scientific models the atom?

[dms1972]

do atoms actually exist as they are depicted at times in the scientific models?



I ask because I read CS Lewis saying that when Jeans or Edington want to explain the atom, they use a picture, but they don't actually believe the picture, they believe a mathematical equation.

 

[Uncle Mikey]

Atoms are as real as the Godhead...

You can't make an Image of one because the scale would be off and of course they are always in motion.

And then there's that whole "Wave/Particle Duality" thing.

That is why God gives this warning...

Acts 17:29
"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device"

 

[timewerx]

do atoms actually exist as they are depicted at times in the scientific models?

I ask because I read CS Lewis saying that when Jeans or Edington want to explain the atom, they use a picture, but they don't actually believe the picture, they believe a mathematical equation.

What picture?

If you mean the most popular depiction that looks like a Jewish hexagram in the middle, then yes, it's not even remotely true.

In reality, an atom would look closer to galaxies in the Universe. Galaxies don't look like hexagrams, they look more like swastikas, hence, the irony.

 

[dms1972]

The picture i was thinking of was the solar system model, with the nucleus and electrons orbiting it.

But I see from researching a bit more after I posted that there have been earlier models proposed before other discoveries were made. For instance the cubic model, and the 'plum-pudding' model, which were before the discovery of the nucleus.

 

[LutheranGuy123]

At the level of atoms, physics as we (the layman, not physicists) know it doesn't work for much. It would be like taking large-scale climate data and applying it to whether or not it will rain during the company picnic.

An atom is composed of three particles, the proton, neutron, and electron. Protons are massive (relatively) and positively-charged (like a magnet, only the other end isn't negative) and electrons are negatively charged and have so little mass that we usually don't even consider it in equations. There also exist three anti-particles, the antiproton, antineutron, and positron, which have the opposite charge and the same mass but with a different Baryon number. Basically think of them as having negative mass. They weigh LESS than nothing, and if you add an electron to a positron, they both cease to exist. Also you can think of a neutron as being composed of a proton and an electron, which is why it has a neutral charge. They cancel out.

Now the atom has a nucleus (center/core) composed of protons and neutrons. The number of protons determines what kind of atom it is. So all helium atoms have two protons. They may have different numbers of neutrons (these are called isotopes of helium) or electrons (called ions), but always two protons. The electrons orbit the nucleus. But these orbits aren't circular like how the Earth orbits the Sun. They're really janky and come in layers:

n=1 is a "shell" where two electrons can be found buzzing around at near light speed. By the way, this assumes that there are two electrons. Obviously the orbit is empty if there are not enough electrons. n=2 has four orbits, another shell and three figure-8 things. That orange dot in the center is showing the relative size of the old shell to the new one, though I don't know if it's accurate. n=3 has 9 orbits, though the five new ones don't start filling up unless n=4 manages to fill in its first four. As you can see, these orbits are REALLY weird, not circular at all.

Also all of these particles behave like energy sometimes, and at that scale it's kinda hard to tell energy apart from matter. Because of this, there aren't actually electrons orbiting, there is a bit of a gradient of wave-like something or other. But then when we measure it, it behaves like a particle because why the heck not. Oh and sometimes the larger atoms randomly shoot off an entire helium atom, thus becoming a different element. And sometimes a proton will emit a positron, thus gaining mass and losing its charge, to become a neutron, which changes the element. Or like four other random things they can do to become a different element. That also releases a ton of energy and is how nuclear power and fission bombs work.

 

[Ophiolite]

do atoms actually exist as they are depicted at times in the scientific models?

The clue lies in the meaning of the word "model".

 

[lesliedellow]

do atoms actually exist as they are depicted at times in the scientific models?



I ask because I read CS Lewis saying that when Jeans or Edington want to explain the atom, they use a picture, but they don't actually believe the picture, they believe a mathematical equation.

It bears as much ressemblance to reality as Michelangelo's depiction of God in the Sistene Chapel. In both cases an attempt is being made to depict something which can't really be described in terms of concepts derived from the everyday world around us. The physicist has at least got mathematics to help him out, which the theologian hasn't.

 

[Uncle Mikey]

It would be like taking large-scale climate data and applying it to whether or not it will rain during the company picnic.

Sort of like trying to compare the Three Heavens?...

1) Microcosm
2) Macrocosm
3) Multiverse

There also exist three anti-particles, the antiproton, antineutron, and positron

You don't say?...

and if you add an electron to a positron, they both cease to exist.

Like an Antimatter Weapon?...

