How does Brownian motion prove the existence of atoms?
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I have heard many people say that the existence of atoms is proven by Brownian motion. Now, I understand how an atomic theory would suggest the existence of Brownian motion. However, who is to say that there is not another theory for what our world is composed of that can also predict Brownian motion (as well as the other phenomena predicted by atoms)? Of course, I am not sure what that theory would be, but I am wondering how one could say that Brownian motion proves the existence of atoms.
atomic-physics atoms brownian-motion
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I have heard many people say that the existence of atoms is proven by Brownian motion. Now, I understand how an atomic theory would suggest the existence of Brownian motion. However, who is to say that there is not another theory for what our world is composed of that can also predict Brownian motion (as well as the other phenomena predicted by atoms)? Of course, I am not sure what that theory would be, but I am wondering how one could say that Brownian motion proves the existence of atoms.
atomic-physics atoms brownian-motion
3
No experiment can ever prove any theory beyond any possible doubt. That's not how science works at all. In science, we make up stories to help us understand stuff. When we find more stuff that the story doesn't explain properly, we update the story. Some times there are multiple stories that explain the same stuff. In those cases, we usually prefer the simpler story, but we wouldn't call the other one "wrong".
– DanielSank
2 hours ago
2
@DanielSank sounds like an answer to me
– Aaron Stevens
2 hours ago
I think you should give a link if you found a physics text stating this so that one can refute it. Brownian motion is an observational datum that can be modeled by assuming the existence of atoms, and physics is about modeling with mathematics data,and checking the validity of the models, as Daniel says. At best the statement should say "implies" the existence of atoms.
– anna v
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens hmm, interesting. I thought of that comment as more of a "this question has no answer" sort of thing.
– DanielSank
43 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I have heard many people say that the existence of atoms is proven by Brownian motion. Now, I understand how an atomic theory would suggest the existence of Brownian motion. However, who is to say that there is not another theory for what our world is composed of that can also predict Brownian motion (as well as the other phenomena predicted by atoms)? Of course, I am not sure what that theory would be, but I am wondering how one could say that Brownian motion proves the existence of atoms.
atomic-physics atoms brownian-motion
I have heard many people say that the existence of atoms is proven by Brownian motion. Now, I understand how an atomic theory would suggest the existence of Brownian motion. However, who is to say that there is not another theory for what our world is composed of that can also predict Brownian motion (as well as the other phenomena predicted by atoms)? Of course, I am not sure what that theory would be, but I am wondering how one could say that Brownian motion proves the existence of atoms.
atomic-physics atoms brownian-motion
atomic-physics atoms brownian-motion
edited 2 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
100k121791125
100k121791125
asked 3 hours ago
dts
243111
243111
3
No experiment can ever prove any theory beyond any possible doubt. That's not how science works at all. In science, we make up stories to help us understand stuff. When we find more stuff that the story doesn't explain properly, we update the story. Some times there are multiple stories that explain the same stuff. In those cases, we usually prefer the simpler story, but we wouldn't call the other one "wrong".
– DanielSank
2 hours ago
2
@DanielSank sounds like an answer to me
– Aaron Stevens
2 hours ago
I think you should give a link if you found a physics text stating this so that one can refute it. Brownian motion is an observational datum that can be modeled by assuming the existence of atoms, and physics is about modeling with mathematics data,and checking the validity of the models, as Daniel says. At best the statement should say "implies" the existence of atoms.
– anna v
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens hmm, interesting. I thought of that comment as more of a "this question has no answer" sort of thing.
– DanielSank
43 mins ago
add a comment |
3
No experiment can ever prove any theory beyond any possible doubt. That's not how science works at all. In science, we make up stories to help us understand stuff. When we find more stuff that the story doesn't explain properly, we update the story. Some times there are multiple stories that explain the same stuff. In those cases, we usually prefer the simpler story, but we wouldn't call the other one "wrong".
