Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby felix dakat » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:11 pm

Seems we all agree that whether there is an absolute smallest particle or an infinity of ever smaller particles is a matter of speculation at this point. That's all I'm saying.
Life simplification method: When you feel like doing something, wait until the feeling passes.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby anon » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:23 pm

felix dakat wrote:Seems we all agree that whether there is an absolute smallest particle or an infinity of ever smaller particles is a matter of speculation at this point. That's all I'm saying.

I agree. But I'm taking it a bit further - the very idea of "particles" may correspond to our own limitations rather than to some hypothetical mind-independent reality. Is there even such a thing as a "particle"?
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8253
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby felix dakat » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:30 pm

anon wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Seems we all agree that whether there is an absolute smallest particle or an infinity of ever smaller particles is a matter of speculation at this point. That's all I'm saying.

I agree. But I'm taking it a bit further - the very idea of "particles" may correspond to our own limitations rather than to some hypothetical mind-independent reality. Is there even such a thing as a "particle"?


Right...could be just a wave. :greetings-wavegreen:
Life simplification method: When you feel like doing something, wait until the feeling passes.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby anon » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:35 pm

felix dakat wrote:
anon wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Seems we all agree that whether there is an absolute smallest particle or an infinity of ever smaller particles is a matter of speculation at this point. That's all I'm saying.

I agree. But I'm taking it a bit further - the very idea of "particles" may correspond to our own limitations rather than to some hypothetical mind-independent reality. Is there even such a thing as a "particle"?


Right...could be just a wave. :greetings-wavegreen:

Or an angel.

:angelic-whiteflying:
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8253
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:09 pm

A three-dimensional wave.
A three-dimensional wave that somehow feeds off a
bigger three-dimensional wave and is composed of
a gazillion little three-dimensional waves.

What is fun with the atom/galaxy thing, is now
you get to fill in bits of the
puzzle on two boards based on trying to match
what you see.
Like, you can say, "The reason the galaxy has a
double-layered spherical halo with different star
flow in each layer is because each time the
disc precesses through, it is rotating the opposite
direction." And they would say, "There is no
evidence the galaxy disc precesses." And you would
know that it has to, if it is to have a spherical
atom-like presence. Plus what about that slight
opposite warping visible in the disc-edges of most
spiral galaxies?
So now you're looking for stuff in each based on
what you know of the other, and
you gain both ways.

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby felix dakat » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:27 pm

Anyway science demands that a theory be testable. When stuff gets really small, it acts like particles under some conditions and like a wave under others. there are limits to our ability to measure position and velocity of really small stuff simultaneously. If you multiply the uncertainty about the position of really small stuff by the uncertainty of its momentum, the result can never be smaller that a certain fixed quantity. Any smaller and it seems either position or momentum falls out. We can't have a little galaxy the planets of which are nowhere can we? You may say that these apparent limitations are merely conceptual, but unless someone comes up with a conceptual model that works theoretically and is testable aren't we just whistling in the wind? :-"
Life simplification method: When you feel like doing something, wait until the feeling passes.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby anon » Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:28 pm

felix dakat wrote:Anyway science demands that a theory be testable. When stuff gets really small, it acts like particles under some conditions and like a wave under others. there are limits to our ability to measure position and velocity of really small stuff simultaneously. If you multiply the uncertainty about the position of really small stuff by the uncertainty of its momentum, the result can never be smaller that a certain fixed quantity. Any smaller and it seems either position or momentum falls out. We can't have a little galaxy the planets of which are nowhere can we? You may say that these apparent limitations are merely conceptual, but unless someone comes up with a conceptual model that works theoretically and is testable aren't we just whistling in the wind? :-"

I don't know. What made people sail west of Gibraltar? William Herschel was convinced there were men living on the moon. Some dreams are realized, some aren't. Some theories are useful, some aren't. But when the idea of usefulness is used as an argument against dreaming... well, that's the beginning of the end for science. You just end up with Lysenkoism.

We can't have a little galaxy the planets of which are nowhere can we?

Sounds like you're taking Rasava's poetics pretty literally! :)
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8253
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby felix dakat » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:07 pm

anon wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Anyway science demands that a theory be testable. When stuff gets really small, it acts like particles under some conditions and like a wave under others. there are limits to our ability to measure position and velocity of really small stuff simultaneously. If you multiply the uncertainty about the position of really small stuff by the uncertainty of its momentum, the result can never be smaller that a certain fixed quantity. Any smaller and it seems either position or momentum falls out. We can't have a little galaxy the planets of which are nowhere can we? You may say that these apparent limitations are merely conceptual, but unless someone comes up with a conceptual model that works theoretically and is testable aren't we just whistling in the wind? :-"

I don't know. What made people sail west of Gibraltar? William Herschel was convinced there were men living on the moon. Some dreams are realized, some aren't. Some theories are useful, some aren't. But when the idea of usefulness is used as an argument against dreaming... well, that's the beginning of the end for science. You just end up with Lysenkoism.

We can't have a little galaxy the planets of which are nowhere can we?

