re are atoms real in article c ue t g k news rich bnr ca bcash crchh nosubdomain nodomain brian cash writes petri and mathew your discusion on the reality of atoms is interesting but it would seem that you are verging on the question is anything real that is since observation is not reliable how can we say that anything is real i don t think this was the intention of the original question since you now define out the word real so that nothing can meet its criteria just a thought brian ps rainbows and shadows are real they are not objects they are phenomenon an interesting question would be if atoms are objects classical or phenomenon neo quantum or what i ve been following this train of talk and the question of dismissing atoms as being in some sense not real leaves me uneasy it seems to be implied that we obseve only the effects and therefore the underlying thing is not necessarily real the tree outside my window is in this category is observe the light which bounces off of it not the tree itself the observation is indirect but no more so than observations i have made of atoms also what about observations and experiments that have been routinely done with individual atoms i am thinking in particular of atom trapping experiments and tests of fundamental quantum mechanics such as the quantum zeno effect where an individual atom is studied for a long period of time some of the attempts at quantum mechanical arguments were not very satisfying either one has to be carefull about making such arguments without a solid technical background in the field what i read seemed a little confused a quite a red herring anyway if the purpose of a public debate is to make the audience think it worked after doing so i m willing to try to defend the following assertion if anyone cares atoms are as real as trees and are real in the ussual every day sense of the word real