– DanielSank
2 hours ago
2
@DanielSank sounds like an answer to me
– Aaron Stevens
2 hours ago
I think you should give a link if you found a physics text stating this so that one can refute it. Brownian motion is an observational datum that can be modeled by assuming the existence of atoms, and physics is about modeling with mathematics data,and checking the validity of the models, as Daniel says. At best the statement should say "implies" the existence of atoms.
– anna v
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens hmm, interesting. I thought of that comment as more of a "this question has no answer" sort of thing.
– DanielSank
43 mins ago
3
3
No experiment can ever prove any theory beyond any possible doubt. That's not how science works at all. In science, we make up stories to help us understand stuff. When we find more stuff that the story doesn't explain properly, we update the story. Some times there are multiple stories that explain the same stuff. In those cases, we usually prefer the simpler story, but we wouldn't call the other one "wrong".
– DanielSank
2 hours ago
No experiment can ever prove any theory beyond any possible doubt. That's not how science works at all. In science, we make up stories to help us understand stuff. When we find more stuff that the story doesn't explain properly, we update the story. Some times there are multiple stories that explain the same stuff. In those cases, we usually prefer the simpler story, but we wouldn't call the other one "wrong".
– DanielSank
2 hours ago
2
2
@DanielSank sounds like an answer to me
– Aaron Stevens
2 hours ago
@DanielSank sounds like an answer to me
– Aaron Stevens
2 hours ago
I think you should give a link if you found a physics text stating this so that one can refute it. Brownian motion is an observational datum that can be modeled by assuming the existence of atoms, and physics is about modeling with mathematics data,and checking the validity of the models, as Daniel says. At best the statement should say "implies" the existence of atoms.
– anna v
1 hour ago
I think you should give a link if you found a physics text stating this so that one can refute it. Brownian motion is an observational datum that can be modeled by assuming the existence of atoms, and physics is about modeling with mathematics data,and checking the validity of the models, as Daniel says. At best the statement should say "implies" the existence of atoms.
– anna v
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens hmm, interesting. I thought of that comment as more of a "this question has no answer" sort of thing.
– DanielSank
43 mins ago
@AaronStevens hmm, interesting. I thought of that comment as more of a "this question has no answer" sort of thing.
– DanielSank
43 mins ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
A quote from a physics textbook, which I read years ago, has always stuck in my head. It said:
"Some of the material in this book is undoubtedly incorrect. But if we are really lucky, MOST of it is incorrect".
This is because, in one sense, you are getting it spot on in your question.
There IS a theory that describes Brownian motion more accurately than our current model of atoms jostling a given particle.
This theory would improve on atomic theory by telling us, for example, why the elementary particle that comprise the atoms have the masses, electric charges and other physical properties that currently we can only experimentally measure.
This theory would also explain other phenomenona and physical constants that we don't currently understand, such as why the speed of light is found to be 300,000 metres per second. It would also be able to reconcile gravity with the standard model of particle physics , which we cannot yet do. A theory that explained the precise process behind the origin of the universe, and it's ultimate fate, would also be very nice to have.
As you may know, our current standard model can only deal with around four percent of the mass-energy in the universe, with the rest consisting of dark matter and dark energy that are both invisible and almost impossible to detect.
Unfortunately, this theory has not yet been developed....
But it is the role of physics to work continually towards such a theory. As part of this process, our current atomic model, which is very accurate in describing a limited set of phenomenona and physical behaviour, would be incorporated into this newer model of reality.
An example of this process, developed over the last century, is General Relativity, which explains the universe much more accurately than our previous theory, (the Newtonian Model). But we still use Newtonian physics to guide spaceprobes to land on Mars, in the same way that we can use our current atomic theory to explain Brownian motion.
We still have a lot to learn, which to me at least, is a lot better than being bored with knowing the complete theory.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Einstein's mathematical model of brownian motion furnished strong support of the atomic model but did not furnish airtight proof of its uniqueness (that is, the nonexistence of alternative models) at the time it was proposed.
It is worthwhile to note that it wasn't his objective to logically exclude the possibility of alternative models but rather to demonstrate that the atomic model furnished a quantitatively consistent explanation of the phenomenon.
