Planetary Orbit
#1
Posted 25 August 2007 - 10:30 PM
Provided that the universe is a 3 dimensional plane, why do all of the planets in our solar system for the most part orbit on the same 2 dimensional plane as seen here:
Why do the planets not orbit like electrons do around a nucleus on multiple planes:
#2
Posted 25 August 2007 - 10:31 PM
#3
Posted 25 August 2007 - 10:45 PM
Secondly, the reason why the planets are all aligned like that is because they were formed from a single rotating disc (called an 'accretion disc') of matter. As it rotated, matter began to collect into rings, much like Saturn's today. However, as the rings grew denser, they began to clutter up until eventually planets formed from them. Initially the planets must have been huge clumps, but over time their own gravity smeared them out into sphere-like shapes.
#5
Posted 25 August 2007 - 10:52 PM
#7
Posted 25 August 2007 - 11:06 PM
First of all, electrons don't 'orbit' at all. And definitely they're not around the nucleus like that. It's more of a balloon-shaped cloud, where the cloud density signifies the probability of finding the electron there. Read up more on electron clouds and quantum mechanics if you want to know more.
Secondly, the reason why the planets are all aligned like that is because they were formed from a single rotating disc (called an 'accretion disc') of matter. As it rotated, matter began to collect into rings, much like Saturn's today. However, as the rings grew denser, they began to clutter up until eventually planets formed from them. Initially the planets must have been huge clumps, but over time their own gravity smeared them out into sphere-like shapes.
I realize that there is a lot more to atomic structure that picture suggests, I was just using it as an example of what planets are not doing.
Assuming that the Sun and out solar system was formed from nebula or something, wouldn't there have been cosmic junk above and below the forming Sun as well as the current plane the planets are on? Where did all of that go? What kept planets from forming on another rotating disc? Is it just because the axis that the Sun rotates on(which is another question: does the Sun rotate on the same plane that the planets orbit on?).
#8
Posted 25 August 2007 - 11:13 PM
#9
Posted 26 August 2007 - 12:52 AM
Over time this cancelled out much of the angular swirling motion of matter coming from a different direction.
Does that answer the question better?
Axed Head and A.I. Coder for S.E.E. and ... stuff
".. coding is basically boring. What's fun is finding out how things work, take them apart and then put them together in ways that were not intended nor even conceived."
#10
Posted 26 August 2007 - 09:18 PM
Einstein: "We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
#12
Posted 26 August 2007 - 10:56 PM
#13
Posted 27 August 2007 - 12:41 AM
As metioned above, unless a direct measurement is taken to determine (meant in the strictest sense) the location of such a small object, or the course of it's movements, the only thing you can do is calculate it's probability wave, which lets you know the probability of the electron going this way or that, being here or there, spinning on this axis or that.
Furthermore, once one of these things is determined, many other traits that electrons or other small particles possess become indeterminable.
This is phenomenon has become known as the 'Heisenberg uncertainty principle'.
As a matter of fact, Quantum Mechanical interpretations could actually be used to describe the planetary orbits, albeit the resulting probability wave could be best described as 'collapsed', stating the movements and locations of the planetary bodies as being a specific way almost 100%, instead of what you usually find when calculating the traits of subatomic particles.
But this is pretty deep stuff. If you are interested, you should go look for info on that on the net. There are good lectures and papers from universities about this at university-websites as well as commercially available. You could also try to get hold of some excellent audio books, or, like me, buy those books in a bookstore.
I am honored to call the place my home where this brilliant physicist (Heisenberg) along with Gauss made some of their most excellent advances in theoretical physics and mathematics. I guess i wouldn't be able to type this (on an internet forum) today if they hadn't, hehe.
Edited by Sûlherokhh, 27 August 2007 - 02:25 AM.
Axed Head and A.I. Coder for S.E.E. and ... stuff
".. coding is basically boring. What's fun is finding out how things work, take them apart and then put them together in ways that were not intended nor even conceived."
#14
Posted 27 August 2007 - 04:18 PM
But you have to be careful, because quantum mechanics has yet to be unified with the theory of gravity/relativity. The most extreme cases where both theories are significant are as of yet a big mess in physics.As a matter of fact, Quantum Mechanical interpretations could actually be used to describe the planetary orbits, albeit the resulting probability wave could be best described as 'collapsed', stating the movements and locations of the planetary bodies as being a specific way almost 100%, instead of what you usually find when calculating the traits of subatomic particles.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users