Calling All Science Nerds

Don't bother reading this post if you're not a science buff, you'll just find it annoying like I do.

Basically a ridiculously-intelligent mate of mine sent me the following link, which she said I might find "interesting", given the fact that I'm obsessed with space and aliens and stuff. Anyway as it turns out I didn't find it interesting at all - in fact I found it highly-perplexing and frustrating that my very limited intellect just couldn't grasp it.

I THINK the author is saying that all existence as we know it is basically the same regardless of scale - so that an entire star system has precisely the same make-up as a single atom, which means that the very universe we inhabit could merely be a few atoms on the sample slide of a scientist in an alternative universe. It's all to do with the headf**k that is quantum physics. I think.

ANYWAY if you've read this tedious post thus far, firstly I congratulate you on not falling into a yawn-induced coma, and secondly, have a squint at this shit for me and tell me what it means to you please. Much obliged.

Ta. http://www.gpofr.com/documents/realitivistic%20relativity.pdf

I don't understand the equations either, but it sounds like bollocks to me.

The author doesn't appear to be a proper scientist. Google him. Looks like one of these fringe UFO whackjob types.

The idea of universes or solar systems contained within atoms has been around in sci-fi for at least 90 years. "The Girl in the Golden Atom" by Ray Cummings, for starters.

It's out of copright now: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/21094

Word to the wise, if someone tries to use quantum physics to "explain" something trippy, nine times out of ten it's absolute horseshit.

If you want some cool aliensy stuff, try Nick Bostrom's

http://www.nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf

or

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ September 5 2009, 12:25 PM BST

Looks like one of these fringe UFO whackjob types.

View original

He'll have Henman's full attention then.

Quote: Leevil @ September 5 2009, 12:41 PM BST

He'll have Henman's full attention then.

View original

Why I oughta...

This is good stuff.

The author isn't saying that there are universe's inside atoms, all he's doing is having a bit of fun.

Basically, the Beryllium Atom has a similar composition / appearance to our star system. The electrons represent the gas giants in the Solar System, the rock planets equal the neutrons, etc.

The Maths is the conversion of the different gravities / relativities between the two - an atom and a star system.

I think it's quite cute.

Isn't quantum physics the current leading theory and not actually based on fact? Although, I think they have discovered a lot of facts within it.

I'm barely on the edge of understanding what quantum physics is, I'm actually miles away and can just see it over the horizon. But it fascinates me greatly.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ September 5 2009, 12:49 PM BST

The author isn't saying that there are universe's inside atoms, all he's doing is having a bit of fun.

View original

I dunno. Reading his web site, I think he might be serious.

That's the great thing about quantam physics, you can come up with as many theories as you like and as long as they sound vaguely plausibe and until they make a protractor and compass the size of the Milky Way, then you're onto a winner.

My favourite is 'Super String' theory. Because if you actually read up on it and change the words 'Super String' to 'Pixie Dust', it sounds exactly the same.

The basic idea is not really new; it has appeared in a number of Science Fiction stories over the years.

Namely that since both atoms and solar systems seem to have a number of items in orbit around a central nucleus/sun, perhaps solar systems are atoms of some greater universe.

==============

The author of this paper has worked out that if you consider hard rocky planets to be akin to neutrons and gas giant planets to be akin to electrons then our solar system corresponds to a Berylium atom.

BUT: considering the likely number of hard and gas planets of ANY solar system, there are only likely to be a relatively small number of such combinations and counting protons, neutrons & atoms including isotopes (= extra neutrons) there are quite a large number of such atomic combinations.

Hence any likely solar system that could occur is almost certain to have analogueous combinations in atoms, i.e there will almost certainly be a match.

So: Our solar system akin to Berylium atom is just a coincidence.

at a real quick glance it seems to be refering to the basement/ceiling universe or hollow world within a world theory.

billwill, not only did I find your answer very informative, you even look like one of those boffins from an Open University programme.

I could easily imagine you on telly getting very enthusiastic about Roman aquaducts, cotton gins and old steam engines.

Quote: billwill @ September 5 2009, 3:13 PM BST

So: Our solar system akin to Berylium atom is just a coincidence.

View original

But it's only akin to a berylium atom if you ignore literally half the planets, and if you ignore that berylium electrons only have two orbits, and that it doesn't really matter that Jupiter might have some contrived numerological significance if the other planets don't, and if you ignore that the other three gas planets have wildly different masses, and that there are no easy atomic parallels for the asteroids, comets, or Kupier belt.

And then, as Billwill says, you've got to wonder how his theory would apply to another solar system. Such as one with no planets (electrons) or one with two or more stars (nuclei) or to a black hole.

The author's either taking the piss, or a loon.

'I like stories'-Ralph Wiggam.

Know how to write these papers in plain English don't they?

Interesting concept, not sure myself. Whilst great if he can define a constant linking an atom and the Solar System, as Billwill and Kevin have said, does the analogy hold with isotopes or systems with no planets?

Also, ignoring the quantum crap as I don't have the brain-power to comprehend, how far's the analogy going with:

1) Orbits of electrons - in atoms, the electrons are in shells, i.e. with different radius of orbit around the nucleus., each of which holds a certain number, with different ones having different orbits (S, P, etc)- how does this translate to the gas giants in his model?

2) "Finally this hypothesis postulates that mass is equivalent to charge but perceived as an independent quantitative unit of measurement from that of mass due to its accelerated velocity frame of reference or space-time density and that dimension changes with scale"

Que?! Does this mean he's accounted for the protons (sun) having to have the same charge (which he says = mass) as the electrons (gas giants) together - I'd imagine the mass of the sun is significantly greater than the sum of the gas giants:

"The solar mass (M⊙, 1.98892×1030 kg, is a standard way to express mass in astronomy, used to describe the masses of other stars and galaxies. It is equal to the mass of the Sun, about two nonillion kilograms or about 332,950 times the mass of the Earth or 1,048 times the mass of Jupiter." - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_mass

3)One of the conclusions:
"Star systems can be bonded to other star systems in the exact same way that atoms bond forming molecules and composite materials"

The exact same way? Unless quantum gives another theory, I thought the main bonding models are ionic ("giving" electrons) or covalent ("sharing" e-s between atoms/systems). Or metallic, which would mean the e-s (gas giants) can float between systems.
As for composites, aren't they generally mixtures which aren't chemically bonded (e.g. concrete a mixture of aggregate and cement, glass fibre glass fibres within a polmer matrix?)

4) It's not the most extensive bibliography, only one of which is actually a book on physics and one is Wikipedia (which I love, but always questions of reliability).

So not convinced. Forgive me if I've missed the point, only really skimmed it.

Luckily girlfriend's brother's girlfriend is a PhD physicist at Cambridge, so will pass it to her for an opinion that's actually informed