His work was an important piece of a larger puzzle, contributed to by a variety of other researchers in the field, and once his piece of it was in place, the rest of the picture came into better focus- and it became much more difficult to successfully argue against the atomic hypothesis.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I think that the best answer to this question was given by Einstein in the introduction of his 1905 paper on the theory of brownian motion (the title was actually "On the movement of small particles suspended in a stationary liquid demanded by the molecular kinetic theory of heat" (which is already quite illuminating):
If the movement discussed here can actually be observed (together with
the laws relating to it that one would expect to find), then classical
thermodynamics can no longer be looked upon as applicable with
precision to bodies even of dimensions distinguishable in a microscope
: an exact determination of actual atomic dimensions is then possible.
On the other hand, had the prediction of this movement proved to be
incorrect, a weighty argument would be provided against the
molecular-kinetic conception of heat.
(from the 1956 Dover edition of the paper, translated by A.D. Cowper).
It was crystalline clear to Einstein (which did not know too much about brownian motion at the time he wrote the paper) that the validity of his theory would not had be a direct proof, but its falsification would had been a very strong case against the atomic theory. Theory that, at the beginning of twentieth century, was still considered by many mainstream physicists as an tools for computing chemical equilibria but lacking any experimental evidence.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Nothing in any science can be proved absolutely.
Atomic theory is our current best guess to explain brownian motion, among other things (such as radioactivity, all of chemistry, etc). In that sense, brownian motion supports atomic theory, but does not absolutely prove it.
One day, as StudyStudyStudy suggests, we will have a better theory, which is less wrong about the universe. However, we'll likely still use atomic theory to explain brownian motion, because it works. No need to go into quantum theory to investigate a game of pool.
That's the loop of science: theory, falsification, better theory. Because of this, we'll never reach a complete theory, and if we do, we won't know it. That's what keeps physics interesting!
EDIT: bonus philosophical argument!
How can change exist? If something changes, it's not that thing anymore, so it didn't change, so change is impossible. Early Greek philosophers saw two ways out:
a) We exist in a "block universe" where everything's one big brick and nothing happens. That's clearly not the case, so
b) The universe is made up of many tiny unchangeable bits, which make up different objects when put together in different ways — atoms!
This is just one example of falsification at work, even in the early transition from philosophy to science.
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
A quote from a physics textbook, which I read years ago, has always stuck in my head. It said:
"Some of the material in this book is undoubtedly incorrect. But if we are really lucky, MOST of it is incorrect".
This is because, in one sense, you are getting it spot on in your question.
There IS a theory that describes Brownian motion more accurately than our current model of atoms jostling a given particle.
This theory would improve on atomic theory by telling us, for example, why the elementary particle that comprise the atoms have the masses, electric charges and other physical properties that currently we can only experimentally measure.
This theory would also explain other phenomenona and physical constants that we don't currently understand, such as why the speed of light is found to be 300,000 metres per second. It would also be able to reconcile gravity with the standard model of particle physics , which we cannot yet do. A theory that explained the precise process behind the origin of the universe, and it's ultimate fate, would also be very nice to have.
As you may know, our current standard model can only deal with around four percent of the mass-energy in the universe, with the rest consisting of dark matter and dark energy that are both invisible and almost impossible to detect.
Unfortunately, this theory has not yet been developed....
But it is the role of physics to work continually towards such a theory. As part of this process, our current atomic model, which is very accurate in describing a limited set of phenomenona and physical behaviour, would be incorporated into this newer model of reality.
An example of this process, developed over the last century, is General Relativity, which explains the universe much more accurately than our previous theory, (the Newtonian Model). But we still use Newtonian physics to guide spaceprobes to land on Mars, in the same way that we can use our current atomic theory to explain Brownian motion.
We still have a lot to learn, which to me at least, is a lot better than being bored with knowing the complete theory.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
A quote from a physics textbook, which I read years ago, has always stuck in my head. It said:
"Some of the material in this book is undoubtedly incorrect. But if we are really lucky, MOST of it is incorrect".
This is because, in one sense, you are getting it spot on in your question.
