/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12501303]

What's the proof that atoms even exist?

[Anonymous No.12501313]

Scientists say so. If you believe them of course.

[Anonymous No.12501330]

>>12501303
They don't, atoms are just the evolution of quantum mechanical mathematics!

[Anonymous No.12501333]

>>12501313
So an argument from authority?

[Anonymous No.12501336]

>>12501303
I think Leibniz proved it using analytic reasoning

[Anonymous No.12501339]

>>12501330
and the bonds between atoms are just the coupling of x quantum mechanical systems

[Anonymous No.12501341]

>>12501303

[Anonymous No.12501345]

>>12501303
X-ray detraction, atomic force microscopy, law of multiple proportions, tunneling electron microscopy

[Anonymous No.12501351]

>>12501303

[Anonymous No.12501356]

>>12501345

[Anonymous No.12501359]

>>12501345
but has op studied the mathematical way of describing this x-ray diffraction? In my EE course I'm currently taking we are using differential equations to model these phenomena. Computers can run all these calculations quickly using software like lammps that is difficult to compile but rewarding when you learn to code in it.

[Anonymous No.12501375]

>>12501303
https://dberard.com/home-built-stm/
you can't trust /sci/, better to make your own home-built stm and verify them yourself, just to be sure

[Anonymous No.12501378]

>>12501375

[Anonymous No.12501379]

>>12501333
Are there any other arguments?

[Anonymous No.12501395]

>>12501379
mathematical description of atoms?

[Anonymous No.12501402]

Could you splice an atom off with surgical tools meant for atoms? Like skinning a chicken or cutting off cosmetic angles on a nose like plastic surgery?

[Anonymous No.12501409]

>>12501402
no, but you can collide atoms together at speeds near the speed of light which will release particles that have very short half-lives

[Anonymous No.12501413]

>>12501409
new particles, with new characteristics in weight, mass, spin, and charge but energy is and always will be conserved

[Anonymous No.12501422]

>>12501379
but what I'm trying to tell u is it's more intelligent to think of atoms as just wavefunctions with evolutional properties.

[Anonymous No.12501423]

>>12501351
retard, electronic microscopes dont even go on the atomic level

[Anonymous No.12501431]

>>12501409
if u collide them together doesnt that mean u successfully broke them down into smaller pieces? could those released particles be collided again into smaller pieces?

[Anonymous No.12501437]

>>12501431
theoretically yes, but the amount of energy needed to do that would almost be equivalent to the energy that was released during the big bang

[Anonymous No.12501442]

>>12501437
and the likelihood that 2 particles of that size collide together is 1 in 1 sextillion

[Anonymous No.12501446]

>>12501437
how do you take an individual atom? more precisely, what was the process of taking one individual atom out of some material and placing it in the LHC and colliding it near the speed of light?

[Anonymous No.12501449]

>>12501446
an electric field strips hydrogen atoms (consisting of one proton and one electron) of their electrons. Electric fields along the accelerator switch from positive to negative at a given frequency, pulling charged particles forwards along the accelerator to then be collided at another part of the particle accelerator

[Reisen's Physecs (PhysX) No.12501451]

>>12501303
"Atoms", IONS, are loci of turnover
which can overwhelm other ions depriving them of their turnover intake.
Anions are just prey fat with excess "electrons" PIECES OF ETHER for hungry hunter cations.
The stronger L ion gets the fatter prey.
The illusion of these particles all being the same size is due to stealing thresholds:
They can only take them once they have the power to do so along stairstep threshold intervals.
It drives them from their prey anions, and "molecules" change arrangement.
All objects eat this way and non-objects don't exist.
Balloons can't eat like the big dogs, so they get pushed away from their potential meal(s).

[Anonymous No.12501457]

>>12501446
and another thing you should keep in mind when studying the collision of protons in a particle accelerator is that it is known that protons are made up of more fundamental parts called quarks and depending on the orientation of these 2 up quarks and 1 down quark. The behavior of how quarks evolve in time is still not understood but this is all modeled using the evolution of a perfectly tuned quantum mechanical model on a super computer. What I mean by tuned is adjusted until the probabilities that the particles release the waveform that is seen in reality. Which is how we knew the Higgs boson was real before we even observed it!

