I was just ponderings of the universe today and I thought to myself. If we have never seen an atom because it's far too small to see. How do we know that they are even real. I mean there could be this theory that is completely fool proof. The periodic table of elements might work perfectly and all the groups and rows and stuff might work perfectly but what if the atom is nothing like what we originally thought. It could change the idea of physics. To my understanding quantum physics (or something like that) depends primarily on the eratic movements of the electron. What if there isnt an electron? Protons are positively charges and neutrons are negative. Just laying it on the table. I do not believe that the idea of the atom is incorrect, just saying if it was wrong what would we be left with?

Reply

until now, as my knowledge, the scientist still modelling for the atom.
of course that is just a model, not the extact what is the atom, what kind of thing the atom is..
is it right?

Reply

Protons have a charge of +1e, and neutrons have a charge of 0 (i.e. no charge). If neutrons were negative then all atoms would have a negative charge overall and repel each other, making pretty much everything a gas.



There have been a variety of theories for what the atom is over hundreds of years. The actual word "atom" comes from the Greek átomos, meaning indivisible. Back then it was believed the atom was the smallest thing and it was impossible to break it down any smaller (although the atom had not been discovered, they believed in philosophical smallest particles).

In the 1660s Boyle came up with the idea that everything was composed of atoms rather than the four elements of Earth, Air, Fire and Water. In the late 1700s the idea of elements was introduced, to mean a substance that couldn't be broken down using standard chemistry. In the early 1800 John Dalton suggested how molecules could form, by linking these atoms of elements to one another.

Only in 1897 did we finally discover that the atom was not the smallest thing. Thomson discovered the electron and proposed that the atom was made from a blob of positive charge, with these negative electrons in it. This was known as the 'plum pudding' model.

Then, in 1909 the famous gold foil experiment from Marsden, Rutherford and Geiger proved the plum pudding model wrong. They proposed a dense blob of positive charge (the nucleus) being orbited by negative electrons. We pretty much use this model today, with a few modifications to include electron energy levels and other things required by quantum mechanics, such as things like quarks and leptons.

So, we've been wrong a fair few times in the past and it has not made a massive difference. At the time, each theory made sense until there was a better experiment or a better explanation. This may well happen with our current ideas about what the atom contains. It would certainly require a rethink of the basics of physics, chemistry and even parts of biology if it turns out to be wrong, but at the moment it is the best idea available.

 

 

 

Reply

Technically, in science, all explanations are theories. So many things that are accepted as true could easily turn out to be false. That's the beauty of the scientific method and objective thought; by being open to the possibility that what we believe may not be correct, we can keep evolving our knowledge, hopefully getting closer and closer to the truth. I'm less bothered by the idea that what we know is wrong than by the closed-mindedness of some people who refuse to believe anything other than what they've been told. We NEED to acknowledge that most things are uncertain.

So it's good to see you're questioning things

Reply

If a proton's charge is +1e, and an electron's charge is -1/1836e (according to mass), wouldn't everything be positive overall and be a gas as well? Or is the electron's charge -1e as well?

I'm not that good at particle physics. I didn't really learn that much.

Reply

e is a constant, called the elementary charge, which describes the charge on a proton. It is equal to 1.602x10^-19 Coulombs. Obviously, +1e is much easier to write down and work with. An electron has an equal charge, but negative, so has a charge of -1.602x10^-19 Coulombs, or -1e. You are correct with the mass, however. A proton's rest mass is 1.672x10^-27 kg, and an electron's rest mass is 9.109x10^-31 kg. Charge and mass are not related though. This is why they have the same magnitude of charge, but vary greatly in size and mass.

Reply

Why this pessimistic ideas. You don't see the gravity but feel it and agree on Newton or Galileo laws.

You don't see the magnetism but you see what magnet is doing. You don't see the electricity but you feel its effect and use it in lightening, heating, power, cars, trams, trains,etc etc.

You don't see the TV emissions to your TV nor the talking waves to your phone or mobile phone. You don't see how the emails, messages or webpages come to your computer.