There IS a theory that describes Brownian motion more accurately than our current model of atoms jostling a given particle.
This theory would improve on atomic theory by telling us, for example, why the elementary particle that comprise the atoms have the masses, electric charges and other physical properties that currently we can only experimentally measure.
This theory would also explain other phenomenona and physical constants that we don't currently understand, such as why the speed of light is found to be 300,000 metres per second. It would also be able to reconcile gravity with the standard model of particle physics , which we cannot yet do. A theory that explained the precise process behind the origin of the universe, and it's ultimate fate, would also be very nice to have.
As you may know, our current standard model can only deal with around four percent of the mass-energy in the universe, with the rest consisting of dark matter and dark energy that are both invisible and almost impossible to detect.
Unfortunately, this theory has not yet been developed....
But it is the role of physics to work continually towards such a theory. As part of this process, our current atomic model, which is very accurate in describing a limited set of phenomenona and physical behaviour, would be incorporated into this newer model of reality.
An example of this process, developed over the last century, is General Relativity, which explains the universe much more accurately than our previous theory, (the Newtonian Model). But we still use Newtonian physics to guide spaceprobes to land on Mars, in the same way that we can use our current atomic theory to explain Brownian motion.
We still have a lot to learn, which to me at least, is a lot better than being bored with knowing the complete theory.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
A quote from a physics textbook, which I read years ago, has always stuck in my head. It said:
"Some of the material in this book is undoubtedly incorrect. But if we are really lucky, MOST of it is incorrect".
This is because, in one sense, you are getting it spot on in your question.
There IS a theory that describes Brownian motion more accurately than our current model of atoms jostling a given particle.
This theory would improve on atomic theory by telling us, for example, why the elementary particle that comprise the atoms have the masses, electric charges and other physical properties that currently we can only experimentally measure.
This theory would also explain other phenomenona and physical constants that we don't currently understand, such as why the speed of light is found to be 300,000 metres per second. It would also be able to reconcile gravity with the standard model of particle physics , which we cannot yet do. A theory that explained the precise process behind the origin of the universe, and it's ultimate fate, would also be very nice to have.
As you may know, our current standard model can only deal with around four percent of the mass-energy in the universe, with the rest consisting of dark matter and dark energy that are both invisible and almost impossible to detect.
Unfortunately, this theory has not yet been developed....
But it is the role of physics to work continually towards such a theory. As part of this process, our current atomic model, which is very accurate in describing a limited set of phenomenona and physical behaviour, would be incorporated into this newer model of reality.
An example of this process, developed over the last century, is General Relativity, which explains the universe much more accurately than our previous theory, (the Newtonian Model). But we still use Newtonian physics to guide spaceprobes to land on Mars, in the same way that we can use our current atomic theory to explain Brownian motion.
We still have a lot to learn, which to me at least, is a lot better than being bored with knowing the complete theory.
New contributor
A quote from a physics textbook, which I read years ago, has always stuck in my head. It said:
"Some of the material in this book is undoubtedly incorrect. But if we are really lucky, MOST of it is incorrect".
This is because, in one sense, you are getting it spot on in your question.
There IS a theory that describes Brownian motion more accurately than our current model of atoms jostling a given particle.
This theory would improve on atomic theory by telling us, for example, why the elementary particle that comprise the atoms have the masses, electric charges and other physical properties that currently we can only experimentally measure.
This theory would also explain other phenomenona and physical constants that we don't currently understand, such as why the speed of light is found to be 300,000 metres per second. It would also be able to reconcile gravity with the standard model of particle physics , which we cannot yet do. A theory that explained the precise process behind the origin of the universe, and it's ultimate fate, would also be very nice to have.
As you may know, our current standard model can only deal with around four percent of the mass-energy in the universe, with the rest consisting of dark matter and dark energy that are both invisible and almost impossible to detect.
Unfortunately, this theory has not yet been developed....
But it is the role of physics to work continually towards such a theory. As part of this process, our current atomic model, which is very accurate in describing a limited set of phenomenona and physical behaviour, would be incorporated into this newer model of reality.