[Anonymous No.12501491]

>>12501303
Nuclear bombs (both fission and fusion) and nuclear reactors wouldn't work if atoms weren't real.
Your smartphone, and anything else with semiconductors in it wouldn't exist, including the computer you're shitposting on right now, and the entire Internet.
Hell, even vacuum tube technology wouldn't work if there was no such thing as atoms, because if there are no atoms then there are no electrons, protons, or neutrons. *Electricity* wouldn't exist, *lightning*, which is a purely natural phenomenon, wouldn't exist. *Your BRAIN* wouldn't exist.

[Anonymous No.12501512]

>>12501491
have you ever seen a nuclear bomb?

[Anonymous No.12501514]

>>12501491
have you ever seen a nuclear fission?

[Anonymous No.12501525]

>>12501512
have u ever heard of radiation left over from decades ago because of the physics of nuclear bombs?

[Anonymous No.12501528]

>>12501491
>if there are no atoms then there are no electrons, protons, or neutrons. *Electricity* wouldn't exist
the electronic wavefunctions are spread out in a metal. you imagine the current is carried by a classical gas of electrons and that's just not so, foolish child

[Anonymous No.12501532]

>>12501303
Investigations on the Theory of the Brownian Movement
A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 17, 1905, p549
On the Theory of the Brownian Movement
A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik, (4),19,1906, pp378-381

[Anonymous No.12501535]

>>12501491
>*Your BRAIN* wouldn't exist.
explained perfectly well by diffusing charge and change in chemical concentrations to fire and recharge the axon, no atoms required, molecules maybe

[Anonymous No.12501562]

>>12501535
>he tries to make us believe that chemistry can exist without an understanding of physics, which can't explain chemical reactions unless they can quantify the properties matter at the ATOMIC LEVEL
See pic related for what I think of your weak effort in this thread

[El Arcón No.12501584]

>>12501532
Nice citation.

[Anonymous No.12501630]

>>12501562
>with my single bait image I ignore thine thruths
the whole thread is laughing at you, anon

[Anonymous No.12501660]

>>12501584
hiya tooker, what happened to 2occatl.net? Can you rehost it or provide an offline copy? I'd like to archive

[Anonymous No.12501667]

brownian motion for one

[Anonymous No.12501705]

>>12501359
Lol what? You don't need to be able to solve the mathematics to appreciate that that x rays after tiny and so to diffract then you need soothing equally tiny

[El Arcón No.12501737]

>>12501660

[Anonymous No.12501751]

>>12501423
correct, those are obviously hamsters
ty anon for blessing us with your wisdom

[Anonymous No.12501900]

>>12501351
okay but zoom in further retard and you will see they aren't real.

[Anonymous No.12501927]

>>12501341
/thread

Unless you think that shit is doctored then I don't think anything will convince you.

[Anonymous No.12501959]

>>12501341
Lmao, you can clearly see the atoms (that look like little balls, lol) but the background is completely flat and featureless. Obviously fake.

[Anonymous No.12501971]

>>12501737
this is far inferior to the site, is it a money thing? do you have an offline copy anywhere?

[Anonymous No.12501975]

>>12501959
>t. Faggot, esq.

[Anonymous No.12502393]

>>12501959
Most atoms are too small to see with light (photons) so you have to feel them instead like a blind person. The background is featureless because they filtered it out or didn't touch with their atomic cane.

[Anonymous No.12502424]

>>12501303
It follows from the Axiom of Foundation that atoms don't exist.

[Anonymous No.12502449]

>>12501303
None. Atoms are a model that fits our experiments. Whether they are real or not is strictly philosophical. Basically there is no other model for matter that fits the experiments as good as atoms do. Best current fit, that is all.

[Anonymous No.12503681]

>>12501303
the nuclear bomb

[Anonymous No.12503698]

>>12501535
>no atoms required, molecules maybe
??

[Anonymous No.12503709]

>>12501423
maybe do the slightest amount of research

[Anonymous No.12504915]

I've only used Vim, but I know that Atom is available for download at:
https://atom.io/

[Anonymous No.12504960]

>>12501535
>"""believes""" in molecules
>doesn't """believe""" molecules are made of up ATOMS
/b/rainlets /b/elong in >>>/b/