They believe that the immense qualitative variety results from the ‘jostling' of atoms...as they collide and bounce apart, and so, constantly form new groupings” (Jones 84). They believe it to be a mechanical process occurring completely by chance. Furthermore, although new groupings are constantly being formed, only the few that can survive are considered the “right” combinations. These are the combinations we recognize through our senses as being “real”, although they are not. However, the way in which this complex motion begins is a source of controversy and disagreement amongst the Atomists.
Bohr’s model of the hydrogen atom explained /observed spectral lines so well that many scientists concluded that the model could be applied to all atoms (pg.103, line 8). It was soon recognized, however, that Bohr’s approach didn’t explain the spectrum of atoms with more than one electron, nor did his theory explain the chemical behavior of atoms (pg.103, line 10). Most significantly, Bohr’s model violates the uncertainty principle because it features electrons with known orbital periods and a definite radius-two attributes which cannot be directly determined simultaneously (aps.org/physics). So basically, Bohr’s model was proved not true, because you cannot know exactly where an electron is at any given moment. Bohr’s model caused scientists to start asking questions.
The appearance of objects and processes are actually the work of many tinier sequences occurring within that drive the object or process to look that way to us. This had struck my beliefs about reality quite hard since I realized that reality is only what we human can perceive. For example, we humans believe that a CRT T.V. appears to be running in a fluid motion but in truth what makes it work the way it does is the rapid firing of electrons at the screen ... ... middle of paper ... ...undation both are built upon. It also seeks to clarify our interpretation of reality as merely our minds at work and substantiate that there is more than what appears to the eye that create our perceptions.
Then the Rutherford model was discovered and it showed an atom actually has a wide range of space inside it. After the Rutherford model came the Bohr Model. The discovery of the proton is what prompted the Bohr model to be founded. Scientists now knew that protons were actually in the center of an atom and the electrons were moving around it. Contributions from many scientists were needed but now, the atomic model was finished and in the process, the proton, neutron, and electron were all discovered, opening several new doors into the world of science.
Some people like math and others dislike math. I have been in math since the 1st grade. I have enjoyed math ever since. The high and low points in math have pushed me to do my best no matter the course. My strong liking for math has helped become a math student.
I’ve had my ups and downs with math. My first impression of it was good, but when middle school happened, I came to dislike it. Going into high school, I had no idea what is was going to be like when it came to math. I asked myself the questions, “Was it going to be hard?” or “What are my teachers going to be like?” The answer was that I liked math in high school. It was explained better, and the teachers were fair and reasonable.
Atoms combine to create elements, the basic building blocks of matter. We further discovered that atoms consisted of protons, neutrons, and electrons, as well as the structure of the atom. A2a. Right away in the beginning the idea of the atom was rejected. Men that were more influential during that time did not agree with Democritus.
Modern theories, as well as those which follow the Hellenistic tradition, are characterized by their narrow focus of logic and mathematics -- they explain how something works (Kuhn 104). However, the scientific predecessor of Hellenistic thought, Hellenic science, provided explanations for not only how something works, but also why it was there. Hellenic theories, by their nature, were loosely constructed in order to explain both observed anomalies and questions of existence. Since Hellenic theories tackle both of these questions, they often cannot be tested (how does a person test the nature of reality?). So Popper's claim of falsifiability can't apply to Hellenic science, as the majority of its theories fail Popper's criteria.
Even though Kant was able to base many of the laws of science in philosophy, he was not able to show that space and time are tools we use to perceive our world and could never exist themselves absent of the mind. Scientific laws must be judgments of experience and universally objective to be considered laws of science because they need to have the ability to give all observers the same experience of a phenomenon. Where Kant is wrong is his belief of space and time as dependent upon the mind. New discoveries in physics have shown that space and time must be able to exist in the absence of the mind, proving that Kant was wrong in his presumption that space and time could never exist absolutely. Science today may have its elementary basis in philosophy, but the higher principles of science, particularly that of physics, are outside the understanding and thinking of philosophy.
The atomic discovery also helped us find our periodic table of elements. The periodic table of elements is a huge scientific chart that shows important facts with the help of its formation. There was a lot of constant scientific research that went into making the periodic table of elements and what it is today. The idea of the atom started all the way back from the ancient Greece. What is sad about this is that one philosopher’s idea it was rejected by the rest of the philosophers of the time.