You really don't like reading other people's posts do you? Fine. But promise me you will read EVERY SINGLE WORD I have posted so far including this one
. I will not accept further question if you fail to do this and say a bunch of irrelevant crap over and over again. I am being EXTREMELY generous with you right now, considering how much you offended me with no grounds whatsoever to back it up but with your delusions.
1) Picture of pentacene taken by AFM (published in Nature Methods)
These are clearly atoms arranged to form pentacene. Considering how AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy) is based on atomic force that barely affects the sample itself in terms of electronic structure, it accurately and truly shows the real molecule and how the atoms are arranged. If you think this not the actual image of atom because of "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle", then you are uneducated and stupid. (in fact it is this uncertainty principle that allows us to see these atoms
2) Ongoing discussion: Bohmian mechanics is an incomplete theory that is yet to be accepted throughout the scientific community. Poll (https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069
) shows that out of 33 participants in one of the quantum physics conference shows that 0% believed in Bohmian mechanics. This may be a total coincidence since college physics classes barely teach Bohmian mechanics, but that only further shows that it is not widely utilized. This poll is actually pretty fair since they ask the participants several questions and categorizes them based on the answer instead of just asking for the name of the interpretation they believe in. I highly suggest you read the article.
3) I have shown no metaphysical ideas. Refer to this post:
I have rather an agnostic view on the interpretation of Quantum mechanics because they are already completely reasonable the way it is. There is no need to complicate the story by attempting to interpret these with classically intuitive senses. — FLUX23
I don't care if what we call a particle is actually a classical particle (classical mechanics), quantum particle (quantum mechanics), or a quantum of a field (quantum field theory). They are merely interpretations that are subject to change when better theories are provided in the future. What matters to me is if it can reproduce experiments well. But I can still call a particle a "particle" because that is the term used to refer to these things.
4) I did not use a priori knowledge to support a metaphysical definition as a settled scientific issue. It seems like you don't know what a priori knowledge means.
Statement: Particle is particle.
This statement is obviously true. This type of knowledge is called "a priori knowledge".
Statement: Particle is a quantum of a field.
This statement requires prior experiment or theoretical investigation to know. This type of knowledge is called "a posteriori knowledge".
I argued that what you are presenting is only a posteriori knowledge. That is irrelevant to what Chany or I said about atoms and particles because the argument holds independent of what atom actually is. When we talk about "atom" in general, the target of the word "atom" refers to an atom or whatever they actually may be. So "atom" is an "atom" and this is independent of what they actually look like. The target
of the word atom remains existent. This is a problem of logic. Not science at all. If you cannot accept this logic, then you don't even belong on this forum.
Typically this type of question is something I should be doing to you. You are an offensive, ignorant, brat that knows nothing about science but pretends to know, base everything on personal preferences and unscientific speculations and personal metaphysical view, say a bunch of irrelevant crap, refuses to read what other people have written, fabricate facts, fabricate what other people says, and accuse them of wrongdoings that they have not committed. You are a very twisted person. I am so glad you are not a scientist.
1) Present all of the evidence. (Don't be biased)
2) Admit to the ongoing discussions and disagreements among scientists. (Don't be biased)
3) Refrain from presenting your metaphysical ideas and desires as scientific facts. (Believing in Bohmian mechanics and basing every argument under this assumption is nothing more than just metaphysics.)
4) And clearly mark boundaries when you cross them. (You are the one doing it, not me.)