Do you think that maybe, each star in our universe is really an atom in some larger universe and that the planets are really electrons and that these atoms/suns cobble together to form galaxies/molecules and that maybe we're just part of a giant air molecule in a larger universe that we cant see
am I blowing your mind?
2007-03-26
13:50:26
·
15 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Science & Mathematics
➔ Astronomy & Space
what if the cosmic background radiation is really the light from some giant alien's lamp (like that movie Men in Black)? What if the reason we're expanding is that one of these large beings is blowing a balloon up and we are inside of it? Also, we wouldnt be able to see these beings because they are either travelling way too fast or our time is way too slow
2007-03-26
13:56:22 ·
update #1
well screw you cipher, you're not getting my points
2007-03-26
13:58:55 ·
update #2
No, its not possible that our sun is an atom nor are the planets electrons. They have entirely different properties from atoms and electrons. For example, the planets are all electrically neutral unlike electrons which are negatively charged. And we are bound to the sun by gravity rather than the electromagnetic force. Also, the sun is not positively charged as an atomic nucleus would be. It's a lovely fantasy but not close to the truth.
2007-03-26 14:00:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by Twizard113 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Nope...I read scifi, too. So you're not blowing my mind.
There are few similarities between an atom and our Sun. Let's enumerate what I can remember:
The sun is made up mostly of helium and hydrogen that is fusing under enormous pressures. An atom is made up of protons and neutrons...subatomic particles.
The He and H of the Sun are held together by the force of gravity, which is also what causes these gases to fuse. Protons and neutrons are held together by strong and weak atomic forces.
Measuring the Sun's location and momentum concurrently is doable. Measuring location and momentum of an atom, its components, is not due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
The planets around the Sun are defined, discrete bodies. Electrons around an atom are not. They are clouds with probability distributions. The Bohr model, which treats an atom like a sun with revolving electrons in orbit, has long been discounted.
There are probably more things that I don't recall right now. But the bottom line is that our Sun, with its planets, bears little resemblance to atoms with electrons around it. So, as the Sun is not like an atom, it is doubtful the rest of the universe is like a collection of atoms.
2007-03-26 14:09:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by oldprof 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I've thought about this alot, we are probably moving living and dieing going threw generations alot faster then the unerverse ages, because all those smaller we go the lives of organisms get shorter. Flies only live for 24 hours but it probably seem like a lifetime for them, they live life alot faster then we do. I believe the atoms in our world also have universes as we are an atom of a larger universe, and that universe is an atom, I think it could really be impossible to prove it but its something to think about, it really makes you feel insignificant but it makes you realize have the power to change whats in the world around you.
2007-03-26 14:11:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Fifty years ago, people were asking the same question. In Physics, atoms don't work that way. But, in esoteric philosophical circles, the universe might be considered more of a living thing than a non-living thing, but probably more similar to a single-celled life form. And then there is the ever-present question of the Deity.
2007-03-26 14:04:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Happy Camper 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I hate to be mean, but this is simplistic thinking, centered on the superficial simularities between a solar system and proton/electron system. They are vastly different as many previous answers have enumerated. If we are all just inside a tiny atom in some vastly larger structure what prevents it from collapsing?
2007-03-26 14:34:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by allnyermind 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
The similarities are uncanny aren't they.
Yes, when I began to learn about the universe and atoms, the similarities became obvious. Who can say that your comparison is not right or partly right. Our perceptions may be so limited that we still do not see the whole but only a part.
2007-03-26 14:08:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by 63vette 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ahh yes the infinite smallness theory. Just as plausable as the next I suppose. This leads us to believe that in any sizeable amount of mass on Earth there is a Universe. Interesting to think about I guess.
2007-03-26 13:54:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by magicninja 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
That is exactly what the entire solar system is. It's like playing a game of marbles. When you start, the marbles are all heaped together. But as time goes on, the marbles move out, hit eachother, bounce, and sometimes (if you are a really bad marbles player) break into pieces.
2007-03-26 13:54:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by slasher42424 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
properly examine out it this form, with the telescopes we've right this moment, we will not see decrease back to the vast bang, no longer to point see the outer fringe of our universe. So anybody asserting we've considered all the properly-known universe are in simple terms dreaming of the destiny, this is that in the event that they are able to get the investment for even greater advantageous and lots greater effectual than what they dave now. daily some one is finding out new issues with regards to the universe, like dark remember, that is in ordinary terms a concept combat now, no cone can see bark remember, and till they discover a thank you to be sure of seize any dark remember it is going to proceed to be a concept.
2016-10-01 13:09:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
That is a very old idea, used in many science fiction stories. But there is absolutely no evidence to support it. For one thing, we know for sure atoms behave MUCH different than solar systems, even if solar systems could be made small.
2007-03-26 14:07:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by campbelp2002 7
·
0⤊
0⤋