An example of this process, developed over the last century, is General Relativity, which explains the universe much more accurately than our previous theory, (the Newtonian Model). But we still use Newtonian physics to guide spaceprobes to land on Mars, in the same way that we can use our current atomic theory to explain Brownian motion.
We still have a lot to learn, which to me at least, is a lot better than being bored with knowing the complete theory.
New contributor
edited 1 hour ago
New contributor
answered 1 hour ago
StudyStudyStudy
1886
1886
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Einstein's mathematical model of brownian motion furnished strong support of the atomic model but did not furnish airtight proof of its uniqueness (that is, the nonexistence of alternative models) at the time it was proposed.
It is worthwhile to note that it wasn't his objective to logically exclude the possibility of alternative models but rather to demonstrate that the atomic model furnished a quantitatively consistent explanation of the phenomenon.
His work was an important piece of a larger puzzle, contributed to by a variety of other researchers in the field, and once his piece of it was in place, the rest of the picture came into better focus- and it became much more difficult to successfully argue against the atomic hypothesis.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Einstein's mathematical model of brownian motion furnished strong support of the atomic model but did not furnish airtight proof of its uniqueness (that is, the nonexistence of alternative models) at the time it was proposed.
It is worthwhile to note that it wasn't his objective to logically exclude the possibility of alternative models but rather to demonstrate that the atomic model furnished a quantitatively consistent explanation of the phenomenon.
His work was an important piece of a larger puzzle, contributed to by a variety of other researchers in the field, and once his piece of it was in place, the rest of the picture came into better focus- and it became much more difficult to successfully argue against the atomic hypothesis.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Einstein's mathematical model of brownian motion furnished strong support of the atomic model but did not furnish airtight proof of its uniqueness (that is, the nonexistence of alternative models) at the time it was proposed.
It is worthwhile to note that it wasn't his objective to logically exclude the possibility of alternative models but rather to demonstrate that the atomic model furnished a quantitatively consistent explanation of the phenomenon.
His work was an important piece of a larger puzzle, contributed to by a variety of other researchers in the field, and once his piece of it was in place, the rest of the picture came into better focus- and it became much more difficult to successfully argue against the atomic hypothesis.
Einstein's mathematical model of brownian motion furnished strong support of the atomic model but did not furnish airtight proof of its uniqueness (that is, the nonexistence of alternative models) at the time it was proposed.
It is worthwhile to note that it wasn't his objective to logically exclude the possibility of alternative models but rather to demonstrate that the atomic model furnished a quantitatively consistent explanation of the phenomenon.
His work was an important piece of a larger puzzle, contributed to by a variety of other researchers in the field, and once his piece of it was in place, the rest of the picture came into better focus- and it became much more difficult to successfully argue against the atomic hypothesis.
answered 57 mins ago
niels nielsen
14k42346
14k42346
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I think that the best answer to this question was given by Einstein in the introduction of his 1905 paper on the theory of brownian motion (the title was actually "On the movement of small particles suspended in a stationary liquid demanded by the molecular kinetic theory of heat" (which is already quite illuminating):
If the movement discussed here can actually be observed (together with
the laws relating to it that one would expect to find), then classical
thermodynamics can no longer be looked upon as applicable with
precision to bodies even of dimensions distinguishable in a microscope
: an exact determination of actual atomic dimensions is then possible.
On the other hand, had the prediction of this movement proved to be
incorrect, a weighty argument would be provided against the
molecular-kinetic conception of heat.
(from the 1956 Dover edition of the paper, translated by A.D. Cowper).
It was crystalline clear to Einstein (which did not know too much about brownian motion at the time he wrote the paper) that the validity of his theory would not had be a direct proof, but its falsification would had been a very strong case against the atomic theory. Theory that, at the beginning of twentieth century, was still considered by many mainstream physicists as an tools for computing chemical equilibria but lacking any experimental evidence.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I think that the best answer to this question was given by Einstein in the introduction of his 1905 paper on the theory of brownian motion (the title was actually "On the movement of small particles suspended in a stationary liquid demanded by the molecular kinetic theory of heat" (which is already quite illuminating):
If the movement discussed here can actually be observed (together with
the laws relating to it that one would expect to find), then classical
thermodynamics can no longer be looked upon as applicable with
precision to bodies even of dimensions distinguishable in a microscope
: an exact determination of actual atomic dimensions is then possible.
