this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
516 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

14430 readers
310 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 151 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The atom model with the electrons going around the nucleus, is inspired by the solar system. The better model doesn't look anything alike. This is a naturalistic circular fallacy

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If atoms were like the solar system, all of the electron orbits would lose energy and decay by emitting electromagnetic radiation.

The same type of decay does occur in the solar system as the planets emit gravitational radiation, but the decay rate is so miniscule we can't really detect it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Electrons do orbit like planets in the solar system however they're also waves. Which is what gives the set radii they can orbit at and keeps it all stable. The orbits can and do change due to the emission or absorption of certain quanta of radiation.

So saying like is fine. It's not an exact description but more of a simile to help understanding. They do orbit like a solar system. Saying electrons orbit the same as a solar system would be incorrect. That's when the maths doesn't work and the electrons orbit would decay.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

that is not what i've learned, afaik electrons do not orbit with any sort of movement, and in fact talking about positions and movements at all on such a small scale is misleading.

What i've learned is that electrons exist as a probability cloud, with a certain chance to observe them in any given position around the atom depending on the orbital and the amount of other electrons.

Comparing it to gravitational orbits is just basically entirely incorrect, and certainly isn't going to help someone pass advanced physics classes.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes, because everybody knows the earth is in the sun's p orbital

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What if our solar system is just another balloon animal???

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nono, these are d orbitals. Although p orbitals are equally silly.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I stand corrected. I should have checked; I mean, I'm not a quantum astrophysicist.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

these are f orbitals, there is 5 of d orbitals

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly the visual representation of the atom is just a simplified artist's rendition. It's more acceptable to treat the atom's components as charge fields filled with very high energy contained by nuclear forces. That said, the planets with molten cores and the sun also have their own electromagnetic fields so maybe the concept isn't so far off.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

It would be fun to see the planets zipping around in random locations in their orbit. And if you kick one hard enough, it pops over to another orbit and emits a huge ass photon when it pops back.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Look, I'm not saying our universe exists as a node in an infinite fractal of repeating universes, but one of these is the largest structure we can see and another is the smallest:

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Voroni pattern. It shows up in nature all the time.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's what the universes above and below us say too!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

God doesn't play dice but he sure does repeat the same tune. I believe this same pattern is observable in our brains when neurons fire is it not?

There's probably some math which explains the consistency of the pattern.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There was a guy on the net years ago who claimed that the entire universe is an electron on a plutonium atom. He made a religion out of it, wrote hymns to the atom (or, more precisely, changed the words of Christian hymns, clumsily fitting in references to plutonium atoms) and even legally changed his name to Archimedes Plutonium.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

That sounds like something out of a fallout fanfiction

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Or that the observable universe could be inside of a black hole. Don't watch too many black hole videos before bed.

Planet 9 is not a primordial black hole and it can't hurt you. 🙀

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From my understanding of primordial black holes, if one were so close as to be in our solar system, it is very small.

Since it's so small, it would have fizzled out through hawking radiation output a long time ago.

So yes, planet 9 is NOT a black hole that can hurt you.

Now, a pocket of warped spacetime that will one day spawn a Chaos Demon? Maybe.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I thought I heard once that our universe could be a holographic projection on a 2D plane surrounding around a black hole.

Don't ask me for any details further than that, because I do not remember.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

There was an episode of PBS Space Time on the holographic principle in general recently, and I believe they've also discussed the black hole thing as well.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

If it's a block hole, it doesn't really matter. A black hole is not more dangerous than a planet with the same mass, it has the same gravity. The only difference is that it's much tinier. If planet 9 is a black hole, it's so small that Sun has stronger gravity (and bigger mass), meaning it's bound to rotate around the Sun the same way every other large body in the Solar system is.

Planet 9 maybe is or isn't a primordial black hole and it won't hurt you.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

"well brain, it seems you really need this sleep because that makes no sense whatsoever"

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

The galaxy is in Orion's belt.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I had this thought as a kid. But I thought it was neat that we might be part of an atom of some larger molecule. Didn't keep me awake. I had other trauma keeping me awake, like going to school.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Considering how much shit orbits the sun that would be one wildly unstable atom

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

Nah. Sun just acts as the Queen Atom. Without it, you’d end up with a Helvetica Scenario. This is basic science.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year 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] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year 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.
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

it's not commonly discussed because it's wrong

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Now imagine if something... or someone... would poke our galaxy with an observation, and all the stars in the arms instantly collapsed into a single particle.

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

There are better manners to avoid the sleep

load more comments
view more: next ›