Atoms Do They Really Exist?

[Rainbow33]

Hi All,

This is my first post being a newbie and all.

I would really like to here anyone else's views on Atoms and sub atomic particals i.e. Protons neutrons and electrons. I have always believed that scientists have observed atoms under a microscope and that's how we have such a descriptive  answer in various resources on there structure and how they are the building blocks of all matter of things.

As I am sure many of you like me like to see things for yourself to know that it's real. My fascination with all manner of subjects lead me to study Science for a while which made think to start researching from the beginning which I believed to be biology. So after realising that scientists have never directly observed an atom but have only used an electron harnessing microscope to indirectly observe an atom?... Whatever that means?... (as indirectly is the opposite to observe).. an atom. This also makes no sense to me either as if they cannot see atoms without using a sub atomic partical harnessing microscope which is even smaller than an atom then, how on earth can the see to use electrons, to indirectly observe the atom at all?

I also strongly dislike the baffling technical jargon they use to describe almost everything and anything and then prove with mathematical equations. Science should not only be understood by the select few or do they cunningly do this so that people will give up trying to understand there methods and radical breakthrough theories that they have never proven with factual evidence that can be witnessed by all.... Thus blind sighting us all the general population and keeping us in the unawakened state so not to question these matters.

please if anyone can explain this Atom theory conundrum to me simplistically or at least refer me to the factual resources to research. 

Thankyou

[FindingPeace]

Nothing in science is fundamentally 'real'. Science is really just a conceptual framework, a model, that we use to describe reality and the way in which reality appears to operate. It's a model.

We can't see atoms. We can't say for sure that such a thing really exists. All we can do is make a hypothesis that atomic particles exist and then find way that seems to support this theory. We don't see subatomic particles. We see the effects of something that we assume to be these particles. If it fits our model, then we accept it as 'truth'. Until that model is questioned and someone comes along and tries to prove it otherwise.

It's like the old argument that light is sometimes a particle, sometimes a wave. As if it needs to 'fit' one of these definitions. But the definition itself is a man-made concept. Particles and waves are just human concepts. They aren't 'real'. Mabe light is neither of these things. Maybe we just  haven't created a concept that fits the behaviour of light yet. We don't have a nice simple model that works for all situations.

We can sit and ponder how reality works for eternity. But we will never truly know. The best we can do is model it t the point that we can use these models to maniputlate reality to our advantage. Something the science allows us to do quite well.

Fundamentally, the thing I find the funniest is that humans actually believe that we have the mental capacity to actually understand how reality works. As if, if we spend long enough researching it, we can truly reach a point of actually knowing. I find that somewhat arrogant and egotistical (which is what makes us human after all). We can never truly see reality for what it is, because, fundamentally, we are a part of it. We seem to forget that. We are reality, trying to investigate itself in to how it works. I find that funny. But fundamentally we can only perceive reality through the limitations of our senses, congnition and reasoning. So anything outside of these things will be impossible to comprehend. Reality is a subjective experience. Yet we treat it like it is absolute. Like we are separate from it. We are not.

We effectively create reality in our minds, as a projection of our own sensory input and conceptual thinking.

 

[Harry]

On 17/12/2016 at 2:02 AM, Rainbow33 said:

I also strongly dislike the baffling technical jargon they use to describe almost everything and anything and then prove with mathematical equations. Science should not only be understood by the select few or do they cunningly do this so that people will give up trying to understand there methods and radical breakthrough theories that they have never proven with factual evidence that can be witnessed by all.... Thus blind sighting us all the general population and keeping us in the unawakened state so not to question these matters.

Firstly, Physicist try and present theories in as simple a form as possible. However, these concepts are incredibly difficult to grasp—so they require a high level of mathematical ability to understand.

There is no big scientific cult making everything too confusing for the layman to understand. 

Secondly, great question!

Nothing is 'directly' perceived. For example, when you look at a table you aren't actually perceiving it, you are seeing photons (light particles) hit your eyeball. 

