What I mean is like the solar system has planets revolving around a star and in atoms there are electrons revloving around protons and neutrons.
Question Is it only me, or does the solar system and the atoms seem similar?
- Thread starter Astro-guy
- Start date
Wolfshadw
Moderator
It's not just you. This similarity has been known for decades.
-Wolf sends
-Wolf sends
This ought to explain what's going on in an atom:
chem.libretexts.org
The solar system and the atom are two different things.
Why do electrons not fall into the nucleus?
The picture of electrons "orbiting" the nucleus like planets around the sun remains an enduring one, not only in popular images of the atom but also in the minds of many of us who know …
chem.libretexts.org
The solar system and the atom are two different things.
you could even imagine it farther and see our universe as a part of the make up of a neutron or proton spinning around its atom and so on and so on now that's mind blowingly small quantum mechanics to the power 10
Difference between a solar system is planets have stuff between them and any orbit is possible.
Atoms have nothing between orbits and orbits are set in specific locations, quantum leap only.
Boiled down to it's essence the entire universe is mostly that (void) space and about .01% or less of everything else.
Infinite regression of a universe is quite possible.
A galaxy of universes just 1 galaxy in a galaxy of universe universes ETC
If more than 1 universe exists nature will have grander structures like that.
Atoms have nothing between orbits and orbits are set in specific locations, quantum leap only.
Boiled down to it's essence the entire universe is mostly that (void) space and about .01% or less of everything else.
Infinite regression of a universe is quite possible.
A galaxy of universes just 1 galaxy in a galaxy of universe universes ETC
If more than 1 universe exists nature will have grander structures like that.
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Is it only me, or does the solar system and the atoms seem similar?
I really cannot see any way to usefully move this forward.
I really cannot see any way to usefully move this forward.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
"It's not just you. This similarity has been known for decades."
I can confirm this as I thought of it when I was about 11, which is 70 years ago, and I am sure that I was not the first.
Cat
similar as in the an atom has protons and neutrons and perhaps even other yet undiscovered exotic stuff orbiting a central nucleus a bit like the planets in our solar system orbiting our central star and because our very limited tiny amount of knowledge we have accrued so far our technology can only let us observe the universe and all the stuff within down to a certain quantum level so just as lots of planets have moons orbiting them as they orbit the sun and in turn our solar system is speeding through space at just over 500, 000 miles per hour within the milky-way and in turn the milky-way is travelling through this universe of ours at a mind-blowing 1.3 million miles per hour and who's to say that this universe in turn isn't moving even faster as it orbits another central form and our entire universe is a proton or a neutron or something of a similar nature but you could go on for a mind numbingly long time thinking about it and all you truly end up with is a sore head and loads more questions and to get an answer to all our questions we have to wait for first contact with some highly advanced ET's and even then they will probably turn out to be free masons or some other secretive society and can only tell us the answers when we pass so many degrees or become a masters master
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
OK, as many of us noticed decades ago, there are similarities - IF you think electrons are solid bodies moving in circular orbits. They aren't. That was a very old model.
Anyway, even if they were closer to planets, what meaning, if any, is there supposed to be in this?
I hesitate to mention the old metaphysical aphorism "as above, so below".
Cat
Anyway, even if they were closer to planets, what meaning, if any, is there supposed to be in this?
I hesitate to mention the old metaphysical aphorism "as above, so below".
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Having re-read the previous post, here are some obvious differences.
First here is a description of the Bohr model, which even refers to the Solar System.
This from googling "Bohr model of the atom".
QUOTE
In atomic physics, the Rutherford–Bohr model or Bohr model, presented by Niels Bohr and Ernest Rutherford in 1913, is a system consisting of a small, dense nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons—similar to the structure of the Solar System, but with attraction provided by electrostatic forces in place of gravity. (My italics).
