• @lugal@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1402 months ago

    The atom model with the electrons going around the nucleus, is inspired by the solar system. The better model doesn’t look anything alike. This is a naturalistic circular fallacy

    • @mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      282 months ago

      If atoms were like the solar system, all of the electron orbits would lose energy and decay by emitting electromagnetic radiation.

      The same type of decay does occur in the solar system as the planets emit gravitational radiation, but the decay rate is so miniscule we can’t really detect it.

      • @PiJiNWiNg@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        122 months ago

        Could you explain what you mean by “emitting gravitational radiation”? Gravity is how we perceive distortions in spacetime, the strength of which being determined by the mass of the objects. I understand that orbits can “decay”, but that is not the same as radioactive decay.

        • @mkwt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          92 months ago

          General relativity is famously difficult to understand, and I don’t claim to fully understand it, so I’m going to fall back to the famous rubber sheet model.

          Imagine the Earth in empty space. The mass of the Earth causes spacetime curvature that extends outward away from the Earth. However, if you look a single little patch of spacetime at some distance, say, 1000 km away, that little patch doesn’t know that it has to be curved because the Earth is 1000 km away. It doesn’t know where the Earth is. It just knows that its neighboring patch is a little bit more curved in the direction that leads to Earth, and its other neighbor is a little bit less curved going away from Earth. This essentially restates the principle of locality: all physics is local physics, and there is no spooky action at a distance.

          Now imagine that the Earth moves by some small distance dx in a small time dt. Going back to our little patch of spacetime, it doesn’t know that the Earth moved. So how does it change its curvature to match the new position of the Earth? It changes when its neighbors change. When the Earth moves, the spacetime immediately near the Earth stretches and bends first, then spacetime a little further away, and so on and so on. This process doesn’t happen instantaneously; it takes time for changes to propagate to longer distances. The theory predicts that disturbances and ripples will propagate via waves, called gravitational waves, and that these waves travel at the same speed of light as electromagnetic waves.

          Notice I called these spacetime waves “gravitational waves.” It is common to use the term “gravity waves” for typical water waves, of the kind you might see at the beach. Those are not the same type of wave.

          Now let’s talk about energy. The Earth in the solar system has some energy, including translational and rotational kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy as it sits in the Sun’s gravity well, and of course its own thermal energy and rest mass. Waves have the ability to transport energy from one location to another without transporting matter, mass, or electric charge. Spacetime waves are not any different. Because the Earth is moving in a periodic motion, it produces a periodic spacetime wave that propagates outward away from the solar system, and that spacetime wave carries some amount of energy away from the solar system. Where does that energy come from? It comes from the Earth, mainly from the Earth’s kinetic energy.

          So the story is that the gravitational waves are very, very, very slightly causing the Earth to slow down in its orbit. And following the laws of orbital mechanics, this causes the Earth to fall closer to the Sun. The result is that over the long term, the radius of the Earth’s orbit gets smaller. Alternatively, the Earth’s circular orbit is an illusion, and it’s actually spiraling inward on a very, very, tightly packed spiral. That’s what I meant by “orbital decay.”

          I find it hard to overstate just how small this gravitational radiation effect is for a typical solar system situation. We have an observatory called LIGO that can detect gravitational waves. It can measure a variation in distance of a tunnel of several kilometers down to well less than a single proton diameter. (Remember, this is trying to detect disturbances in space and time itself). Even still, it is only able to detect gravitational waves from the most powerful kinds of gravitational events–mergers of black holes and the like.

          Essentially: Spacetime is very “stiff” and gravity is very weak.

          • @PiJiNWiNg@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 months ago

            Thank you very much for the thought out explanation, i think im beginning to grasp the concept. To summarize to make sure:

            • accelerating mass causes gravitational waves
            • two bodies orbiting eachother are also accelerating towards eachother by virtue of centripetal force.
            • the energy to generate this wave is stripped directly from the kinetic energy of the system, causing the orbit to decay.

            So the comparison to atoms releasing EM energy is a bit more apt then I initially thought. Thanks again!

        • @Chrobin@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          They weren’t talking about radioactive decay, electrons are stable. They were talking about electrically charged particles emitting electromagnetic radiation when accelerated. (Circular movement is accelerated, see centripetal force) Since they use energy for this, they would very quickly fall into the nucleus (if I remember correctly, in around 10^-14 s).