In much the same way you don't observe atoms directly—but you infer their existence from interactions with other particles.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Harry
Spelling

[Aware]

Atoms Do They Really Exist?

The actual question is: what is?

Things are not, there for they are. Existence of everything in one line: X is not X, there for X.

There is not a single thing to be found. In a tree, the tree is not found, within the body the body is not found, within a cell a cell is not found, and in an atom an atom is not found.
If things would be the thing, investigation would not occur. IT does occur, there for its not the thing itself, but a composite.

There is no thing presented as being the thing, there for, all things are a composite, nothing stands on its own.
Hereby comes the law, everything is temporary in nature therefor everything must be a composite, nothing stands on its own.

Now, let us go deeper.

All you can sense, that which you see as outside. All is a composite.

All that happens within you, is also a composite (mental phenomenon). All phenomenon are temporary in their nature, they exist, persist for a while and cease to exist. Due to that everything outside is a composite, and inside, there for only attachments to belief systems exists, persist for a while and eventually ceases to exist. So the real question that leaves now, is, does I have attachments to my belief system?

If one would ask in the end, what is left, what am I? Then the answer is Awareness. It knows no equal (is all pervasive, cannot be compared), there for nothing exists besides the attachment to our belief systems. Our attachments to belief systems, is suffering. So one could as well state: Suffering only exists. Besides that, nothing exists. All things come and go according to the conditions they arose from, and will perish according to their true nature.

So, one should contemplate suffering, and not the existence of atoms.

 

All things are soulless

Edited December 22, 2016 by Motus

[justaperson001]

I do not think the intent of scientists is to baffle people with complex a jargon and to be kept between a select few but to accurately define a complex world full of intricate detail and subtle nuances. We could just as easily call both apples and oranges fruit; but we don't do that because we recognize that there is more to either fruit to just leave it at that. Certainly we cannot ever know everything about our universe completely, but, I do not think it is arrogant to take the capacities we have as humans and harness them for the pursuit of truth. In fact I feel personally that the entire point of self actualization is to take the limits we have as humans and push ourselves to the highest level of understanding one can get to as a human. 

As far as the atom thing goes I challenge you to push beeps the realm on your own understanding and open your mind to the resources available to you. There are photos, even videos now off atoms, so as far as evidence goes there's more than just math to it now.  But with math we were able to percieve what we had to perceive. I understand your frustation though, I feel the same way about quantum physics in that I don't understand it so I don't put a lot of stock in it. 

[jse]

On 17/12/2016 at 9:02 AM, Rainbow33 said:

Atoms Do They Really Exist?

Nope.  Illusory concepts that only exist in our busy minds.

[Elisabeth]

 

On 17. 12. 2016 at 3:02 AM, Rainbow33 said:

So after realising that scientists have never directly observed an atom but have only used an electron harnessing microscope to indirectly observe an atom?... Whatever that means?... (as indirectly is the opposite to observe).. an atom. This also makes no sense to me either as if they cannot see atoms without using a sub atomic partical harnessing microscope which is even smaller than an atom then, how on earth can the see to use electrons, to indirectly observe the atom at all?

I am not quite sure what you are confused about. One of the ways to "see" atoms is scanning tunneling microscopy, which indeed uses electrons. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope

If you look at the photos on the right, there are atoms seen by the microscope as bright balls (of higher electron density, which proportional to the current flowing through the microscope). People can actually also manipulate atoms with this technique. This is as direct as it gets, but for me personally it's direct enough. There are also countless other ways to study the world of atoms and elementary particles.

Of course you can say atom is just a concept. Definitelly our understanding of it is just a model, and as all models, it is flawed. But this model is prooving pretty strong in it's context of applicability. Send me a pm if you're interested in the physics, stick around if you want to replace it with metaphysics, both makes sense. 

