![]() |
New atom
1 Attachment(s)
That's right. I came up with this during class. While I do not know too much about metaphysics, relativity, or special relativity, you must admit that this is still quite creative. I will be basing this message off of the picture I poorly created in Photoshop.
I have come up with a new kind of atom. Instead of spinning electrons, it has spinning protons and neutrons. This protons and neutrons spin around a nucleus (pink) which is essentially made of particles and gases. It does not have a solid outside or shell, but due to it's incredible mass, it creates the gravity to keep these protons and neutrons spinning at a very fast speed. The protons (red) and neutrons (blue) are divided into little ovals (or circles, if you'd like to imagine it that way.) These little ovals are spinning at an incredible speed, creating a circle shape. But you will notice there is no way to cause this spinning action, as there is absolutely nothing in the middle of the rings. That is one of the downsides of this theory. The protons' and neutrons' little oval shapes can vary in size, but it has a certain balance within them, to maintain stability in the spinning. There is a finite amount of matter/gases/particles in this atom that I am theorizing. But the area in which there is the most amount of matter/gases/particles is the nucleus. On occasion, the little oval shapes in the protons and neutrons will lose their certain balance, and will temporarily need more matter or particles within them, to maintain the mass. They might also need LESS matter or particles to maintain the mass and balance. The protons and neutrons get these particles from the nucleus. The particles are shot from the nucleus to the oval shape which needs patching, or the other way around (depending on how it's trying to balance itself.) When shot to the proton/neutron from the nucleus, the particles are shot very instantly, and could resemble lightning or electricity currents (see the electricity currents in the image below.) That is an unstable system though. If the neucleus loses particles, that will alter the balance of the protons and neutrons spinning around the neucleus. A very large instability at that. When such an instability occurs, the atom will implode and explode again, re-creating the atom. At the incredible mass of everything, this imploding and exploding occurs quite fast. And quite frequently too. The protons and neutrons are spinning at the speed of light or faster. The nucleus sends "patch ups" at the speed of light or faster. The atom implodes and explodes at the speed of light or faster. This atom implodes and explodes maybe about once a nanosecond. Now that you have caught on to that, here's the big twist (and some of you may have caught on already.) This atom that I'm talking about is: how our universe works. The red protons represent matter. The blue neutrons represent anti-matter. The little oval shapes are universes. (Thus, the end of our universe is the beginning of an alternate universe.) The "patch ups" and electric currents represent the reason why our universe exceeds it's finite amount of matter/energy every once in awhile. The imploding and exploding represent The Big Bang and The Big Crunch. (It's not our universe that makes the Big Bang and Big Crunch, it's our whole universal system, AKA "the new atom"). Now you're probably thinking "You're stupid. That means we're getting crushed every nanosecond." Well, I have two possibilities for this one. Either A) since time is relative, we are experiencing the process as taking a long time, or... B) Everything that happened while the atom was still "open" and uncollapsed stayed there as light that it emitted before it imploded. So basically, we're looking into the past. We're living the past. (And REMEMBER, I'm explaining the phenomena of the universe, not the phenomena of intelligent consciousness.) I hope I won't get flamed for making this theory against religion, because that isn't the case. I made this theory so it can please both atheists and believers in God. To please atheists, I just say, "This is how the universe works and the universe wasn't created by God." To please believers, I say, "Remember how I described the system as an atom? What if God was a being that is made out of these atoms. That creates the possibility that there are more universes than countable. This also brings logic to belief that we are the flesh and blood of God." Wheee long post! Take THAT, Specforces!!!! :twisted: |
It's impossible to have spinning protons and neutrons, I'm sorry. Especially neutrons. They'd never spin since they aren't charged.
|
Correct. And on top of that, you clearly don't understand that protons and neutrons are many thousands of times larger than electrons.
"Particles and gases" at the center? Gases are ~made up~ of atoms, my friend. |
REEEEEE!!! [loud buzzer noise] Your model of the atom obviously gets a big thumbs-down due to its MANY flaws (I won't even go into them here, but if you so desire, I will), but it seems you were concentrating more on your model being a representation of the universe.
