[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 134 KB, 477x611, 1296633476254.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3624644 [Reply] [Original]

So my chem professor just sent us an email:

"The Food for Thought questions are not graded -- just a way to call on good brains.

Food for Thought #1:

I hope that you can say with confidence "I accept on the basis of experimental evidence that all materials in the world are composed of atoms." What experimental evidence would you show to a friend who is not ready to make this statement?

Restriction: You may not use the words electron, proton, or neutron in your answer."

Are you man enough /sci/?

>> No.3624647

>>3624644
Brownian motion.

>> No.3624658

>>3624644
What about quantum particles?

>> No.3624661

Spectroscopy?

>> No.3624683

That statement can not be made unless someone has directly examined everything in the entire world, simultaneously.

And even then only for that exact moment.

>> No.3624687
File: 105 KB, 589x757, 1303571789724.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

You bake a pie and it's floppy when you start, but then you apply heat and it's crumbly, but good.

>> No.3624684

>>3624647
This basically. What do you think of the following, albeit stupid, experiment. Get a realllly fine layer of water in a jar, add a drop of mercury into the centre. Over time the mercury will disperse evenly, thus must be composed of lots of tiny little things that jiggle.

>> No.3624692

>>3624683
are you saying it's impossible to prove atoms exist?

>> No.3624696

Well, we have yet to discover "materials" that AREN'T composed of atoms. So, on the basis of experimental evidence, statement is true.

>> No.3624700

Surely ask your friend why he is not ready to make that statement?

It may be because he is a top-tier string theorist and believes all materials are fundamentally composed of strings, in which case you would need to prove MOND

It may be because he is a philosophical skeptic or idealist, in which case you would need to demonstrate to his satisfaction that a materialist framework is superior to his phenomenal one

It may be because he is a scientific anti-realist, in which case you just need to have a discussion with him about what the terms 'atom' and 'evidence' mean

Or it may be because he needs a higher standard of proof in a 'normal' framework, in which case why not just duplicate the Rutherford scattering experiment?

>> No.3624702

You tell him he`s a faggot and that he should have payed attention in school. If he DID pay attention in school and chooses the good old "Put fingers in my ears and close eyes and scream" technique aka being a faggot... well... then he`s a brainless faggot.>>3624644

>> No.3624705
File: 24 KB, 530x367, 1290122510438.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>Get a material
>cut it in half
>repeat
>repeat
>repeat
>...
>repeat
when you can't do it anymore you got an atom

>> No.3624707

Also, you need to decide what you mean by 'atom'

I am a crap physicist, so when I hear 'atom' I think something like 'little ball of matter surrounded by electrons', which Rutherford scattering demonstrates. If you have a more sophisticated model of the atom, you need a correspondingly more sophisticated experiment to demonstrate its proof

>> No.3624709

>>3624705
Unless you end up with quarks, then you're fucked

>> No.3624711 [DELETED] 
File: 30 KB, 200x264, democritus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3624705

>mfw you think that's your idea

>> No.3624714

>>3624705
>nuclear fission

>> No.3624716

I would show him the periodic table of elements, point out where sodium, hydrogen, and oxygen are on the table and then do an experiment of putting 500mg or so of sodium into a bucket of water.

It would be pretty hard to explain the process without using electron, proton or neutron though.

>> No.3624721

>>3624709

That's a good point. The OP question goes on the assumption that all materials (i.e. matter) in the world are made of atoms, but matter can come in other forms. In fact, we know that not all matter in the world is composed of atoms - some of it is in the form of ions, some electrons etc.

>> No.3624727

>>3624716

So your explanation would be something like:
"Atoms are tiny bits of energy, and since this physical object turned into energy, it must have been made of energy?"

>> No.3624729
File: 45 KB, 436x435, 1273396019233.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>I hope that you can say with confidence "I accept on the basis of experimental evidence that all materials in the world are composed of atoms.
>You may not use the words electron, proton, or neutron in your answer.

How am I supposed to define an atom if I cannot use those words? How are we supposed to prove or disprove atoms if we cannot define what they are?

