space's relation to the subatomic world

[wade.daniel.w]

I was wondering about a theory I had and was wondering if I can get any supporting evidence to assist me or to shut down the theory all together, so please if you have any imput to provide, don't hesitate. I've wondered about the existence of space for some time now, as I'm sure several people have, I was trying to learn more about stars when I came across a term "nucleus star" then I wondered, is it possible that space is I gigantic atmosphere, so enormous, that we are an electron equivalent, on a large scale atom, or some sort of variant of this?

[swansont]

Atoms behave very differently than solar systems and galaxies. The "planetary atom" model was discarded long ago.

[J.C.MacSwell]

You mean like this:

 

http://digg.com/d1ZOHO

[wade.daniel.w]

WOW! This is old. Even though it was discarded I had a question,

 

"Atoms behave very differently than solar systems and galaxies. The "planetary atom" model was discarded long ago."

 

I'm sure it was considered (how could it not be) but, at a sub atomic level particles aren't restricted by the same laws of physics as we are, so what if the variable creating a difference was the change in the laws of physics created by the astronomical size of space/planets etc? If someone in physics can explain why this particular question was discharged i'd be REALLY interested in knowing.

[J.C.MacSwell]

WOW! This is old. Even though it was discarded I had a question,

 

"Atoms behave very differently than solar systems and galaxies. The "planetary atom" model was discarded long ago."

 

I'm sure it was considered (how could it not be) but, at a sub atomic level particles aren't restricted by the same laws of physics as we are, so what if the variable creating a difference was the change in the laws of physics created by the astronomical size of space/planets etc? If someone in physics can explain why this particular question was discharged i'd be REALLY interested in knowing.

 

For starters, it was pointed out that an accelerating charge should radiate and therefore lead to a decaying orbit due to the energy loss.

 

Somehow electrons don't do this when due to movement within the confines of an atom under normal circumstances. When they do, it is done in a "quantized" way, rather than continuously, losing a set amount of energy.

[iNow]

at a sub atomic level particles aren't restricted by the same laws of physics as we are

 

Since when?

I think you are mistaken in this assumption, my friend.

[wade.daniel.w]

Since when?

I think you are mistaken in this assumption, my friend.

 

If you wanna say Max Planck's assumtion is incorrect that's up to you, although modern science as well as Abert Einstein would have to disagree with you, it's called Quantum Physics,

 

What Is Quantum Physics you ask?:

Quantum physics is the study of the behavior of matter and energy at the molecular, atomic, nuclear, and even smaller microscopic levels. In the early 20th century, it was discovered that the laws that govern macroscopic objects do not function the same in such small realms.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I believe the same may be true at an astronomical level possibly creating a variation of an atom environment which is the known universe. It's extremely obvious if the universe is one big atom it would not follow the same laws as an atom but a variation dependant on the new laws governing it's environment. This is brought to our attention by the fact that even on our level the laws are not the same as the subatomic, why would they revert rather than progress as our perspective moves outward? So of course even if the universe was an atom it would be impossible for it to follow the same laws, that much has to become obvious as we look at the situation. I think if quatum physic can determine if objects of an astonomical proportion follows different laws of physics then we can accuratley answer this question.

Edited April 9, 2009 by wade.daniel.w
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

The laws of physics are the same in all frames, otherwise, they would no longer be laws. So, you can talk all you want about Planck, my criticism of your point remains valid and unaddressed.

[wade.daniel.w]

The laws of physics are the same in all frames, otherwise, they would no longer be laws. So, you can talk all you want about Planck, my criticism of your point remains valid and unaddressed.

 

no dude it's quantum physics I talked about Einstein too, think your smarter than him? I don't. I think I'll take his word for it. Consider you issue invalid and addressed.

 

here's a refference: http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/p/quantumphysics.htm

 

quit following all my treads and grow up.

Edited April 9, 2009 by wade.daniel.w

[iNow]

The laws described by quantum mechanics apply in all frames, as well. So, too, do the calculations of relativity. Care to try again, or are you content to look silly and try to make things personal instead of learning something useful during your time here?

[Sayonara]

Wade, you need to modify your behaviour if you want to remain a member here.

 

Read the goddamned rules, or you are liable to find yourself permanently banned.

 

Sock-puppet accounts are a no-no, even if they are for a joke. Calling people morons is right out as well. You would do well to drop some of the ego and try to learn something from the people who can write in sentences.

[Sisyphus]

So basically, the question is, are stars like atoms, except for being fundamentally different? Yes, yes they are.

[swansont]

Quantum physics is the study of the behavior of matter and energy at the molecular, atomic, nuclear, and even smaller microscopic levels. In the early 20th century, it was discovered that the laws that govern macroscopic objects do not function the same in such small realms.

 

 

The laws are the same. How things behave as a result is different.

 

Take diffraction as an example. Things diffract when going through a slit or around a corner, but you only notice it when the wavelength is about the same size as the slit. massive particles have wavelengths, given by h/p, meaning my wavelength is going to be on the order of 10^-37m, and I am not going to noticeably diffract when walking through a doorway. But an atom going at a few cm/s through a 100 nm slit will.