Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

[felix dakat]

Space-time is absolute according to Einstein's theory of special relativity. The absolute space-time of special relativity provides something with respect to which objects can be said to accelerate.

[tentative]

Space-time is absolute according to Einstein's theory of special relativity. The absolute space-time of special relativity provides something with respect to which objects can be said to accelerate.

Yes, and the explanation seems to hold when considering "normal" space. But then there are black holes where science has to admit that the laws of physics "may not apply", which is another way of saying that we may know a lot, but we don't know all. We tend to dismiss "anomalies" as if they aren't important clues that there may be more to know than what we think we know.

Consider the field of fluid mechanics. There was no more science to be discovered, everything was known and explained and dealing with problems was relegated to plugging in the correct formulas. And then chaos theory came along and those dismissed anomalies so long ignored became important. There was order in chaos that provided new insight that added new layers of questions and answers in a field that had been assumed completed knowledge. Our constructs may be 99.99999... infinity, and pragmatically that's close enough, but we should never lose sight of the possibility that just maybe...

[The Last Man]

This is pure "hand waving", but what if the galaxies in our universe are but atoms in a larger scale parallel universe? What if each galaxy in our universe was a gas atom in a cloud of gas on a larger scale, which would explain why the universe is expanding and galaxies are growing farther apart? In turn, what we see as atoms are merely smaller scale galaxies, where the nucleus is a super massive black hole (at least to the scale of any inhabitants in this atomic galaxy), the "atomic bonding forces" is the small scale equivalent of our gravity, and the electrons are the equivalent of our stars. Quantum mechanics is not the popping in and out of existence of unpredictable random electrons but the readable supernovae or solar flares of little stars. Parallel universes and planes of existence would be described as the "scale" of that existence (one below ours, one above ours, etc). Our atoms are infinitely divisible into smaller and smaller universes, and our universe is but a puff of smoke wafting through the air of a larger scale universe.

This has just as much scientific grounding as the so called "scientific" imaginings of theoretical physics today. Maybe someone has already proposed this in some book I haven't read.

Ever since I too thought of this possibility long ago I have loved it. While pretty speculative, we are also told that size is relative just as mass, time and velocity are. And of course it cannot be ruled out logically - it implies no contradiction. So perhaps there is something to the idea - either way though, it is quite poetic and beautiful to think about, and really expands and boggles the mind

[felix dakat]

Yes, and the explanation seems to hold when considering "normal" space. But then there are black holes where science has to admit that the laws of physics "may not apply", which is another way of saying that we may know a lot, but we don't know all. We tend to dismiss "anomalies" as if they aren't important clues that there may be more to know than what we think we know.

What laws of physics? Black holes were predicted by general relativity before there was any empirical evidence for them. Black hole are not anomalies. E=MC squared applies to them.

Consider the field of fluid mechanics. There was no more science to be discovered, everything was known and explained and dealing with problems was relegated to plugging in the correct formulas. And then chaos theory came along and those dismissed anomalies so long ignored became important. There was order in chaos that provided new insight that added new layers of questions and answers in a field that had been assumed completed knowledge. Our constructs may be 99.99999... infinity, and pragmatically that's close enough, but we should never lose sight of the possibility that just maybe...

On this website it seems to me, people are more likely to lose sight of the 99.99999 probability and look for an infinitesimally small margin of error. That's where they hope to find wiggle room for their theory.

[tentative]

Felix,

It is one thing to predict a black hole, and quite another to KNOW what happens inside of it.

Science is all about removing the margin of error in our knowledge, but error is error no matter how small. What you call "wiggle room" is just another admission of not KNOWING.

[felix dakat]

What exactly do you want to know? According to "A Brief History of Time: From Big Bang to Black Holes" by Steven Hawking published in 1988 quite a bit was known about black holes then. More is known about them now.

You said black holes the laws of physics don't apply to black holes. Well, they were predicted because they operate lawfully according to the law of general relativity. So in what way don't the laws of physics apply?