>> No.3624731
File: 34 KB, 428x451, 1302190037737.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

no one mentioned evaporation yet

>> No.3624735

>>3624721
Ions are atoms and electrons let's say in plasma aren't "materials". They need to define materials.

>> No.3624740

>>3624727
sort of, I suppose.

>> No.3624739

>>3624644
And I could claim that the physical world is composed of information. You will only get data out of experimental results and you can build better and better models. An absolutely materialist model (which assumes absolutely real, indevisible, unchangable "objects") will fail somewhat when you get to quantum mechanics or lower (whatever other mathematical model). In which case either the world is just arithmetical/computational (informational). The other option is that the world has some uncomputable topology, in which it's still mathematical (some consistent structure). Some other people may also prefer various magical ideas (such as some matter having epiphenomenal properties), but I can hardly accept them myself.

>> No.3624746

>>3624735

They really do. If the definition of materials doesn't include non-atom stuff then it's a circular definition.

>> No.3624748

>>3624731
What would that prove?

>> No.3624752

I'd say neutron star, but I'm not allowed to. sadface.png

>> No.3624758

>>3624735

I think since words like 'electron' and 'proton' aren't allowed, it would be useful in this exercise to distinguish between immutable atoms, and ions. The lines between the two can be quite blurry anyway - a proton in some contexts is considered a hydrogen ion, but is it also a hydrogen atom? What about heavier element ions, under extreme circumstances like all the electrons removed - it's certainly a nucleus, could well be considered an ion, but is it that an atom too?

>> No.3624777

>>3624705
>The Subtle Knifw

>> No.3624786

>>3624777
Duuuuuuuuude

>> No.3624795

>>3624777
>Reading childrens' books

>> No.3624799
File: 133 KB, 400x316, atoms.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>2011
>Not just showing them a picture

Seriously, you aspies over think everything.

>> No.3624855

I guess the first step would be to define the question better. So first off, we can say an atom is the most basic unit of matter for which chemical properties are maintained. So the statement then becomes "All materials are made up of units which are the most basic in which chemical properties are retained". Which is hard to come up with an experiment for. The easiest one would be to say that it is possible to break down any material into its constituent element, and any demonstration of this fact would be evidence in support of the claim, but as a matter of practicality it's much more difficult to actually show this than it is to say it. To do it properly, you'd have to do this with a large number of materials, and you'd have to then show that the constituents of an atom do not, themselves, have chemical reactivity.

So I guess you could show your friend elemental composition analyses for the first part, but I don't think you could actually discuss the second part without using the names of the particles.

>> No.3624865

>>3624855

I forgot to say that you'd have to demonstrate that the elements are not themselves divisible by chemical means.

>> No.3624876

DO WE EVEN KNOW IF ATOMS EXIST?!?! THIS THREAD HAS FILLED MY MIND WITH FUCK

HAVE I BEEN TAUGHT NOTHING BUT LIES?!

>> No.3624884

cleverly disguised homework thread is cleverly disguised

>> No.3624885

>>3624876
They exist as a concept and they work well as a model for a wide variety of applications, however they are not 'ontologically fundamental'. Newton's classical mechanics doesn't stop being right (at the right scales in the right conditions) when you reach quantum mechanics or general relativity.

>> No.3624888

>>3624876
Relax, first reply (>>3624647) proved the existence of tiny particles as building blocks of material.

>> No.3624889

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment

>> No.3624901

> things you can't see, taste, touch, or feel exist
bleh, it's always been such a questionable metaphysic but people keep pushing it. Yet when you push them back, they always retreat to instrumentalism. Why not just stay in instrumentalism the whole time, and stop reifying things-in-themselves, which everyone admits we can have no experience of? It doesn't matter if you call them "atoms" or "quarks" now, you're still as pathetic as Kant ever was.

>> No.3624910

>>3624889

It's REALLY impossible to discuss that experiment without using the word "electron".

>> No.3624911

>all materials in the world are composed of atoms

>implying neutron stars do not exist

>> No.3624922

>>3624911
they said world, there's probably not a neutron star on earth.

>> No.3624919

>>3624692
im saying its impossible to prove that everything in the world is made of atoms.

