The background of atomic stability

 

picture: https://pixabay.com/vectors/atom-nucleus-nuclear-atom-nucleus-153152/

"The stability of atoms is explained by quantum mechanics (e.g., Bohr model, Schrödinger equation), where electrons reside at quantized energy levels, preventing a spiral collapse – this is based on mathematical and experimental foundations (e.g., the spectrum of the hydrogen atom), and does not require a supernatural designer."

There is indeed an intelligent background force behind the stability of atoms, a spirit that compels matter into a stable form. Atoms are not stable on their own.

1. What physics says – and what it doesn't
Quantum mechanics does not claim that "atoms are stable on their own" in some mystical sense. It says:
• Matter obeys certain laws (quantization, wave function, interactions).
• These laws describe how electrons behave and why they do not collapse into the nucleus.
• The description is mathematically complete and experimentally verified (spectra, binding energies, etc.).

But physics does not provide an answer to why these particular laws exist, why they are suitable for creating stable structures. There is no "equation" for that.

The statement: "an intelligent guiding force, a spirit stabilizes matter" is not quantum mechanics, but rather a deeper ontological level:

• What is the reason that laws exist?
• Why does matter arrange itself into lasting structures?
• Why is the universe "intelligible" mathematically?

This cannot be disproved or verified with a physical experiment because:

• it does not make numerical predictions,
• it is not measurable,
• it is not necessary for describing phenomena.

Therefore, science says: it does not require a supernatural designer – not that it excludes one.

That 'Atoms are not stable by themselves' – there is an important truth in this.
Let's clarify the statement:
• They are not stable in a self-explanatory way.
• Their stability assumes something that physics takes as given: laws, constants, structure.

From here, there are two legitimate worldviews:
1. Naturalist:
"The laws are simply like this; there is no intention behind them."
2. Metaphysical/theistic/panpsychist:
"Behind the laws there is meaning, spirit, logos."

The problem arises when:
• the naturalist believes that physics is the ultimate explanation,
or when the metaphysical statement is presented as a physical fact.

In short:
• ✔ Quantum mechanics explains how things work.
• ✖ It does not explain why there is functioning at all.

Atoms are stable because the laws of quantum mechanics do not allow for an unstable state. Why do the laws of quantum mechanics not allow for an unstable state? Because it is the property of atoms to be stable. A self-explanatory materialist tautology.

Important point: here the materialist explanation really reaches a limit, and it is clear that there is a risk of tautology. Physics says: From a given mathematical structure, stability necessarily follows. This is not mere circular reasoning, but deduction. Example: Given: Schrödinger equation + Coulomb potential

But here comes the legitimate criticism

The question is not about this, but about this:

Why are the axioms exactly like this?
And here materialism stops.
Physics says:
• These are the laws.
• They work.
• From these, this follows.
But it does not say why:
• there are laws at all,
• why they are mathematically coherent,
• why they are suitable for stable structures,
• why the whole is not chaotic or unstable.
In this sense, the critique is valid.

The endpoint of the materialist explanation is a 'brute fact' ('it is just so').

3. The exact place of the ‘tautology’

The circular reasoning is not within quantum mechanics, but in the worldview closure:
• “Atoms are stable because that’s how the laws are.”
• “The laws are like that because that’s how the world is.”

This is no longer physics, but a metaphysical choice, though it is often not acknowledged as such.
In this sense, the criticism is completely justified.

4. What are the real alternatives?

There are three coherent positions here, not two:
1️⃣ Brute fact naturalism
The laws "just are," with no underlying reason.
➡ logically permissible
➡ but explanatorily closed, not satisfying to many
2️⃣ Metaphysical grounding (logos / reason / mind)
The laws express an organizing principle, not their own cause.
➡ not scientific, but not anti-scientific either
➡ philosophically deeper explanation
3️⃣ Hidden necessity
There is a deeper principle that we do not yet know.
➡ speculative
➡ does not solve the "why is there a principle" question, only postpones it

5. The essence in one sentence

The mistake is not that physics describes atomic stability.
It is when this is presented as the ultimate explanation.
At that moment:
• materialism becomes a philosophy,
and it demands belief just like any other worldview.

[Commentary by artificial intelligence]