          Bodies with mass also emit gravitational waves when accelerated, but much less.

      • @gasgiant@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        72 months ago

        Electrons do orbit like planets in the solar system however they’re also waves. Which is what gives the set radii they can orbit at and keeps it all stable. The orbits can and do change due to the emission or absorption of certain quanta of radiation.

        So saying like is fine. It’s not an exact description but more of a simile to help understanding. They do orbit like a solar system. Saying electrons orbit the same as a solar system would be incorrect. That’s when the maths doesn’t work and the electrons orbit would decay.

        • @Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          62 months ago

          that is not what i’ve learned, afaik electrons do not orbit with any sort of movement, and in fact talking about positions and movements at all on such a small scale is misleading.

          What i’ve learned is that electrons exist as a probability cloud, with a certain chance to observe them in any given position around the atom depending on the orbital and the amount of other electrons.

          Comparing it to gravitational orbits is just basically entirely incorrect, and certainly isn’t going to help someone pass advanced physics classes.

          • @gasgiant@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 months ago

            If they don’t orbit with any kind of movement then what does that say about Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle?

            We know their mass. So once observed we would know everything about them.

            Unless your saying they just some how jump from one random point in that probability cloud to another?

            • @Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 months ago

              i’m not sure why you think the uncertainty principle is a “gotcha”, it specifically states that you can’t know both the position and momentum of a particle and thus explicitly contradicts your claim that we’d know everything about them because we know their mass.

              I can’t be arsed to write out a whole scientific paper here so i’ll just link to the probability cloud model of orbitals and hope you can make sense of that.

              • @gasgiant@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 months ago

                You specifically said “electrons do not orbit with any kind of movement”

                So by your own argument they’re not moving. We know the mass. So if we find one by your logic we know everything about it.

                Yes that is the probability cloud model well done.

                However my point again. You seem to think saying this renders the simile of planetary orbit obsolete. It doesn’t it’s a simile. It’s a way of explaining something that doesn’t have to exactly explain it.

                If someone said “that fell on my head like a ton of bricks” would you go and examine the object and check it was exactly a ton of bricks or that it exactly exhibited the properties of a ton of bricks?

                Or perhaps would you understand something from that about what had happened to them.

                You may find this useful. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile

  • Wugmeister
    link
    fedilink
    English
    532 months ago

    Yes, because everybody knows the earth is in the sun’s p orbital

  • NoSpiritAnimal
    link
    fedilink
    English
    292 months ago

    Look, I’m not saying our universe exists as a node in an infinite fractal of repeating universes, but one of these is the largest structure we can see and another is the smallest:

  • @AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    282 months ago

    There was a guy on the net years ago who claimed that the entire universe is an electron on a plutonium atom. He made a religion out of it, wrote hymns to the atom (or, more precisely, changed the words of Christian hymns, clumsily fitting in references to plutonium atoms) and even legally changed his name to Archimedes Plutonium.

    • beefbot
      link
      English
      12 months ago

      With a name like that I imagine his cause of death might be in the radioactive “bathtub” of a nuclear rod cooling pool

    • @philipp_@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 months ago

      I always find it fascinating how specific those theories become. Want to believe that our universe is just some sort of quark in a bigger universe we can’t know anything about? Fine. Doesn’t make terribly much sense, but what does at that scale anyway? But then going on and being sure that that bigger thing must be Plutonium? Why? How?

  • @lost_tortie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    252 months ago

    Or that the observable universe could be inside of a black hole. Don’t watch too many black hole videos before bed.

    Planet 9 is not a primordial black hole and it can’t hurt you. 🙀

    • Transporter Room 3
      link
      fedilink
      English
      142 months ago

      From my understanding of primordial black holes, if one were so close as to be in our solar system, it is very small.

      Since it’s so small, it would have fizzled out through hawking radiation output a long time ago.

      So yes, planet 9 is NOT a black hole that can hurt you.

      Now, a pocket of warped spacetime that will one day spawn a Chaos Demon? Maybe.

      • Queen HawlSera
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 months ago

        It still fucks with me that we went from 9 planets to 8, pour one out for Pluto

        • Transporter Room 3
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 months ago

          Well at one time people “knew” that space was filled with Aether, and people knew that the universe was no more than 2 million years old.