The number of protons determines what kind of atom it is.

So the Proton is the Word of God at the Atomic Level?

n=1 is a "shell" where two electrons can be found buzzing around at near light speed.

Shells eh?...

As you can see, these orbits are REALLY weird, not circular at all.

Do they look like Ghosts?

Spooky Action at a Distance?...

there is a bit of a gradient of wave-like something or other. But then when we measure it, it behaves like a particle because why the heck not.

Like a Wave/Particle Duality type deal?...

And sometimes a proton will emit a positron, thus gaining mass and losing its charge, to become a neutron, which changes the element.

What if a Neutron gave its only begotten Proton because it so loved the World?...

 

[essentialsaltes]

do atoms actually exist as they are depicted at times in the scientific models?

I ask because I read CS Lewis saying that when Jeans or Edington want to explain the atom, they use a picture, but they don't actually believe the picture, they believe a mathematical equation.

Yes, they exist, and so do their component parts - neutrons and protons in the nucleus, electrons in a 'cloud' surrounding the nucleus.

They do not 'look like' this:

For one thing, they are all smaller than the smallest wavelengths we can see, so there is no way for us to see them like this. If we use electrons instead of light to see them in an electron microscope, they 'look' like this:

The little blobs making up the hexagons are individual silicon atoms, and the size and shape corresponds with the electron cloud.

But this way of seeing them does not show you the inner structure that we know is there. You mentioned the plum-pudding model -- Rutherford's experiments showed it was wrong, and that there is a tiny nucleus inside. So the illustrations accurately portray the structure of the atom, and what our models tells about its structure, but not what it 'looks like'.

And it's certainly true that neither of these images could help you predict something numerically, like what is the primary emission wavelength of the hydrogen atom. For that, we use our equations.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

do atoms actually exist as they are depicted at times in the scientific models?



I ask because I read CS Lewis saying that when Jeans or Edington want to explain the atom, they use a picture, but they don't actually believe the picture, they believe a mathematical equation.

Atoms exist as sums of field interactions.

The atom is, in fact, a combination of principle mathematical equation describing the nature. For example, even in elementary quantum chemistry, the probability that an electron exist in a certain space is based on Legendre functions, Bessel functions, and spherical harmonics. This probability space, or electron cloud makes up the perceived "hard" positioning of the electrons so that we can draw a Lewis structure, Bohr atomic model, or even a quantum model of an atom. But, in reality even the electron itself isn't a hard "dot" of charge, but rather a sum of interactions in fields creating the effect of charge - specifically charge with mass, and energy of the electron.

In field theory, a sum of a specific type of principle field can describe the equations of motion for the system. This is usually done by another mathematical equation called the Lagrangian. For example, in field theory the most basic description for a fermionic field permeating space in d dimensions is free particle model (like free electron). It is a more mathematically rigorous equation that describes more details of the particle interaction than the Sommerfeld model for free electron.

For something like mass, field theory uses the mass potential as the field descriptor - so that one can write the Lagrangian for the mass field.

For something like electro-magnetic potential, there are special experimental terms that describe the perturbations of the potential on surrounding fields. One such Lagrangian perturbation is the Yukawa potential (like Coulomb potentials.) We use mathematical rigor (even more equations) to determine how this potential effects the entire Lagrangian system (equation) in d dimensions.

So, to describe an electron's motion as a free particle (similar to metallic bonding, or an ionized free radical,) we could write down one single equation - the total Lagrangian. For electrons we would include the terms for potential, mass and fermionic fields - as well as a base free electron term.

So, then since protons are also fermions, slightly more massive, and have similar charge, a mathematical (Lagrangian) equation for protons since they exist as fermionic fields.

We can do tell similar with neutrons.

And, for atoms with more than one of each subatomic particle, we can sum up the interactions for each respective field term.

There are also other boson fields interactions, and they describe scalar/longitudinal fields - which are associated with quantum fluctuations in the vacuum energies, for example. This also has a term, and can be added to the total mathematical equation describing fundamental partial motion (total Lagrangian.)

Now how does this relate to the OP? Field theory describes the existence of these "particles" as interactions between fields producing what ultimately seems like a "hard" particle. This is actually Newton's law in action on a quantum scale - that the sum of the forces applied can be, or exists up to an equal force in the opposite direction. Since the Lagrangian field equation describes the sum of the equations of motion of fundamental particles, we can use it to find the forces involved. We see that what we perceive as "hard" is a system of field interactions that have an energy capable of resisting the forces of other field interactions.

