Philosophy of Science

What Is an Atom?

William Marias Malisoff

Published Jul 1, 1939• 3 citations

Abstract

For a number of years I have been demonstrating at my seminars that the atom is no longer atomic, that mechanics is no longer mechanistic, and that similar paradoxes of advancing science can be formulated throughout its extent. The point has been reached, however, that a call for a revision of terms or some such reform should be issued. At one time, indeed, I gave a list of terms to be dropped altogether. They refused to be dropped. I ask now: Will they permit themselves to be modified or to be reallocated?

DOI: 10.1086/286556

Related papers

From Electrons and Nuclei to Assemblies of Correlated Atoms

Neil William Ashcroft

What constitutes an atom? The answer may depend on whether you ask a physicist or a chemist. But the complementary views lead to productive overlap in atomic theory. Limiting cases, under high pressures and temperatures, have had a profound impact in a wider context.

Angewandte Chemie International EditionJun 27, 20173 citations

2022 Nobel Prize in Physics and the End of Mechanistic Materialism

Igor Salom

The ideas and results that are in the background of the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics had an immense impact on our understanding of reality. Therefore, it is crucial that these implications reach also the general public, not only the scientists in the related fields of quantum mechanics. The purpose of this review is to attempt to elucidate these revolutionary changes in our worldview that were eventually acknowledged also by the Nobel's committee, and to do it with very few references to mathematical details (which could be even ignored without undermining the take-away essence of the text). We first look into the foundational disputes between Einstein and Bohr about the nature of quantum mechanics, which culminated in the so-called EPR paradox -- the main impetus for all the research that would ensue in this context. Next, we try to explain the statement of the famous Bell's theorem -- the theorem that relocated the Einstain-Bohr discussions from the realm of philosophy and metaphysics to hard-core physics verifiable by experiments (we also give a brief derivation of the theorem's proof). Then we overview the experimental work of the last year's laureates, that had the final say about who was right in the debate. The outcome of these experiments forced us to profoundly revise our understanding of the universe. Finally, we discuss in more detail the implications of such outcomes, and what are the possible ways that our worldviews can be modified to account for the experimental facts. As we will see, the standard mechanist picture of the universe is no longer a viable option, and can be never again. Nowadays, we know this with certainty unusual for physics, that only a strict mathematical theorem could provide.

arXiv:2308.12297Aug 11, 20232 citations

Advancing the Philosophy of Physics

Dean P. Rickles

There are several (general) philosophy of physics textbooks on the market.1 An obvious question to ask at the outset then is: Why another one? In his “Some Philosophical Aspects of Particle Physics”, Michael Redhead bemoans the common practice of philosophers of science of dealing with examples “which are no longer of current research interest in science” ((1980), p. 279). This practice is still common even among many philosophers of physics, and, for the most part, the available textbooks continue to engage in this practice. Generally, one ﬁnds a little spacetime, a little statistical mechanics, and a little quantum theory. Now, these are of course the ‘pillars’ of modern physics, so it is what we should expect to be covered in any textbook on the philosophy of physics worth its salt (and, indeed, they are well represented in this book). However, the issues that are dealt with are usually very old fashioned and very limited in scope: ‘spacetime’ means ‘the twins paradox’ (and possibly conventionalism); ‘statistical mechanics’ means ‘time asymmetry’; and ‘quantum theory’ means ‘the measurement problem’. Redhead is surely right that this leads physicists to “regard philosophy of science as somewhat irrelevant”. Rightly so, too, if this were in fact representative of much of what actually goes on in philosophy of physics. However, the state of play as represented in philosophy of physics and (some) philosophy of science journals shows a very diﬀerent level of engagement, with philosophers of physics investigating the frontiers of scientiﬁc research. This disparity (or the impression of such) is the raison d’eˆtre for the book you are now reading. The result is an introductory textbook covering those portions of philosophy of physics research that other textbooks fail to cover, or cover only very brieﬂy or very simplistically. The three pillars of modern physics-relativity, quantum theory and statistical mechanics-are still represented, then, but from a more advanced and contemporary perspective.

Oct 16, 20082 citations

Atomic Electron Configuration

David E. Pressler

In this work I suggest that early twentieth century theoretical physicists did not have enough facts or experimental data to formulate a consistent atomic model and as a result the concept of the atom needs revised. I conclude that the new atomic model presented is based only on first principles, is easy to understand and visualize, and provides such a significant theoretical advance as to be a final theory.

International Journal of Modern Physics ASep 1, 20010 citations

On the Indispensability of Atomism in Natural Science

Ludwig Boltzmann

Springer eBooksJan 1, 19746 citations

About Carlo Rovelli's unbelievalbe similarities (February 2018)

Gabriel Vacarìu

Somebody indicated me that Rovelli’s book has very similar idea to my ideas of entities and their “interactions”. I took a look at the book and, indeed, I saw some quite similar ideas in Rovelli’s book. For me, it seems as if Rovelli had read my works before writing his book. This would not mean he plagiarized my ideas. However, some ideas are quite similar to my ideas and mainly the “framework of working” (“reality is interactions”) is very similar! My question is what does it mean “reality”? Does not “reality” presupposes some entities? Than we get: reality is entities that interact”. But what exactly is “reality” in this case? If we replace “reality” with EDWs, we reach exactly my framework of thinking! carlo rovelli introduces many of my ideas: ‘interactions’ is my main notion of articles and books published in 2002. 2004. 2005, 2008 etc. carlo rovelli claims that space and time do not exist! My brother and I wrote a book about exactly this idea in 2016! He also indicates the role of philosophy in science. Amazing, a scientist who has never written something about philosophy in the past, have started to strongly emphasize the role of philosophy just in the last one year or so! I indicated the same idea in my books 2008, 2010, etc.! It seems carlo rovelli moves very fast, publishing many of my ideas (not those about quantum mechanics, but also other ideas) after I published them and posted on various sites on Internet!

Jan 1, 20180 citations