Why does the very large resemble the very small?

[kalrin2001]

Forgive me if this doesn't make much sense, feel free to refute and dismiss.

I'm not too educated in physics. But one thing has always struck me as odd, the fact the the very small often reminds me of the very large. For example, objects on the very small end of the spectrum orbiting each other much like you have planets orbiting stars, ect.

The most likely explanation I have come up with for myself is that if the very large is in fact similar to the very small, that they must BE similar. And if our macro existence is similar to the existence that is too small for us to see, and that existence that is too small for us to see is the building block of our macro existence, then why wouldn't OUR macro existence be the building block of another much larger existence?

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out also that one thing is almost always part of another, the planet is part of the solar system which is part of our galaxy which is part of our universe. Does that mean that the universe also helps to make something up, and why wouldn't whatever the universe helps to make up, be a piece of something else beyond that, and beyond that?

now on the smaller end of things, why not use the same idea? What if it goes in that direction too, pretty much to infinity?

What does life mean in the context of all of this, specifically humanity? Maybe it is Humanity's job to alter this one little bubble we are on in such a way, that we turn it into another type of bubble? As smart as we are as a species, we are driven primarily by our instincts, whether we like it or think otherwise. Everything seems to have a piece in everything else, some role to play, whether that role is just being a rock orbiting a hot star, or me typing this awful post for you to read on space.com

/end of ramble

Feel free to share your thoughts, or to ridicule mine

 

[kg]

I think you might be a bit mistaken. Atoms don't really resemble solar systems. Gravity and momentum are what keeps solar systems stable. Gravity is not all that important at the atomic level. Electomagnetic force holds electrons in orbit around the atomic nucleus not gravity. The subatomic world doesn't resemble much the galaxys around us. I think someone else might explain this much better than I can. I don't think you will find any Who-Villes floating around on dust spects. I think maybe you are thinking about fractel geometry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal I'm not sure how well fractles relate to the real world.

 

[aphh]

Gravity is not all that important at the atomic level. Electomagnetic force holds electrons in orbit around the atomic nucleus not gravity.

Forces work still identical regardless of what you call them, electromagnetic or gravity. Both create forces and force fields that yield similar results. Even the basic mathematical formulas are identical for gravitational force and electromagnetic force:

F = g (m1 m2) / r^2 for gravity between two masses, where g = gravitational constant and

F = k (Q1 Q2) / r^2 for electromagnetic force between two point charges where k = electrostatic constant.

Only exception is that electromagnetic forces can have opposite manifestations, repel and attract, whereas gravity only works in 1 direction just attracting, atleast with the current knowledge. A force is a force.

 

[DrRocket]

Forgive me if this doesn't make much sense, feel free to refute and dismiss.

I'm not too educated in physics. But one thing has always struck me as odd, the fact the the very small often reminds me of the very large. For example, objects on the very small end of the spectrum orbiting each other much like you have planets orbiting stars, ect.

The most likely explanation I have come up with for myself is that if the very large is in fact similar to the very small, that they must BE similar. And if our macro existence is similar to the existence that is too small for us to see, and that existence that is too small for us to see is the building block of our macro existence, then why wouldn't OUR macro existence be the building block of another much larger existence?

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out also that one thing is almost always part of another, the planet is part of the solar system which is part of our galaxy which is part of our universe. Does that mean that the universe also helps to make something up, and why wouldn't whatever the universe helps to make up, be a piece of something else beyond that, and beyond that?

now on the smaller end of things, why not use the same idea? What if it goes in that direction too, pretty much to infinity?

What does life mean in the context of all of this, specifically humanity? Maybe it is Humanity's job to alter this one little bubble we are on in such a way, that we turn it into another type of bubble? As smart as we are as a species, we are driven primarily by our instincts, whether we like it or think otherwise. Everything seems to have a piece in everything else, some role to play, whether that role is just being a rock orbiting a hot star, or me typing this awful post for you to read on space.com

/end of ramble

Feel free to share your thoughts, or to ridicule mine

I think maybe you have been influenced too much by the "Disney" picture of electrons orbiting the nucleus like planets orbit the sun. It doesn't really work that way.

For some reason that model worked for Bohr in analyzing the hydrogen atom -- one proton, one electron. It doesn't work for anything else.

At the atomic level quantum mechanics is very important, and quantum mechanics predicts only probabilities. At the large scale level quantum effects turn out not to be so important and it is possible to give very precise deterministic predictions. The analogy between large astrophysical systems and small atomic systems is very poor.

That does not mean that the fundamental laws that apply are different. What it does mean is that the importance of the effects of the various physical forces and phenomena are different in different situations and at different scales.

 

[kg]

Is kalrin maybe thinking of fractal geometry? Do fractals have any use in the real world? I can see how very complex structures can be made from a few simple building blocks but I'm kinda sure that the Eiffel tower isn't made up of millions of tiny tinny Eiffel towers.

 

[DrRocket]

Is kalrin maybe thinking of fractal geometry? Do fractals have any use in the real world? I can see how very complex structures can be made from a few simple building blocks but I'm kinda sure that the Eiffel tower isn't made up of millions of tiny tinny Eiffel towers.

I don't think that is what he has in miind.

I don't know of an particularly deep applications of fractals outside of some computer modeling applications. Stephen Wolfram wrote a book that tries to apply some similar mathematics (basically cellular automata) to physics, but it fell quite short of the mark. The book is full of misconceptions and errors. There have been several knowledgeable scathing reviews of that book -- another misguided delusional attempt to "revolutionize" physics.

Some people just can't seem to grasp that science proceeds very carefully by a series of successive approximations. The big changes that are made are changes in perspective, as when relativity supplanted Newtonian mechanics. It offered new insight and allowed understanding of new phenomena, but it did not overturn the applicability of Newton's theory within the known domain in which it is applicable.

 

[kalrin2001]

Thanks for replies, and for clearing up some misconceptions. I guess it's easy to have the "Disney perspective" especially if you are not especially interested in atomic particles and the like. I am not suggesting anything that has to do with fractals. I am just generally curious as to the purpose of things on smaller planes then us, and things on larger planes.

Even though things work differently on our scale, can it be possible that we are living in an environment that has a similar overall purpose? are our massive galaxies just as insignificant as atoms? If our species were born on the atomic level, then spaces between atoms and such might be the equivalent of light years, and if we were in the middle of something much larger (the macro universe) we might not see anything else besides other atoms floating around. I know no life is possible at the atomic level, I am just using the above example as a size analogy.

Some people just can't seem to grasp that science proceeds very carefully by a series of successive approximations.

There is very little to tell us if these approximations are correct or not, we have collectively as a species been wrong on numerous occasions about numerous things.
as someone on the outside of science looking in, it seems that views are always changing, conflicting, and often times, absurd. too bad it's our best tool to poke and prod the universe with.