this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
473 points (90.8% liked)

Science Memes

11021 readers
3107 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
473
sweet dreams (mander.xyz)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
108 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago (5 children)

This is something I find believable, and I wonder why it’s not commonly discussed more.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

because it only seems believable if you're using an outdated and simplified model for atoms, and forget about the fact that atoms are also made up of protons/neutrons who are in turn made up of quarks, and the fact that there are a whole bunch of other fundamental particles that don't give a toss about atoms.

If you look at the more accurate electron cloud model it stops making sense to compare it to a solar system.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

it's not commonly discussed because it's wrong

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

You just need to know what happens to the elements on the periodic table that have the highest atomic weights. Here's the article for Lawrencium give that a quick read through and then try to figure out why the universe is almost certainly not a very large atom as we define it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

It is in the right groups. Sort of thing you can find talked about at flat earther meetings all over the globe, UFO enthusiasts if you can get a word in to ask and in Christian science journals.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 6 months ago (4 children)

you have to fail intro to qm 101 and/or be stoned out of your mind to think this way

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Can confirm, this is ALL I see on certain substances

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Or just reject planck length and all other dimensional limitations like it. Then you can have ~~turtles~~ universes all the way down.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

planck length doesn't come up even once, it all boils down to these things: 1. electron has momentum, and from that follows it has a wavelength, and at the same time 2. orbit is stable, which means that after every "rotation" electron has to end up with the same phase, which means there is only a finite number of solutions to time-independent schroedinger equation for (hydrogen) atom (don't bother solving it on paper for anything with more than one electron) and these things are spherical harmonics

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Planck length is not like universal pixels. It's just where current models say there's little reason to look at smaller things, since it's kind of like worrying about which flecks of paint are coming off a car in a racing video game. It's just ... so irrelevant as to be ignorable.

It's nigh impossible to have any energy that could interact with us or atoms on the Planck length scale that wouldn't just collapse in to a black hole. It's not so much any observation of real-world pixelation, and more that even to atoms, it's very tiny.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Your comment about current models, known energy types, and universal pixels seems to ignore the post's topic (which isn't really about known models or energy types).

A better way to disregard the post would be to just point out that solar systems aren't that big in terms of scales of the universe, and that there's no indication of any charges, electrons, or valance layers about.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not responding to the comic. I'm responding to you talking about the Planck length. I'm not disregarding the comic but making a tangential comment. Please try to keep up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Your loss! 🤷

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Can confirm the latter makes you consider this

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

And why is that?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Here's a few reasons this doesn't work:

  1. Planets are different sizes, electrons are all identical
  2. 2 planets cannot occupy the same orbit, but (at least) two electrons with opposite spin can
  3. If you have a high speed planet entering the solar system, you can't transfer some of its energy to another planet and have the rogue planet continue with less energy
  4. All orbital energies are possible, not so much for atoms
  5. Planetary orbits emit gravitational waves. If electrons produced the equivalent (bremstrahlung radiation) during "orbit", they would collide with the nucleus hilariously fast. This isn't a problem because electron orbitals don't have a physical representation.
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Thank

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

planetary orbits are not quantized, for starters. atomic orbitals are occupied by pairs (at most) of electrons, and this is because of qm spin exists which has no analogue in large scale. electrons aren't spinning around on an orbit, they're more of a smudged standing wave. it's also a staple among vapid thonkers like mckenna