          But once you understand things more, some of the things you know turn out to be wrong.

          In this case it’s more like “we called this thing a planet before we knew just how tiny it really is but it’s still cool so we now have categories for things just like it”

          Which I think is neat.

          You can be sad it’s not a planet, we can also be happy that it pulled one over on all of humanity for such a long time.

          • @ilinamorato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            32 months ago

            There are SO MANY Men In Black references in this thread and NOBODY is pointing them out and it is driving me CRAZY

            • Transporter Room 3
              link
              fedilink
              English
              32 months ago

              That’s actually what I was going for but I didn’t want to use the “earth was flat” that K uses.

        • @Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 months ago

          the only thing that changed is what we call it, pluto has existed since before humans and will continue to exist after humans most likely, and it does not give even the tiniest shit about what we call it.

          “planet” is an arbitrary category that mostly just exists because we like to put things into categories, much like the concept of a continent.

          It’s just really difficult to say that pluto is a planet if we want to have any sort of vague definition for what a planet is, because pluto is more similar to a ton of objects in the solar system than it is to the other bodies we very confidently refer to as planets.

          If nothing else you have to also call ceres a planet if you include pluto, and how many people give a shit about ceres?

    • @kakes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 months ago

      I thought I heard once that our universe could be a holographic projection on a 2D plane surrounding around a black hole.

      Don’t ask me for any details further than that, because I do not remember.

    • Rikudou_Sage
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 months ago

      If it’s a block hole, it doesn’t really matter. A black hole is not more dangerous than a planet with the same mass, it has the same gravity. The only difference is that it’s much tinier. If planet 9 is a black hole, it’s so small that Sun has stronger gravity (and bigger mass), meaning it’s bound to rotate around the Sun the same way every other large body in the Solar system is.

      Planet 9 maybe is or isn’t a primordial black hole and it won’t hurt you.

    • @MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 months ago

      IIRC, isn’t it closer to a white hole, what with expansion? If you were far enough away, you cannot reach ‘there’ vs being guaranteed to reach ‘there’ like a black hole. Though really, it’s neither. Just curved spacetime.

      The fact we think of white holes and black holes as separate entities just goes to show our great lack of understanding of spacetime.

    • @Slotos@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I mean, Schwarzschild radius shows that for a medium of constant density (and on a large scale, Universe is fairly uniform) there is an upper limit of a radius of a ball comprised of said medium above which it will form an event horizon.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius#Calculating_the_maximum_volume_and_radius_possible_given_a_density_before_a_black_hole_forms

      Which means that an infinite universe of non-zero density is either a bloody paradox (spend a minute deciding where exactly event horizons should form and whether there will be gaps), or our understanding of gravity and spacetime breaks on ginormous scales just as it does on micro ones.

      PS: I have seen no physicists talk about this, so there’s a good chance that there’s a simple resolution to the problem and I’m just stupid.

  • 🇰 🔵 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️
    link
    fedilink
    English
    24
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I’ve always liked this idea. Like, everything just repeats as infinitum whether you look smaller and smaller or bigger and bigger. The universe is just one of those fractal image kaleidoscopes.

    • Queen HawlSera
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I mean when I’m on Delta-8 that’s how I see the world, sometimes on shrooms too. Everything is just zooming out and zooming in, and it’s all just… the same thing, but not the same time… and all of it is turning to face God, but they only see the others turning to face God, infinitely everything looking for the source, but we can only see the other universes looking for God…

      It’a… circular, I think it’s going somewhere but it doesn’t.

      • @deft@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 months ago

        Because really there is only energy converting and shifting that’s it. Energy and tidal forces caused by presence of that energy bro.

        And we’re just the universe looking back at itself screaming a choir of mortal panic

        • @Notyou@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 months ago

          “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.”

          Bill Hicks

    • @Notyou@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 months ago

      I’ve been into gut health lately and I was thinking what if we are the microorganisms inside a bigger beings gut? This planet is just one part of it and in order for the universe to have a healthy gut we would have to terra form the planets and make healthy worlds. (I don’t think we will actually do that. We are more likely to mine every other planet)

      The universe’s gut now looks like the typical American diet gut with ultra processed foods and not enough fiber/fermented foods.

      • @Rainonyourhead@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 months ago

        This planet is just one part of it and in order for the universe to have a healthy gut we would have to terra form the planets and make healthy worlds.

        I want to question the assumption that an increase of Earth-like planets would be better than the current state of the universe.

        The idea that the current state of the universe is unhealthy, and needs us to save it by increasing homogeneity by altering other planets to look more like ours…

        I’m just gonna say it.

        It’s eerily reminiscent of the colonizers’ mindset of “saving the world by making it more like us”

        It comes from the assumption that others’ current state of being is inferior to ours, and need to be fixed, by us assimilating then into our, superior, state of being. It comes from an assumption that there exists inferior and superior states at all, and that superior states of being should be strived towards. Rather than assuming that diversity is better than homogeneity, and different states of being are neither inferior or superior, they simply are.

        I question the idea that us changing the universe to resemble us, would be superior to the current state of the universe

        • @Notyou@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          I see your point. I would be guilty of that mindset that a planet full of life (not necessarily human life) is superior to a dead rock.

  • Valen
    link
    fedilink
    English
    112 months ago

    I had this thought as a kid. But I thought it was neat that we might be part of an atom of some larger molecule. Didn’t keep me awake. I had other trauma keeping me awake, like going to school.

      • @antidote101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Or just reject planck length and all other dimensional limitations like it. Then you can have turtles universes all the way down.

        • @MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          8
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Planck length is not like universal pixels. It’s just where current models say there’s little reason to look at smaller things, since it’s kind of like worrying about which flecks of paint are coming off a car in a racing video game. It’s just … so irrelevant as to be ignorable.

          It’s nigh impossible to have any energy that could interact with us or atoms on the Planck length scale that wouldn’t just collapse in to a black hole. It’s not so much any observation of real-world pixelation, and more that even to atoms, it’s very tiny.

          • @antidote101@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 months ago

            Your comment about current models, known energy types, and universal pixels seems to ignore the post’s topic (which isn’t really about known models or energy types).

            A better way to disregard the post would be to just point out that solar systems aren’t that big in terms of scales of the universe, and that there’s no indication of any charges, electrons, or valance layers about.

        • @skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          planck length doesn’t come up even once, it all boils down to these things: 1. electron has momentum, and from that follows it has a wavelength, and at the same time 2. orbit is stable, which means that after every “rotation” electron has to end up with the same phase, which means there is only a finite number of solutions to time-independent schroedinger equation for (hydrogen) atom (don’t bother solving it on paper for anything with more than one electron) and these things are spherical harmonics

        • @skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          planetary orbits are not quantized, for starters. atomic orbitals are occupied by pairs (at most) of electrons, and this is because of qm spin exists which has no analogue in large scale. electrons aren’t spinning around on an orbit, they’re more of a smudged standing wave. it’s also a staple among vapid thonkers like mckenna

        • @Artyom@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          92 months ago

          Here’s a few reasons this doesn’t work:

          1. Planets are different sizes, electrons are all identical
          2. 2 planets cannot occupy the same orbit, but (at least) two electrons with opposite spin can
          3. If you have a high speed planet entering the solar system, you can’t transfer some of its energy to another planet and have the rogue planet continue with less energy
          4. All orbital energies are possible, not so much for atoms
          5. Planetary orbits emit gravitational waves. If electrons produced the equivalent (bremstrahlung radiation) during “orbit”, they would collide with the nucleus hilariously fast. This isn’t a problem because electron orbitals don’t have a physical representation.
    • Kalkaline
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 months ago

      You just need to know what happens to the elements on the periodic table that have the highest atomic weights. Here’s the article for Lawrencium give that a quick read through and then try to figure out why the universe is almost certainly not a very large atom as we define it.

    • @essell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 months ago

      It is in the right groups. Sort of thing you can find talked about at flat earther meetings all over the globe, UFO enthusiasts if you can get a word in to ask and in Christian science journals.

    • @Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 months ago

      because it only seems believable if you’re using an outdated and simplified model for atoms, and forget about the fact that atoms are also made up of protons/neutrons who are in turn made up of quarks, and the fact that there are a whole bunch of other fundamental particles that don’t give a toss about atoms.

      If you look at the more accurate electron cloud model it stops making sense to compare it to a solar system.

  • @niktemadur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    72 months ago

    Now imagine if something… or someone… would poke our galaxy with an observation, and all the stars in the arms instantly collapsed into a single particle.