Do atoms really exist? Surely an atom is just a thing that a

>>8962094
>Do people really exist? Surely a person is just a thing that a collection of proteins and minerals do.

>>8962105

Do proteins and minerals really exist? Surely they are just things that atoms do.

>>8962110
Do atoms really exist? Surely an atom is just a thing that... wait a second.

>>8962094
define exist

File: CIYvAwHWIAAqLZH.png (248KB, 418x457px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 418x457px

>atom
>actually composed of even smaller parts, which in turn are actually composed of EVEN smaller parts
can't make this shit up

>>8962114
Born from, or a product of the big bang?

File: rufkm.jpg (5KB, 227x222px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 227x222px

>>8962121
>ADD more electrons
>get a NEGATIVE charge
>TAKE AWAY electrons
>get a POSITIVE charge

>>8962123
I'm curious about the nature of matter production, personally.

The big bang predicts our current cosmological state but doesn't say how matter came to be IIRC. Apparently enough energy can theoretically be made into matter, but have we ever just shot enough energy into a void and created matter?

>>8962094
> Do atoms really exist? An atom is just a thing that a collection of electrons and quarks do.
1) Do OP really exist? An human is just a thing that a collection of cells & molecules do.
2) Do software really exist? An software is just a thing that a collection of code lines do.
3) Do Universe really exist? Universe is just a thing that a collection of atoms, particles & dark matter do.

>>8962180
The exact process in which matter is created is something I've never even thought about until now. I'd like to know if the fundamental forces existed exactly when the big bang happened, or about pre-big bang conditions.


>>8962186
how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real

File: dbb.jpg (63KB, 625x855px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 625x855px

>>8962094
>Do atoms really exist?

>>8962197
>how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real

File: monk.png (537KB, 554x576px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 554x576px

What are electrons and quarks made up of then?

>>8962247
Preons

What is without a doubt THE most simple fundamental (or smallest) building block of matter? How does it take form?

>>8962094
Just renormalize my nigglet.

>>8962094
they are a framework to understand the tiny building blocks of matter..nothing more

>>8962094
Not as particles, no. Everything is fields, and fields are not particles.

>>8962249
When are you going to realize that there is no bottom to that rabbit hole?

i.e., what are preons comprised of?

>>8962305
pre-preons

File: faces-elijah.jpg (71KB, 369x295px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 369x295px

>>8962094
Nope, it's just a social construct.

>>8962302
I have to say I am a bit tired of people running with paradigms associated with models that everyone already knows are incomplete. We know fields don't work well enough for the concept to stick around. Can we just, I don't know, stop insisting on saying wrong things until we come up with something better?

File: 1496547245499.jpg (53KB, 432x261px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 432x261px

Do strings really exist? Surely a string is just a thing that a collection of ...

File: image.jpg (163KB, 780x718px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 780x718px

>>8962094
Is anything really a part of anything? Who's to say that reality isn't just one big thing that doesn't fit into the part-whole composition our reductive minds so arbitrarily synthesize of it?

>>8962314
actually there are post-pre-preons between preons and pre-preons

>>8962131
makes perfect sense to me... 0 + (-2)(electrons) = -2
0 + (+2)(protons) = 2

>>8962249
Isn't that what's in a refrigerator

>>8962094
Read something about emergence.

>>8962933

Fields are equivalent to particles, just a different way of reasoning and different mathematics involved.
To say fields do not exists is the same as particles do not exist, because at the end, we only perceive the interaction, the force between things. Force is the phenomenological event that we study, everything else is just human interpretation.
In this line of reasoning, yes atoms do exist. When interacting with tiny needle microscopes (AFM), the force profile is spherical around the atom, shaped like a crystal around crystals etc. So yes, atoms are very real, and Schrödinger is very good at predicting the interaction of atoms with their environment.

File: atoms.jpg (35KB, 381x303px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 381x303px

>>8962094

File: chemicalreactionmicroscope.jpg (61KB, 617x320px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 617x320px

>>8965800
>>scale bar 0.3 um
those aren't atoms idiot.

>>8962255
String theory.

>>8962094
>a collection of electrons and quarks do
and a tree is the collection of splinters. because that's what happen with tree if we collide it with fast moving objects.
particle physics is a joke.

File: 1487963815825.jpg (30KB, 626x422px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 626x422px

>>8962105
>>8962110
>>8962113
round and round the thread goes

File: 1494516191124.png (2MB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1000x1000px

>>8962933
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKSpZPByD0

He's pretty explicit about how fields are likely here to stay.

Sure, any given model is prone to refinement, but if you have multiple independent models derived using different approaches (QM and R) reduce well to a single model (QFT) than it's hugely likely it's at least on the right path. This path is fundamentally based on waves/ fields.

Being fundamentally wrong in its most refined respects is quite the stretch from being incomplete...

File: 1494527844016.jpg (73KB, 426x436px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 426x436px

>>8963042
>Who's to say that reality isn't just one big thing that doesn't fit into the part-whole composition our reductive minds so arbitrarily synthesize of it?

You just did. Your doing something rather than everything doing everything just did. You seeing one apple instead of all you's seeing all apples (is this getting through?).

The question isn't whether or not "one big thing fits into the part-whole composition" but how?

>>8965712
Do particles correspond with the intersection between dynamic fields?

>>8962094
>Do atoms really exist?
Sort of.

>>8962131
>>ADD more electrons
>>get a NEGATIVE charge
>>TAKE AWAY electrons
>>get a POSITIVE charge

That is Benjamin Franklins fault. He knew something was flowing with electricity, but he got the charge and direction backwards.

>>8962094
Chemists have improved your daily life exponemtially. Most of the materials in what you use everyday were invented by chemists in the past 100 years. So yes atoms are very real. Now what has the physicist-shaman done for you, common man? Fed you lies about "quarks" and "gluons" which they say come in "flavors"? Make no mistake, the falsehoods here are the physicist's religion, not the chemist's science.

>>8962105
>>8962113
>>8962110
>>8962186
Have we ever directly observed atoms or did we simply construct a model and assume that things are structured by a multitude of this model?

>>8967176
see >>8965803

>>8967198
What exactly are they? Particles?

File: 000.jpg (4MB, 7121x6783px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 7121x6783px

Nothing exists besides material that is indivisible and is not composed of smaller parts. One could look at only the fundamental particles that constitute the universe and they would be looking at all that exists.

>>8962131

"positive" and "negative" are just labels, like "north" and "south" on magnets.

>>8967052

No, particles are "peaks" in probability waves propagating thru fields.

>>8967205

Particles are subatomic. An atom is too small to see, that goes double for particles.

File: 1494289498050.gif (3MB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x200px

>>8962094
the milky way is an atom and our sun is an electron

>>8967205
light at a frequency resonating with the density of the air