing an atom changes it's behavior. So my question is with these ideas present what constitute the classification of a atom, in so that, if an atom actually moves in and out of exsitance in what way do classify it? Should one classify an atom as a "real" object or as a theorectile state not so much unlike a proton? Also a proton behaves as a particle when being observed and as a wave when not being observed. So could one say that atoms are like waves in that you can not determine it's exact position when not observing it. So I ask another question, could these objects be cosidered as a proton, both a particle and a wave, or are they compleatly different. Atoms themselves consist of other particles (quarks). Could these constitutional "particles" fall under the same classification? If you can answer any of these questions please do, I've been thinking this though and came to the conclusion that our defintion of the atom is very vague, and does little to desribe what it could potentially do. The definition also fails to desribe the actions of said atom. Could the atom be geometry's point, in that it has no true definition and is the basis on which everything is built upon. |
|
Re: Atoms: what are they?
Link |
by
on 2006-01-29 20:42:21 (edited 2006-01-29 20:47:54)
|
|
I don't want to even try to define "real", but lets just pretend we mean "well-known" in its place. As we learn from the Heisenber Uncertainty Principal, a REAL particle's REAL position and momentum cannot be known at the same time. If you confine an electron, for example, and take a reading of its position over and over, you will see it in different places. This is because its moving. This is analogous to taking a photo of my room while i am asleep, when i am at work, and when i return. It will look as though i popped in, out, then in again. Same with an electron, its not like it stopped existing. Although sometimes i feel like that at work, but never mind that. Clearly, neither QM nor GR is a Theory Of Everything, both of them fail at certain energy levels. This does not mean Einstein or his theory are wrong, just incomplete. There is no new idea in QM that disproved GR, that I know of. All fundamental particles behave like waves in Quantum Mechanics. You can setup an experiment to see diffraction in a beam of light, electrons, protons, neutrons, and all the others, its just a matter of ingenuity with some of the more exotic particles. Im sure you could show diffraction of atoms, too, but it would be miniscule and very hard to construct. Good question though! This whole idea of determining the EXACT position of ANYTHING is unrealistic. In a computer, you can have a mathematical coordinate. Nature is not so kind. You can measure the position of every atom in a water drop to the nanometer, but this information is still so tremendously inaccurate that it will be no good after less than a millisecond, because the atoms interact in such a complex and delicate way, that microscopic events (small inaccuracy in measure) have a macroscopic effect (position after a millisecond). Protons and Neutrons contain Quarks, which are "Fundamental Particles", the same classification as the Electron, go figure. 
|
|
Re: Atoms: what are they?
Link |
by
on 2006-02-05 17:02:04 |
But for me, atoms is what we are built in.  Cardcaptor Sakura: Blooming Days!: Dreams and Fantasies Becomes A Reality |
|
Re: Atoms: what are they?
|
|
According to Democritus, all things are made up of tiny particles (atoms) which was proven by scientists like Niels Bohr, etc. This is kinda far out of topic but this still concerns atoms. According to Democritus, the tiny particles we are composed of is eternal and immutable. This means that the atoms are here long before. To elaborate, when we die, we break down, and the atoms that we are previously made of scatters around to form another thing. For example, you have a dinsaur atom in you because when that dinsaur died, its atoms scattered around and formed another thing, and another, and another, and so on and so forth. Democritus also said that Our soul is not immortal; Because even our soul is made up of tiny particles that scatters when the body of that soul dies. This means that according to him, the soul dies too because it consists of "Soul Atoms." |
|
Re: Atoms: what are they?
|
| Umm... For me atom forms molecule and ion |
|
Re: Atoms: what are they?
|
|
however the soul might be electrical energy, much like FF7 lifestream
Ģöţ ñõţħįňģ Ţθ ĻÖŠÄâ€, Ä•Ã…εóұтђīŋġ ŧÅ? ĢĄİŇ, ₣řÎÂÑ‘Ä?Ã…?ü ằήđ Ĵůśťїçè, ČθóŗůÃ?ŧìÅ?Å‹ ằήđ Ä‹Å?ňƒīņěΜәÀŧ, Vâļóůѓ ịή βαŧŧļé, Ħõńòґ Êń Ä?Ä•Ä?ţħ
|
|
Re: Atoms: what are they?
Link |
by
on 2006-02-08 11:07:49 |
|
Might i remind you, Ran, that religious opinions and philosophy that is divergent from physics as a science is NOT PERMITTED IN THIS TOPIC. feel free to discuss such things elsewhere. This topic is a place for science, and only science.
|