Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EntropicallyGrave t1_jd6bxpc wrote

Reply to comment by Alvsvar in How much space does it require to accommodate 1 hydrogen atom? by Alvsvar

I was downvoted a bit, but the top answers are acting like atoms just "end" at some point; I mean, the answer they give, I'm guessing, would be just about right - but my point is that it is a sort of a "functional" definition... they are, in some sense, processes - atoms. Or events.

u/DudeWithAnAxeToGrind is saying good things; it's about when you decide it no longer looks like a "quark-gluon plasma" to you, and when it looks more like atoms. we don't even understand how water works, if you start looking at it close, like that

1

Alvsvar OP t1_jd9ceft wrote

Now Im going to down vote you! Just kidding its funny how personal folks take that.

Yea I see planets and moons orbiting them, or solar systems galaxies, or galaxies black holes. How you can predict when they will be at a certain point even thought we dont see them. Then an atom with its electrons orbiting them, how fare does it go? And all thats mostly a vacuum, oh but wait

2

EntropicallyGrave t1_jda6rvo wrote

The things we think of as "observers" are extremely complex - so we're proposing something very restrictive, when we propose that we might understand physics. We're saying that there are no artifacts of this relationship that blind us.

It's important to be aware of the known mechanics of electrons; they don't move at all like classical objects; but it is their motion from which classical motion emerges, in some sense, too

It is almost arbitrary, whether you discuss things as a space populated with stuff, or if you just discuss the stuff and its relationships with itself; the nature of space is one of unreality.

2