Of course you can accept it for the sake of having a premise to work with, but you dont need any evidence to accept any idea at all for the sake of having a premise to work with.

Now, proving that "all known materials were made out of atoms the last time we checked them" would be easier

>> No.3624935

>>3624922
in the world is nearly always synonymous for in the universe
should have stated "on Earth" then

>> No.3624939

>>3624901

Herp derp. I guess since we can't know stuff we don't directly observe, virtually all criminal cases are unsolvable, and modern medicine is just a stab in the dark. Good thing society isn't run by philosophy undergrads.

>> No.3624941

>>3624910

How uncreative are you? Just substitute it with "negatively charged particle", or something else that clearly gets across the same idea.

>> No.3624962

>>3624939
Wow, what? It's like you don't even know what you're talking about.

By the way, the position originated with a physicist.

>> No.3624969

>>3624941

I think that kind of violates the spirit of the question, but fair enough. Though I think it is worth mentioning that that experiment is actually regarding the composition of the atom and doesn't really do anything to prove that all materials are made up of atoms. You can fire all sorts of elements at the foil and make a convincing argument that all elements are made up of atoms perhaps, but you would still have to demonstrate that all materials are made up of elements.

>> No.3624976

Neutron stars aren't made out of "material"? The more you know...

>> No.3624983

>>3624962

What exactly are you trying to say here?

>> No.3625001

>>3624983
That the person who responded to my post doesn't understand the point of instrumentalism, and that if they can't be bothered to spend ten seconds reading a summary on wikipedia, I can't be bothered to do it for them on /sci/.

Also, that they're an asshole, and dumb, and whatever other invective.

>> No.3625040

>>3625001

It would definitely help if you didn't obfuscate with niche terminology.

>> No.3625042

>>3624939
Which is why conviction only requires it to be beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. And why doctors have to take each patient into unique consideration

>> No.3625048

>>3625040
Just because /sci/ducks are uneducated in broader aspects of life and debates over the years over shit they take for granted without critical thought doesn't mean it is niche terminology.

>> No.3625085

A random Anon's response:

Professor, I can not say "I accept on the basis of experimental evidence that all materials in the world are composed of atoms." with confidence for I have not experimented with all the materials in the world. I am steeped in my own ignorance and unintentionally oblivious about the world. I do say "I accept on the basis of experimental evidence that all materials in the world are NOT composed of atoms." with absolute confidence because I see things. I can not see in the dark, only in the light.

>> No.3625093

>>3625048

You've been referring ontology, metaphysics, and instrumentalism. All of those are terminology specific to philosophy. You're using them accordingly, too. You're also arguing these points on a board (at least theoretically) focused on science and in a thread about experimental design. It should be fairly obvious that your audience wouldn't be familiar with these terms in any but the broadest possible sense, and your attempt to deny it is telling of your motives.

You see, there's a funny thing about people. If you gather a group of people and ask a volunteer a series of questions to which only you know the answers, the crowd will think of you as 'smarter' and think the victim 'dumber' because they fail to adjust for the fairness of the questions. What you're doing here is attempting to use the same cognative bias to inflate your ego by disrupting a thread with an irrelevant discussion of freshman philosophy which you KNOW the vast majority of this board will know nothing about. What this does not do, however, is make your arguments sophisticated, insightful, or even valid. It just makes you a sad, pathetic troll desperately wishing for an extra hug from mommy.

>> No.3625095

>>3625093

I like you.

>> No.3625105

>>3625093
>knowing science
>not knowing philosophy

Troubling times.

>> No.3625111
File: 110 KB, 1024x640, 1314172201086.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Explain it in french.

>> No.3625115

>>3625105
>knowing philosophy
>not knowing ventilation perfusion scintigraphy for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism

>> No.3625117

>>3625093
There were multiple people in this thread that you talked to, you are incorrectly assuming they are the same person.

However, I agree that we both (or maybe more than 2 people) made the mistake in assuming people understand what we're talking about. This mistake: lesswrong.com/lw/kg/expecting_short_inferential_distances

>> No.3625119

>>3625048

Wow. Are you aware of how pompous that sounds? Take a look at yourself.

