Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC

Work thoughts

Reply
- Sun, 21 May 2017 07:51:22 EST ZPX2kpEE No.78655
File: 1495367482443.png -(245976B / 240.21KB, 398x297) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Work thoughts
Does anyone else think of dumb shit while they're at work? Yesterday I was thinking about bubble theory, what if this entire universe repeats itself exactly when it ends.

So everything happens again and again in one big circle, like how your pulse keep pulsing and your lungs keep breathing, what if the solar system is an element like those in the periodic table, I mean if you look at one then you see the electrons orbiting around a neutron or something right?

I realise all this is very retarded but this kind of thinking does help the hours go by.
>>
Bombastus !uYErosQbLM!!Mybq1UbK - Sun, 21 May 2017 15:20:46 EST +OxnRrIT No.78656 Reply
>>78655
leibniz believed every atom / molecule was once the implosion of a separate universe that came to an end. he justifed it using a shitload of descartes's writings and then came up with monads or some shit
>>
Bombastus !uYErosQbLM!!Mybq1UbK - Sun, 21 May 2017 15:24:50 EST +OxnRrIT No.78657 Reply
>>78655
>I mean if you look at one then you see the electrons orbiting around a neutron
wrong
>or something right?
correct. electrons don't "orbit" because they don't obey newtonian physics. they jump in and out of spacetime in a probability cloud that goes from the nucleus to their orbitals. this is how overlaps work. electrons spend 0.01% of their "time" in the nucleus of an atom due to an effect called "quantum tunnelling".
>>
Edward Claybury - Sat, 10 Jun 2017 13:05:02 EST lPzkmzGj No.78679 Reply
>>78655
in the BOHR MODEL: the electrons look like little planets rotating around stars. inconveniently the bohr model does not compare to experiments well. quantum mechanics which states that electrons form clouds which look nothing like planetary orbits work much better.

I think there is a sense in which your thinking has something to it. From the molecular scale to the universe there are many things which look roughly the same since there are basically not that many fundamental forces through which things interact (in the case of non-dark matter which we understand well). For example planets under the action of gravity (a potenial that scales as 1/r where r is distance between the two objects and is attractive) really look quite similar to electrons interacting with protons (a potential that scales as 1/r and is attractive). Early models based off this (by Bohr) worked ok, but failed to predict really important aspects of atoms. Physics is basically about making analogies like this, but knowing that they will fail at some point.

As for whether the universe repeats itself, I figure that is possible in a certain way. All the math done to understand our Big Bang, would technically apply to any similar Big Bang. However you should look into this concept known as chaos. There are many systems which are totally understood as a chain of reasonable physical events (event 1 leading to event 2 so and so forth to some final state). Yet the sequence of events is so sensitive to the initial preparation of the system, that in practice the final state of the system appears completely random. Probably the outcome of the big bang a few billion years after the fact would look highly randomized. I figure the odds of a big bang happening completely identical to ours, leading to you reposting this comment are crazily low.
>>
Betsy Dapperwater - Mon, 12 Jun 2017 18:56:07 EST 4tmtdVyg No.78680 Reply
1497308167717.gif -(921544B / 899.95KB, 171x141) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>78679

>which states that electrons form clouds

I always thought that the 'cloud' was a conceptual method to help us visualize what is happening at the subatomic level, as in the cloud is the average position of the electron while the electron is still a minuscule fraction of the cloud as a whole.

Does the electron take up the entire space of the cloud? Or is located at a single point in the cloud which we average to be spatially accurate? Or is it both? Or is it neither? Am I here now or am I an average of my current position? Am I real?
>>
Ernest Bubberbanks - Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:00:06 EST GaLvZHtU No.78684 Reply
>>78680
Read the other anon's post. The cloud isn't a "cloud", it's a probability field where the electrons are about 90% of the time.
When you get down to such small particles they don't behave like matter, so it's hard to visualize. Basically these electrons pop in and out of existence and preferably along this cloud, albeit sometimes outside.

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.