[Nature]

@Rainbow33 , according to the models we have developed in order to best describe nature in a scientific way, electrons, protons, neutrons (or, in general, quantum objects (QO)) are not particles, they are excitations of quantum fields. Scientists will never "see a particle" (in the sense of a tiny rigid ball or something similar to anything we know), because it doesn't exist as such. The best we can do is to make the QO interact with some specific apparatus in order to use the captured information to make an "image of the QO". The image obtained would not be the real physical form of the QO,  it would be something like the probability distribution of finding the QO in the measured quantum state. 

Here is a prl paper where you can "see" a Hydrogen (H) atom : http://journals.aps.org.sci-hub.cc/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.213001 . Actually, as the authors explain, you don't see an atom, you see a statistical average of many measurements over time of the electronic charge distribution of the electron present in the H atom.  It is not what an atom looks like. 

On 17/12/2016 at 0:02 AM, Rainbow33 said:

Science should not only be understood by the select few or do they cunningly do this so that people will give up trying to understand there methods and radical breakthrough theories that they have never proven with factual evidence that can be witnessed by all.

In fact, to say that they are excitations of quantum fields is too abstract, I know... but, how to explain that in a simple way without loosing information of the REAL model? It is not a matter of develop radical theories that people would give up trying to understand, it is a matter of develop the field as accurate as possible with observation so we can gain insight into the world and to have technological advances. Scientists are not concerned if theirs models are difficult for people to understand or not. If it is difficult to understand but the model works, its ok.

I agree with you that science should be understood by more than a selected few groups of people (If that is what you mean), but it doesn't means that the models should become more psicologically easy. If the simpler model that works is difficult to understand, what to do? discard the model? Throw away a possible scientific revolution? People should work hard if they want to understand the jewels of science. By jewels of science I do not mean the models, but the insight it can give you. It is not to difficult to have the knowledge, it is difficult to have the understanding.

 

Hope this helps! 

[NEYi]

Hey Rainbow33,
Atoms actually were observed and even manipulated using magnetic force microscopy.
I won't spoil much, just check out these two vids, really fascinating stuff. 

 

 

[Nature]

Yeah, its amazing how IBM can do this. You can "see" the electrons as the ondulations around the "solid" particles. It's incredible. 

[abrakamowse]

 

[Tibor]

This is really interesting.....

[PureExp]

Objects do not exist on their own, including atoms.

So in short, nothing exists independently of a conscious observer. Says who? Of course, scientists themselves !

The observation paradox of quantum mechanics proves it nicely, and it is unchallenged since 100 years now. All we have is more and more confirmation that matter is illusory. One can however infer that there is a "field" of potentiality which is actually identical to the consciousness we experience every second intimately. So if you wish to call it matter, doesn't matter, go ahead, its just us .

The latest trend in Physics is to model the physical universe as simulation. So the world becomes a virtual reality, just like a game in the computer. There is ample indication that it is so. But where is the computer? You might ask, and the answer is simple - consciousness is the computer and player and everything. As Tom Campbell puts it in a pithy way - Reality = Information. R=I.

Ok, now about science and scientists, my personal opinions (if worth anything) is that scientists are also people, some are very bright and are leaders, some are dull and orthodox. The top row scientists, if you read their books or quotes etc, sound like mystical sages. So I can assure you that like in any field of human activity, science is also ruled by human nature, you don't need to conspiracy theory to explain it. Science does look a bit alien to people who never studied math and science, but it is only a hole in their knowledge, should not take much time to get an elementary knowledge of science and scientific method. (In the same way for those who never studied law, a legal document is incomprehensible, but we don't say that they want to keep it hidden from people).

In the end, we need to judge it by how useful it is. As far as technology is concerned, which is a result of great scientific insights, it is very useful indeed, who can argue about that?. It has made our lives worth living, liberated us from the shackles of superstition and manipulation by those who took unfair advantage of our ignorance. But as a belief system, science is useless, just like any other belief system. If you think it is "truth" and nothing but truth, you will stop progressing, the belief will retard your growth.

So the bottom line is - we need to make use of our own intelligence, discrimination, vivek to know what is best for us.