[tentative]

Felix,

So in what way don't the laws of physics apply?

I haven't the slightest idea what works or doesn't work inside a black hole. No one else does either. We know a great deal looking at the outside, but nothing of what is possible in the inside. there is lots of conjecture and a number of possible theories, none of which are testable. Not only do we not know, we don't even know how to know. Maybe some time in the future...

But all that is beside the point. All I was trying to get across is that even science skips over tiny insignificant details that later prove to be more than significant. Knowing is a tough business.

[felix dakat]

I haven't the slightest idea what works or doesn't work inside a black hole. No one else does either. We know a great deal looking at the outside, but nothing of what is possible in the inside. there is lots of conjecture and a number of possible theories, none of which are testable. Not only do we not know, we don't even know how to know. Maybe some time in the future...

No idea? Speak for yourself. Others have plenty of ideas. The ideas are not "conjecture". They are products of inference from the laws of physics, just as was the original prediction of the existence of black hole from General Relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole If that isn't enough information about what is known about black holes for you, I have a half dozen books I can recommend.

But all that is beside the point. All I was trying to get across is that even science skips over tiny insignificant details that later prove to be more than significant. Knowing is a tough business.

I get your point. But in the process of making it you suggested that the laws of physics do not apply to black holes. There is no evidence of that that I am aware of. It's one thing to assert that there are things we don't know. That, of course, is true. It's another thing to assert that we don't know what we do know. In that case, the question is, how do you know?

[felix dakat]

What if you are just a thinly disguised spammer?


Edit: Thank you for deleting the spam. Now it looks like I'm talking to myself.

[rejlive]

Many people have thought of this, but would be very hard to prove, and yes if the universe extends infinitely outward then it would most defenitely extend infinitely inward, so for me it would be easy to believe that the different levels of existence would be relative to size. BUT the day people start believing that we are surrounded by universes in our atmosphere thats possibly filled with life similar to our own, will be the day shit hits many fans

[MagsJ]

Is not all things reflective of each other, re. the op...

[DoomNaySayer]

It's certainly imaginitive,creative, and a illustrative picture of the universe from the original poster of this thread ( artistic even) but, what are the basis for us to believe in it?

[rasava]

It's certainly imaginitive,creative, and a illustrative picture of the universe from the original poster of this thread ( artistic even) but, what are the basis for us to believe in it?

Take the basic principles of the Scientific Method. It always starts with a hypothesis. Where does the hypothesis come from? Interestingly, there is no rigor placed on the standards for a good hypothesis; the only rigor is in supporting it. It was this conundrum (where does the hypothesis come from?) that sent the protagonist of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance down the road of insanity.

At best this can only be a hypothesis or model in which I feebly take a few tenets of theoretical physics an explain them in the context of this model or hypothesis.

I am surprised this thread has had some (relatively) recent posts tied to it. For some the idea seems to resonate, for others it does not. Wouldn't it seem that many philosophical tenets that are widely accepted are ones that produce a sufficient amount of "resonance" with a substantial number of the right people? I always wondered what is the "foundation" or cause of this resonance. Maybe it's the same question as the cause of a hypothesis. In the modern world I see philosopers of science as the better hyopthesizers and model makers, and some of the best models out there in theoretical physics seem to be as much philosophy as science.

[hooper]

I have been working on the "Galaxy Model for the Atom"
for a long time. Just recently I solved Benzene using it:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF

The Universe is fractal in nature, and
based on the atom-galaxy.

An electron is a spiralling arc of stars and planets extending
from nucleus to atom's edge containing radiating bodies at all
their stages all the time. Fully fused material falls
back into the center and is split back up by adding neutrinos, somehow,
and then shot back out the jets.

Electrons not only radiate, it is their
radiations filling the universe and being
absorbed by our protons that causes gravity.

john

[FilmSnob]

It's a cool idea.

