I think this model of the Atom is wrong

Well you're wrong.
Neat.

>I think this [1913 Bohr] model of the Atom is wrong
L0Lreally, which development over the past 104 years leads you to that conclusion?

Nope, they don't. Your picture shows no atoms.

Each atom is riding on a tiny turtles back.

those are bonds laddio

not atoms or subatomic particles that comprise them

those are clearly pixels, get real

>implying the visual representation of something is how reality is

nigga u can see bonds cuz they electrons n shit and they can absorb and emit photons which you can see

nigga who you calling a nigga that's a pic made from some weird machine, not saying that nigga atom isnt doing nigga bonds but you cant see them nigga, only their effect

ya alright but you cant see shit except photons so if you want to be pedantic you actually cant see anything composed of baryonic matter directly and then you are just making things overly complicated of the point of adding nothing to the discussion

nigga

nigga even photons cant actually be seen, it's just the nigga way our brain interprets those little wave particles some nigga liked to call photons
niggaposting aside, even bonds arent really bonds, more like shared electrons who behave like niggas, and electrons are obviously too small to be represented in that pic, so that cloud bond is probably the reflection of them chimping out from an atom to another

The way these things work just makes me all the more certain that we're in a computer. Subatomic ones and zeroes go together in patterns to make more complex atoms.
These atoms can be arranged a trillion different ways, and each different spatial arrangement of the same set of atoms is a different substance.
These are obviously just computer instructions.
The universe is using different stages to turn an on/off input into a great variety of outputs, simply by changing arrangements.
And remember, if there's anyone in control of this computer, we're probably sucked up for use as AI when we die. So, you should learn something that an AI could do to be useful.
If this is planned and purposeful, then we could expect that our creator society might be very similar to ours. Maybe it's even exactly the same, that would certainly make transition easier. In that case, you'll find me in a factory somewhere, building stuff and telling anyone who listens about how I "figured it all out" in the sim.

honestly depends on what technique was used for the imaging

and who cares anyway bout this research, friendly reminder the first time anyone directly observed atoms was with the field ion microscope in 1951, this shit OLD

Why does /x/ shit up this board? A computer couldnt be bigger than the universe, and it cant be smaller or else itd violate the laws of thermodynamics. Thereforxe it doesnt exist.

Dare I point out everything is made of atoms you're seeing?
Its charge as it scans across, no photons (there technically are photons involved)

>Why does /x/ shit up this board?
That's all the brainlets know how to do.

Dare I point out vision uses photons?

You can feel matter but not see it directly

Then nothing has a visual representation.

mind=blown

>I think this model of the Atom is wrong.

Every model of everything is going to be "wrong" to some extent. A model is not the thing being moideled.

That model is useful for some things, not for others.

>Each atom is riding on a tiny turtles back.

Damn, I think I'll convert to Jeb!anity

Anagram Turtle, greatest failed meme of Veeky Forums's past, approves of this post.

a bit outdated rather than wrong. People only use this model to teach normies beginner sciences

Forgot the pic... curses...

That's becasue it fucking is you undergrad

Explain this then smartass

Reminds me of the theory that when the "junk DNA is decoded, it will say "Ha ha, it's me, God, I was doing this all along!"

Not according to this guy :^)
www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/

The atom is described by the schrödinger equation. It is therefore not material but a fundamentally ideal object. You can't have a picture of it, our universe is made of information not tangible stuff.

you're seeing photons not atoms ya dingus

wat

fuck OFF, Plato

yeah i don't think electrons are green

the schroedinger equation takes into account that the entire universe is made up of only one hydrogen atom(when you solve it for a hydrogen atom) and nothing else. no cameras or infrimation of any kind

See,
T. Someone who has never studied it
It uses hydrogen as an approximation, it does not take into account that the entire universe is made up of only one hydrogen atom

I'm not the guy who claimed the model takes into account that the entire universe is made up of only one hydrogen atom, but you're a fucking brainlet for thinking that it's not.

>published article locked behind paywall

will have to try to read it at the college

>not using scihub

brainlet

No shit

i know, rite?
electrons are yellow because they're electricity and electricity is yellow

electrons literally do not exist.

So the nuclear repulsion term is just there for Shits n giggles? How does making the distinction from taking into account and assuming a Brainlet response my man

its an outdated model that is known to be wrong for a long time

The really fucked thing is you wouldn't need a computer that computes the entire universe. You would need a computer that simulates the sensory input of every human being. That would be totally indistinguishable from a real system. worse, it's much more possible, and would require "only" about a large planet size computer with CURRENT technology.

not that it's made of only one, but that in the entire universe there exists only one hydrogen atom, no other atoms, fermions, bosons, no virtual particles. it's a purely theoretical picture

agfıpahnfıehfNIABFLJ

Then explain Schizophrenia aka /x/ syndrome

>simulates the sensory input of every human being. That would be totally indistinguishable from a real system
exactly. one can't even define 'real'. Nothing is perceived directly, all input is processed. That's along why hallucinations and reality can't be told apart (unless you recover from the hallucinating episode, or if someone grabs you out, of course).
You don't know the input's source, you deduce it. Everything you perceive seems to be from outside but it's all your brain receiving and sending signals. You're only experiencing yourself, in a strict way.

Veeky Forums might be the easiest board to troll around

kek

>nuclear repulsion term

But that's not right. It exists to describe non-relativistic atoms, which it does. It includes all the terms it needs to, to describe that.

Math majors are autistic.

Yup it sure is