FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Universe is an Atom





manavbhardwaj
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,
Afaceinthematrix
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?
ocalhoun
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.
Arnie
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.
Xanatos
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.
_AVG_
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.
Xanatos
_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.
Xrave
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...
Arnie
Since when are we talking about spacetime here?
Dark_Pegasus
It's must be possible , I agree with you.
metalfreek
I dont say it as true or false but since some time I am thinking the shame.
vineeth
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?
Bluedoll
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.

Embarassed Sorry, if this is a nutty post couldn't resist it!
cr3ativ3
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.
speeDemon
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!!! Evil or Very Mad

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..!! Very Happy 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!!
supernova1987a
u mean solar system is an atom, molecules are star clusters? hehe, maybe not quite possible, but maybe another universe within electron? Rolling Eyes
chatrack
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.
SBCBC33
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.
Bikerman
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).
ocalhoun
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?
ortie10
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? Question
ocalhoun
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.
nanunath
NO..NO...unimaginable for me...atom doesnt have so much stuff in it...cnt b compared to universe
Jungle808
If we use the word "atom" to mean a collection of particles held together in a vacum by forces, then I realy lik this idea. I mean just because the forces are different at different levels (galactic body, atomic, subatomic) doesn't rly dispel anything. It would make sense that stronger forces would create smaller atoms/universes with less diverse strutures while relatively weak forces like gravity would result in larger diverse "atoms" consisting of the former. We know the forces holding the particles within protons together are much stronger than the ones that hold the atom itslef together so who knows maybe its an infinite chain.

However the fact are universe is expanding means our atom/universe must be extremely unstable, possibly due to influnces from the universe/atom teir above us. I mean after all we can split atoms maybe our universe is a "atom" that was spilt by yet some other self aware being in a higher tier atom/universe.

The fact that this system is infinite even explains life since the statistical liklihood of infinite combinations of particles creating life is >o.
orangbaik
manavbhardwaj wrote:
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,




NO !!!

do you ever see any neutron talks ?
this is the same as you said that human is only a pluron
Nonufski
Quote:
The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists,[1] including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.[2][3] Definitions and usage vary and similar terms include the cosmos, the world and nature. Scientific observation of earlier stages in the development of the universe, which can be seen at great distances, suggests that the universe has been governed by the same physical laws and constants throughout most of its extent and history. There are various multiverse theories, in which physicists have suggested that our universe might be one among many universes that likewise exist.[4][5]


From Wikipédia
Haley_Madison
I agree.

We can only see to a certain level of size because of our current "large" size as humans. However, if an intelligent species were looking at a zoomed out view of the 100s of billions of galaxies in our observable universe - how much could they zoom in? Maybe they would see a solar system as an atom with the planets orbiting it, because that's as far as they could zoom in.
prezgarfield
This discussion reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke's Rama series. I don't want to spoil the ending but there is a parallel imagining going on there.
killer2022
It is a very good theory if you ask me.
benjietimogan
how can we measure the exact size of the universe?
kelseymh
benjietimogan wrote:
how can we measure the exact size of the universe?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe is a good place to start. Follow the linked references to get details.

The simplest way to measure the size of the Universe is by inverting Hubble's relation. The cosmological expansion means that distant galaxies appear to recede from us with a speed (which we compute from their observed redshift) proportional to distance. Our best measurement of that recession rate is H0 = 73.8+/-2.4 km/s/Mpc (a galaxy 1 megaparsec away appears to recede from us at 73.8 km/s, a galaxy 2 megaparsecs away at 147.6 km/s and so on).

The distance at which that recession velocity appears to be equal to c is called the Hubble distance, and is equivalent in time to the age of the Universe (the time it has spent expanding at the currently observed rate). Our best estimate for that age is 13.65+/-0.11 billion years.

You should read the first link I posted to find out how that age, and the Hubble distance, relate to the "actual size" of the Universe.
subhan1
universe is atom - this sounds good but not practical - where are those orbitals then?
fabfabfb
It could also be possible that inside a quark there was another universe and so on indefinite times. Actually, if the borders of the universe was spherical, you could imagine it like another particle. I ask: beyond those borders, does space time still exist?
Bikerman
That is a big question.
According to General Relativity, spacetime is smooth (by which I mean there isn't a 'unit' of spacetime or a smallest possible 'piece' of spacetime). According to quantum physics, however, spacetime should quantise).
I think that most physicists would say that GR is wrong here - which is indicated by the fact that the theory 'breaks' when considering black holes - when r (distance) becomes zero then we get infinities all over the place - and to a physicist an 'infinite' result is a sign that something is wrong with the theory.
bijju
can't agree with you on this point..
Bikerman
bijju wrote:
can't agree with you on this point..


