The answer to the question of whether atoms (or even objects) actually touch each other is dependent upon what framework is being considered, whether it be classical, quantum or particle physics. The only consistent framework is one that regards the entire universe as modulations of a single continuum, a ‘vector field’.
Classical physics
In classical (Newtonian) physics, space is well behaved and objects occupy well defined volumes, with the gaps in between filled with either ‘gas’ or ‘vacuum’. Things are made of different substances, e.g. glass, metal ,air, water etc. No object can be in two places at once and we cannot have two different solid objects occupying the same position in space. There is no real sense of the objects being made of ‘atoms’ nor what those atoms might consist of.
So imagine a metal ball falling onto a glass table, for example. The table top is at height zero and the ball is at some height, a metre, say.
Now at what point does the ball bounce? What is the height above the table at which the downward speed is zero and it starts to move upwards again? At what point do they ‘touch’?
Does the lowest point of the ball ever reach a height of zero? If the answer is ‘yes’ then the point where the ball touches the table is occupied by both metal and glass at the same time. This is a contradiction of the whole idea of solid, separately defined objects and it is not relevant that it is only one ‘point’ that these objects have in common. The Laws of Physics must apply everywhere or why are we bothering?
So the ball must come to rest at some finite distance above the table and this is the point at which the velocity reverses direction. The two objects never touch; they cannot. A finite distance is maintained between the two materials at all times.
How then does the ball reverse direction?
Energy transfer
Kinetic energy is transferred from ball to table and then transported back to the ball to make it go in the opposite direction. This seems fine but it means that the energy is transferred without contact between the objects, meaning that it must, at some non-zero height, leave the ball and enter the table; it must pass through a finite amount of air (or vacuum) all by itself.
A force field?
The ball is moving in one direction and then turns around before touching the table top and starts to go in the other direction. This is enough to deduce some force of repulsion even without knowing how it should arise. Some kinetic influence is maybe emanating from the table top that repels other objects before they reach it, before they make contact.
This surely implies the spooky action at a distance that both Einstein and Newton disliked.
Classical mechanics is busted?
The idea of classical mechanics arose from an attempt to formulate simple everyday observations in terms of fairly basic mathematical formulae, but as the above shows, we can’t describe ‘bouncing’ or even the idea of ‘contact’ in even a half-sensible manner!
Either classical physics is wrong, the mathematical formulation is wrong, or maybe it is simply not possible to describe reality in terms of familiar mathematics. We don’t even need to try anything ‘fancy’, we get into trouble simply attempting to define the boundaries of everyday objects.
Mathematics
The problem has arisen from defining objects as closed subsets of the continuum, that is to say, as spaces that incorporate their own boundaries. We can try defining objects as ‘open intervals’ whose boundaries are not part of the objects themselves, but this doesn’t really help.
We still can’t have two objects ‘touching’ as they will now always be separated by a single point at least and this point will never be part of either object nor can it be part of any other object. We have ended up with a universe containing an infinite number of empty points which physically separate the objects within it.
Maybe we can do some calculations with this model but it is highly unsatisfactory as a description of the nature of reality. I would contend that this is on a par with quantum physics for boggling the mind.
Field physics
The observation or maybe ‘deduction’ that the ball is repelled before it even reaches the table gives a clue to a better formulation of space and matter.
Even without doing any clever physics we can say that the objects are not separate in space but are part of, or embedded within, some omnipresent force field that controls the movements of even the largest objects and ensures that they conform to some universal organisational principle.
The idea that this force should ’emanate’ from the objects themselves and should affect other objects at a distance is, as Newton himself put it: “so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.” – Newton 1692 – Wikipedia
Vortex physics
The vortex physics of Konstantin Meyl formulates single atoms as spherical vortices in an electromagnetic field. Negatively charged field structures will repel each other, with the force of repulsion increasing with proximity. This force reaches a maximum at the vortex ‘radius’ (shown) and effectively gives the impression of solid matter.
It isn’t quite clear what is meant by ‘touching’ in this respect. Two vortices will repel each other so much that it is unlikely their radii will overlap but if they do then that is fine as the respective fields will simply add together; we do not have separate substances as with classical physics and do not have discrete ‘solid’ particles to worry about as with particle physics.
The whole of the universe is simply a shifting field continuum which is given form by the field structure itself, with the behaviour of vortices giving the impression of solid objects making contact, exchanging energy and bouncing off each other.
To ask if two vortices make contact is to ask whether two eddies in a river will ‘touch’ each other. They can come close and bounce off each other but the idea of touching is somewhat nebulous as neither has a well defined boundary at all and the vortex influence associated with each will conceptually extend to infinity.
A self-consistent physics
Classical physics arose from the attempt to describe everyday observations such as ‘bouncing’ in terms of mathematical formulae but as we see, these attempts have resulted in a lack of consistency in the theory and a mathematical model that makes no sense with respect to reality.
The field physics formulation is counter-intuitive to start with but is self-consistent and in accordance with reality.
Try thinking of this in terms of particle physics or quantum waveforms and the explanations become positively surreal. What does it mean to even ask if two quantum particles are touching each other? Presumably they are and they aren’t, both at the same time!
Empiricism vs aestheticism
Part of the impetus for this post was the question of ‘Do atoms touch?’ and part was a discussion on the question of whether theories should be ‘beautiful’ or whether empirical observations should rule the day. There seemed to be something of a consensus that experiment should overrule theory and that beauty is a mere bonus and then only if you are lucky.
This is all wrong and has resulted in physics that resembles a patchwork quilt, which although agreeing with a large body of experimental data, nevertheless has no proper foundations, a tenuous relationship to reality, multiple of contradictions and really consists of a collection of isolated and inconsistent theories held together with empirically determined ‘adapter’ constants to hold the whole thing together.
The idea that observation and deduction alone are sufficient to formulate a theory is incorrect. Observations are always made with respect to the framework and are interpreted within it so for example the idea that the universe is full of discrete ‘objects’ is already a sort of theory deriving from intuition and observation – but it is wrong!
Any assertion that discrete objects exists needs proving somehow. There needs to be some testable framework that describes these objects and classical physics has failed to provide this at the outset. Any observation of an ‘object’ is now misleading and any science that uses such an ill defined concept is eventually doomed.
Similar considerations apply to modern physics. Observations (data) are interpreted with respect to the model, which itself is held to be correct and can never really be disproved. All that happens is that some ‘fix’ is put in and we end up with something like quantum entanglement and information coming backwards in time from the future.
There is more to a theory than mere aesthetics. It should be self-consistent within itself and consistent with its own predictions, and if it isn’t then it is just wrong and needs to be discarded. In addition to this, it must have some degree of ‘reasonableness’, some relationship to some presumed nature of reality which sounds ‘viable’ at least.
A theory such as quantum mechanics which allows multiple and outlandish interpretations regardless of whether or not they make any sense, surely has no place in scientific discourse.
Newton’s statement deserves reiteration: “That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.”
This is not theory and not observation and so not really ‘science’ – but it has proved to be correct!
So do they touch?
No. Quite surprisingly, the whole concept of ‘contact’ is not supported by any theoretical framework; it isn’t even possible to define it let alone test for it.
Related pages:
References:
The website of Konstantin Meyl: http://meyl.eu
