Turn on thread page Beta

How do scientists know that atoms exist? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Wrong wrong wrong

    Erm? I've gone away from atomic science and going towards biological... what is that?
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by gingergooner)
    Erm? I've gone away from atomic science and going towards biological... what is that?
    You said no one knows atoms exist.

    Those lumps are Iron atoms.

    So yes they do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    You said no one knows atoms exist.

    Those lumps are Iron atoms.

    So yes they do.
    Explain to me how they made that image? Also, if that is conclusive proof... what about the structure of atoms?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    First off, the atom is immensely complicated. The further we investigate the more complexity we discover, understanding has gone from solid balls, to nuclei with orbiting electrons, to subatomic particles, and now moving onto string theory - i.e. what subatomic particles are made of. In 30 years time we'll be delving even deeper. You can't just point and say "that is an atom". For instance electrons can be a particle like a proton or a wave of energy like light, and you can't know both how fast it's going and where it is, only one or the other.

    The main thing is that the atomic model fits empirical evidence. It fits well enough to be able to draw diagrams with letters and lines that show how a chemical will react, and predict properties before even seeing the chemical. (As far as I know) all observations made in scientific experiments can be explained by the current model of the atom.

    Comparisons to religion aren't valid - religion and atheism are each others counterargument, whereas no theory exists to explain it all that's radically different enough to atomic theory to be considered its counterargument.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by gingergooner)
    Explain to me how they made that image? Also, if that is conclusive proof... what about the structure of atoms?
    Atomic Force Microscope.

    The waves are what is produced from the electrons I believe.

    Another:

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Atomic Force Microscope.

    The waves are what is produced from the electrons I believe.

    Another:

    Ok avoiding the philosophical bombshell of whether or we need the naked eye etc we'll just assume that is proof. His original point however was really regarding the atomic structure, are we still working only on evidence there? :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Everything in Science is theory, which is accepted by everyone, however that doesn't mean that someone can't disprove a theory or modify it to make it more realistic and consistent. Theories always change for example when couple of scientists carried out experiments on electron,photon and nucleus they concluded that these are the core/final particles in an atom but they were wrong as other bunch of scientists in the 20th century proved them wrong otherswise as they have carried out another experiments on these particles. Science cannot answer why something exist or where they come from it can only explain what/how questions.

    At the moment, classical mechanics(macroscopic scale of the physical world) and Quantum Mechanics(microscopic scale of the physical world) don't like each other this shows that it takes humanity a great leap of knowledge to truly understand eveything about our world and indeed the universe.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by gingergooner)
    Ok avoiding the philosophical bombshell of whether or we need the naked eye etc we'll just assume that is proof. His original point however was really regarding the atomic structure, are we still working only on evidence there? :confused:
    DNA is not seen from the naked eye, so it cannot be used in murder trials?

    You can see the ripples from the electron waves given off.

    It is like a murder trial, there is now far far to much evidence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    You can see the ripples from the electron waves given off.
    Yeah I got that, that doesn't prove the finer details of atomic structure, electron energy levels, protons and neutrons in a nucleus made up of quarks (I think).
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by gingergooner)
    Yeah I got that, that doesn't prove the finer details of atomic structure, electron energy levels, protons and neutrons in a nucleus made up of quarks (I think).
    Every calculation done has been proven right.

    That is why chemical reactions have been predicted using our knowledge of atoms and when performed we have got the right results?

    There is now far far far too much evidence to suggest electrons, protons and neutrons do not exist.

    There are still area's such as string theory which need more detail, but it will come.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    It is like a murder trial, there is now far far to much evidence.
    That was the argument I originally put forward! I just suggested there wasn't any proof
    Edit: In fact, we are arguing the same thing
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Brown and Einstien dealt with a proof of atoms a while ago. Even without an image or this crap about being fed it in lessons so it must exist, atoms do exist. Fact.

    I believe there is reliable evidence to support the existence of sub atomic particles, eg quarks.

    Also whoever said 2+2 =4 or 5, wait till year 2 you will learn it is 4, wait a bit longer and Bertrand Russel will be able to prove it to you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    If valid, that would appear to be an objection to all claims of knowledge, rather than a problem which is just particular to science.
    All I know is that I know nothing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The only thing worse than this thread is the posts in it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mf2004)
    You don't prove anything in science you just try to disprove every theory that isn't yours. If no other alternative is viable that makes your theory the most likely to date. someone could show that atoms don't exist, in which case the whole model has to be rethought. If they manage to show that the Higg's boson doesn't exist that means there's a lot of rethinking to do.
    A part from maths where you can prove stuff
    I stand corrected
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    This entire thread, is a disgrace to human civilisation.

    It proves to me beyond doubt that the masses are severely uneducated when it comes to science.

    No wonder society is progressing at such a ridiculously slow speed.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by vas876)
    This entire thread, is a disgrace to human civilisation.

    It proves to me beyond doubt that the masses are severely uneducated when it comes to science.

    No wonder society is progressing at such a ridiculously slow speed.
    Care to explain this quite odd post?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Care to explain this quite odd post?
    Erm not it explains itself, loads of people posing saying "no one knows for sure" or its "just a guess".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vas876)
    Erm not it explains itself, loads of people posing saying "no one knows for sure" or its "just a guess".
    It is true that no one knows for sure, and we just accept that for now to be the proof that something is what it is and something is how it is.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Remarqable M)
    It is true that no one knows for sure, and we just accept that for now to be the proof that something is what it is and something is how it is.
    :toofunny:

    Nuff Said!
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.