[Trajicomic]

I have been working on the "Galaxy Model for the Atom"
for a long time. Just recently I solved Benzene using it:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF

The Universe is fractal in nature, and
based on the atom-galaxy.

An electron is a spiralling arc of stars and planets extending
from nucleus to atom's edge containing radiating bodies at all
their stages all the time. Fully fused material falls
back into the center and is split back up by adding neutrinos, somehow,
and then shot back out the jets.

Electrons not only radiate, it is their
radiations filling the universe and being
absorbed by our protons that causes gravity.

john

This idea is already quite common.

And true. Good job though.

[hooper]

Okay, you guys, you're talking my atomic model-
the Galaxy Model for the Atom.

In it, the atom is a disc which spins and precesses both,
at a ratio of 1:2, which means the electron material
must complete two full precessions before it has finished
one rotation. This is a representation of that pathway:

http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/standingwave.GIF

Properly placed, 36 of these pathways is all you need to
make Benzene, as I show below (just finished this in
the last month). 24 electrons share 24 pathways and the
last 6 electrons each has 2 pathways for itself.

http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF

It is instructive to look at each stage of these constructions.
Here they are:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Benzenepreview.GIF
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneA.GIF
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneB.GIF
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneC.GIF
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneD.GIF
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF

If atoms are instantaneously discs, then
there is a lot of latitude for shaping the
characteristics of matter.
I'm thinking crystallized plastics and materials that
are transparent to various radiations, especially
gravitational.

Lots of fun.

john
galaxy model for the atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john

[hooper]

OK.
There is no such thing as smallest.
The Universe is a fractal, based on atom/galaxy.
When you get down to an atom's innards, it isn't
big Tonka-Toy quarks that are all identical, it's
the center of a galaxy, surrounded by arms of
millions of stars, planets, asteroids, etc, that make
up each electron. There is no diminution of detail
and complexity as one examines ever more
closely. Rather our examining tool- photons- becomes
too large and unwieldy to resolve that
detail and complexity.
So we deny it.
Planck's limit.

But there is no limit.
Just smaller photons. A whole smaller
electromagnetic spectrum.
And smaller divisions of matter by a factor
of galaxy over atom. And intelligent life
whose lifetimes are atom over galaxy as long.

Much too short a time to communicate with us.

Or influence us.

Right?

john
galaxy model for the atom
"to every one of your atoms, you are the
God of a Trillion (or more?) Galaxies"

[hooper]

Sorry to kill the thread!!

No, I,ve been obsessive about this idea since 1980.

There are many very interesting ramifications, the
coolest having to do with controlling crystallization!

The best one to look at to understand it is:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneB.GIF
where only one electron pair is traded on each side of the ring.

john

[hooper]

Oh, well, I'll keep going.

What we're dealing with here
is a fractal- where the form that
is the galaxy is repeated at the level of
the atoms that make up the galaxy.
And then there is going to be the
atoms making up the atoms.

And it goes further. How much further?
Infinitely? Or seven times or somesuch?
Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter, is that the mini-matter
making up the electron is also radiating- just like our suns.
There is also a whole mini-emr associated with electrons,
with this concept, including mini-neutrinos, which would
be given off by fusion in the mini-suns. So that means,
in addition to all these neutrinos we got going through
us from fusion in suns, we also got a huge flux of these
mini-neutrinos going through us all the time, from
mini-fusion in all the electrons. All the electrons everywhere.
Lots and lots of energy. That energy is absorbed by protons
in equal amount as it is given off by electrons, because the
protons are always using it to recycle burnt-out electron bits.

So it would in this scenario be the flux of mini-radiation from
wherever there are electrons in the universe being absorbed by
the local protons, which must always replace what their
electrons are constantly radiating away, that would produce inertia
and gravitation for our matter.

