Do atoms exist?

Sefirosu · 24 Jun 2012 at 11:41

Bear with me...

My old philosophy teacher said that he didn't believe atoms actually existed; he said that it was just a convenient way to describe the behaviour of matter, and that they didn't exist as they were described to as such, and furthermore atoms have never been directly observed.

Obviously, I'm assuming this is BS, but what is the main evidence that atoms, electrons and so forth exist?

SlyReaper · 24 Jun 2012 at 11:44

Sefirosu said:
Bear with me...

My old philosophy teacher said that he didn't believe atoms actually existed; he said that it was just a convenient way to describe the behaviour of matter, and that they didn't exist as they were described to as such, and furthermore atoms have never been directly observed.

Obviously, I'm assuming this is BS, but what is the main evidence that atoms, electrons and so forth exist?

They have been directly observed using electron microscopes.

RomanNose · 24 Jun 2012 at 11:44

Hit your hand against the table, matter can be proven to exist by simply doing that.

Blue160 · 24 Jun 2012 at 11:47

Chemistry wouldn't even slightly work if atoms and molecules weren't real things.

RomanNose · 24 Jun 2012 at 11:47

By the way philosophy teachers are not qualified to talk about physics, so next time you have a teacher who goes off on a tangent inform them that they are not qualified to talk about it. Otherwise you are bound to be deceived.

coldfused · 24 Jun 2012 at 11:48

They do exist. Two pieces of evidence that come into mind are Rutherford Scattering as well as the famous IBM logo made with individual atoms and a Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) used to visualise them: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV1003.html

Disco Boy · 24 Jun 2012 at 11:52

Yes, he's a moron.

Castiel · 24 Jun 2012 at 11:54

Sefirosu said:
Bear with me...

My old philosophy teacher said that he didn't believe atoms actually existed; he said that it was just a convenient way to describe the behaviour of matter, and that they didn't exist as they were described to as such, and furthermore atoms have never been directly observed.

Obviously, I'm assuming this is BS, but what is the main evidence that atoms, electrons and so forth exist?

Your old philosophy teacher obviously was not a very good one......I wouldn't take anything they had to say as gospel if I were you, whether it be about atoms or philosophy.

4T5 · 24 Jun 2012 at 11:57

Ignore him & tell him to get a Proper Degree.

semi-pro waster · 24 Jun 2012 at 11:57

RomanNose said:
By the way philosophy teachers are not qualified to talk about physics, so next time you have a teacher who goes off on a tangent inform them that they are not qualified to talk about it. Otherwise you are bound to be deceived.

I'd probably not recommend that approach as the most beneficial way to go about the issue as you might be being unduly offensive but you're right that it's worth bearing in mind when people start to expound theories outwith their area(s) of expertise that they could well be complete bunkum.

LordSplodge · 24 Jun 2012 at 11:59

I've got Science on the phone, they'd like a word with you OP...

Haircut · 24 Jun 2012 at 12:04

RomanNose said:
Hit your hand against the table, matter can be proven to exist by simply doing that.

All that says is that the table exerts a force that you can't put your hand through, not that matter exists.

That could then lead to a debate about what matter actually is though!

RomanNose · 24 Jun 2012 at 12:06

semi-pro waster said:
I'd probably not recommend that approach as the most beneficial way to go about the issue as you might be being unduly offensive but you're right that it's worth bearing in mind when people start to expound theories outwith their area(s) of expertise that they could well be complete bunkum.

Yes but I think it's somewhat different with teachers as they are in a position of trust so should never be doing it. I wouldn't do it to a general member of public but I would really consider complaining if one of my teachers did it.
I did have a teacher who used to do this, but it was just too bs to be believable. He used to go on that he could read minds, but all the students knew it was total ****.

Woden · 24 Jun 2012 at 12:09

Haircut said:
All that says is that the table exerts a force that you can't put your hand through, not that matter exists.

That could then lead to a debate about what matter actually is though!

Or you could use the right microscope and look at the Atoms?

RomanNose · 24 Jun 2012 at 12:12

Haircut said:
All that says is that the table exerts a force that you can't put your hand through, not that matter exists.

That could then lead to a debate about what matter actually is though!

But surely that's the same with rutherford scattering as well, all it's proving is a force around a spherical shape? And not that matter exists. I think that SEM is the best proof though. Not even sure if Rutherford scattering is actually proof the existence of matter at all.

aardvark · 24 Jun 2012 at 12:16

he's an idiot - ironic really as science used to be a branch of philosophy.

DAnDan · 24 Jun 2012 at 12:20

RomanNose said:
But surely that's the same with rutherford scattering as well, all it's proving is a force around a spherical shape? And not that matter exists. I think that SEM is the best proof though. Not even sure if Rutherford scattering is actually proof the existence of matter at all.

Go one up from the SEM and use an STM

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

Haircut · 24 Jun 2012 at 12:20

RomanNose said:
But surely that's the same with rutherford scattering as well, all it's proving is a force around a spherical shape? And not that matter exists. I think that SEM is the best proof though. Not even sure if Rutherford scattering is actually proof the existence of matter at all.

Exactly, that's what I meant by a debate about what matter actually is.
All we can measure are forces and what those forces do to the surroundings and we infer that there exist these things called atoms from the results.

A great book to read on things related to this is: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Lightne...3148/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1340536481&sr=8-2

Written by one of the guys who won a Nobel prize for coming up with Quantum Chromodynamics.
I have an undergraduate physics degree and found it reasonably heavy going (not maths wise, just in concepts), but it's definitely worth a read if you're up for a challenge.

DAnDan · 24 Jun 2012 at 12:25

Haircut said:
Exactly, that's what I meant by a debate about what matter actually is.
All we can measure are forces and what those forces do to the surroundings and we infer that there exist these things called atoms from the results.

A great book to read on things related to this is: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Lightne...3148/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1340536481&sr=8-2

Written by one of the guys who won a Nobel prize for coming up with Quantum Chromodynamics.
I have an undergraduate physics degree and found it reasonably heavy going (not maths wise, just in concepts), but it's definitely worth a read if you're up for a challenge.

But what about accounting for the observations and predictions based on the subatomic particles? Surely they show what's exactly in an atom rather than just how the atom as an overall interacts with stuff. You could then apply the same argument to increasingly smaller and smaller particles though I guess...

Tibbz2 · 24 Jun 2012 at 12:25

4T5 said:
Ignore him & tell him to get a Proper Degree.