[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Atoms as complex systems.



Judith,
 after 50 years of having churned out a lot of new (macro?)-molecules and their industrial applications I came to the conclusion that I don't believe in them. It is a nice setup of theories, supported by measurements explained into that theory, calculations into matching equations etc. but is it any close to what "really" is the case?  A water molecule does not consist of 2H amd 1O atoms, it
is an entity with no relationship in characteristics to them and it
has to be destroyed to get data assignable to those 'atoms' as originally being there. (Close enough to QM?)
 
Spectroscopy is a nice explanation of irrelevant findings. My macromolecules were 'simpler' than the bios, and yet too much involved for any direct information - diffusion, secondary forces, the various electrical/potential interferences, chemical changes, etc.
So: are there atoms, really, or we make some observations leading to an explanation including such formations? We may be wrong and our data refer to a 'pattern' of observables which is only part of what's really going on (and hence the paradoxes, axioms, givens).
If I compare the current vision about 'matter' (macro/micro) with the vision 200 or 500 years ago, I can think with awe of an image due to the knowledge (belief?) 500 years from now.
 
Or is our (reductionistic) science complete? Do we know it all?
Forces (interconnections) 'inside' the atom? assumed postulates that 'must be' to validate the hypothetical "truth". Particles with Greek names? waves? Spin? EPR? the 'Cat'? Superstrings?
 
Btw. if you think about it: our "stellar" material (all of it) is product of (atomic?) evolution - in those supernovas and other astronomical sources we originate from. The fact that 'today' (in ~3b years) we see no change in those patterns we observe within our 'scientific' model, does not mean a thing. As a matter of fact: we do see changes: radioactive mutation in atomic kinds, buildup and spontaneous decompositions, (we just did not detect the causal determinism of them) - and we have no idea what's going on "atomistically" in other 'parts' of the world.  - Fortunately.
We don't even know what is some miles below our feet - or - what kind of 'life' may be in the (volcanic? or not) debth of the oceans.
 
John M
----- Original Message -----
To: ***
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: Atoms as complex systems.

Hi Jerry,
 
I agree with the statement that there's no "evolution" inside an atom (although I don't know whether I would attribute evolution to "symmetric breaking" or even asymmetric breaking...) My father saw a big difference between evolution and other kinds of development.
 
I also agree with your assessment of the organization of an atom:
Inside an atom there are interconnections of interconnections and no
interconnection is more fundamental than the other.
You're speaking of relations, right? You're saying that the "interconnections" are at least as important as the particles? Which is basically the same as saying that, in spite of the fact that atoms have all different sorts and numbers of various particles, we are able to recognize them all as "atoms" because of some common aspect-- an aspect which clearly plays the critical role in making atoms "atoms"... namely; their organization. That sounds suspiciously like a description of Rosennean complexity to me.
 
At the subatomic level, the
system is neither simple nor complex.
 
I mostly agree with this, too: At the sub-atomic level, it's not an "atom". It's just the parts. This is what we get when we fractionate an atom. That's what sub-atomic means. It refers to the pre-organization pieces/components/parts/ingredients....
 
But I would argue that we don't know anything about the nature of the organization of any of those components other than that complexity is built into the system of space/time/other(?) that we call "the universe".
 
Judith

----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry Zhu
To: ***
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:26 AM
Subject: [ROSEN] Quantum Physics

Judith said "an atom is a complex system"

I disagree with this.  At the subatomic level, the
system is neither simple nor complex. There is no
things inside only tendency to exist.  it is statistic
system of potentiality governed by nonlocal variables.
There is no evolution inside an atom since no
symmetric breaking. Inside an atom there are
interconnections of interconnections and no
interconnection is more fundamental than the other.
Our understanding of it depends on what is in our
mind.

Jerry


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com