Could the model of the universe be the same as the structure of an atom?

In the case of the solar system, the trajectory of the earth and other planets is almost certain, and the changes in each revolution are very small, and although the electrons in the atoms also revolve around the nucleus, the electrons have no orbit at all. In terms of quantity, the number of stars in a galaxy is not at all comparable to the electron energy in atoms, although the stars in the galaxy revolve around a center like the planets, and the galaxy itself may have an orbital center.

I think it's going to be a long way off......

Take the solar system as an example: there are many theories to explain the atomic structure, and it is more similar to the solar system model Bohr atomic theory, but now the VSEPR theory or hybrid orbit theory is generally used, which is far from the solar system model.

The universe can be described by the classical laws of Newtonian mechanics, the orbits of the planets are determined, but the electrons in the atoms are quantum mechanical, and the orbits are uncertain.

It's different! How did you suddenly come up with this question?

The two are not the same thing, one is space and the other is matter.

Probably not, the universe has always been in a redshift state, and if it is the same, then the atoms are also constantly expanding.

But the top will not be the same, the atomic structure in your mind is Bohr's atomic model.

His model is wrong, it has limitations, and you should look at atomic structure in terms of quantum mechanics, and if you don't guess wrong, you're a high school student.

Atomic structure (also known as atomic model) refers to the composition of atoms and the arrangement and arrangement of parts.

Atoms are very small, in the case of the carbon (c) atom, which has a diameter of about 140pm (picometers), but is usually recorded in radius, and in the case of millimeters (mm), the diameter is, is made up of a nucleus located in the center of the atom and some tiny electrons that move around the center of the nucleus, just like the planets of the solar system orbit the sun.

And the atom is the same as any black particle in the universe. Recent studies of the nucleus suggest that protons or neutrons in the nucleus may be a spherical vibrational energy layer composed of two balanced forces, internal and external. Using this principle, a variety of relatively stable nuclei can be constructed from different sizes of energy stack layers.

The entry details the neutral atom model, the solid charged sphere model, the jujube cake model, the Saturn model, the solar system model, the Boer model, the nuclear model, and the Chadwick model.

There are a lot of new questions before physicists, such as what is in an atom besides electrons, how electrons stay in atoms, what is positively charged in atoms, how positive charges are distributed, and how negatively charged electrons and positively charged things interact. Based on scientific practice and experimental observations of the time, physicists used their rich imagination to come up with a variety of different atomic models.

Same point: the nucleus is large, the electron is small; The sun is big and the planets are small.

Sinisters: 1. Planets orbit, and electrons appear in the form of "probability waves".

2. The sun and the planets rely on gravity; The nucleus and the electron are dependent on a weak interaction.

3. The nucleus is positively charged and the electrons are negatively charged; The sun and the earth are generally unelectrified.

4. Relatively speaking, planets move slowly; And electrons are extremely fast.

This seems to be the metaphysical understanding of the universe that many people have had. In the preface to A Brief History of Time, Hawking mentions that once a philosopher (probably Russell) gave a lecture on cosmology, and an old lady stood up and said that the universe was a giant turtle shell, and there were more turtle shells outside the turtle shell, nested layer by layer.

That's what I thought when I was a kid. But now I think it's a very romantic idea.

You're talking about a planetary model of atomic structure, right?

For atoms with low atomic number, due to the relatively small number of electrons, the repulsive force between electrons is not as obvious as the attraction between electrons and nuclei, and this situation is not much different from that of the solar system. For example, the hydrogen atom model.

However, due to the principle of lowest energy, two electrons can enter the orbit in opposite spin directions, in other words, two electrons may be present in the same orbit, which is different from the solar system. In addition, the electron orbit has a spatial extension direction, and the entire atomic configuration is spherical, but the planets of the solar system basically revolve in the same plane, which is equivalent to a flat system, which is also a difference.

For atoms with a plateau subordinal number, there will be some drilling and shielding effects due to the increased repulsion between electrons (resulting from an increase in the number of electrons), which leads to the elliptiness of the electron orbits, like the orbits of Halley's Comet, which are very flattened ellipses.

These differences are mainly due to the direction of the electromagnetic force. Both the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force are central forces, which means that in such a system, the direction of the force has the property of pointing to the center. This is the origin of the similarities between the atomic structure of the planetary model and the solar system; The similarity and difference is that the electromagnetic force has a repulsive effect, while the gravitational force does not.

That's pretty much it

Now we look at it from a macroscopic point of view, the solar system is composed of huge nuclear reactors that glow and heat and several planets revolving around the sun, and the planets in the solar system revolve around the sun, and it is not difficult to find that this structure is similar to the structure of atoms! The structure of the Milky Way is just like anything else we know, and if we look at it from a larger perspective, wouldn't it be accurate to say that it is a molecule of some giant substance or a tissue cell? So let's boldly imagine that the universe could be a huge life form, our planet and even the sun.

The galaxy, or even the Milky Way, is nothing more than a tissue in this huge life form or a basic element in a cell, just like an atom in matter. A tissue cell in the human body has determined its location from birth, for example, a liver cell, if it wants to move from the liver to the heart with its own energy, it is impossible, because it has no such ability, but as a doctor-person, it is almost easy to move a certain part of the body to another position, excluding the vital signs themselves. Because the liver cell is incomparable to the human body in terms of mass, size, energy, etc., it can only stay where it should be, if from the perspective of people to cells, it is equivalent to our human beings compared with tens of millions of light years away, beyond reach.

However, we still have no way of knowing how big the universe is, and the scientists' explanation may be plausible, they say, that the universe is still expanding ......This may prove that the universe, a huge life form, is still growing and developing in its teenage years. There is no contradiction with Einstein's theory of relativity, our planet is too small for this huge life form, so small that it can be considered an atom, and the solar system is just a small cell in this life form, so we cannot see its edge in any way, just as the liver cell will never "see" the space outside of us. Perhaps, this huge life form is not just an individual, it is just one of many life forms, and we can't even imagine more.

This is our cosmic ......From the atomic structure to the molecular composition to the structure of matter. So, how do we explain black holes in the universe? Suppose that black holes in the universe are like blood vessels in our human body, imagine what would happen if a cell or a very small molecule fell into a blood vessel?

At this point, the cell or tissue is simply unable to control itself, and for it, this speed is as impossible to reach as we imagine the speed of light.

lsDon't mislead people, there is an essential difference between the solar system and the atomic structure.

1. The electrons moving around the nucleus do not have an orbit similar to a planet at all, and the trajectory of the electrons is a probabilistic cloud, and according to quantum mechanics, energy is released and received one by one.

2. The problem of black holes is very complex, and it is definitely not a blood vessel that can prevaricate the past, the black hole itself is the result of gravitational collapse, with a very huge mass and gravitational force, we know little about him, but one thing is clear, that is, the black hole is obtained by the collapse of a massive star, and the atomic nucleus itself cannot collapse.

3. The Hubble Telescope has observed the universe 13.7 billion light-years away, which has confirmed the correctness of the universe.

The beginning of the universe does have quantum-like properties, satisfying the uncertainty principle. What kind of world it wants to form needs someone to give it the initial conditions. However, after that, atoms and other particles were formed in the universe. There is no necessary connection between the two.