Really? So you think LQG will not succeed in quantising GR then? Or perhaps you think that we can solve the problem with stabilising the 2-brane in D11 and the 5-brane in D10 and manage to get a stable model of space-time from Superstring theory?

Do tell......

If you don't understand what I mean then what on earth makes you think that your opinion, whether agreeing or disagreeing, matters and is worth expressing?
speeDemon
Bikerman wrote:
bijju wrote:
can't agree with you on this point..


Really? So you think LQG will not succeed in quantising GR then? Or perhaps you think that we can solve the problem with stabilising the 2-brane in D11 and the 5-brane in D10 and manage to get a stable model of space-time from Superstring theory?

Do tell......

If you don't understand what I mean then what on earth makes you think that your opinion, whether agreeing or disagreeing, matters and is worth expressing?


Did you ever think that this was a response to the topic name bikerman? I think it is Razz haha
Bikerman
Yes I think it was - but it hacks me off when people post on topics they obviously know nothing about simply a single sentence 'I agree' - as though their agreement were somehow relevant and something to be considered, instead of an ignorant distraction to be ignored... Smile
codegeek
I don't know about the universe being an atom. However, I have read a small piece that said the universe could be a mere electron of a mega system. Especially because the electron is considered a fundamental particle and its exact composition is not considered, I don't know what to make of the theory. I think it would be very far-fetched to think of the electron as holding a whole universe, but it does make one wonder, what if it's true? What would the implications of that be?
shashwatblack
i sometimes think that way.. that an atom is a universe on its own, and there are other heavenly bodies inside the atom itself. and our universe is just an atom of a much larger universe.. maybe it is true, and when we dig much deeper into an atom, we find a whole universe there, minuscule yet really large compared to the objects in it.. just like ours is.. maybe in that small universe, the electromagnetic waves, energies, particles, everything is really small, not something we could ever detect, and maybe we'll never know.. and a universe whose atom is just our universe, everything is just huge.. of course, it doesn't make sense when you compare planets and stars to electrons and protons. we have to take a much larger (or you could say smaller) scale to consider that.. like the whole cluster of galaxies as just a small sub atomic particle, smaller than the smallest particles known. the electrons, and protons would be just too large, nothing we have ever come across.. much much larger than we could imagine, even larger than what we've thought the universe is as big as.
jajarvin
When universe is an atom then what is an atom?
Radar
I can't help but think this might make more sense if you said the galaxy was like an atom, in that there are orbits, and then you could go on to remark about the similarities of the world at both a macroscopic and microscopic level.

The universe is big, very complicated, and not really like an atom at all. I mean, even if that did make sense on a scientific level, I don't understand how that makes any sense of anything.
roadtripbuddies
Well there could be worlds within worlds within worlds, etc. But this is all just theoretical for now... Maybe the multiverse theory is true and the multiple universes make up a molecule of some huge substance.. we will never know.
SDsBox
jajarvin wrote:
When universe is an atom then what is an atom?

... a universe!! lol Laughing
spinout
hm, this is an interesting question since I think there is a truth about the fractals in our universe.
Still, even if there is a fractalscenario here I think the vaccum energy beeing the start and end of it all... But this I hope you folks prove me wrong!
Pippo90
Atoms are basically empty. The Universe is basically empty. As my friend Gorgias would say, nothing exists! Smile
Ankhanu
Pippo90 wrote:
Atoms are basically empty. The Universe is basically empty. As my friend Gorgias would say, nothing exists! Smile

Your friend Gorgias is poetic... and wrong Razz
TheGremlyn
Haley_Madison wrote:
I agree.

We can only see to a certain level of size because of our current "large" size as humans. However, if an intelligent species were looking at a zoomed out view of the 100s of billions of galaxies in our observable universe - how much could they zoom in? Maybe they would see a solar system as an atom with the planets orbiting it, because that's as far as they could zoom in.


This is basically what I've been thinking and I'm glad someone else has thought about this very same thing. It plays on the imagination a bit and it makes me wonder how big the universe is. When I picture zooming out and seeing all those clusters of stars and suns and planets as little specs they just seem small. I kind of wonder what could be looking down on that, on us. You kind of have to step away from the science we know and open you mind to try and make those comparisons and but on a much larger scale. Some people have already expressed what they know an atom is, electron and proton and a nucleus, etc...You can't say a planet or universe is the exact same,but you can try and draw on the similarities and the move beyond that to try and fill in some holes.

