Why do we see matter as solid when it is made up of mostly emptiness?

Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Why do we see matter as solid when it is made up of mostly emptiness?

They say that an atom is about 99% empty.  If that's true, then why do we see matter as solid?  Is it because the atoms are vibrating so fast and at a length of about the atom's scope of existence?

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
The simple metaphoric

[edit] oops, realized I was answering the wrong question.  Never mind.Tongue out


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: [edit] oops,

Textom wrote:
[edit] oops, realized I was answering the wrong question. Never mind.Tongue out
I wanna see it anyway!  lol Cool

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
We only see the light

We only see the light reflected by those structures made of atoms, not the atoms themselves, if you get what I mean. Or is your question more like: "When they're so tiny, why do they reflect light in the first place?"

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


monkeyfishfrog
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-05-06
User is offlineOffline
What we see is the

What we see is the frequencies of light reflected by the atoms and molecules that make up the particular solid. This occurs on the atomic level by absorption and remission of photons.

In other words, the energy is absorbed by the atoms or molecules, changing the probability densities of the electrons and rereleased, returning to the probability densities to their original state. This is due to the EM field from the light interacting with the electrons.

We see the light as reflecting in a line as this is the most probable observable diffraction angle by a huge margin. This question falls in the area of quantum electrodynamics and, like many things in QM, doesn't make intuitive sense.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, guys.  This makes

Thanks, guys.  This makes perfect sense now!  Smiling 


Larty
Larty's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
monkeyfishfrog wrote:  

monkeyfishfrog wrote:
 

We see the light as reflecting in a line as this is the most probable observable diffraction angle by a huge margin. This question falls in the area of quantum electrodynamics and, like many things in QM, doesn't make intuitive sense.

Exactly. Quantum mechanics are totally messed up. I once read a book about quantum mechanics and modern particle physics, and 100% of every single thing I learned from that book were based on very loose hypotheses.

 Wait a minute, isn't quantum mechanics just a hypothetical way of explaining phenomenon? Like when a theory is "quantized", it takes in the propabilistic and random nature of a phenomena? Do quantum physicists really believe that electron orbits are abstract "propability waves" in real life, or is it just a model for explaining atomic structure. I know there are alot quantized theories out there, but I just took the atomic structure as an example.

Did I just do alot of spelling mistakes? 

Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Larty

Larty wrote:

monkeyfishfrog wrote:

We see the light as reflecting in a line as this is the most probable observable diffraction angle by a huge margin. This question falls in the area of quantum electrodynamics and, like many things in QM, doesn't make intuitive sense.

Exactly. Quantum mechanics are totally messed up. I once read a book about quantum mechanics and modern particle physics, and 100% of every single thing I learned from that book were based on very loose hypotheses.

Wait a minute, isn't quantum mechanics just a hypothetical way of explaining phenomenon? Like when a theory is "quantized", it takes in the propabilistic and random nature of a phenomena? Do quantum physicists really believe that electron orbits are abstract "propability waves" in real life, or is it just a model for explaining atomic structure. I know there are alot quantized theories out there, but I just took the atomic structure as an example.

Did I just do alot of spelling mistakes?

Quntum mechanics really works that way. It's one of the best theories of physics available because the experimental evidence is predicted perfectley by the theory.

 Particles really do exist in multiple places at once, and in clouds of probability. It has even been shown in the laboratory, one particle existing in two places at once, triggering two mechanisms. Electrons really do tunnel spontaneously through space. That is how an electron-tunneling microscope works.

Electrons really are waves or clouds of probability. Not only do the equations work out theoretically, we have been able to visualize them with electron microscopes and force-visualization. Information really is uncertain. You can experimentally prove the heisenberg uncertainty principle at home with a laser, a small rod, and two polarizing lenses. Without polarizing lenses, the laser creates bands of interference, when you put a polarizing lens in front of it, you now know the velocity of all the light going through, which makes the positions completley uncertain. The interference dissapears and it becomes a blur of probability again. (This is known as "quantum erasure)

 Electrons really do only exist in quantized energy bands. All energy measurements you can receive are in quantities of 1eV. There are never any experimental measurements inbetween. Just 1eV, 2eV, 3ev, etc...