QUOTE
Whilst some electrons may have slight difference (energy levels in different orbits) there is nothing like the enormous diversity of planets. vide rocky planets to gas giants, cores, atmospheres (inc pressures), lack of solid surfaces, etceera.
One difference is that, above hydrogen, atoms contain protons and neutrons melded in the core. I know of no positive and negative stars (retaining identity) actually melded - not double stars.
There are, of course, planets orbiting double stars.
Another fundamental difference is that (IIRC) electrons are not regarded as individual spheres, but as 'spread out' through space.
Nevertheless, thanks for raising the issue - it always brings out some good discussion.
Cat
First here is a description of the Bohr model, which even refers to the Solar System.
This from googling "Bohr model of the atom".
QUOTE
In atomic physics, the Rutherford–Bohr model or Bohr model, presented by Niels Bohr and Ernest Rutherford in 1913, is a system consisting of a small, dense nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons—similar to the structure of the Solar System, but with attraction provided by electrostatic forces in place of gravity. (My italics).
QUOTE
Whilst some electrons may have slight difference (energy levels in different orbits) there is nothing like the enormous diversity of planets. vide rocky planets to gas giants, cores, atmospheres (inc pressures), lack of solid surfaces, etceera.
One difference is that, above hydrogen, atoms contain protons and neutrons melded in the core. I know of no positive and negative stars (retaining identity) actually melded - not double stars.
There are, of course, planets orbiting double stars.
Another fundamental difference is that (IIRC) electrons are not regarded as individual spheres, but as 'spread out' through space.
Nevertheless, thanks for raising the issue - it always brings out some good discussion.
Cat
Last edited:
Absolutely NO. The movement of the planets of a solar system obey to Einstein general relativity laws, while the electrons follow the rules of quantum mechanic theory.
A similarity could be invoked at the Rutherford's time, not today.
Wolfshadw
Moderator
The video has one glaring error if you can understand it. It captions latter zoom-outs in "light years" rather than continuing on in space like the earlier zooms (**** x 6 trillions miles). The captions mix real time with ghost universe histories (relative space-time). It doesn't matter that it actually does that atrocity (everybody does it, it seems), it just shouldn't be captioned as such for this video and its intent. It should be captioned in order for one of its first half zooms -- as example, 10 million x 6 trillion miles (which would keep to a semblance of the closer real time of the even earlier zooms). Other than that it compares to Chaos Theory zooming "fractal self-similarity." which is what the lead here actually tries to deal in; universe large's real -- zooming -- self-similarity to universe small.
Last edited:
Everything spins, as you've surmised,
atoms, molecules, oceans, planets, stars,
stellar groupings, clusters then galaxies.
This activity is the result of Interaction
with (misnamed) 'dark' matter.
Qi is a description of one facet
of the makeup of our universe
atoms, molecules, oceans, planets, stars,
stellar groupings, clusters then galaxies.
This activity is the result of Interaction
with (misnamed) 'dark' matter.
Qi is a description of one facet
of the makeup of our universe
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Is it only me, or does the solar system and the atoms seem similar?
Yes, or
similar in some ways, as grass is similar to little green men, but not in others, as in not in any meaningful way.
Cat
Yes, or
similar in some ways, as grass is similar to little green men, but not in others, as in not in any meaningful way.
Cat
**Is it only me, or does the solar system and the atoms seem similar?
Assuming that this question is implying that our solar system may serve a similar function to an atom due to noticeable similarities; there is no evidence that suggests that because the physics of an atom and of a solar system differ (I.e. different angular momentum characteristics, electromagnetism vs. gravity etc. etc.) that they don’t share a similar function, regardless if varied by some characteristics or properties or physics. Variation of physics doesn’t disprove similarity of function/purpose of the two.
To answer the question shortly, there are similarities and there are differences between an atom and a solar system. There are a lot of gray areas, and yes there is a lot of information we don’t have as well. From what we do have, there are certainly differences and there are certainly similarities. If we count what we do have, it seems there may be more similarities than differences.
