Thread: what is chemical name of universe (like water, H2O)

chemistry give each form of matter a particular nomenclature related name. i think the biggest name will be assigned for universe. please guess and guide chemists to form the name of universe.

my suggestions:

this formula should represent all elements, energy, etc
Stephan Hawking can help .

Originally Posted by precious

chemistry give each form of matter a particular nomenclature related name.

Each compound rather than "form of matter".

The universe is almost entirely hydrogen, so H would be a good approximation. H+He would pretty much nail it.

Assuming there are no multiverses, the chemical name of the universe would be “universe molecule” (a structure comprised of two or more atoms, on the nomenclature model of Pierre Gassendi), a structure comprised of sesvigintillion atoms (see: number of atoms in), of 92 naturally occurring varieties, similar to the terms: earth molecule or sun molecule. Why do you want to know the answer to this question?

I would say that those are gross misuses of the word "molecule"; a term which has a very well defined meaning. You might as well use the word "glory" if you are going to invent your own meanings for words.

“Use and abuse of chemical nomenclature”, I’ve certainly heard that phrase more than I’ve needed to, whatever the case, such terms are needed when one begins to think of gravity (between planets, and other large masses) in chemical bonding terms (as in chemical gravitation). I’m sure you also would call the now textbook term “human molecule” a “gross misuse” as well?

Originally Posted by Libb Thims

when one begins to think of gravity (between planets, and other large masses) in chemical bonding terms (as in chemical gravitation).

And why would anyone want to do that?

I’m sure you also would call the now textbook term “human molecule” a “gross misuse” as well?

By "textbook term" you mean it appears in a book that you wrote? (And yes.)

Originally Posted by Libb Thims

Assuming there are no multiverses, the chemical name of the universe would be “universe molecule” (a structure comprised of two or more atoms, on the nomenclature model of Pierre Gassendi), a structure comprised of sesvigintillion atoms (see: number of atoms in), of 92 naturally occurring varieties, similar to the terms: earth molecule or sun molecule. Why do you want to know the answer to this question?

you are better imaginative person than me. your post tells
This question just came in my mind. so no any hard motif of mine to ask this question.

Originally Posted by Libb Thims

"term “human molecule” a “gross misuse”"

quite fascinating idea. human molecule. but it is really very bizaree to think humans in molecule terms. but i am not disrespecting this term

Are you bent to make our science invalid like me?

Re: “And why would anyone want to do that?”, the force that holds the hydrogen atom to the hydrogen atom, humans to humans, humans to the earth, the earth to the sun, sun to the milky way, the milky way to the local cluster, and the local cluster towards the great attractor is the electromagnetic force, of which gravity is a large scale variant, but I’m sure with your diminutive postings, this viewpoint would be of little interest to you.

Re: By "textbook term", I mean American limnologists Robert Sterner and James Elser’s 2002 textbook Ecological Stoichiometry, held in over 600 libraries worldwide (and used in college classrooms), wherein they treat freshwater microorganisms (and humans) as single abstract molecules that interact with each other and the abiotic world in a process of complex chemical reactions, according to which stoichiometric analysis yields rich data; but again, by your derogatory style of posting: I’m sure this is something below you.

Originally Posted by Libb Thims

Re: “And why would anyone want to do that?”, the force that holds the hydrogen atom to the hydrogen atom, humans to humans, humans to the earth, the earth to the sun, sun to the milky way, the milky way to the local cluster, and the local cluster towards the great attractor is the electromagnetic force, of which gravity is a large scale variant, but I’m sure with your diminutive postings, this viewpoint would be of little interest to you.

As it plainly wrong, you are right, it is of little interest.

If you had truly managed to unify gravity and electromagnetism, the Nobel rize would be waiting for you.

Re: By "textbook term", I mean American limnologists Robert Sterner and James Elser’s 2002 textbook Ecological Stoichiometry, held in over 600 libraries worldwide (and used in college classrooms), wherein they treat freshwater microorganisms (and humans) as single abstract molecules that interact with each other and the abiotic world in a process of complex chemical reactions, according to which stoichiometric analysis yields rich data; but again, by your derogatory style of posting: I’m sure this is something below you.

Interesting. Thanks.

Sorry but how is gravity a "large scale variant" of electromagnetism? Just curious what your idea is.

Thinking about it, I see no obvious connections between gravity and electromagnetism, as was seen between electricity and magnetism.

Electricity in lightning affects a compass's magnetic field, but lightning storms don't create anti-gravity.

You may call it "Mr. Universe"
Bye

There is something that scientists call the quantum vacuum which they believe is the foundation ,if you like,of the universe so to find what your looking for ,i.e. a universal molecular formula, you need to find the molecular formula of the quantum vacuum if it has one that is ,which is unlikely, it is more likely to be a state of abosolute potential If you want more info type "quantum vacuum" into the google search bar

This really doesn't belong in Chemistry, since it has nothing to do with the subject of the forum.

I vote that we name it all after me!!