LinkBack URL
About LinkBackssee Sun and revolving planets (electron)
our Milky Way is also Circular.
similiarly i say that universe may be like an Atom (if seen as a snapshot)
i think the best and streamlined body is that of Atom.
November 21st, 2011, 12:00 PM
see Sun and revolving planets (electron)
our Milky Way is also Circular.
similiarly i say that universe may be like an Atom (if seen as a snapshot)
i think the best and streamlined body is that of Atom.
Electrons do not orbit like planets. That is a very old idea. The best way to think of it is a "cloud" around the nucleus where the electron has a probability of existing. These have various shapes: Atomic orbital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ok , still my question is valid.Originally Posted by Strange
What question?
wether universe is like atom or not?
As pointed out, the answer is no.
why not , it evolved from a single atom. so logically we can assume it is like atom.
No.
The universe is not like an atom. There is no similarity whatever.
On electrons. In an atom, the nucleus is tiny, equivalent to a pinhead inside your home, when your home is the entire atom. Most of the space is occupied by probability clouds of electrons.
Electrons do not 'orbit'. In fact, their mode of existence and 'movement' is beyond the ability of humans to visualise, and can be described mathematically only. The volume of the atom containing electrons forms probability clouds. These are volumes where the presense of an electron can be calculated as a probability - never a certainty. The parts of the cloud that are 'denser' are simply those areas where the probability of an electron appearing are greater. The 'thinner' bits of the electron cloud are simply those parts where the probability of an electron appearing are less.
The universe did not evolve from a single atom.why not , it evolved from a single atom. so logically we can assume it is like atom.
A slightly more accurate description might be to say that all the atoms in the observable universe formed from something that was once contained within an area the size of an atom.
But it was not an atom.
Given that you have been told the universe is not "like" an atom and did not "evolve from a single atom" are you prepared to retract your absurd statement quoted above.
I'm beginning to think precious is a troll...
nice reply.The universe did not evolve from a single atom.why not , it evolved from a single atom. so logically we can assume it is like atom.
A slightly more accurate description might be to say that all the atoms in the observable universe formed from something that was once contained within an area the size of an atom.
But it was not an atom.
i thought atom as a sphere, according to my knowledge, but after reading your post i think my basic model of universe is failed at the initial stage. i have to refine it.
Last edited by precious; November 22nd, 2011 at 04:32 PM.
I don't think this is a troll. Just a curious person. Considering we don't know her background, we can't expect her to understand things perfectly or properly present ideas which require prerequisite knowledge of such concepts.
@skeptic The universe is nothing like an atom? Of course the size of an atom is nothing comparable to the Universe, if that was a point you were trying to make. Precious was asking about possible similarities in the general structure, or formation, in such a contrast. Picture our Milky Way home: a relatively large, centralized galactic center (nucleus) in which comparably smaller, less massive bodies (electrons) exist and/or revolve around, due to forces of attraction. So in that aspect, yes, I'd say there are similarities. The same going for our Solar System.
Precious, the formation and shape of the universe itself as a whole is unknown. We know the Universe seems to be uniformally expanding. That means there is a point it's expanding out from. Possibly where the Big Bang occured. Our current model of an atom has a spherically symmetrical nucleus; you're not wrong about that. So if the Universe has a closed, spherical figure, it is somewhat similar to an atom. Other than that, there's really nothing comparable in such a great contrast.
Actually, this is incorrect. Uniform expansion does not mean there is a point it is expanding "out" from, a place where we can think of the Big Bang as having occurred. The coordinate system expands with the universe, so there is no centre of expansion, and with uniform expansion any place can consider itself to be the centre just as much as any other place.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say a spherically symmetrical nucleus, as the nucleus is a collection of protons and neutrons, in different number depending on the type of atom. Which of those atomic nuclei are you claiming is spherically symmetrical? Can 1 proton and 1 neutron, for instance, have a spherically symmetrical form? And the nucleus is surrounded by a "cloud" of electrons that do not orbit in a classical manner.
Now, if the universe is closed, with a spherical topology (which would be a 3-sphere), it is in no way similar to an atom, either. Topology in cosmology is not as straightforward as you might think. With a closed universe, our three dimensions of space would act like the surface of a 4 dimensional sphere. That surface (the 3 spatial dimensions in our universe) is continuous, as it describes the surface of a four dimensional sphere, in the same way that the surface of the Earth (a 2D surface) is continuous as it describes the surface of a 3D spheroid.
Just as there is no centre or origin point to the surface of the Earth, the same would be true for the universe itself - there is no edge, nor is there a centre. In the case of a closed spherical topology, if you have the time to travel far enough in a straight line, you find yourself back where you started.
You're correct about the analogous relations between spatial dimensionsand
, and you're explanation of cosmological topology is correct assuming our familiar 3-dimensional reality is actually the analogous "surface" of a 4 dimensional space, the 3-sphere you mentioned. If that is the currently accepted idea, I'm sorry for misinforming Precious. However, if this is only a speculative idea, then my explanation would be just as valid in attempting to explain comparisons or contrasts in this situation.
I was thinking of the less abstract, more familiar (and more "classical", possibly) idea of 3-dimensional space. If the Universe has a closed form, let's say as of a sphere, then the "center" would be the midpoint of the diameter. And if this "sphere" were expanding out from that center point, then I could call it uniform expansion, as the rate of movement relative to the center for every point on the surface is constant.
And you are correct, if I were at a point anywhere inside this sphere (away from the surface), it would appear as everything is expanding away from me. But in reality, with a closed form, it's expanding away from the center (possibly the location of the Big Bang's occurrence).
This is a great video that helps explain the shape of the Universe.
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 - YouTube
About 9 minutes into the video on expansion.
I know that is what you were thinking of, and unfortunately it doesn't work.
Unless we were actually at the centre of the universe, there would be an anisotropy in the recession speed of different objects, depending if they were closer or further away from the source than us, and those speeds would also be different to the recession speeds for objects in a lateral direction (sharing the same distance from the origin as us), which is not backed up by our observations.
As I explained above, the expansion cannot be as observed in your scenario, unless you are suggesting we live at the origin point.
I fully understand these concepts.It would pay you to listen to what Lawrence is saying, rather than using the diagram which shows us at the centre of the expansion. We have discounted the notion that we exist in a special place in the universe where everything is expanding away from (the centre of a spherical universe) and if everyone else sees the expansion the same way that we do, it cannot be a "classical" expanding 3D sphere full of galaxies as you suggest.
Thank you SpeedFreek. I understand what you're saying now
I knew about the concepts of 3-D space in relation to hyperforms, but until reading your post, never thought of our universe being like a "surface" for a higher-dimensional space, now I have questions about this. I'm going to start a thread about this in the physics section.
| « Radii of gravitational fields | Kalopin's off topic post from solar/wind/nuclear » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