On the other hand, had the prediction of this movement proved to be
incorrect, a weighty argument would be provided against the
molecular-kinetic conception of heat.
(from the 1956 Dover edition of the paper, translated by A.D. Cowper).
It was crystalline clear to Einstein (which did not know too much about brownian motion at the time he wrote the paper) that the validity of his theory would not had be a direct proof, but its falsification would had been a very strong case against the atomic theory. Theory that, at the beginning of twentieth century, was still considered by many mainstream physicists as an tools for computing chemical equilibria but lacking any experimental evidence.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I think that the best answer to this question was given by Einstein in the introduction of his 1905 paper on the theory of brownian motion (the title was actually "On the movement of small particles suspended in a stationary liquid demanded by the molecular kinetic theory of heat" (which is already quite illuminating):
If the movement discussed here can actually be observed (together with
the laws relating to it that one would expect to find), then classical
thermodynamics can no longer be looked upon as applicable with
precision to bodies even of dimensions distinguishable in a microscope
: an exact determination of actual atomic dimensions is then possible.
On the other hand, had the prediction of this movement proved to be
incorrect, a weighty argument would be provided against the
molecular-kinetic conception of heat.
(from the 1956 Dover edition of the paper, translated by A.D. Cowper).
It was crystalline clear to Einstein (which did not know too much about brownian motion at the time he wrote the paper) that the validity of his theory would not had be a direct proof, but its falsification would had been a very strong case against the atomic theory. Theory that, at the beginning of twentieth century, was still considered by many mainstream physicists as an tools for computing chemical equilibria but lacking any experimental evidence.
I think that the best answer to this question was given by Einstein in the introduction of his 1905 paper on the theory of brownian motion (the title was actually "On the movement of small particles suspended in a stationary liquid demanded by the molecular kinetic theory of heat" (which is already quite illuminating):
If the movement discussed here can actually be observed (together with
the laws relating to it that one would expect to find), then classical
thermodynamics can no longer be looked upon as applicable with
precision to bodies even of dimensions distinguishable in a microscope
: an exact determination of actual atomic dimensions is then possible.
On the other hand, had the prediction of this movement proved to be
incorrect, a weighty argument would be provided against the
molecular-kinetic conception of heat.
(from the 1956 Dover edition of the paper, translated by A.D. Cowper).
It was crystalline clear to Einstein (which did not know too much about brownian motion at the time he wrote the paper) that the validity of his theory would not had be a direct proof, but its falsification would had been a very strong case against the atomic theory. Theory that, at the beginning of twentieth century, was still considered by many mainstream physicists as an tools for computing chemical equilibria but lacking any experimental evidence.
answered 32 mins ago
GiorgioP
838112
838112
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Nothing in any science can be proved absolutely.
Atomic theory is our current best guess to explain brownian motion, among other things (such as radioactivity, all of chemistry, etc). In that sense, brownian motion supports atomic theory, but does not absolutely prove it.
One day, as StudyStudyStudy suggests, we will have a better theory, which is less wrong about the universe. However, we'll likely still use atomic theory to explain brownian motion, because it works. No need to go into quantum theory to investigate a game of pool.
That's the loop of science: theory, falsification, better theory. Because of this, we'll never reach a complete theory, and if we do, we won't know it. That's what keeps physics interesting!
EDIT: bonus philosophical argument!
How can change exist? If something changes, it's not that thing anymore, so it didn't change, so change is impossible. Early Greek philosophers saw two ways out:
a) We exist in a "block universe" where everything's one big brick and nothing happens. That's clearly not the case, so
b) The universe is made up of many tiny unchangeable bits, which make up different objects when put together in different ways — atoms!
This is just one example of falsification at work, even in the early transition from philosophy to science.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Nothing in any science can be proved absolutely.
