'Edge' of the Universe

There are (at least) two ways to interpret your question:

1) You litterally meant the conceptual accounting device we invented and call the periodic table, and you are wondering if we have invented a similar conceptual accounting device for organizing galaxies and other large scale things.

2) You really meant to say we see the physical atoms that we have organized into a peridic table, and wonder if we see similar physical structures when we look in the "large" direction.

===

The answer to 1 is yes. We have in fact worked out a system for identifying and classifying stuff at the galaxy scale and above. (Galaxies are classified as spiral, elliptical, barred, irregular, etc. Collections of galaxies have been classified as clusters, walls, and voids. TVF would suggest that we add waves to that list.)

===

The answer to 2 is a qualified yes. It depends on how tightly you define the word similar. (Atoms have a massive center with lighter stuff "orbiting" at some distance. Solar systems have a massive center with lighter stuff "orbiting" at some distance. Galaxies have a massive center with lighter stuff "orbiting" at some distance.)

===

The major problem with trying to nail it down any tighter than this is that we really have no idea what an atom would look like if we could "see" one from the same relative perspective as we have when we actually see a solar system or a galaxy with our eyes.




Do electrons actually "orbit" the nucleus of an atom?

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Hmmm.

So what IS the difference between a neutron and a hydrogen atom? Both seem to be made from one proton and one electron.

LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The difference lies in whether the two components are physically separated, or combined into a single unit.

I see the implication there. If subatomic behavior were all about graviton collisions, then neutrons would not be neutral; they would amount to slightly-more-effective protons. Also, electrons would actually orbit geometrically, as opposed to the somewhat unpredictable (and unexplained) dance that classical QM cites.

Ergo, something else must also be at work.

The only apparent difference between neutrons and protons is their size, or mass if you prefer. We can probably discount internal structure, because we know for a fact that neutrons can be split into a proton+electron by bombardment, and also that the reverse transformation occurs under sufficient omnidirectional pressure.

So, how could a slight change in size account for the presence or absence of a positive electric field?

All I can think of is that elysium has some property, most intuitively a structure to the arrangement of elysons, that is sensitive to the size of particles that displace it.

Let's consider simple space-hogging by the rapidly moving elysons. The particles would arrange themselves loosely into a three-dimensional grid, analogous to the way those cages of 3" plastic balls that kids play in settle into a seemingly solid mass when undisturbed.

If the size of a neutron represents an even multiple of one elyson's "territory", then its neighbors would perceive nothing different.

Protons, being one electron-mass smaller, would then leave a gap in the grid of elyson territories, which would then tend to attract a tenant. An electron, being nowhere near the size of the nucleon, would occupy a small part of its neighboring elyson territories; and would thus tend to evict one or more of those elysons.

Relating that back to the ball-cage analogy, a neutron would occupy a volume equal to some integral number of balls, a proton some fraction of one ball less, and an electron would be that fraction that a proton needs to become a neutron again.

Given the thermal motion of elysons themselves, and postulating an external pressure on the whole elysium field from C-Gravitons, the disturbed "grid of elyson territories" must then try to reestablish itself. Since the particles are still submerged in the elysium, another cycle of displacement and restoration will ensue.

This could account for the quasi-orbital movement of the electrons. A relatively close ratio of electron size to elyson territory size would naturally explain the way electrons "prefer" certain orbits, so strongly so that quantum mechanics arose. It might also suggest Brownian motion of the electron and not the nucleon.

All that said, I have no idea how the math works out for the expected "territory" of an elyson. I could be totally off on cloud nine here.

- Kevin

Planets are not all the same size. Stars are not all the same size. Solar systems are (hmmm, probably not all the same size, but we don't know yet). Galaxies are not all the same size.

So why should protons all be the same size? Or electrons? Or elysons?

If you spend much time looking around the 'Net for data on particle sizes, it doesn't take long to realize that there are lots of different answers for any given particle type.

Hydrogen atoms range in size from about 1.2 X 10^-10 meters to about 5 X 10^-9 meters.

Protons are fairly well defined at about 1.5 X 10^-15 meters. (But I found relatively few mentions of proton size, so this might be a data selection effect.)

Electrons range in size from a litteral point to about 5 X 10^-15 meters (roughly 3 times larger than a proton).

Neutrons are mentioned even less than protons. But I did find a site that talks about the size of the positive charge component of a neutron (1.6 X 10^-16 m) and about the size of the negative charge component of a neutron (5.7 X 10^-16 m).

Some of these variations are the result of sloppy use of units (mistaking angstroms for nanometers, etc), but most of it seems due to actual size variations in the little buggers. Free atoms are not the same size as atoms in a solid or liquid. Free electrons are not the same size as electrons bound to an atom.

Ions are not the same size as neutral atoms of the same element. Atoms in a molecule are not the same size as free atoms.

===

Elysons probably also vary in size.

LB

But size really is a major difference between neutons and hydrogen atoms. 10^-10 meters for hydrogen vs 10^-15 meters for neutrons.

A factor of about 100,000X, or 5 scale ticks. (For comparison, Pluto is only about 10,000 Sol radii from Sol.) Even after allowing for sloppy math and large measurement errors and differing definitions of what size means, there is still a *large* size difference.

===

Put a proton and and electron together one way and you get really small. Put them together a different way and you get really big.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>

So why should protons all be the same size? Or electrons? Or elysons?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You're right. They shouldn't be. That shoots a hole in the space-hog hypothesis, but is it a fatal one? Need the particles conform to an exact size, or is a range of sizes adequate? It seems like the "territory" of an elyson is defined mainly by kinetic energy.

I think my case against a C-Graviton cause was a compelling one. If 'space-hogging' can't explain electric charge either, then something totally unpostulated has be responsible. I can't think of a good starting point for that one.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Neutrons are mentioned even less than protons. But I did find a site that talks about the size of the positive charge component of a neutron (1.6 X 10-16 m) and about the size of the negative charge component of a neutron (5.7 X 10-16 m).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Those data suggest that a neutron should have a net negative charge, which goes against first impressions. This could perhaps be tested by comparing the attractive force of hydrogen ions versus deuterium ions. Has anyone tried it? Alternatively, one could go looking for evidence of a corresponding positive charge surrounding neutron stars.

- Kevin

[kcody] "Those data suggest that a neutron should have a net negative charge ..."

???

Have you checked the batteries in your thinking-cap lately?