Imagine a completely empty universe except for two hydrogen atoms.

>>7892984
That picture violates the Aufbau Principle.
REEEEE

>>7892984
Yes

>>7892984
It depends on their relative velocity vectors. The possibilities are:

- collision: this is a singularity that requires perfect initial velocity including stationary relative to each other
- orbit: they go into orbit around each other
- hyperbolic/parabolic: they interact and go their separate ways.

Given their distance and mass it would be unlikely they ever meet.

>>7892984
If proton decay exists they might have broken down before they ever come close to meeting

>>7893041
Interesting.

>>7893053
>>7893041
>when these anons actually get it

File: 1412967780550.gif (992KB, 500x239px) Image search: [Google]

992KB, 500x239px

Interesting
I'd say it depends of the expansion rate of that universe.
In a stationnary universe , where they have 0 initial velocity and at 0K they will theorically meet if you consider them to be just infinitely small points of mass ( or at least move closer to each other and maybe orbit/miss the other when they meet) according to classical and/or relativistic models.
However , if you consider it to really be an atom, i'm not sure about this at the acutal microscopic scale : wouldn't that force be so low that it is negligible compared to even the gravitational pull of the electron on the nucleus ? the atom would "dance" around the center of mass of the system and that could be enough to counter the gravitational pull of the other atom from maybe hundreds of orders of magnitude...the atom would maybe follow a really tiny chaotic path , on wich gravity from the other atom would be neglectible...

>>7893041
>>7893053
/neat

>>7893041
what's the difference between hyperbolic and parabolic?

With infinite time, they would have eventually.

>>7893265
They are two different conic sections. Maybe you should take high school maths

>>7893388
what do you mean by conic sections. maybe you should take high school english.

File: 300px-Conic_Sections.svg.png (27KB, 300x323px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x323px

>>7893395

>>7893400
the hyperbola looks like a smaller parabola? why is it a subclass? because it doesn't intersect the center axis?

>>7893265
Orbits can be characterized by the potential energy and the kinetic energy of the body. I think with hyperbolic orbits, kinetic is necessarily more than potential, while for parabolic they are equal in magnitude. Look up specific orbital energy.

File: Conics-in-Cones.gif (11KB, 537x237px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 537x237px

>>7893403

>>7893388
>>7893400
>>7893441
>does not provide any insight towards the type of orbit or the physics

>>7893403
Parabolas unlike hyperbolas have an axis of symmetry. Consider the graph of [math]y=x^2[/math]. Hyperbolas though, whilst they do share some properties of parabolas, do not necessarily have parallel arms, instead, they have a "major axis" which I think if I remember correctly is the axis the entire function lies dominant on, and the arms don't become parallel. For a hyperbola, consider the graph of [math]\frac{y^2}{a^2} - \frac{x^2}{b^2} = 1[/math] and vice versa, [math]\frac{x^2}{a^2} - \frac{y^2}{b^2} = 1[/math].

>>7893403
The curve is different. If you took the general form of both equations and took the derivative, they would also be different.
This means you could never accurately describe a hyberbola with some form of order two polynomial.
>actually this logic is circular but I hope it is thought-provoking.

>>7892984
that's a great question. we still have yet to learn about gravity and what makes it tick. all other answers are speculation.

that being said, my speculation is that yes, they will eventually meet, assuming no other forces act upon them.

>>7892987
It isn't even the quantum model, autist.

>>7893041
The only reason that distance matters is because even plank energy is probably too high for their "escape velocities"

>>7893395
>what do you mean by conic sections
did you even finisg highschool?

If their relative velocity at t=0 is zero then absolutely. You could even calculate the time is takes pretty easily.

>>7893435
Hyperbolic orbits are actually very unstable. The balance between KE and PE has to be perfect for a true hyperbolic orbit. A slight increase in KE results in a parabolic orbit. A slight decrease results in an elliptical orbit.

Think of energy changes in orbits geometrically as tilting the plane that intersects the cone. In a hyperbolic orbit the plane is perfectly parallel to the slope of the side of the cone. The KE of a parabolic orbit occurs at the escape velocity.

>>7893460
Wrong. An axis of symmetry is not limited to only x=0 or y=0. The simplest hyperbolic formula is:

y = 1/x

It's axis of symmetry is the line y=x. If you want one that is vertical x=0, convert to polar coordinates and rotate this graph 45 degrees counterclockwise.

>>7894582
You have this backwards. Parabolic orbits are the unstable ones, as they have eccentricity exactly equal to 1. Any slight change makes them elliptical or hyperbolic

Imagine a universe completely empty except for two sets of male genitalia (standard two balls and a dick). These dicks both get hard and begin to move toward one another at incredible speed. Is it still gay only if the balls touch? What is the maximum duration of ball touching allowed before it becomes gay? Is it gay if these dicks were to orbit one another, never touching?

>>7893395
Where do lowercase retards get this idiotic confidence, anyway?

>>7893446
If you didn't understand anyway, then you're too behind in physics for someone here to explain it to you. Go to your room, kiddo.

>>7896376
Where do people get the idea that punctuation has the same value as content on an anonymous forum, you fucking autist.

>>7892984
it depends on the starting point, are they moving at the start?

>>7896961
Let's say they start off static relative to eachother.

>>7893041
No orbit is stable though. They will decay eventually.
>>7892984
Electromagnetic forces are more likely to have an effect.