Fun?

john

[hooper]

The interesting thing immediately when
considering the wave of one rotation/two precessions
is that eight of them make this very cool pattern:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/galaxypattern.GIF

Since two members can share one wave, this means
a maximum of 16 members. What if we compare the
Periodic Table to the completing of 16-member shells?

Then it gets even more interesting:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF

john

[felix dakat]

OK.

There is no such thing as smallest.

How do you know this?

[hooper]

Okay- I don't 'know' it.
But it is the most attractive choice, since it
contains fewer and less onerous quandaries.

Consider if there is a smallest- a Higgs.
What shape can it have, since it
cannot be made of smaller parts?
It has to be dimensionless, since if you
say a dimension, I can consider a smaller
measurement. But it has to be unique, since it
is "the Higgs". So how can something that can't
be measured or given a shape be unique?


On the other hand, if everything, when
looked at from a certain perspective (atom/galaxy),
is made from smaller patterns of itself, then
continuing with that to infinity
seems to me to only have that one sticking point-
infinity.
And calculus deals with infinities all the time.

john

[felix dakat]

Okay- I don't 'know' it.
But it is the most attractive choice, since it
contains fewer and less onerous quandaries.

Consider if there is a smallest- a Higgs.
What shape can it have, since it
cannot be made of smaller parts?
It has to be dimensionless, since if you
say a dimension, I can consider a smaller
measurement. But it has to be unique, since it
is "the Higgs". So how can something that can't
be measured or given a shape be unique?


On the other hand, if everything, when
looked at from a certain perspective (atom/galaxy),
is made from smaller patterns of itself, then
continuing with that to infinity
seems to me to only have that one sticking point-
infinity.
And calculus deals with infinities all the time.

john

Just checking. Fractals seem to imply infinity in both directions. But the so-called Planck length is the smallest meaningful increment of distance, about 10 to the minus 33 centimeters. Wikipedia says the physical significance of the Planck length is a topic of research and since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitudes smaller than any currently possible measurement, there is no hope of directly probing this length scale in the foreseeable future. Research on the Planck length is therefore mostly theoretical. Calculus may deal with theoretical infinities, that doesn't mean there are corresponding physical entities, right? So it's a kewl idea, but who knows, right?

[anon]

Okay- I don't 'know' it.
But it is the most attractive choice, since it
contains fewer and less onerous quandaries.

Consider if there is a smallest- a Higgs.
What shape can it have, since it
cannot be made of smaller parts?
It has to be dimensionless, since if you
say a dimension, I can consider a smaller
measurement. But it has to be unique, since it
is "the Higgs". So how can something that can't
be measured or given a shape be unique?


On the other hand, if everything, when
looked at from a certain perspective (atom/galaxy),
is made from smaller patterns of itself, then
continuing with that to infinity
seems to me to only have that one sticking point-
infinity.
And calculus deals with infinities all the time.

john

Just checking. Fractals seem to imply infinity in both directions. But the so-called Planck length is the smallest meaningful increment of distance, about 10 to the minus 33 centimeters. Wikipedia says the physical significance of the Planck length is a topic of research and since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitudes smaller than any currently possible measurement, there is no hope of directly probing this length scale in the foreseeable future. Research on the Planck length is therefore mostly theoretical. Calculus may deal with theoretical infinities, that doesn't mean there are corresponding physical entities, right? So it's a kewl idea, but who knows, right?

The Planck length is just another event horizon of a particular kind. Conjecture about what happens beyond event horizons is speculative, but to say that nothing happens beyond event horizons seems out of character with respect to scientific research - i.e. it reminds me of the stories about old sailors afraid to sail west of Gibraltor - "the end of the world".

Another way to look at this is to consider how our concepts ultimately never "match up" with reality. For instance, if you keep travelling half the distance towards a particular location, you can never arrive. Yet we do arrive. There is something deficient, when you stretch concepts as far as they can be stretched, about their usefulness. Our concepts may only make any sense at particular scales. The Planck length is a surprisingly exacting expression of this very notion.