Are atoms inanimate?

[ourlivinguniverse]

Is it possible to prove whether:

–  Atoms are inanimate objects which respond to a priori forces

OR

- Atoms are material systems which respond spontaneously to their energetic environment

This might seem an esoteric question, but it has fundamental implications for the way we see the universe around us.

The former statement is consistent with materialistic philosophy, that which we’ve inherited from the Victorians. But the latter would seem to be the direction of travel that quantum mechanics is taking us in. If the latter holds, then all forces of nature are the consequence of the behaviour of matter and not the consequence!

Is it possible to prove one or the other?

link removed

Edited January 5 by Moontanman
removing spam link

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, ourlivinguniverse said:

 

Is it possible to prove whether:

–  Atoms are inanimate objects which respond to a priori forces

OR

- Atoms are material systems which respond spontaneously to their energetic environment

This might seem an esoteric question, but it has fundamental implications for the way we see the universe around us.

The former statement is consistent with materialistic philosophy, that which we’ve inherited from the Victorians. But the latter would seem to be the direction of travel that quantum mechanics is taking us in. If the latter holds, then all forces of nature are the consequence of the behaviour of matter and not the consequence!

Is it possible to prove one or the other?

ourlivinguniverse.com

Before this is even discussed you would have to expand on what you mean by the two definitions you are trying to limit this discussion to. I have no idea what you mean here, that may very well be due to my own limitations but I can say I've never heard of the problems you are asserting. 

 

[ourlivinguniverse]

Classic physics is based on the materialistic mindset that atoms, all particles, are inanimate objects which respond to forces applied to them.

If you change your frame of reference to think that particles are material systems which respond spontaneously to their energetic environment, then a completely new way of understanding physics and the universe emerges. From this alternative viewpoint, all forces of nature become the consequence of the behaviour of matter and not the cause.

For the last 100 years, quantum mechanics has been trying to tell us that the universe does not concord with classical physics thinking. Perhaps we need to change the way we approach things.

If you do switch to thinking of particles as responding spontaneously to their energetic environment, then the question of wave-particle duality becomes trivial.

Does that help?

[Moontanman]

24 minutes ago, ourlivinguniverse said:

Classic physics is based on the materialistic mindset that atoms, all particles, are inanimate objects which respond to forces applied to them.

If you change your frame of reference to think that particles are material systems which respond spontaneously to their energetic environment, then a completely new way of understanding physics and the universe emerges. From this alternative viewpoint, all forces of nature become the consequence of the behaviour of matter and not the cause.

For the last 100 years, quantum mechanics has been trying to tell us that the universe does not concord with classical physics thinking. Perhaps we need to change the way we approach things.

If you do switch to thinking of particles as responding spontaneously to their energetic environment, then the question of wave-particle duality becomes trivial.

Does that help?

No it does not, you are simply making assertions with no data to back them up. Please provide evidence of your assertions, your hand waving serves no purpose. 

[OceanBreeze]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

No it does not, you are simply making assertions with no data to back them up. Please provide evidence of your assertions, your hand waving serves no purpose. 

I don't quite understand what the OP is trying to say, but I sense that he is touching upon relating quantum physics to classical physics which often boils down to the well-known particle/wave conundrum. If one takes the wave theory to an extreme, there are no particles at all; just energy waves.

In classical physics, the motion of the balls on a billiard table is predictable and easy to describe as a response to forces being applied to the particles (balls).

In quantum theory, (as I understand it), all motion is the result of the interaction of waves, from the table and the balls.

I hope I am not adding to the confusion!

 

[Moontanman]

59 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

I don't quite understand what the OP is trying to say, but I sense that he is touching upon relating quantum physics to classical physics which often boils down to the well-known particle/wave conundrum. If one takes the wave theory to an extreme, there are no particles at all; just energy waves.

In classical physics, the motion of the balls on a billiard table is predictable and easy to describe as a response to forces being applied to the particles (balls).

In quantum theory, (as I understand it), all motion is the result of the interaction of waves, from the table and the balls.

I hope I am not adding to the confusion!

 

I've been following him on another forum, he is just trying to spam the forum with his nonsensical post while displaying links to his site. If he wants to discuss this here he will have to provide clear evidence of what he is asserting, if anyone is confusing the issue it is himself. Stepping outside the scientific consensus requires considerably more than baseless assertions. In fact i am going to move this to silly claims, that is better than he is getting elsewhere.