Hey guys,
Its my thinking that this universe we know is just an atom like any other atom of a substance and the planets and stars are the electrons and protons moving in their orbits. Do you agree on this?
Put your views, whatever here and see what we come up with.
Thanks and regards,
Ummmm... no I don't agree. Literally it's just incorrect. I'm sure you mean figuratively. Well I still don't agree. The universe would have none of the properties of an atom no matter which way you put it. I'm sure you mean figuratively (which I still don't understand or agree with), so perhaps you can post what you mean in more detail?
I do like the idea of a fractal meta-universe...
But I don't think there's a scrap of evidence to support it, and there are a few details that would make it seem unlikely.
One of the biggest obstacles for it would be that we see our universe expanding, but we don't see atoms or particles in our universe expanding.
If it was to work, the universe would have to be a single, indivisible particle in the larger universe, not a whole atom.
The closest analogy you could use for our universe is an expanding cloud of dust. Each speck of dust would be one galaxy, and each atom within that speck would be a star system. The analogy breaks down past that point though. The behavior of atoms and their component parts is much different than the behavior of star systems and their component parts.
Considering the amount of planets in the universe, that would be such a large atom it's totally unstable.
Also, electrons don't really move in orbits. Only the single electron of a hydrogen atom, He+ ion, Li++ ion etc. moves in 'orbitals'. And only when it's in total isolation. Even then those orbitals still are not orbits but wave functions that can be used to get the probability that an electron will be in a certain area. It is impossible to pinpoint the exact location of an electron at a given time by its wavefunction.
For systems with more than one electron, the electrons can only 'approximately' be described by the aforementioned orbitals. Which are still not orbits.
Even if the universe were just an atom in another universe it wouldn't matter. This is something on which it is pointless to speculate just like multiple universes. We will never see them or visit them.
One major difference in the analogy of planets being compared to electrons:
- planets revolve around stars due to gravitational force of attraction
- electrons appear to revolve around the nucleus of an atom due to electrostatic force of attraction i.e. due to being oppositely charged.
Though gravitational fields and electric fields are similar in certain aspects the forces caused by them are of a completely different nature. Hence, the force which binds an electron within an atom is different from the force which binds planets within the vicinity of a star.
Furthermore, the analogy can only be somewhat probable for star systems such as the solar system. Stars do not rotate around a giant star or something i.e. they do not behave like planets to something else. Similarly, galaxies do not behave like electrons to some gigantic central mass. Galaxy clusters do not rotate around a central object either.
This analogy is a bit too idealistic.
| _AVG_ wrote: |
One major difference in the analogy of planets being compared to electrons:
- planets revolve around stars due to gravitational force of attraction
- electrons appear to revolve around the nucleus of an atom due to electrostatic force of attraction i.e. due to being oppositely charged.
Though gravitational fields and electric fields are similar in certain aspects the forces caused by them are of a completely different nature. Hence, the force which binds an electron within an atom is different from the force which binds planets within the vicinity of a star.
Furthermore, the analogy can only be somewhat probable for star systems such as the solar system. Stars do not rotate around a giant star or something i.e. they do not behave like planets to something else. Similarly, galaxies do not behave like electrons to some gigantic central mass. Galaxy clusters do not rotate around a central object either.
This analogy is a bit too idealistic. |
Especially since electrons don't revolve or orbit the nucleus. This model is completely incorrect yet it seems to stick around.and you ask, what is spacetime? if you manage to tear an area out of spacetime, what would you get? Parallel universe? black hole? white hole? Zero-point energy? Explosion? it's interesting that way...
Since when are we talking about spacetime here?
It's must be possible , I agree with you.
I dont say it as true or false but since some time I am thinking the shame.
Well, in this case, who is the one who feels that the universe is an atom? If it is an atom really, who are you, the one who asked this question? Within the atom, outside the atom or the atom itself?
Are we on the eve of discovering something new even right here on these pages? Even now as little electrons move along this tiny network eventually I suppose the same little things that eventually send us messages end up flying through the universe and I suppose, even the universe is made up of all kinds of little things even if there are a lot of them. On the eve of understanding something new, even this is just another view.
