Prove me wrong, I dare you!

  • WhiteTiger@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Prove me wrong, I dare you!

    Well, the thing about atoms is that they arrange themselves in patterns to create those larger building blocks you speak of. Solar systems move much too slowly, so that by the time they would have arranged themselves into anything resembling the patterns exhibited by atoms, the heat death of the universe would have occurred.

    The resemblance you see is orbit, but the major issue with uniting the orbit of atoms and the orbit of planets under one theorem is the scale of the forces at work. Gravity is many orders of magnitudes weaker than electromagnetic force holding electrons in place (and it needs to be that much stronger because of how much faster electrons move relative to their size than planets).

    But now we’re getting into string theory.

    • Kata1yst@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Great point. We should also add for @Vupperware 's benefit that subatomic orbitals the way they’re envisioning them are a lie we tell ourselves because quantum mechanics is too damn weird to think about.

      In fact, probably the greatest argument against atoms as smaller scale worlds is the fuckiness (technical term) of quantum mechanics on that scale. “Worlds” existing only as a probabilistic distribution might make existence difficult.

      • WhiteTiger@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        See I’m the opposite, the fuckiness at that scale is my greatest argument for their possible existence, accepting that their existence would be in a manner completely alien and unintelligible to me. There’s SO MUCH fuckiness that anything is possible.