However, even that isn't very logical. Regarding the "ovals" being universes, are you assuming there is a finite number of universes (which makes no sense, since the universe is all-inclusive by definition), or do you ascribe to the many-worlds interperetation of quantum theory? Since the latter would make the most sense, I'll assume that. In the many-worlds interpretation, there exists a universe for every possible outcome of every single quantum choice, and since MANY quantum choices are going on all the time, that would lead to an infinite number of universes, something which the "pink center" couldn't support with all the matter in the ( :D ) "universe". Also, why are universes of matter and antimatter complementary, yet mutually excllusive? Antimatter exists in our universe and annhililates things constantly, if only on a small scale, but can (and is) created on a larger scale around the universe and on earth. Regarding possibility "B", what is emitting the light, and where is it going? The idea of there being empty space inbetween universes is preposterous. Oh, and your appeal to theists might not have the desired effect =). Suggesting that God is made up of atoms that exist of our own world, and is thereby included in the world which He created? Something about that might not sit right... HOWEVER illogical this model may or may not be, you do deserve credit for beign creative and coming up with this; your thoroughness is commendable. This was fun for me, too, because I get to talk about something I love =). **Oh, and Jazz, nucleons very much CAN spin. They have a quantum spin number just like electrons, and although that doesn't always have anything to do with the physical act of spinning, they still do. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com/ |
Like I said before, I don't know much about metaphysics. I'm not even in high school. Thanks for the clarification, everyone!
|
No offense or anything, but you haven't even taken high school chem or physics and you think you can define a new type of atom somehow?
|
I'm so sorry, Chardish, I'll never do it again.
|
Your efforts impress me, young one...
May I suggest some readings on the subject? Stephen Hawking - The Illustrated A Brief History of Time The guy's a GREAT writer, and even if the subject matter is complex (I very much don't understand it all), you'll come away with a decent idea of what's up in this day and age regarding cosmology. John Gribbin - In Search of Schrödinger's Cat I suggest having somewhat of a background (all I had was a coupla Hawking's books, which are all pretty much the same, and that was enough), but this is written as a sort of layman's guide to quantum physics, and I think it's great. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com/ |
Haha, nobody's being hard on you, Jono; we were just a bit surprised.
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com/ |
Stephen Hawking created the multiple universe theory, right? About how the outcome of photons passing through translucent objects is every outcome possible at the same time? If that's what the book is about, then I think I'd understand some of it.
In addition to those books, should I look into reading The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy? I see Anticrombie is a big fan of it, but would it be of any use for me (information-wise)? Thanks again! |
Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy is the wise man's bible(with me, of course, being the wise man). It should be a mission in your life to read that book, lest thine eyes be plucked out.
But Im not sure it if was Hawking who made the Multiverse Theory. Read Michael Crichton's book, Timeline. Explains it very well. Oh, and nice job on the atom thing. Very creative, when I was in middle school I used to come up with some crazy stuff (how the Force is able to be controlled by Jedi. Screw the midichlorian crap) using only false logic and a science book. |
Quote:
But you should also read the Red Dwarf books by Grant Naylor. Because they're better. Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers (the first one) and Better Than Life (the second one). Better, I tells ya! |
Oh boy. Lot's of books!
Blue Meanie, I'm guessing that the books you mention also have the same "witty humour" that The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy does? |
Hawking very much did not come up with that theory, but aside from that, I think you're quite capable of understanding his writings.
Oh, and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is more of a humor book, so it won't help you information-wise, but I hear it's a great read, anyway. Good for understanding references (such as '42'). --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com/ |
Its one of those books that makes you feel "enlightened" upon finishing it. You put the book down, you stare foward, and you go ".....wwoowww...." except youre not on drugs.
|
all I will say is that its impossible for the protons and neutrons to go around the electrons as to that they would all clump together due to gravity. that and formost should have been your first thought.
|
You also have to remember that Rutherford's experiment (i think) proved that the atom is the most dense in its center...and since neutrons and protons weigh 10^10 times as much as electrons they (the electrons) cannot be on the inside...
|
Quote:
|
I agree with VxDx. Protons and Neutrons would clump because of the strong nuclear force, if they would clump at all (they'd have to whack into each other mighty fast to get past the electromagnetic force). Not only that, electrons couldnt clump because they arent affected by the strong nuclear force, so there is nothing to overpower the electromagnetic force pushing them apart.
At such small scales, gravity might as well not exist. |
Peeeople peeeople. Gravity hardly works on such small things. Not even things the size of humans. Not even things the size of houses. You could make an atom twice as high as you and nothing would stick to it "due to gravity". You don't understand the massiveness of gravity. Maybe you are referring to the nuclear force or the electrostatic force. I don't know enough about these to tell which one it is, but I know enough about gravity to know that's not it.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution