Monday, April 13, 2020

Reductionism is firmly established

Dr. Bee defends reductionism:
A lot of people seem to think that reductionism is a philosophy. But it most definitely is not. That reductionism is correct is a hypothesis about the properties of nature and it is a hypothesis that has so far been supported by every single experiment that has ever been done. I cannot think of *any scientific fact that is better established than that the properties of the constituents of a system determine how the system works. ...

Indeed, the whole history of science until now has been a success story of reductionism. Biology can be reduced to chemistry, chemistry can be reduced to atomic physics, and atoms are made of elementary particles. This is why we have computers today.
I agree with this, but see this recent paper:
The relationship between the chemical picture of an isolated molecule and ttuff.hat arising from the eiegenfunctions of the Schrodinger Coulomb Hamiltonian [for] the isolated molecule are examined and discussed.
Apparently the program to reduce chemistry to atomic physics has run into some problems. We still need chemistry, because the atomic physicists cannot explain some basic stuff.

1 comment:

  1. When you are using crappy Rutherford models as a basis for your chemistry accounting of atom mechanics, no wonder there are problems. I will not entertain electron probability cloud nonsense either, as probabilities only exist in math calculations, they have no material presence and can carry no forces.

    Electrons in halo like shells/bonding crap? Really? Do you think atoms are actually mechanically structured this way? Just look at the mass of a single electron compared to a single proton, 1/1836. Do you honestly think something 1/1836 the mass of a single proton is capable of bonding one far more massive atom to another? Only if you believe in magic. Atoms have internal structures that constantly move, this requires constant energy (they sure aren't consuming their own mass), so ask yourself how much energy would be required (you might be surprised), and how this energy would even enter the atomic structure. Figure that out, you might have a good candidate of what could hold atomic structures together.

    When electrons were first incorporated into atomic structures, they were granted all sorts of magical powers to fill in for all sorts of data holes in working theory. Not much has changed today where theorists constantly rely on incredibly murky things like 'quantum (fill in the blank ad nausea)' to explain anything they actually can't.