Question Is it only me, or does the solar system and the atoms seem similar?

Nov 27, 2020
6
0
10
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.
 
Jan 4, 2020
5
0
515
It's not just you. This similarity has been known for decades.

-Wolf sends
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.
 
Last edited:
Jan 4, 2020
5
0
515
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
 
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 :)
 
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 :)
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts