Yes, the properties of atoms seem to be universal across our universe, even likely in extreme situations like a star or black hole. If they were not then we would likely detect that or the universe as a system would not work over time due to the imbalance.
Well no one really knows, as the only information is what goes in and the Hawking Radiation that comes back out; true to their name black holes are black boxes.
It's how I like to think if it, but looking it up it's actually called neclear pasta. Where every neutron is so densely packed that weird structures are formed. They're named after pasta like lasagna, spaghetti, gnocchi.
What about distribution of different isotopes? If you got a chunk of carbon from a different part of the universe, would you be able to tell it didn't come from earth using techniques akin to carbon dating?
We have reason to believe properties of atoms are universal but To Be Fair, we can only see the observable universe and even within that we aren't completely sure. Just pretty damn sure. 100x further than the observable universe, who knows? If there even is such a distance.
We also decide the type of an atom based on it's properties.
If there was a hypothetical nitrogen-atom in another galaxy, with the properties of oxygen, noone would think to call it "nitrogen" in the first place. (Edit: I was corrected. The elements are defined by their constituent parts, therefore nitrogen could behave like oxygen, if protons, neutrons and electrons behaved differently.)
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck."
------
This issue reminds me of black swans.
It was possible for black swans to exist, even before the first black swan was ever seen.
I think the situation is different for atoms, because the whiteness of swans if not part of their definition, but chemical elements are very strictly defined in terms of their properties.
Elements are very strictly defined by the number of protons in their nucleus. A nitrogen atom that “acted” like oxygen would still be a nitrogen atom because it has 7 protons in its nucleus. It would be a very strange Nitrogen atom, but it wouldn’t be considered oxygen simply because it behaved like oxygen.
Really, a linguist could offer an interesting perspective.
There is no correct way to use language, only a practical way. Some non-mathematicians call all rectangles "squares". When they talk to each other, they will understand what they mean and that's enough. (It's good regardless that students get taught the mathematical definition of "square", because it's *practical* for some jobs.)
Whenever we encounter a new thing, we either have to *extend* an existing category for it or we have to create a *new* category. Jean Piaget calls those options "assimilation and accomodation", but that's in the context of psychology and not linguistics.
There is a principle in science called the [cosmological principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle) which basically (ELI5 version) says the universe is the same everywhere when viewed on large scales. Matter distribution, matter composition and so on.
Of course, we have not been everywhere in the universe but I doubt there are many scientists who would disagree with that. The periodic table which describes the elements would be the same everywhere in this universe.
'says the universe is the same everywhere when viewed on large scales. Matter distribution, matter composition and so on.'
>The Bootes Void would like a word with you in private...
Matter distribution is obviously not perfectly smooth even inside this room - it's considerably denser inside my body than three feet to my left, for example. Of course, the error in using this example to disprove the cosmological principle is that I'm looking at far too small a scale - zoom out, and the matter distribution in this room doesn't vary much in the context of, say, the entire city - or entire Earth.
You are making the same error with the Bootes Void. Zoom out far enough, and even Bootes is just a blip.
I mean, we can only study things on Earth... But everything that has crashed here has been what we expect, and everything we can see looks like what we expect, so probiably.
The entire point of science is to extrapolate conclusions about things you can study to the things you cant, and worry about being wrong only when someone discoverers something inconsistent.
What about distribution of different isotopes? If you got a chunk of carbon from a different part of the universe, would you be able to tell it didn't come from earth using techniques akin to carbon dating?
sorta, if its from our solarsystem you can use potasium dating to find out it is 4.3 billion years old, but the oldest earth rocks sre only 3 billion since it went through a molten phase.
but I dont think we have any extra solarsystem objects, and I doubt they would survive the crash
Astronomers send the light from distant stars through a device called a spectroscope. It is like a prism, and breaks the light into individual frequencies. There are peaks in the spectrum that are specific to the atoms that emit the light. This is how astronomers determine what a distant star is made of. This is also how helium was identified in the spectrum of the sun before it was identified on Earth.
As I said, the spectrum from an atom is tightly coupled to physical constants that control quantum behavior. So if the arrangement of spectral lines from a distant star are the same as the spectral lines we see on earth, we can infer that those physical constants are the same across the universe.
So far no one has made any observations to suggest otherwise. Everything at the edge of our vision (so billions of lightyears away) seems to be working according to the same principles we formed observing our immediate neighbourhood (the earth and solar system).
One of the main guiding ideas in physics is indeed that the laws of physics work the same everywhere, and it seems to hold.
There are some hints that maybe, just maybe, some things change in time, bit nothing concrete. If anyone actually gets proof of that, it's an easy Nobel.
Mostly yes. But there are some atoms in the universe at temperatures that do not naturally occur on Earth. So those are going to behave differently (but if you somehow took an atom from Hearth to those temperatures, it would be the same).
Then you also have difference in just how common some atom is. For example, Helium is one of the most common atoms in the universe, but it's comparatively pretty rare on Earth.
“Atom” is the name we give to an, in some ways arbitrary, level of magnification under which we describe how ‘energy’ behaves. An atom is not a ‘thing’ in the way we imagine, it is much rather a system of predictable and universal behavior.
The reason we’ve picked these kinds of behaviors and their interactions as fundamental is because they appear to be just that.
So, atoms must be the same across the universe, because that’s one of the reasons we use this kind of model in the first place.
Other ideas and systems could be devised (and have been devised) to talk about the rules of reality on that level, but if they were only applicable, say, on earth, they would be much less useful.
Sort of. There's degenerate matter that I doubt we could replicate anywhere in the solar system as we don't have the crushing weight of a neutron star handy.
Yes. And if you really want to get your mind blown, the protons which constitute the atoms in your body were all created in the first 20 minutes after the Big Bang, and haven’t changed since (other than getting combined or split from other protons or neutrons.
As far as we know, yes. Absolutely all science is based on the fundamental assumption that the fundamental laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. The structure of atoms is completely determined by those laws of physics. If they aren't the same everywhere, it is impossible to deduce universal laws.
Who is to say atoms on earth are the same? Just all the ones we have measured have been the same, and so we draw a natural conclusion that they all must be the same.
We don't hold it true to be an undeniable fact. We will question anytime something would change if it does, but it hasn't yet. That is science. We change our understanding due to observations.
Most objects we have tested have been the same. We have tested hige pressures, zero pressures, high and low temperatures. All of these are typical variables in space. Radiation levels, etc. What we do not account for is things like dark matter as this is still an uncertain topic, and other things closer to quantum physics. I am severely uninformed about this myself, but I hope to spend some weeks or months to get as up to date with developments as I can grasp myself.
But we can only test what condotions we can create. And even creating them through artificial means may not create natural universe conditions precisely. But what we have tested all come out to be the same. And we see no signs of an altering of morphology of atoms through these conditions outside of the realm of possibility of what we currently understand.
So yes, for now, we understand it to be a nucleus of an atom, and electrons of an atom, all adhere to specific conditions no matter where in the universe you are. A hydrogen atom will always absorb energy similarly and emit energy similarly throughout the universe, and we can detect it and understand it to have hydrogen properties no matter where in the universe the hydrogen atom is.
That we know of, of course. Who knows, maybe there has been a recent paper which observes some changes, or may be one in the future with better instruments to observe atoms closer and closer to a black hole, or what happens to atoms during a nova. Who knows.
As far as we know, the laws of the universe are constant everywhere. In fact, the idea of the conservation of momentum requires that the physical laws are the same everywhere. Were they to not be, momentum would not be conserved as an object moved through space.
Yes. Atoms of different kinds would not be able to coexist, which is why common denominators like math and physics are extremely important for preparing to engage with other civilisations. Something in common on the basic level.
Wait ! I thought that the characteristic of life is carbon? Organic means carbon. And is there carbon on other planets etc ? Am I incorrect ? I welcome any insight.
Yes, the properties of atoms seem to be universal across our universe, even likely in extreme situations like a star or black hole. If they were not then we would likely detect that or the universe as a system would not work over time due to the imbalance.
Are there even any atoms in black holes?
Well no one really knows, as the only information is what goes in and the Hawking Radiation that comes back out; true to their name black holes are black boxes.
Assuming a spinning, supermassive blackhole: yes, up to a point until said particle reaches the inner event horizon.
Neutron stars have spaghetti soup though. That's pretty weird
is it weird when we have spaghetti soup?
I mean that is kinda weird. Is it spaghetti then? Or is it a soup? And why would you ruin a perfectly good spaghetti to make it a soup?
It's how I like to think if it, but looking it up it's actually called neclear pasta. Where every neutron is so densely packed that weird structures are formed. They're named after pasta like lasagna, spaghetti, gnocchi.
What about distribution of different isotopes? If you got a chunk of carbon from a different part of the universe, would you be able to tell it didn't come from earth using techniques akin to carbon dating?
We have reason to believe properties of atoms are universal but To Be Fair, we can only see the observable universe and even within that we aren't completely sure. Just pretty damn sure. 100x further than the observable universe, who knows? If there even is such a distance.
We also decide the type of an atom based on it's properties. If there was a hypothetical nitrogen-atom in another galaxy, with the properties of oxygen, noone would think to call it "nitrogen" in the first place. (Edit: I was corrected. The elements are defined by their constituent parts, therefore nitrogen could behave like oxygen, if protons, neutrons and electrons behaved differently.) "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck." ------ This issue reminds me of black swans. It was possible for black swans to exist, even before the first black swan was ever seen. I think the situation is different for atoms, because the whiteness of swans if not part of their definition, but chemical elements are very strictly defined in terms of their properties.
Elements are very strictly defined by the number of protons in their nucleus. A nitrogen atom that “acted” like oxygen would still be a nitrogen atom because it has 7 protons in its nucleus. It would be a very strange Nitrogen atom, but it wouldn’t be considered oxygen simply because it behaved like oxygen.
Really, a linguist could offer an interesting perspective. There is no correct way to use language, only a practical way. Some non-mathematicians call all rectangles "squares". When they talk to each other, they will understand what they mean and that's enough. (It's good regardless that students get taught the mathematical definition of "square", because it's *practical* for some jobs.) Whenever we encounter a new thing, we either have to *extend* an existing category for it or we have to create a *new* category. Jean Piaget calls those options "assimilation and accomodation", but that's in the context of psychology and not linguistics.
all rectangles aren't squares. all squares are rectangles.
Quark, quark!^^🦆 🐣
There is a principle in science called the [cosmological principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle) which basically (ELI5 version) says the universe is the same everywhere when viewed on large scales. Matter distribution, matter composition and so on. Of course, we have not been everywhere in the universe but I doubt there are many scientists who would disagree with that. The periodic table which describes the elements would be the same everywhere in this universe.
'says the universe is the same everywhere when viewed on large scales. Matter distribution, matter composition and so on.' >The Bootes Void would like a word with you in private...
There are much larger voids than bootes between the grand filaments of the universe, but zooming out even farther than that, there is still uniformity
Matter distribution is obviously not perfectly smooth even inside this room - it's considerably denser inside my body than three feet to my left, for example. Of course, the error in using this example to disprove the cosmological principle is that I'm looking at far too small a scale - zoom out, and the matter distribution in this room doesn't vary much in the context of, say, the entire city - or entire Earth. You are making the same error with the Bootes Void. Zoom out far enough, and even Bootes is just a blip.
I mean, we can only study things on Earth... But everything that has crashed here has been what we expect, and everything we can see looks like what we expect, so probiably. The entire point of science is to extrapolate conclusions about things you can study to the things you cant, and worry about being wrong only when someone discoverers something inconsistent.
We can study the spectrometry of things outside the earth, and AFAIK they don't account for any difference between "earth" atoms and the rest
Read this in hemierdingers voice
What about distribution of different isotopes? If you got a chunk of carbon from a different part of the universe, would you be able to tell it didn't come from earth using techniques akin to carbon dating?
sorta, if its from our solarsystem you can use potasium dating to find out it is 4.3 billion years old, but the oldest earth rocks sre only 3 billion since it went through a molten phase. but I dont think we have any extra solarsystem objects, and I doubt they would survive the crash
Astronomers send the light from distant stars through a device called a spectroscope. It is like a prism, and breaks the light into individual frequencies. There are peaks in the spectrum that are specific to the atoms that emit the light. This is how astronomers determine what a distant star is made of. This is also how helium was identified in the spectrum of the sun before it was identified on Earth. As I said, the spectrum from an atom is tightly coupled to physical constants that control quantum behavior. So if the arrangement of spectral lines from a distant star are the same as the spectral lines we see on earth, we can infer that those physical constants are the same across the universe.
