Guest QuestionIt Posted April 22, 2005 Posted April 22, 2005 Ok, by no means am i an expert at physics or do i really have any experience in atomic theories, but i had an interesting idea one day and i was wondering if i could get some feedback. Gravity. It exists. Lesser than the pull of two magnets yet it keeps the universe in order. Atoms. Building blocks of everything. God's Lincoln Logs. Ok, here is my far out approach to this. The way that the celestial bodies gravitate around each other in huge elipses is VERY similar to that of protons and neutrons orbiting a nucleus. Imagine if humans were 2 billion times bigger. Would the solar systems throughout the universe act and look just like atoms? I am a strong believer in the idea that time is relative to size. The orbits of our planets take years to complete when we are greatly dwarfed by there massiveness. But to someone 2 billion times bigger, are they zipping around? Maybe, if there is any truth to this, the solar system, complete with paralell universes and wormholes, is really just a grand scale of the wooden russian dolls that start large and open up to reveal smaller and smaller dolls. Are we just floating around on a piece of dust in another, larger world just trying to get by? Do they face the same dillema there? Gargantuan universe, tiny atoms making it all. As far fetched as this might seem, remember that atoms were only recently discovered compared to history. Is this the moment of reckoning where we discover that the trillions of atoms that compose life here are made up of trillions of atoms bearing life...composed of trillions of atoms bearing life...composed of trillions of atoms bearing life? And if there is any truth to this, who is to say we are at the top? Maybe we are in the middle, Giants above us, dwarves below. Hehe, this is all pretty crazy but i thought of it late on night and i hope that you smarter people out there will respond, possibly disproving it so i can move on (easy) or maybe sorta open mindedly agree (hard) because, who knows...you know?
5614 Posted April 22, 2005 Posted April 22, 2005 Gravity is not what holds an atom together. That is another force called strong force. Try using grammar/punctuation/paragraphas it makes it soo much easier to read! Also there are a lot of movies which suggest this kind of thing... but it's just not realistic because of how much we've explored atoms right down to the individual pin point particles that cannot be broken any further and how much we've explored outter space - it is just not plausible.
J.C.MacSwell Posted April 22, 2005 Posted April 22, 2005 Gravity is not what holds an atom together. That is another force called strong force. Try using grammar/punctuation/paragraphas it makes it soo much easier to read! Also there are a lot of movies which suggest this kind of thing... but it's just not realistic because of how much we've explored atoms right down to the individual pin point particles that cannot be broken any further and how much we've explored outter space - it is just not plausible. Which is very fortunate for us or the bigger guys might get us! Then again, wasn't the asteroid belt a planet at one time...
swansont Posted April 23, 2005 Posted April 23, 2005 The way that the celestial bodies gravitate around each other in huge elipses is VERY similar to that of protons and neutrons orbiting a nucleus. Protons and neutrons are in the nucleus; electrons orbit the nucleaus. And it does not resemble planetary orbits very much at all. The Bohr model used circular orbits but was shown to be physically wrong. The orbitals of quantum mechanics are very different than a planetary orbit analogue.
swansont Posted April 23, 2005 Posted April 23, 2005 Gravity is not what holds an atom together. That is another force called strong force. That's for the nucleus, though. The electrostatic force holds atoms together.
Ophiolite Posted April 23, 2005 Posted April 23, 2005 Then again, wasn't the asteroid belt a planet at one time...No. The presence of Jupiter, through its gravitational disruption, prevented a planet from forming. The asteroids are the remains of what might have been. The way that the celestial bodies gravitate around each other in huge elipses is VERY similar to that of protons and neutrons orbiting a nucleus No. It is VERY disimilar. Point one' date=' protons and neutrons don't orbit a nucleus, they are the nucleus. Point two, electrons, which are [u']said[/u] to orbit the nucleus, exist as a 'cloud of probabilities' that sometimes has a spherical shape, not circular or elliptical.
J.C.MacSwell Posted April 23, 2005 Posted April 23, 2005 No. The presence of Jupiter, through its gravitational disruption, prevented a planet from forming. The asteroids are the remains of what might have been.. Who is this big Jupiter guy, and do you think he intends to harm us? Oh wait... the planet Jupiter. Maybe we are safe (for now).
CanadaAotS Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 the "orbit" of an electron is more like a big fuzzy sherical donut lol... Questionit: by the way, your theory sounds cool but like 5614 said, its not plausable. The Plack length is the smallest amount of space with any meaning... so if like you said there was a tiny universe inside atoms, the contents would be smaller then the planck length... I dont know much about it, but I'm sure nothing can be smaller
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now