So, you are a sum of mathematical equations describing the motion of the complex field interaction system you call your body. You are hard, or soft, in some places due to a myriad of differences described by mathematical equations (e.g. the Lennord-Jones potentials, fermionic fields, mass, etc.)

We have the idea of a "hard, discrete solid" for convenience.

 

[sfs]

Atoms exist as sums of field interactions.

Well, no. Atoms exist (whatever existing is) and behave in certain ways. We model them and their behavior with quantum field theory. QFT provides a better model than the visual solar system model, but it's still a model. It's all models.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Well, no. Atoms exist (whatever existing is) and behave in certain ways. We model them and their behavior with quantum field theory. QFT provides a better model than the visual solar system model, but it's still a model. It's all models.

If these were all models on the same theoretical level, this would be true.

However, QFT, especially topological QFT is the best model to date - superior to most quantum models emphasizing localized "hard" carrier particles interacting with other "hard" carrier particles.

The localization of "hard point" potentials in leaves questions unanswered that QFT answers with nonlocalized topological field interactions as basis potentials.

Even in the elementary quantum model, elementary particles are described as sums of harmonic oscillation - not necessarily hard point interactions (the wave-duality particle covered the "amorphous" character of particles, but not its non-local interactions.) The "hardness" comes from a lot of summing of perturbations to the Lagrangian action - and is usually taken for scientific granted.

 

[sfs]

If these were all models on the same theoretical level, this would be true.

However, QFT, especially topological QFT is the best model to date - superior to most quantum models emphasizing localized "hard" carrier particles interacting with other "hard" carrier particles.

The localization of "hard point" potentials in leaves questions unanswered that QFT answers with nonlocalized topological field interactions as basis potentials.

Even in the elementary quantum model, elementary particles are described as sums of harmonic oscillation - not necessarily hard point interactions (the wave-duality particle covered the "amorphous" character of particles, but not its non-local interactions.) The "hardness" comes from a lot of summing of perturbations to the Lagrangian action - and is usually taken for scientific granted.

I don't see how your response has anything to do with what I wrote. QFT, whether topological or not, enables one to construct models of atoms. They're good models, in that they are more predictive of observed behavior, but they're still models. (Beyond that, I also don't know what you mean -- what QFT includes hard carrier particles?)

 

[dms1972]

OK, ok.

Thankyou all so far.

Some have taken a good deal of time posting science info, however some of it goes too close to mysticism for me. I know this is a christian website, and I am not asking people to leave God out of it. But at the moment all I am asking is about the nature of modeling in science, thats all.

A problem relating science models and theology may well appear if we go further into the discussion.

So to repeat I am not saying anything in science means you must cease to believe in God.

But I want to talk just on a science level for now, threads get way too complicated otherwise. Nothing that I have said means that intimations of God in the physical sciences are any less real, obvious or profound for people of faith.

Ok. I know this was fairly clear in my mind in my twenties, when I spent more time thinking about science topics, but I rarely had people to talk to about it or I must have tried to bring it up at the wrong place, like at parties ;-) 'There is a time and a place' so it is said.

Anyway in some sense science models seem to objectify their subject matter, which I believe one needs to step back from, so that is why I am asking about this.

Philosophically the notion of atoms has been around for a long time, but i think its unhelpful to talk about science, philosophy, and theology as if they are the same, even if topics do overlap. And it is important to get some things clear before attempting to correlate anything across disciplines.

Anyone in disagreeance with me up to this point?

 

[lesliedellow]

OK, ok.

Thankyou all so far.

Some have taken a good deal of time posting science info, however some of it goes too close to mysticism for me. I know this is a christian website, and I am not asking people to leave God out of it. But at the moment all I am asking is about the nature of modeling in science, thats all.

A problem relating science models and theology may well appear if we go further into the discussion.

So to repeat I am not saying anything in science means you must cease to believe in God.

But I want to talk just on a science level for now, threads get way too complicated otherwise. Nothing that I have said means that intimations of God in the physical sciences are any less real, obvious or profound for people of faith.

Ok. I know this was fairly clear in my mind in my twenties, when I spent more time thinking about science topics, but I rarely had people to talk to about it or I must have tried to bring it up at the wrong place, like at parties ;-) 'There is a time and a place' so it is said.

Anyway in some sense science models seem to objectify their subject matter, which I believe one needs to step back from, so that is why I am asking about this.

Philosophically the notion of atoms has been around for a long time, but i think its unhelpful to talk about science, philosophy, and theology as if they are the same, even if topics do overlap. And it is important to get some things clear before attempting to correlate anything across disciplines.