Ah well. The thought that we're a part of something bigger is interesting and makes me wonder what it could be.
Bikerman
I think it is misconceived. There is assumption that everything scales but simply doesn't. You, for example, are a certain mass, height and shape. You might scale a factor of 2 - possibly - but no more. After that it all breaks down force/mass ratios are all to ******, torque and other forces are out of step and your body either fails mechanically one way (scaling up) or merges critical components and fails operationally going the other way.
The same limits must apply to all matter ao this indicates empirically that scaling is extremely limited and not possible on anything like the scale imagined.

This is why I have a problem with another poster from the university of twaddle, who insists that everything is fractal - a similar idea based on the notion that things scale smoothly, like most fractal images do - displaying self-similarity independent of scale. Real matter and structures don't work like that, and are functionally and structurally tied into the scale around them.

OK - reason it out - make it work - how? Scale the environment so that everything changes size but retains spatial geometry and relationships in 3-space. Still no good. Forces don't scale linearity if they scale at all. Most of them are pesky non-linear quadratic/polynomial types that vary as squares of spatial variables - gravity, electrostatics and electromagnetism etc etc. So scale an elephant by 2 and the forces acting are all way to big for a mere doubling in mass and spatial extent. Likewise, scale down and you soon get non-linear effects showing. Chuck a dog from a 2nd floor flat and it probably dies (DON'T - I am a dog lover!). This is strictly thought-experiment territory, not empitical testing. A cat is not that much scaled down but will probably walk away. Then it gets really non-linear. Chuck ir from the tenth floor and it still walks away - a force is now in play and does not scale linearly with height - wind resistance - but only for relatively light objects, otherwise another non0linear effect - gravity - swamps it. Go up to the 30th floor - still survives.
Other non-linearity intrudes as you scale further down. Heat loss is non-linear and so rises rapidly. Fast respiration is needed to power the difference. (Body volume scales as a cube of radius but surface area scales as a square giving more pesky non-linearity.)

So can we deal with this? Why not scale force as well? How? Err..ok we need to convert ....memblwe memblee, scratch scratch.....oh shit, c ois onvariant here...scratch, doodle, mumble...mumble mumble..scratch scratch....SNAP...Bollox!
errr.,.if you can work out how it could be done then please let me know.....I've broken my pencil..
ocalhoun
Hm... well, if we're going to debate about how many universes can dance on the head of a pin, I think we might be able to assume each one has its own independent 'scale'.

That if you were to (impossibly) shrink down and visit one of these tiny universes, once you got all the way down to that scale, you'd find that all the laws of physics and the sizes of everything are perfectly normal-looking. That if you hadn't come from a bigger universe, you'd think that only things of this size could work.

(ie, that each universe would be kind of in a 'bubble', that would describe a boundary between where the laws of the parent universe apply, and where the laws of the child universe would apply)
Pippo90
No, I don't agree at all. Unluckily, the model of the atom you have in mind (which is still taught in schools) is the Bohr model, which is quite outmoded. Since the electron is a quantum particle, hence without a defined position in space, the new "pictures" of atoms should show a point (the nucleaum) sorrounded by a "probability cloud" (of finding the electron at a certain position).
infinitude
No, I don't agree. I think the universe is more chaotic and more difficult to observe/understand, compared to the atom model which has been revealed to comprise lots of understandable regulations.
Luis_contoso
The universe does not exist at all. Is just a concept.
Everthing you see, hear, taste, touch and smell is all in your mind.

You exist because you think.

A THOUGHT is a WORD, a word is a SOUND, and sound VIBRATES. Vibration is ENERGY, energy GLOWS, and glowing is LIGHT. Therefore, Light, or everything we see, is just a THOUGHT

Stop dreaming and wake up.

Very Happy Very Happy
Related topics
Miss Canada crowned Miss Universe 2005
Google News Offers RSS and Atom Feeds
PHP date() format for atom in php 4
Star Wars vs Star Trek :Movies
Are christians educated?
Why do you all hate God?
What can we know about the universe?
How small is the universe?
an atom.
Why did God create humans?
The Universe Big Bang is wrong
Is the Universe Actually 'Big'?
God, the Universe, and Everything...
is the universe fractal
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> The Universe

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.