Talk:3050: Atom
Hey, just wanted to let you all know we've recently discovered 2 comics that have never been published! They don't even have a name, so we used the filenames: ibm_hc_2 and ibm_hc_3. You can read more about the discovery and what to do here. I had added them to the incomplete comics a while back, but I think not many people noticed them. The explanations are still empty, if you'd like to help! --FaviFake (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
...admittedly very barebones but at least it isn't blank. Someone smarter than me can expand it. Anyways, the Higgs boson feels like fuzzy dice you can't convince me otherwise 172.69.71.143 13:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Well, if they want to test that theory, they're going to have to find it again RadiantRainwing (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I just added a little about wetness. I don't have time to look into this more, but perhaps the idea is the outer electrons have a low enough energy level they pull heat from the skin, and that sensation of coldness along with the little bumps the electrons would do against your skin would lead your brain to think they're wet. That's all I got for now. Gbisaga (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- i always thought that the electron cloud feels like a water wiggler... 162.158.28.161 (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- It's possible that the wetness might be a reference to the Nuclear drip line. SammyChips (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I want fanart of the muons on my talk page by tomorrow. Do I make myself clear?! /j --Caliban (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- meowons. ~~(^_^)~~ 172.68.150.7 03:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sir, this is an internets. Someone has likely already made it. guess who (if you desire conversing | what i have done) 03:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- The muon fanart has been delivered to your talkpage. Please do enjoy. 162.158.122.172 12:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
atom 172.70.126.65 15:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Might be worth mentioning the popculture idea of expanding a subatomic particle found in "Three Body Problem" where they unfold the '11 dimensions' of a proton to make it, apparently, a planet-sized sheet and etch microcircuitry on it. (Programming question: how many bugs can dance on the tip of a proton? but I digress.) The most annoying part of quantum expansion would be how the particle gets entangled with _everything_ Bilkie (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Such a weird story. I always felt like I was missing some cultural context. I still enjoyed it. 172.71.155.47 15:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
So, ummm... What happens if they accidentally expanded an unstable atom to that size and it decayed? How earth shattering or otherwise is the kaboom? 172.69.23.176 20:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ballpark, that atom is probably max of 1 kg, based on how Cueball is holding it. If it's U235, which has a mass of about 0.4e-24 kg, then it's scaled up by a factor of 2.5e24. U235 has a decay energy of 4.7 MeV, which is 0.75e-12 joules, so scaled up that would be about 2e12 joules, about 450 tons of TNT. That's about 1/3 of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. Not "big" as these things go, but certainly big enough. On the other hand, U235 has a half life of 700 million years, so the odds are low. 172.70.115.100 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- We also don't know how the Quantum Expander affects all its physical properties. Does its mass increase to have the density of its size as if filled with 'normal' copies of it, or is it the original atom-mass (technically, that'd be like a vacuum balloon), or something between (mostly the mass of the nucleons scaled up to some degree, but still even more 'empty'). The resulting gravitational interaction might or might not match its inertial mass (which would be very interesting!), and parts of it that are normally point-phenomena are now probably(?) macroscopic in size, but may retain the same field-profiles (charge, etc, on top of the already considered gravitation). And how does the scale of time change, now that the speed of light (assuming that isn't increased across the interior of the Expanded quantum-realm) means that relative timings across the width of the atom must run slower for any propogated effects. (On the one hand, a 700 million year half-life may be vastly extended; on the other, when any single atom fissions, it fissions in its entirety, and who knows what 'poking and prodding' it will do, and if it works like the arrival of prompt or delayed neutrons from one fission event that might promote a neighbouring one.) We really need to know more about the QED, including about how it influences QED, before we can declare it completely Q.E.D. 172.71.26.37 22:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
My first thoughts upon seeing the words "Atom" and "Electron" was "is thing going to be about text editors"? Anyway, upping my caffeine levels now. --Coconut Galaxy (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
This reminded me of a college friend who wanted to be a veterinarian, then quit the program. When asked why, he said the decision came when he and his classmates were supposed to put their hand up a cow's butt. I think he was joking(mostly?) but I was reminded by "I don't want to do physics anymore". The "sensation of coldness along with the little bumps" tracks, often things much colder than their immediate environment can seem wet. Although if giant electrons still acted as electrons, wouldn't racing around at such high speeds make the atom super hot? Sorry, I'm a bit rambly. Cuvtixo (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
This is currently a terrible explanation, both in its absurd length and that it's almost entirely avoiding actual explanation. 172.70.211.83 07:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