The same is about Atomic Model or Theory. You said by yourself that the periodic table of elements might working perfectly....then why this "WHAT IF...". It is not the first Atomic Theory and may be is not the last. But until u find something can't explained by this theory and introduce us with another better which can explain WHAT THE CURRENT THEORY is explaining plus this case where it failed then we recognize yours and say with you : that something [but not as you said every] was wrong and here the replacement to this theory.

Please don't use the word "every" for some or in your case NONE. If you are student you have to try hard to understand what they are teaching you . Neither you or your teacher will change what in the books. If you or your teacher want to change some , you have to prepare your Thesis and submit it to committee to discuss it.

Atomic theory as well relativity theory and electromagnetism theory and it is nearly impossible to imagine them ever being falsified. Atomic theory are so well-established. It has survived many empirical testing reduction without being contradicted.

The current Atomic theory is a standing scientific theory after Dalton .It was developed my the time and ending with the current terminology and tables. It is scientific theory because:

1. atomic theory is simple unifying the description of elements in the world and suggest the formulation of it as combinations to

2. Atomic theory is logically consistent (internally and externally)

3. Atomic theory is useful (describes and explains observed phenomena). We fellow the chemical reactions successfully so far. We produce compounds Evey moment and everywhere.We apply it in nuclear energy generator to generate electricity . We use it in producing the atomic bombing and they testing it successfully. Also it use successfully in medicine and treatment to diseases like cancer etc.

4. Atomic theory is logically " and " Empirically tested and based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments . A theory which cannot be tested empirically is useless for researchers.

5. Atomic theory leads to successful prediction predictions e.g preaching Uranium, the power of the bomb .

6a. Atomic theory has used in reproductions of phenomenas were and are happening in space and universe.
6b. Atomic theory is falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid). For example saying "This atoms has how many proton ..." will be invalid if we find an atom of a matter has more protons or the atomic weight is different than the theory said. When a theory is falsifiable then it scientific theory.

7. Atomic theory has explicit boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not particular data are or are not relevant to verification or falsification. [Newton's laws of motion is not valid to very big speed and Euclidean Geometry valid in small distance where assumed the area is flat. Otherwise we need spherical geometry.

8. The current Atomic theory is Progressive i.e. it superior to theories which people have offered in the past . In the same time, it
i). meet or surpass all of the criteria set by its predecessors
ii) it can explain all of the data gathered under previous relevant theories in terms either of fact or artifact (no anomalies allowed)
iii) be consistent with all preexisting ancillary theories that already have established scientific validity

Because the atomic theory has these character then it is Scientific Theory. If you have doubt then go to evolution theory where is no test or experiment or equations or mass or rays can be measured or collected.

True Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof, a "proven" scientific theory is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. But you have to remember that
The validity of a hypothesis does not stand or fall based on just a few confirmations or contradictions, but on the totality of the evidence. A hypothesis should not be considered falsified until thorough testing has produced multiple lines of positive evidence indicating that the hypothesis is truly inconsistent with the empirical data.

Reply

scientific method is not open minded. theories that you cannot do the scienctific method is debatable. even the big bang theory is still not fact and is still a theory because you cannot test it. one fact is the newtons laws you can test it and same result will come. another point that the scientific method is not open minded.

scientific method
to be considered fact = conclusions must be always the same with the set of variables given.
the theory can be done with the scientific method.

atomic theory for me as stating that it is the smallest unit is false. it is still a theory even if facts came about with that theory.

the periodic table is a fact. one cannot just guess the proton form the neutron. one fact is : some elements are discovered even if there is no physical evidence i forgot the scientist and the element but this is true. it was still later that they found that element.

atomic theory is generally saying that there are smaller things than the protons and neutrons.

Reply

I guess that we know there are electrons because of the forces that objects put themselves unto other objects. But in a way you have a point. We have never seen an electron before. And when we have tried to see and electron by predicting where it would be, the electron turned up somewhere else. This is the really freaky thing: Electrons can never be seen because if you look for them by trying to predict where they will be, they will turn up in completely different places, almost as if they know you are looking for them.
I'm pretty sure this is correct. If it isn't then I'm in the ballpark. I have forgot allot about this stuff but if you are interested in this kind of thing you should check out string theory- pretty damn interesting.

Reply