Anyone in disagreeance with me up to this point?

You seem already to have picked up quite a number of dispirate replies. Even the apparently most settled scientific theories can come unstuck. All that can be said is that, for the time being, this or that picture of the atom seems to accord with the available data.

 

[Michael]

do atoms actually exist as they are depicted at times in the scientific models?

I think it's safe to say that atoms actually exist, but I'm unclear by what you mean by "as they are depicted in the scientific models." Do you mean mathematical models or visualization models?

I ask because I read CS Lewis saying that when Jeans or Edington want to explain the atom, they use a picture, but they don't actually believe the picture, they believe a mathematical equation.

I think it would be more accurate to suggest that they believe in the validity of the mathematical equations that are related to the "standard particle physics model".

The standard particle physics model makes a whole lot of mathematical predictions related to decay rates, etc, which have been *unbelievably* accurate at LHC, maybe too accurate for their liking in fact.

The various mathematical predictions of the standard model have been so accurate in fact that it's casting serious doubt on various extensions to the standard model, which predicted anything different from the standard model results.

The discovery of the Higg's Boson at around 125Ghz in LHC experiments tends to defy both the SUSY predictions pegging it at around 115Ghz, as well as the multiverse predictions that were around 140Ghz. The standard particle physics model passed with flying colors, but any mathematical model that predicted deviation from the standard model was pretty much a dismal failure at LHC.

 

[dms1972]

Ok I seem to have opened up interesting discussion, most of it is over my head (that said I can program a Z80 processor at assembly level ;-) which has very little to do with this discussion. It's funny I can come up with programs to transfer objects from one part of a computers memory to another, but I find it very hard to think like some scientists. But I would like to focus on the nature of scientific modelling if possible.

I tend picture these things - atoms - like a hard shell containing these particles but that can't be right, can it?

Are some of these models to some extent more accurate than others? It seems to me some are. Or are they just better depending on what you want to study? I am not calling the so called 'plum-pudding' model that to ridicule it. It was a step that was needed to arrive at more recent models. But was it therefore somehow discovered that protons and neutrons in fact are 'clumped' together?

John Dalton I read found the concept of atoms helpful in explaining why tin oxide and tin dioxide apparently separted into whole number ratios. Thats seems to be the origins of atomic theory in science.

 

[lesliedellow]

Are some of these models to some extent more accurate than others? It seems to me some are. Or are they just better depending on what you want to study? I am not calling the so called 'plum-pudding' model that to ridicule it. It was a step that was needed to arrive at more recent models. But was it therefore somehow discovered that protons and neutrons in fact are 'clumped' together?

Originally it was assumed that the protons, neutrons and electrons were all clumped together in a "plum pudding". But then Rutherford discovered that he could fire alpha particles at gold leaf, and most of them would go straight through, but some would bounce back. That suggested that most of the atom must be empty space, but with a positively charged nucleus, which was repelling the positively charged alpha particles which bounced back.

And so the atom as a minature solar system was born.

 

[dms1972]

quote=Michael 'I think it's safe to say that atoms actually exist, but I'm unclear by what you mean by "as they are depicted in the scientific models." Do you mean mathematical models or visualization models?'

Thankyou Michael, its the pictures I refer to like some of the others posted showing the path or orbit of electrons, not the mathematical equations or formulas.

I understand Einstein tried to in a sense imagine certain things, and then see if they were possible mathematically. A lot the more free wheeling notions in science today seem to stop short of the latter.

I think matter may have to be broken down to become atoms, that atoms while they can be made to exist individually say with atomic force tweezers, are not considered in regarding things in the everyday world, and that is normative for us outside the laboratory or science class. I am only interested in science as a lay person but I am thinking I need to make cognitive shift, so that I don't remain in that mode of looking at everything.

 

[dms1972]

At the level of atoms, physics as we (the layman, not physicists) know it doesn't work for much. It would be like taking large-scale climate data and applying it to whether or not it will rain during the company picnic.

I agree that the millions of fluctuations at the quantum level average out, thus one cannot escape from determinism that way. But I also agree with Einstein who thought Quantum theory was incomplete in some respect,

Sort of like trying to compare the Three Heavens?...

Once mystics and New Agers get in on theories in science they can become very free-wheeling in their speculations, which they make no attempts to support mathemathically.


For myself I agree with CS Lewis that the propositions of Scripture can receive the increasing complexity that is discovered in science. But that is not the same as making scripture fit into scientific models, therefore we need to be very careful how we correlate things across disciplines.