>> No.3625120

>>3625115
If i knew what that was im sure I would agree with you.

>> No.3625121

>>3625117

That was actually my first post in that discussion. I just found the comment so egregious that I had to say something.

>> No.3625124

>>3625120
Troubling times.

>> No.3625134

>>3625124
Indeed.

>> No.3625137

>>3625093
Actually, such an understanding of the semantics of theories and experiments---what they mean and how we use them---is completely relevant to the OP. It is not bullying the audience to expect them to expend minimal effort to follow a line of thought regarding propositions like "there is evidence that these things called 'atoms' exist." I am not assuming I am better than others when I talk this way; indeed, I am assuming we are equals, and that they are fully capable of taking this discussion away from naive realism without a problem.

One cannot easily convince someone with evidence of existence until it is clear what they consider evidence of existence of things not otherwise amendable to the senses. And if our own opinions on the matter are not clear, then how could we hope to understand theirs?

Is your bar so low for yourself that merely encountering an unfamiliar term is sufficient for you to shut down your critical facilities?

>> No.3625154

>>3625137
So you're saying the 'friend' in OP is a philosopher? I wouldn't bother explaining anything to him then.

>> No.3625156

>>3625119
I am aware of how pompous it sounds. It's striking that the poster I responded to, implying others on /sci/ are so dumb that they can't follow a conversation when a new word comes up, didn't draw your ire, but when I ran with the thought, it did.

Anyway, >>3625137

>> No.3625205

>>3625137

Assuming you were the author of >>3624901 then it should be extremely clear to you that this would NOT be comprehensible to at least a sizable portion of the intended audience, as it would require a familiarity with instrumentalism, metaphysics, and the works of Kant. This is what I mean by an unfair question. This is posted in a board dedicated to science and mathematics, while it is quite clearly outside of either and would not reasonably be expected to be known to the majority of the posters here. Expecting everyone else to look up the terminology to understand what the fuck you're talking about isn't reasonable when you're posting on a board which does not normally concern itself with that field or such terminology.

While a discussion of the meaning of theories in a scientific context and their use is indeed a relevant one, framing the discussion in terms obviously outside the knowledge of your audience and claiming that they're the ones with the problem is childish. It would be like going to a group of people talking about architectural movements and talking about damped harmonic oscillations and resonance in second order differential equations and then getting pissy because none of them bothered to look up what I was talking about.

>> No.3625214

>>3625205
Perhaps you find it interesting to engage in conversations where you already know everything under discussion with other people who also know everything under discussion that you know. I find such conversations pointless, but that's my problem.

Enjoy the rest of your thread, I'll bow out.

>> No.3625219

>>3625214

“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”

>> No.3625222

not all material is made out of atoms.

>> No.3625267

>>3625214

Once again, it was not the content of the discussion that was the problem, it was the way in which you presented it. While it would have been fine had you not used that terminology, it spoiled the potential discussion by excluding the majority of the board from it. My example of second order differential equations and architecture is similar. While I am talking about the necessity for form to follow function in that large building must be designed in such a way as to make sure that winds have little chance of causing them to shake violently from side to side until they crash to the ground, it is completely unclear to the audience that I am referring to this because even if they do know that skyscrapers sway somewhat with the winds as part of their design, they are most likely NOT familiar with damped harmonic oscilators or the idea of resonance in second order differential equations. It thusly made it impossible for them to engage in a discussion of the fact. While had I given the more detailed explanation I gave above, while it took a little more time for me, it would have allowed for such a discussion to take place.

It is clear to me that not everyone attempting to discuss what brought me to make my initial comment was intentionally doing this, but it is still something that should be considered when trying to have a discussion. Claiming that this requirement constitutes a need for one to "know everything" being discussed is ridiculous. They may well not be informed of the content of your argument, but if you phrase it in a way that is inaccessible to the audience then they will certainly remain ignorant of the point you were trying to make.

>> No.3625302

>>3625267
I have yielded. Stop disrupting the thread. Even if I won't contribute, I can still read it.

>> No.3625577

burp