Sorry, if this is a nutty post couldn't resist it! This reminds me of that scene at the end of one of the Men In Black movies, when those aliens are playing marbles, and each marble has a galaxy inside it.
| musicnamdinh wrote: |
When I feel hungry sometimes and know I'm not rally that hungry then I always drink a glass of water, that helps most of the times, the body doesn't always know the difference between food and water.
Whenever I am on the pc (and that is almost always) I don’t feel like eating, because my brain is occupied with something more interesting. That is a problem with my younger sisters since they always think their not hungry, and goes many many many hours without eating, always saying their not hungry even when they maybe have eaten only three pieces of bread for the last 15 hours. People are different, could be that you are just bored, you would know if you were depressed at the moment or really hungry. Many times I end up going to the kitchen and cutting up some fruit or vegetables, it’s good and healthy.
You’re lucky that you don’t gain weight; I used to be skinny as a child, and then gained some while I was growing, but I’ve been the same weight and almost the same look for at least five years (currently 21 years) But people tell me I look a bit chubbier or thinner sometimes, I just don’t see it. |
WHAT IN THE NAME OF FRIHOST IS THAT!!! 
I mean, what are you talking about??
anyway.. back to the main topic..
You have to make a figurative 'container' for anything you are talking about.. I mean, even if the universe is an atom, you'd have to decide that what do the atoms make up.. finally..
I'd say, lets just call the universe the container.. there is nothing else in this world except the container.. Now, ofcourse, we have no idea where the container is..!! 
but anyway.. lets just say, that everything is inside the container...
I'd say, the galaxies are just a small part of that container.... all the galaxies together make up the universe... thats it, there is nothing more in the world.. (even if there is anything else, then you should talk about that when you figure out how many galaxies are there in the universe!!)
I mean, talk about 4+4 after you've learned 2+2, otherwise, there is no point in discussing!!u mean solar system is an atom, molecules are star clusters? hehe, maybe not quite possible, but maybe another universe within electron? 
Universe is build up with G force, and atom mainly with E forces
We can compair them becouse both of them are CENTRAL FROCES, which create CONCERVATIVE FIELDS.
Interesting philosophical idea. However, the term "atom" for this specifically would be incorrect since the universe already contains XXXXXXion atoms. If an atom is the basic unit of matter, the universe can not be this because of the complex units of matter contained within.
| SBCBC33 wrote: |
| Interesting philosophical idea. However, the term "atom" for this specifically would be incorrect since the universe already contains XXXXXXion atoms. If an atom is the basic unit of matter, the universe can not be this because of the complex units of matter contained within. |
But an atom is NOT a basic unit of matter - this has been known for over a century. An atom contains complex units within (electrons and quarks). | SBCBC33 wrote: |
| If an atom is the basic unit of matter, the universe can not be this because of the complex units of matter contained within. |
Actually, it can only be that way, because only the most basic 'particle' couldn't be probed on the inside to prove that it wasn't composed the same way as our universe is.
(Unless, of course, if when you probed inside it, you found that it was composed the same way as our universe.)
Its all kind of pointless though, because we know too little. What if the universe in which ours is just an 'atom' has very different laws of physics, and the 'little' atom universes behave quite differently than our atoms?The Universe is like life in general. Once you start figuring it out "bam" the end is near. If the Universe is an atom (which it might me) then time itself would be infinite. I just hope the Mayan calendar isn't the mathematical equation of when the Universe will cease to exist! That would make us a bunch of tiny little Universe’s very soon. If you think about it, would it be the end, or a new beginning? 
| ortie10 wrote: |
| Mayan calendar isn't the mathematical equation of when the Universe will cease to exist! |
It isn't. Probably the makers of the calendar just got tired after a while, and figured that if anybody still cared about it in 2012, they could finish the rest of it on their own.NO..NO...unimaginable for me...atom doesnt have so much stuff in it...cnt b compared to universe