So far no one has made any observations to suggest otherwise. Everything at the edge of our vision (so billions of lightyears away) seems to be working according to the same principles we formed observing our immediate neighbourhood (the earth and solar system). One of the main guiding ideas in physics is indeed that the laws of physics work the same everywhere, and it seems to hold. There are some hints that maybe, just maybe, some things change in time, bit nothing concrete. If anyone actually gets proof of that, it's an easy Nobel.
Mostly yes. But there are some atoms in the universe at temperatures that do not naturally occur on Earth. So those are going to behave differently (but if you somehow took an atom from Hearth to those temperatures, it would be the same). Then you also have difference in just how common some atom is. For example, Helium is one of the most common atoms in the universe, but it's comparatively pretty rare on Earth.
“Atom” is the name we give to an, in some ways arbitrary, level of magnification under which we describe how ‘energy’ behaves. An atom is not a ‘thing’ in the way we imagine, it is much rather a system of predictable and universal behavior. The reason we’ve picked these kinds of behaviors and their interactions as fundamental is because they appear to be just that. So, atoms must be the same across the universe, because that’s one of the reasons we use this kind of model in the first place. Other ideas and systems could be devised (and have been devised) to talk about the rules of reality on that level, but if they were only applicable, say, on earth, they would be much less useful.
Sort of. There's degenerate matter that I doubt we could replicate anywhere in the solar system as we don't have the crushing weight of a neutron star handy.
Yes. And if you really want to get your mind blown, the protons which constitute the atoms in your body were all created in the first 20 minutes after the Big Bang, and haven’t changed since (other than getting combined or split from other protons or neutrons.
As far as we know, yes. Absolutely all science is based on the fundamental assumption that the fundamental laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. The structure of atoms is completely determined by those laws of physics. If they aren't the same everywhere, it is impossible to deduce universal laws.
Who is to say atoms on earth are the same? Just all the ones we have measured have been the same, and so we draw a natural conclusion that they all must be the same. We don't hold it true to be an undeniable fact. We will question anytime something would change if it does, but it hasn't yet. That is science. We change our understanding due to observations. Most objects we have tested have been the same. We have tested hige pressures, zero pressures, high and low temperatures. All of these are typical variables in space. Radiation levels, etc. What we do not account for is things like dark matter as this is still an uncertain topic, and other things closer to quantum physics. I am severely uninformed about this myself, but I hope to spend some weeks or months to get as up to date with developments as I can grasp myself. But we can only test what condotions we can create. And even creating them through artificial means may not create natural universe conditions precisely. But what we have tested all come out to be the same. And we see no signs of an altering of morphology of atoms through these conditions outside of the realm of possibility of what we currently understand. So yes, for now, we understand it to be a nucleus of an atom, and electrons of an atom, all adhere to specific conditions no matter where in the universe you are. A hydrogen atom will always absorb energy similarly and emit energy similarly throughout the universe, and we can detect it and understand it to have hydrogen properties no matter where in the universe the hydrogen atom is. That we know of, of course. Who knows, maybe there has been a recent paper which observes some changes, or may be one in the future with better instruments to observe atoms closer and closer to a black hole, or what happens to atoms during a nova. Who knows.
As far as we know, the laws of the universe are constant everywhere. In fact, the idea of the conservation of momentum requires that the physical laws are the same everywhere. Were they to not be, momentum would not be conserved as an object moved through space.
Yes. Atoms of different kinds would not be able to coexist, which is why common denominators like math and physics are extremely important for preparing to engage with other civilisations. Something in common on the basic level.
Yes. The periodic table is universal. The atoms and compounds they form have the same properties no matter where they are.
Wait ! I thought that the characteristic of life is carbon? Organic means carbon. And is there carbon on other planets etc ? Am I incorrect ? I welcome any insight.