471

submitted 6 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

108 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 6 months ago

you have to fail intro to qm 101 and/or be stoned out of your mind to think this way

[-] antidote101@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Or just reject planck length and all other dimensional limitations like it. Then you can have ~~turtles~~ universes all the way down.

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Planck length is not like universal pixels. It's just where current models say there's little reason to look at smaller things, since it's kind of like worrying about which flecks of paint are coming off a car in a racing video game. It's just ... so irrelevant as to be ignorable.

It's nigh impossible to have any energy that could interact with us or atoms on the Planck length scale that wouldn't just collapse in to a black hole. It's not so much any observation of real-world pixelation, and more that even to atoms, it's very tiny.

[-] antidote101@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Your comment about current models, known energy types, and universal pixels seems to ignore the post's topic (which isn't really about known models or energy types).

A better way to disregard the post would be to just point out that solar systems aren't that big in terms of scales of the universe, and that there's no indication of any charges, electrons, or valance layers about.

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I'm not responding to the comic. I'm responding to you talking about the Planck length. I'm not disregarding the comic but making a tangential comment. Please try to keep up.

[-] antidote101@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

No.

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Your loss! 🤷

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 months ago

planck length doesn't come up even once, it all boils down to these things: 1. electron has momentum, and from that follows it has a wavelength, and at the same time 2. orbit is stable, which means that after every "rotation" electron has to end up with the same phase, which means there is only a finite number of solutions to time-independent schroedinger equation for (hydrogen) atom (don't bother solving it on paper for anything with more than one electron) and these things are spherical harmonics

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

And why is that?

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

planetary orbits are not quantized, for starters. atomic orbitals are occupied by pairs (at most) of electrons, and this is because of qm spin exists which has no analogue in large scale. electrons aren't spinning around on an orbit, they're more of a smudged standing wave. it's also a staple among vapid thonkers like mckenna

[-] Artyom@lemm.ee 9 points 6 months ago

Here's a few reasons this doesn't work:

Planets are different sizes, electrons are all identical
2 planets cannot occupy the same orbit, but (at least) two electrons with opposite spin can
If you have a high speed planet entering the solar system, you can't transfer some of its energy to another planet and have the rogue planet continue with less energy
All orbital energies are possible, not so much for atoms
Planetary orbits emit gravitational waves. If electrons produced the equivalent (bremstrahlung radiation) during "orbit", they would collide with the nucleus hilariously fast. This isn't a problem because electron orbitals don't have a physical representation.