Sounds like you're taking Rasava's poetics pretty literally! :)


If you figure out a way to sail into the infinitely small or the infinitely large in this life time I salute you. :handgestures-salute:
Life simplification method: When you feel like doing something, wait until the feeling passes.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby anon » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:18 pm

felix dakat wrote:
anon wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Anyway science demands that a theory be testable. When stuff gets really small, it acts like particles under some conditions and like a wave under others. there are limits to our ability to measure position and velocity of really small stuff simultaneously. If you multiply the uncertainty about the position of really small stuff by the uncertainty of its momentum, the result can never be smaller that a certain fixed quantity. Any smaller and it seems either position or momentum falls out. We can't have a little galaxy the planets of which are nowhere can we? You may say that these apparent limitations are merely conceptual, but unless someone comes up with a conceptual model that works theoretically and is testable aren't we just whistling in the wind? :-"

I don't know. What made people sail west of Gibraltar? William Herschel was convinced there were men living on the moon. Some dreams are realized, some aren't. Some theories are useful, some aren't. But when the idea of usefulness is used as an argument against dreaming... well, that's the beginning of the end for science. You just end up with Lysenkoism.

We can't have a little galaxy the planets of which are nowhere can we?

Sounds like you're taking Rasava's poetics pretty literally! :)


If you figure out a way to sail into the infinitely small or the infinitely large in this life time I salute you. :handgestures-salute:

I can't walk through walls, either. But that doesn't mean walls aren't permeable!
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8253
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby felix dakat » Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:27 am

I can't walk through walls, either. But that doesn't mean walls aren't permeable!


It means they aren't permeable by you. [ Anon attempting to walk through a wall => ](*,)]
Life simplification method: When you feel like doing something, wait until the feeling passes.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby nameta9 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:03 pm

rasava wrote:Felix:
Science aims to be the "view from nowhere" but even it can't escape at least a smidgeon of social influence. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, because it's often our experience which helps us model facts better.


But science is being viewed through us, through a totally arbitrarily designed machine with totally arbitrarily sense organs, and thought processes and circuits and pain/pleasure circuits, etc. We are not some objective reference system measuring the world objectively, we are a slab of quirky Mass Enerrgy interacting in a quirky manner with another slab of quirky Mass Energy and measuring the events and cataloging and memorizing them as repetitive patterns in our "memory".

We are not "nowhere", we are a very specifically defined design, one very particular and quirky random design out of trillions of other possible designs (new designs that you can achieve by sticking wild chemicals, wild symbols and wild signals in the ball of meat that is the brain, as in Instant Singularity) interacting with itself, talking to itself basically since the slab of Matter that is outside or inside the other slab is arbitrarily defined, it is just matter talking to itself.

For a hammer, everything is a nail. Thought is like a hammer, for thought everything is just a thought itself, or another thought, or a logical sequence, or a sequence of symbols, or a logical entity or logical event. Everything is decomposed into the identity principle, to distinguish an item from another, same or different, interacting items, something exists as opposed to something different from itself, logic generates logic, a never ending recursion, tied into sensations, events, slabs of Mass Energy colliding with other slabs and creating language, thoughts and meanings all associated with memories, pain/pleasure circuits, past memories defining the present state of reality etc. Thought is our measuring device, we measure everything with our thought - logic - language, and measure our own thought constantly with the only measuring device we have. Any event and interaction is translated in a denotation, a symbol, a thought event, a sequence and process.

Anything can relate to anything, decompose thought itself, outside of your mind, external matter is crystallized thoughts, but thought is just a word anyways, another sequence of symbols, never ending, connections, interactions, events. The rock on the floor is the real mind and thought, your thought is simply a piece of trash on the sidewalk for the rock...

Check out:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=176423

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=176611

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=172275

And all of the other posts by nameta9 and old6598 on ilovephilosophy ...
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:23 pm

I can't walk through walls, either. But that doesn't mean walls aren't permeable!



It means they aren't permeable by you. [ Anon attempting to walk through a wall => ]


When I heard about QM in school, one of
the things claimed was if you tried to walk through
that wall enough times, there would be one time
when you could- because of the inherently
random nature of matter.

Atom/galaxy fractal universe would say the opposite.

There is detailed structure at every level. There is
order at every level. Magnetism acts to order
charge which acts to order magnetism.
Electrons being accelerated around a disc makes a magnetic
field at right-angles to the acceleration, and this
field wants the disc to precess in tandem with other nearby
fields. There is no way things can be random. Magnets
pushed towards each other will ALWAYS interact- that
wall will NEVER let you walk through it.

All of matter is interconnected and always interconnecting.
Electrons give off neutrino-like energies just like our
sun, so those energies constantly go out from all matter. The protons
absorb that same neutrino-like energy which is
incoming from all the other matter and use it
to constantly re-charge their electrons. So, energy
is always coming in from everywhere and going out to everywhere!
These energies reflect exactly what is happening at
the point of their emanation, so there is always detailed
information flow at every point in space. Now, personally, I think
these smaller-caliber neutrinos would travel FTL, since
they are "finer emanations", and thus would
be more permeable to space.

But, no, no matter how many times you contest your
head against the wall, the wall wins.

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby anon » Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:24 pm

hooper wrote:But, no, no matter how many times you contest your
head against the wall, the wall wins.

Well of course. If you can pass through it, it's not a wall! :)

Not sure if I buy that QM thing though. :-k
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8253
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:49 am

I'm totally classical.
A place for everything and everything in its place.
Nothing is for nothing.

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:44 pm

But the galaxy model for the atom, while being
totally classical, leads to powers over
matter that QM decided were impossible when
they accepted the HUP.

The galaxy model says that atoms are discs, and
these rotating discs precess in order to sweep out
their sphere of influence.

Imagine a long straight tube filled with spinning
coins. If the spins are random, you can never see to the end
of the tube, but if you synchronise the spins, you can.
So, the first step to synchronising the disc/atoms, is to recognize
they are discs.

Then prepare for the Age of Crystals.
:-)

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:13 am

You have to follow this idea a little further:
atoms are stars and planets and.................LIFE.
Every atom each of us is made from is full of US!!
So........................

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:06 am

So if atoms are little galaxies, every carbon atom
in your body is another Milky Way. The life and intelligence
in those mini-galaxies will be in our image, and their
lifetimes will be in tiny fractions of our seconds.
Our hopes and fears of our present situation will result
in all different possibilities being played out in those
mini-worlds all the time.
Can you imagine if we could tap into that kind of real-world
laboratory? Any situation we were in, we could just run all
the possible outcomes of each decision before taking it.

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby felix dakat » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:06 pm

Dr. Seuss already imagined it for us:

Image
Life simplification method: When you feel like doing something, wait until the feeling passes.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:07 pm

Love Dr. Seuss.

On sci.physics right now:

What WOULD work, however, and it is
very similar to what you are saying, is if
all matter gave out a PUSH in all directions, and all
matter absorbed an equal amount of PUSH from all
directions. Then you do the whole LeSage thing, and if it is
electron radiations at a smaller scale and higher
speed, that works great! The protons absorb the
gravitation/inertia and feed their electrons, which need to be
fed constantly because they RADIATE.

There! Matter causes gravitation, but not
local matter, so you do away with Black Holes and
you have a limit to how much gravity
can be experienced on a planet. Now that you have this
limit, you have a lot of unseen matter at planet/suns' centers,
and larger bodies appear to be much less dense than
they are. So if you were to have a larger planet, such as
Saturn, Jupiter, or Neptune, or a Sun, it would appear to be
mostly gaseous when in fact it is rock and lava just like us.

Hmmm. Missing matter.

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:21 am

Okay, I'm just rambling using large-scale
to fill in blanks about small scale and vice-versa,
based on the assumption that atoms are little galaxies
and galaxies are large atoms.

You have a neutrino flux coming from all the
stars. This energy passes through from all sides
all the time, everywhere. Now we're saying electrons
are made from a billion stars in that little galaxy that is an atom.
So, we also have a flux of energy just like neutrinos,
but 10^27 times smaller, although also 10^27 times more
numerous, coming through everywhere
from all sides.

This smaller flux pushes on protons and is absorbed
by them to feed the electrons. Gravity? Sure
looks like it. These could be
the 'ultra-mundane' particles required for LeSage Gravity.
Meanwhile, the neutrino flux goes right through matter
but must be being absorbed by galactic centers,
and therefore pushing on them.
So it will be the neutrino flux that is pushing
galaxies apart. Dark Energy? Neutrinos.

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:40 pm

But a major part of this idea is that
atoms possess intelligence- and therefore MEMORY.

What is that 'science' where they dilute and dilute?
Perhaps the *memory* of the drug is all that's
needed, and a cure takes place at a deeper level?

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:24 pm

Anyway, pretty soon after I got the idea that
atoms must possess intelligence, I realized that
no two molecules can be alike. When our body
takes proteins apart and re-constitutes them
as our own tissue, there is a memory of what
they were. That memory can be good or it can
be bad. If it's bad, then your body could have issues
down the road.

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby anon » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:29 pm

Interesting thoughts, hooper. Just letting you know that at least somebody (me) is reading them.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8253
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:54 pm

Aw!
Thank you, Anon!

Check out what I just found with
the Benzene construction-
This view is a split-screen of my
Benzene construction at 320 degrees
of ring rotation showing
a SouthEast viewpoint on the left and
a NorthWest viewpoint on the right.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/bb320.jpg

The only thing that changes are the
disc numbers and the origin arrows!!

I could animate this and view it from
any two diametrically-opposed viewpoints,
and the two images would be identical!


Freak me out!

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:52 pm

I'm about half-way through
constructing the above animation-
the SE/NW split-screen of my
Benzene construction.

It will either be intriguing or boring.
If intriguing, I'll look at a SW/NE split-screen,
maybe.

The fact that this ring arrangement
remains identical for any two
backwards/forwards viewpoints is
extremely encouraging for the atom/galaxy
concept. I will post the upcoming animation
as soon as it is finished.

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users