Atomic theory is our current best guess to explain brownian motion, among other things (such as radioactivity, all of chemistry, etc). In that sense, brownian motion supports atomic theory, but does not absolutely prove it.
One day, as StudyStudyStudy suggests, we will have a better theory, which is less wrong about the universe. However, we'll likely still use atomic theory to explain brownian motion, because it works. No need to go into quantum theory to investigate a game of pool.
That's the loop of science: theory, falsification, better theory. Because of this, we'll never reach a complete theory, and if we do, we won't know it. That's what keeps physics interesting!
EDIT: bonus philosophical argument!
How can change exist? If something changes, it's not that thing anymore, so it didn't change, so change is impossible. Early Greek philosophers saw two ways out:
a) We exist in a "block universe" where everything's one big brick and nothing happens. That's clearly not the case, so
b) The universe is made up of many tiny unchangeable bits, which make up different objects when put together in different ways — atoms!
This is just one example of falsification at work, even in the early transition from philosophy to science.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Nothing in any science can be proved absolutely.
Atomic theory is our current best guess to explain brownian motion, among other things (such as radioactivity, all of chemistry, etc). In that sense, brownian motion supports atomic theory, but does not absolutely prove it.
One day, as StudyStudyStudy suggests, we will have a better theory, which is less wrong about the universe. However, we'll likely still use atomic theory to explain brownian motion, because it works. No need to go into quantum theory to investigate a game of pool.
That's the loop of science: theory, falsification, better theory. Because of this, we'll never reach a complete theory, and if we do, we won't know it. That's what keeps physics interesting!
EDIT: bonus philosophical argument!
How can change exist? If something changes, it's not that thing anymore, so it didn't change, so change is impossible. Early Greek philosophers saw two ways out:
a) We exist in a "block universe" where everything's one big brick and nothing happens. That's clearly not the case, so
b) The universe is made up of many tiny unchangeable bits, which make up different objects when put together in different ways — atoms!
This is just one example of falsification at work, even in the early transition from philosophy to science.
Nothing in any science can be proved absolutely.
Atomic theory is our current best guess to explain brownian motion, among other things (such as radioactivity, all of chemistry, etc). In that sense, brownian motion supports atomic theory, but does not absolutely prove it.
One day, as StudyStudyStudy suggests, we will have a better theory, which is less wrong about the universe. However, we'll likely still use atomic theory to explain brownian motion, because it works. No need to go into quantum theory to investigate a game of pool.
That's the loop of science: theory, falsification, better theory. Because of this, we'll never reach a complete theory, and if we do, we won't know it. That's what keeps physics interesting!
EDIT: bonus philosophical argument!
How can change exist? If something changes, it's not that thing anymore, so it didn't change, so change is impossible. Early Greek philosophers saw two ways out:
a) We exist in a "block universe" where everything's one big brick and nothing happens. That's clearly not the case, so
b) The universe is made up of many tiny unchangeable bits, which make up different objects when put together in different ways — atoms!
This is just one example of falsification at work, even in the early transition from philosophy to science.
edited 40 secs ago
answered 8 mins ago
1sadtrombone
395211
395211
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f444800%2fhow-does-brownian-motion-prove-the-existence-of-atoms%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
No experiment can ever prove any theory beyond any possible doubt. That's not how science works at all. In science, we make up stories to help us understand stuff. When we find more stuff that the story doesn't explain properly, we update the story. Some times there are multiple stories that explain the same stuff. In those cases, we usually prefer the simpler story, but we wouldn't call the other one "wrong".
– DanielSank
2 hours ago
2
@DanielSank sounds like an answer to me
– Aaron Stevens
2 hours ago
I think you should give a link if you found a physics text stating this so that one can refute it. Brownian motion is an observational datum that can be modeled by assuming the existence of atoms, and physics is about modeling with mathematics data,and checking the validity of the models, as Daniel says. At best the statement should say "implies" the existence of atoms.
– anna v
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens hmm, interesting. I thought of that comment as more of a "this question has no answer" sort of thing.
– DanielSank
43 mins ago