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?

Larty
Larty's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, sure thing. We have

Yeah, sure thing. We have evolved to live in the "middle world", so our brains have evolved in such a way that it's hard for us to understand small and large proportions. Thus, quantum theory is more understandable.

It kinda makes sense, but I think that quantum mechanics are shrouded in uncertainty. We can't really know that quarks exist inside hadron shells. We haven't observed the existence of tiny quarks inside the atoms. We only have had evidence of atoms made of quarks, but we can't know yet if they REALLY exist. It's just a current model for atomic structure, it's just a theory, not a fact yet.

I believe there's a 85% chance that quantum mechanics, quarks, many modern particle physics terms, special relativity and the big bang will be debunked sometime in the future. I have no evidence for this, but I just believe in it. Maybe I am wrong, maybe not.

Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Larty

Larty wrote:

I believe there's a 85% chance that quantum mechanics, quarks, many modern particle physics terms, special relativity and the big bang will be debunked sometime in the future. I have no evidence for this, but I just believe in it. Maybe I am wrong, maybe not.

I doubt it. The questions to be resolved now will be the ones which choose which interpretations of QM are correct, and which of the various competing cosmological theories is right. Seriously, QM will not be debunked. I am speaking from experience. I am a biologist, but I have my physics qualifications, and I assure you that QM, while extremely counterintuitive, is cold fact. Its powers of probability computation can get events correct to within one part per quadrillion. It is the foundation of reality itself. Literally, nothing we see would make sense in a Newtonian world. The whole of physical existence depends on the ability of electrons and nuclei to tunnell, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Princpicle, Quantum Chrondodynamics. The Standard Model of QM is the most successful theory of all time.

The same with Big Bang, which is the most successful principles in the whole of csomology

I guess what I am trying to say is that there is about as much chance of it being debunked as is the "theory" that DNA holds the information for living organisms.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I once had a former

I once had a former co-worker amost beat the crap out of me because he was a former gang banger/ alcoholic who was suckered into Christianity because someone sold him the idea that Aquinus was smart and knew about Quantum mechanics.

I asked him what his evidence was and he responded, "People followed him around because he was smart and they wrote down everything he said"

STFW! I said the issue was not weither Aquinus was smart. The issue is what evidence do you have that he knew about quantum mechinics. He did what theists typically do and pulled out a vauge ambiguous quote.

I explained the fallacy to him, "Saying that the sky is blue doesnt mean you know why it is blue. Saying that the earth shakes doesnt mean you know what causes earthquakes".

He became so indignant because I wouldnt let him go on some bait and swich "pay no attention to the mythology behind the curtain". He really wanted to beat the crap out of me.

We see muslims and Jews do this with their gods too. Each latches onto a vauge quote which any monkey could make and claim it as evidence that their god exists.

These same people wouldnt believe that polytheism is real because an anceint philosopher came up with "earth stuff, fire stuff, air stuff, water stuff" and called it ellement.

The use and meaning back then contained no modern knowlege and "element" as used today is not a philosophical word as it was used back then.

"Mountains move" doesnt mean you know what plate techonics are.

No one would accuse Henry Ford of predicting the modern Lamborginni because he built a model T.

Creationism/crapinism/ID is no different than scientology or Kaballah. It uses words out of science to dress up fiction. I've heard people argue "second law" and "entropy" in justification that "god can do what he wants".

But nowhere in the ancient holy books to you see the ancient equivelant of those words much less any testable repeatable or falsifiable formula.

The sad part is that human ego is why people are still clinging to these stories. Unfortunatly I hassard to guess, that it wont be long befor some moron comes up with a new "crapinism" and calls it something ese and tries to basterdize quantum mechanics.

If my x-coworker can shred logic like it is garbage, it doesnt suprise me that mass movements in all religious camps seek to distroy science in the self intrest of proping up myth.

Whatever is known and or not about quantum mechanics in no way justifies 72 virgins, multiple armed deities, or dead flesh surviving rigor mortis. I wish theists in all camps would not seek to dumb down society just so they can selfishly gain club members. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37