Editing Talk:2709: Solar System Model

<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
Like the [https://outerwilds.fandom.com/wiki/Quantum_Moon Quantum Moon] from Outer Wilds. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 06:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The lead sentence needs correcting: ELECTRONS orbit the nucleus, not ATOMS orbit the nucleus
([[User talk:ArtK|talk]]) 08:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.49|172.70.210.49]] 08:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, the electrons ORBIT, not REVOLVE.
([[User talk:ArtK|talk]]) 09:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.49|172.70.210.49]] 09:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
: You can fix that yourself? click the edit button and replace it. That's... the whole point of wikis i'm pretty sure. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.83|162.158.79.83]] 14:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:: Yes, That is what I was trying to do but was locked out. Leaving a message was the next best thing.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.232|172.69.33.232]] 08:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

When I first read the comic, I was confused about Randall (Ms. Lenhart) describing quantum orbitals correctly. See, I knew the real history of science, so my brain autocorrected it to read that we used to think ''electrons'' had elliptical orbits. I had to look three times before I even saw the inversion. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 16:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone should add something about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_time Lyapunov time], and how orbits are unpredictable on longer timescales.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.175|162.158.146.175]] 16:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


([[User:pinkdoesstuff|talk]]) 3:42, 10 December 11 (UTC)
Someone PLEASE explain this to me like I'm five? The explanation confused me :(
:In the early 20th century atoms was in some respects believed to behave similar to solar systems, in that electrons orbited around the core of the atom like planets orbit around their sun. Nowadays, it has been discovered that electrons do not orbit around the core of the atom in such a manner; rather, the position of electrons are described with a more complicated model involving so called orbitals and probabilities. However, planets are still considered to orbit around their sun. The joke in this comic is that it claims the opposite: that atoms are still imagined with electrons in simple orbits, while planets have turned out to move according to the more complicated model with orbitals and probabilities. If this is amusing, it is probably because it is an absurd thought that something as big as planets would move in such an unintuitive way, which can not be described with classical mechanics. It may also be amusing that the history writing in the comic is very similar but opposite to the accepted one.
:[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User:While False/explain xkcd museum|'''museum''']] | [[User talk:While False|talk]] | [[special:Contributions/While_False|contributions]] | [[special:Log/While_False|logs]] | [[Special:UserRights/While_False|rights]] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:While_False&printable=yes printable version] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:While_False&action=info page information] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:While_False what links there] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&days=30&from=&target=User%3AWhile_False related changes] | [https://www.google.com Google search] | current time: {{CURRENTTIME}})  05:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not space weather which makes position of planets hard to predict. It's the fact that while we have exact equations for two bodies, {{w|Three-body problem}} has no closed-form solution and leads to chaotic behaviour ... and there is little more than three bodies in our solar system. Also note that it gets even more complicated when you add theory of relativity into the mix. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 07:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
:Space weather ''and'' uncountable minor bodies that have not yet been recorded ''and'' the inability to provide current motion/mass data to quite impossible levels (even for those bodies we haven't missed) lead to potentially chaotic divergences in the future.
:What Mars does in a million years might depend upon solar activity, precisely where it is in its orbit compared to the other major planets, whether any comet has purturbed its moons or indeed what ''humans'' have done to/around it (nudged some comets towards it, assembled a web of space elevators from its adjusted satellites and imported asteroid-belt masses, caused it to ''lose'' mass for various intentional practical or accidental reasons, who knows..?).
:Even ignoring anthropogenic changes, a slightly slower/faster orbit would effect the other planets (at least the inner rocky ones, but probably Jupiter gets resonated differently, eventually, thenceforth most of the system readjusts), which would in turn effect Mars again.
:It is a chaotic system, and basic unknowns such as whether one or more CME will directly engulf any given inner planet (and when) are a detail that can drastically change the already fuzzy propobabilities of exactly when resonances conspire to make great changes to the current astronomical models. Refining the probabilities (based upon current understanding of various odds involved) is a continuous problem, and can never even rule out something unpredictable making even 'short'-term predictions all wrong. You can emperically run an idealised N-body problem through (with multiple runs to encompass the latitude of uncertainty in overtly known values, if you wish, as with weather services) but when something makes it an (N+m)-body problem, all bets are off, to the degree you did not anticipate the extra complications. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.46|162.158.159.46]] 19:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course, we now know that the planets are actually styrofoam balls held up by bits of string. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.10|172.70.175.10]] 22:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

ChatGPT sez: "The comic is about a teacher teaching a class about astronomy and how the models of the solar system have changed over time. In the past, it was believed that planets circled the sun in precise paths, like electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom. However, we now know that planets do not have a fixed location and instead occupy "probabilistic orbitals," which means that their position is not certain but can be predicted with a certain probability. The title text suggests that this probabilistic model of planetary orbits also applies to the Earth's position in the habitable zone, where conditions are suitable for life. This is why life exists on Earth but is also mortal." 

Nope. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.217|172.71.158.217]] 23:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I just want to say that "This proposal was not well received in academia" was very funny!  Well done, whoever wrote that.
:Thank you! I was originally going to explain how nonsensical the idea was.  And how every time Velikovsky made an assertion in field X, all of the experts in that field thought it was silly but were willing to accept his claims about other fields.  I was concerned that to do so might attract the attention of his loyal followers, who still are out there, which would result in edit wars and vandalism. Then I realized that a very dry NPOV would do. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 17:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

IF I understand quantum mechanics correctly the chance of switching orbits is the chance of the electron suddenly switching locations to a far distance (exceedingly low [citation needed]) multiplied by the inverse ratio of all the electrons in the planet (exceedingly high [citation needed]) which makes a super exceedingly low number [citation: all the math classes where I tried multiplying low ratio numbers and they got smaller.  the lower the ratio the smaller the number -- {math is fun <yes it is shuttup>}]  So I think that all scientists believe that the planets can switch their orbits, but the chances of this are a) VERY EXCEEDINGLY SUPER LOW and b) about 100%  chance going to end up with an unstable orbit [citation the quantum possibility of the entire planet moving to another orbit doesn't change the velocity or acceleration with regard to the new orbital position's relation to the sun's gravitational pull thus with the old velocity and new position's gravitational pull the orbit is no longer a stable one].
CONCLUSION:  the statement "This proposal was not well received in academia" may be inadequate.  The chances are probably well within 1/TREE(3) chances of happening and I would be shocked if they were not withing 1/TREE(TREE(3)).
:QM applies to all objects, not just electrons.  For example, all of the QM behaviour that we're used to applying to electrons is also seen for neutrons: diffraction, double-slit experiments, etc., but scaled appropriately for the mass difference.  There ''is'' QM uncertainty associated with objects of planetary mass, it's just really ''really'' tiny.  Planetary objects ''do'' change their orbits by absorption and emission of quanta, but the changes in those orbits are unobservably small.  Velikovsky was proposing orbit changes on the scale of a solar system.  Supposedly, after Venus was barfed out of Jupiter, QM effects caused it to go ping-ponging around the solar system, and its repeated passing by Earth created several of the Biblical miracles.  One of the (many) problems with the concept is that it would require the absorption and emission of quanta that would be proportionately enormous, to account for the changes in energy and momentum. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 17:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

“ quantum uncertainty effects are not large enough to notice at the planetary scale…”
: What if you had a cat the size of six solar masses and put it in a box with…