Solor Systems VS Atoms?

Question

I was reading in my science lessen and it says that scientist are starting to believe that atopms and our solor system are related, cause there is a atom that is i think flirona or some thing that has 9 electrons around it circulating it. Here is what I was talking about. heres the lesson


Are Atoms Tiny Solar Systems?
Our solar system consists of a sun in the middle with nine smaller planets rotating around it in their orbits. The element Fluorine has a nucleus and nine smaller electrons rotating around it in their orbits.

This may get you curious.
•Is it possible that Fluorine is a solar system similar to ours?
•Is it possible that our solar system is really an atom in a bigger universe?
•Why study such puzzling things?
This lesson will try to answer those questions.
Are electrons planets?
According to the solar system model of matter, every atom consists of a nucleus with a certain number of electrons rotating about the nucleus in their orbits.

Note: More recent theories say that the electrons are better represented as waves, a gas or strings. These theories--as well as the solar system model--all try to represent the real situation.

Look at the example of the element Fluorine, which consists of a nucleus and 9 electrons in orbit. Is it possible that the third electron from the nucleus is similar to the third planet from the Sun—our Earth—except on a very small and different scale?

Perhaps there are even tiny little people or animals living on that electron. When they look out through their tiny telescopes at the other atoms and molecules around them, perhaps they think they are looking at the whole Universe. This may be stretching our imagination, but is it a possibility?

This is like the question: "Do fleas have fleas?"

Are planets electrons?
Our solar system has nine planets rotating around the Sun. Astronomers have recently determined that other stars also have planets rotating around them. They have not been able to detect how many planets are rotating around other stars or suns, because of the great distances involved.

Some stars are very large and some are much smaller than our Sun—just as some atomic nuclei are large and some are small, depending on their atomic number and weight. Since there is this similarity, is it possible that each solar system is really an atom in some physical system?
Our solar system could be similar to Fluorine, while others may be like Oxygen, Iron or Uranium. In fact, the Universe we see through our telescopes may be just the collection of billions of atoms that are in a larger Universe. Perhaps we are part of the atoms on another gigantic living being!

Puzzles of the universe
Of course, none of this can ever be proven—at least not in our lifetime. But it shows that there is a lot more to what is around us than we realize. Thinking and speculation on this sort of thing can be fun to do. Science fiction writers have used such speculation to write stories and movies for use to enjoy.

Look beyond what is obvious. Examine similarities and trends in order to draw some conclusions or create a theory. That is what science is all about.

In conclusion
There is a similarity between solar systems and atoms. By using your imagination, you could suppose that atoms might be tiny solar systems and/or that solar systems may be gigantic atoms. Such speculation is an essential part of scientific study.

Answer 1

The difference is simple-:

Similarity-: Large Mass in Middle has smaller enetities whizzing round it (both atoms and Solar systems have this)

Difference-: Atoms are held together by NUCLEAR Forces - Planets are not, they are held in their orbits by Gravitational Forces.

Nuclear Forces are Massive but act over a very short range i.e. about 10^-10 metres.

Gravitational Forces are extremely weak compared to Nuclear forces, but act over an infinite distance.

There were early atomic models built upon the planetary model, but much more accurate models have now superceeded this.

Answer 2

This is an interesting comparison, but it really isn't a good one.

For one thing - planets orbit stars because of gravity -- electrons orbit protons/neutrons because one is positively charged and one is negatively charged.

For another -- electrons orbit the nucleus extremely fast, while it takes years for most planets to orbit their star.

The nucleus of an atom is made of two different atomic particles which are not nuclear reactors -- a star is basically just a gigantic nuclear reactor burning itself up because of its own gravity.

More than one electron orbits in each energy level around the nucleus, but if more than one planet orbited around in the same plane it would eventually crash into the other planet and this would create a single planet.

Electron orbits are all over the place, while a planet stays on a basically linear orbital plane.

---

The reason the comparison seems to make sense is the popular Bohr model of an atom. It is a great way to model an atom, but you have to realize that it is not a very accurate depiction of what an atom really would look like.

Answer 3

The main similarity is the orbital properties that each article posseses. But the forces that lock electrons in an orbit around a nucleus of protons and neutrons is electromagnetic, while the force that locks planets into an orbit about a star is gravitational. There is little to NO evidence that gravity and electromagnetic forces are the same thing in this regard.
String theory is the most likely one to unify these two forces as one, but atoms also being solar systems doesn't enter into this. Although, there is a popular theory that electrons are mini-universes...and that our universe is an electron in a larger universe...and so on forever.

Answer 4

The motion of Macromass like the sun and that of the electrons (micromasses)follow the same rules of Gravitation.
The motions of all the planets are relative to the sun's barrycenter.
How can all the planets revolves around a common point? Actually they all have their own Sun-Planet barrycenters.The motion is really very complicated to trace.The answer to that is the barry center is the sum of all the barry centers which is a moving vector on the surface a manifold of the Sun.

The electron motion follows the same rules excepts in complex atoms it has multiple degrees of freedom.So in order to maintain rotational equilibrium around the barrycenter of the atomic nucleous its motion follows along within a 3D spherical manifold.

The motion of the electron balances the Energy of the Nucleous ,whose parameters are continuously changing.There fore the actual instantaneous position of the electrons are not exactly predictable . However the stabilitly limits of the Atoms can be estimated as a function of Temperature changes.
Einstein could have analysed the atom Using a space time manifold for the electon and the atom but never succeeded doing so, because he was trying to Unify force instead of power and energy.

However when it comes to the Sun- planets systems the stabilty limits are determined as a function of Mass changes.

Answer 5

So by that line of reasoning shouldnt ALL planets be the same? All electrons are the same...same mass, charge, and spin. If the planets are part of a system such as that, why arent they all the same to mimic the quantum electrons? Plus the fact that if we were part of such a physical system, heres another problem: the matter around us is made up of trillions of atoms strung together right? If we were but a single atom in a similar system, shouldnt there be other 'atoms' woven tightly around us that make up that matter, like the matter we know? so why arent there any solar systems EXACTLY like ours right around ours? In addition there is the problem of scale. Since your whole premise falls apart at that point it is not a viable theory. But you are right, such BAD speculation is an essential part of science, to remind us how NOT to formulate a theory.

Yes theres a similarity between solar systems and atoms. There is also a similarity between a mouse and a horse. They both have tails and 4 legs and a coat of hair. So because i can imagine they are the same thing since they have those similarities, ignoring obvious differences, does it make it a reasonable hypothesis? imagine away, but dont try to put that in the guise of real science.

I'm disturbed by the idea that such unscientific crap is being taught in schools or wherever you got that, but i suppose since no one is interested in pure science in the US anymore (i wonder why, with crap like that being fed to our kids at school) i shouldnt be suprised.

Answer 6

That is a very old idea, but it is wrong. Atoms are really not like little solar systems at all. Electrons do not really orbit the nucleus. We once thought they did, but today quantum mechanics does not think anything of the kind.

Answer 7

It's a nice literary or metaphorical idea, but it has no real basis in science. See all the previous posts to understand why.

I can say that a baseball game is like a clock, but it doesn't make it valid for science class.

Answer 8

1. Is there a question in there somewhere??

2. Dewd.... You need to get a 'real' science book before you end up so far past the 'squirrely horizon' that you never get back ☺


Dougu