There are hypothesis and theories regarding solar systems and atoms sharing similarities and thus sharing a similar function of making up for example an organism and, humans and the solar system being but another larger scale of a mosaic of “solar system atoms” making up yet another organism and who knows thus how far the scale goes larger or smaller. In this hypothesis or theories, solar systems/atoms could be hypothesised to be part of a family of entities not based on physics but based on function (what they do on a broader spectrum - constituents in making up an organism despite differences in physics). We cannot be so insular as to say that because atoms have differences to a solar system, therefore the solar system cannot serve the same function as an atom. We don’t have any information to draw that conclusion. There is nothing disproving that two entities can serve a similar function with differing physics, and when they have more similarities than dis-similarities it seems kinda like Caucasian vs non-Caucasian but factoring in size. There is no evidence thus far disproving this hypothesis and these theories of solar systems supporting organisms of a larger scale just as atoms do us and everything around us. There is no evidence that says because atoms and solar systems have different quantum mechanics or physics or some dissimilarities, that they serve a different function. We cannot yet disprove the above hypothesis because for all we know, they still could share the same function, or do the same thing, they still both could be constituents in a greater organism, even though they have different physics and dis-similarities.
So, to answer your question, yes they do seem similar and they also have some dis-similarities too. Whether or not they have a similar function (both atoms and solar systems support doing the same thing on different scales) despite these dis-similarities is yet to be disproved or proved. There is no evidence to suggest yet that they are entirely different entities not contributing to making up organisms (doing similar or the same things) at different scales. My subjective opinion is that there are more similarities than differences and we already know that atoms contribute to making up everything around us - it seems very warrant of further investigation to me that solar systems be investigated as serving a possible similar function to atoms for potentially other organisms/matter on a larger scale (despite known differences). Who knows, may be there’s a greater larger scale organism that requires atoms to produce organisms that serve as constituents in our solar system to maintain our solar system like us humans on planet earth, so that our solar system can function properly alongside other solar systems so they can maintain themselves as solar systems and serve as a similar function - as does an atom to us - for this larger scale organism to carry out its life amongst its differing elements, interactions and physics, in its world etc… who knows…we don’t have the information at this stage, allst we can do is speculate to help us potentially prompt further investigation. Nothing is proved nor disproved with regard to atoms and solar systems not sharing a similar function. We just have some information, the rest is subjective and not proved or disproved, we cannot draw conclusion from what we have at this point.
)
Assuming that this question is implying that our solar system may serve a similar function to an atom due to noticeable similarities; there is no evidence that suggests that because the physics of an atom and of a solar system differ (I.e. different angular momentum characteristics, electromagnetism vs. gravity etc. etc.) that they don’t share a similar function, regardless if varied by some characteristics or properties or physics. Variation of physics doesn’t disprove similarity of function/purpose of the two.
To answer the question shortly, there are similarities and there are differences between an atom and a solar system. There are a lot of gray areas, and yes there is a lot of information we don’t have as well. From what we do have, there are certainly differences and there are certainly similarities. If we count what we do have, it seems there may be more similarities than differences.
There are hypothesis and theories regarding solar systems and atoms sharing similarities and thus sharing a similar function of making up for example an organism and, humans and the solar system being but another larger scale of a mosaic of “solar system atoms” making up yet another organism and who knows thus how far the scale goes larger or smaller. In this hypothesis or theories, solar systems/atoms could be hypothesised to be part of a family of entities not based on physics but based on function (what they do on a broader spectrum - constituents in making up an organism despite differences in physics). We cannot be so insular as to say that because atoms have differences to a solar system, therefore the solar system cannot serve the same function as an atom. We don’t have any information to draw that conclusion. There is nothing disproving that two entities can serve a similar function with differing physics, and when they have more similarities than dis-similarities it seems kinda like Caucasian vs non-Caucasian but factoring in size. There is no evidence thus far disproving this hypothesis and these theories of solar systems supporting organisms of a larger scale just as atoms do us and everything around us. There is no evidence that says because atoms and solar systems have different quantum mechanics or physics or some dissimilarities, that they serve a different function. We cannot yet disprove the above hypothesis because for all we know, they still could share the same function, or do the same thing, they still both could be constituents in a greater organism, even though they have different physics and dis-similarities.
So, to answer your question, yes they do seem similar and they also have some dis-similarities too. Whether or not they have a similar function (both atoms and solar systems support doing the same thing on different scales) despite these dis-similarities is yet to be disproved or proved. There is no evidence to suggest yet that they are entirely different entities not contributing to making up organisms (doing similar or the same things) at different scales. My subjective opinion is that there are more similarities than differences and we already know that atoms contribute to making up everything around us - it seems very warrant of further investigation to me that solar systems be investigated as serving a possible similar function to atoms for potentially other organisms/matter on a larger scale (despite known differences). Who knows, may be there’s a greater larger scale organism that requires atoms to produce organisms that serve as constituents in our solar system to maintain our solar system like us humans on planet earth, so that our solar system can function properly alongside other solar systems so they can maintain themselves as solar systems and serve as a similar function - as does an atom to us - for this larger scale organism to carry out its life amongst its differing elements, interactions and physics, in its world etc… who knows…we don’t have the information at this stage, allst we can do is speculate to help us potentially prompt further investigation. Nothing is proved nor disproved with regard to atoms and solar systems not sharing a similar function. We just have some information, the rest is subjective and not proved or disproved, we cannot draw conclusion from what we have at this point.
)Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
The idea that the planets orbit the Sun, and electrons were thought to orbit the nucleus, was somehow significant, was once current.
You might say anything orbiting anything has a hidden meaning. Look at the differences in this case. Electrons are negatively charged, nuclei positively. If you knock a planet out of the Solar System, it does not give the Sun a positive charge. Yes, it might have been a useful idea for teaching children, but, there again, it would probably have confused them.
Cat
You might say anything orbiting anything has a hidden meaning. Look at the differences in this case. Electrons are negatively charged, nuclei positively. If you knock a planet out of the Solar System, it does not give the Sun a positive charge. Yes, it might have been a useful idea for teaching children, but, there again, it would probably have confused them.
Cat
Yeah, we were taught the Bohr theory in high school general science as sorta like a mini solar system, and it worked for a bunch of 14 year olds, Most of whom don’t care, but that’s where the similarity ends. I don’t recall any systems with exactly 8 yellow suns, 8 red suns, with two planets in the first orbit and exactly six planets in the second orbit, and like that (just wait’ll ya see the uranium solar system). You can point to a planet and say ‘Yep, there it is and it’s moving at this m/s, but Heisenberg says an electron, you can’t predict it’s position and it’s speed at the same time. They’re just fuzzy little critters occupying a fuzzy little space, moving at an incredible fuzzy speed, but only certain places with none allowed to between those places. But, when you measure it, you say, but is really there?
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Pogo, excellent points.
For non-scientists, the allusion is to protons and neutrons in the nucleus (yellow and red suns) and planets (electrons). Any similarity very quickly breaks down.
Cat
For non-scientists, the allusion is to protons and neutrons in the nucleus (yellow and red suns) and planets (electrons). Any similarity very quickly breaks down.
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Looked good at the lower levels but when I learned about the D and F sub orbitals the picture got ugly. If my understanding of gravity is correct, then Sol and its captives are attracted strictly by their electrical field with the magnetic moment zeroed out. So one can have an orbital removed to no effect while the other is iffy.
Log life for all, let's helping and respective as well as working together all worldwide
Mod Edit - The Religion forum is that-a-way
Mod Edit - The Religion forum is that-a-way
Last edited by a moderator:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 179
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram