/sci/ - Science & Math

Inner space is way more spooky than outer space

>>10748790
>Is everything composed of something infinitely?
We're not truly sure, but in principle what we describe as 'quanta' are the smallest pieces at work, but their nature is no doubt the excitation of some continuum of substance.

>What make atoms arrange themselves on an atomic level to form complex structures like cells? Do they have some kind of will? Or is it just random patterns?
What we call particles interact through the four fundamental forces with each other, such as repelling, attracting, colliding, transfering energy or momentum. The forces follow rigid mathematical rules which scale with distance and potency of property generating the force.
The limits and equilibrium points of these mathematical functions relating the interacting particles are metastable and so depending on the conditions, matter will arrange itself to respect the rules of mathematics as applied to nature. So neither are they random nor do particles need to have a will. They are bound by logic and natural laws to believe in a predetermined way. If this were not true, no theory could be made to predict the behaviour of the natural world nor could we engineer anything.

>>10748790
planck scale puts a limit on discrete space
maybe is extra dimensions wrapped up in each other
maybe is loop quantum gravity
who knows

Answer: To better understand what the smallest particles are "made out of" we should first look at what electrons become when they are "inside" of orbitals.

When an electron is within the orbital of an atom it is not a dot spinning around an invisible track like in jimmy neutron. The Particle "dissolves" and becomes a 3 dimensional field. It BECOMES the orbital. This is why, in quantum mechanics, you can never pinpoint the "location" of the electron in in an orbital.

Now that this is covered, when an electron is free floating, such as a beta particle, or as electricity, they are much less of tiny pellets than they are as tiny ripples of disturbance in, basically, another feild of existence. These other fields are not "other dimensions" but are fields of energy that overlay our own, undetectable to us unless a disturbance is made and a "particle" emerges from it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9otDixAtFw

>>10748819
Even "quantas" can't be composed out of nothing
There have to be a coordinate in space where 2 quanta can't superpose themselves
Wich mean they are composed of something

>matter will arrange itself to respect the rules of mathematics as applied to nature.

I know that, pic related is a perfect example.
But cells and even prokaryotes is a whole different matter, they are not created because of "nature math" or wouldn't they be everywhere including outside of earth? I don't know If I express my idea correctly but complex structures aren't the "rest state" of matter
Something set them up to organize and form this way

>>10748790
>Protons and neutrons are composed of Quarks, bound together by muons
wrong, not muons; mesons and gluons. mostly pions

>>10748834
I already watched this video but it didn't answer my question

>The Particle "dissolves" and becomes a 3 dimensional field.
By the particle you mean the electron? sorry if my question is dumb but I'm far from being an expert, that's also why I watch kurzgesagt

>>10748865
yeah, he means an electron, or generally any particle. they can look like small dots if you try to measure where they are precisely, but in a lot of other cases a particle (e.g.) electron is more “spread out” in maybe a cloud-like or water-wave shape. you can accurately think of these shapes as representing a “superposition” of the dot-like state being in lots of different places at once

>>10748851
>Even "quantas" can't be composed out of nothing
But they aren't. They are excitations of an underlying field, and all fields appear to be linked and derived from a single coherent structure whose properties are what we call "laws of nature". Every thing everyone has ever observed is a complex manifestation of this all-encompassing structure underlying all of reality.

>There have to be a coordinate in space where 2 quanta can't superpose themselves
Not at all, the Pauli exclusion principle applies to Fermi-Dirac statistics, not to Bose-Einstein statistics. Two photons can occupy the exact same point in space. They aren't 'solid macroscopic entities' like billiard balls. They are wave-like excitations and may interpenetrate.

>Wich mean they are composed of something

>But cells and even prokaryotes is a whole different matter, they are not created because of "nature math"
Sure they are. At least we have observed no reason to assume the contrary.
>or wouldn't they be everywhere including outside of earth?
And who says they aren't? The official position is that life exists wherever it has conditions to appear and not die immediately. There is no reason to assume we are alone in the Universe, but we cannot confirm alien life existing until we observe it.

> I don't know If I express my idea correctly but complex structures aren't the "rest state" of matter
Matter has no rest state. Every thing we observe is in motion. Some structures (like us) are metastable and last from generation until destruction. We've never observed any structure to last forever. Most things you observe are in a lower energy level relative to what they would be if they are in another configuration. If you impart energy into a system, it will react. If you lift a stone and release it, it will fall.

>Something set them up to organize and form this way
Yes, the properties of the Objective Reality, which we aptly call Laws of Nature and study using Mathematics.

>>10748790
>something can't be built out of nothing
Technically, everything we see in our current everyday life is something made up of nothing. Cars don't exist, people don't exist, cats don't exists, and so on.

Arrangements of chemicals/molecules/atoms/protons/quarks are all patterns of underlying vibrating bits of strings that don't hold particular meaning like "human" or "car" or "air" or "earth" etc. What we know are all fiction. Vibrating strings are probably 2 dimensional in nature but could be an even deeper 1 dimensional aspect that we don't know of.

>>10748942
Vibranting strings are not a nothing. There is no good example of a nothing, because it doesn't exist.

>>10748896
>>10748942
you guys are correct, but some scientists try to downplay the importance of reductionism. P. W. Anderson wrote a good book about the concept of “emergence”

my favorite example is bob laughlin’s expression “Rigidity is a law.” what he means is that even though the concept of rigidity isn’t written into the standard model as a fundamental thing, it still sure as shit means that you can ice skate instead of falling in like a lake. rigidity is an emergent phenomenon, and empirically it is super reliable, so it is a matter of taste whether to value the fundamental reductionist laws more than the non-fundamental but emergent laws

>>10748896
>Every thing everyone has ever observed is a complex manifestation of this all-encompassing structure underlying all of reality.

I understand what you said but it still fucks my brain up

>Two photons can occupy the exact same point in space.
But aren't photons massless particles? Where does the mass of an atom nuclei come from? Is it coming from 'solid macroscopic entities' or do I got everything wrong in my logic?

>Sure they are. At least we have observed no reason to assume the contrary.
I have to disagree with you here, we have lots of reason to assume the contrary because we don't know what the origin of life is
maybe matter has a "will", maybe it's the universe or maybe (and probably) something entirely different
But I can't accept the fact that it's just "math" otherwise that would mean that one day, we will be able to artificially create life out of dead atoms
We may be able to but for now we have no clue even though I ask your opinions to develop (dumb) new thoughts

>Matter has no rest state.
That's why I used the "
But isn't absolute zero or minimal entropy the rest state of matter? At some time, everything will stop moving when there is no energy left of the universe
As far as i know, all matter is tending to this state

>We've never observed any structure to last forever
Question to you because I don't know the answer : isn't matter indestructible and eternal?

>>10748977
>Question to you because I don't know the answer : isn't matter indestructible and eternal?
Not the same guy, but not. Matter, all of them, decay. With exception being proton, we don't know if proton decays(if it decays, its probably really long time beyond the scale of any other particles).

>>10748790
*The nucleus

>>10748987
So does that mean it just cease to exists?

>>10748987
>>10748987
well, also not that guy but electrons don’t decay either anon, at least not in the standard model. but that doesn’t change the fact that it is true that everything is just energetic excitations of the same underlying field(s) (or string[s])

>>10748977
>But aren't photons massless particles? Where does the mass of an atom nuclei come from? Is it coming from 'solid macroscopic entities' or do I got everything wrong in my logic?
Photon are massless. Mass is how strongly the Higgs bosons coupled to massive particles are interacting with the Higgs field, causing them to distort spacetime around them gravitationally and slowing them down from c (massive particles cant travel at c because the Higgs field is slowing them down) .
Photons are not coupled to Higgs bosons and so have no mass, their interaction with the Higgs field is 0 and they are not slowed down from c.

>>10748790
Particles can appear and disappear out of a vacuum. They aren't made of anything smaller.

That is the Object

>>10748790
>to form complex structures like cells
hydrophobia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQrCsPrh11M

>>10748790

>>10748977
>But isn't absolute zero or minimal entropy the rest state of matter?
Matter is not 'at rest'. It's still a condensed form of energy. 0K is the lowest energy level for that material, but any massive material will decay.

>At some time, everything will stop moving when there is no energy left of the universe
No, the energy will be there, as it is always constant. But at maximum entropy there can be no exchange of heat, so that energy is thermodynamically useless. The correct term you're looking for is exergy (=thermodynamically useable energy). Energy itself is never created or destroyed, just redistributed or manifested in different arrangements.

>As far as i know, all matter is tending to this state
According to the second law of thermodynamics, yes. The real brain twister is that, presumably, the pre-Big Bang state had the exact same properties.

>>We've never observed any structure to last forever
>Question to you because I don't know the answer : isn't matter indestructible and eternal?
No, not at all. All matter decays. All massive particles decay into particles of lesser mass and so possess a finite lifetime. Massless particles, on the other hand, don't have any thing to decay into. In this sense, photons are indeed indestructible and eternal. 'Eternal' is very apt for them because since they travel at c, time dilation dictates they experience 0 time, so that emission and absorption ate the same moment, and a photon is just a line connecting two points in spacetime. From the photon's POV, everything else is traveling at c relative to it, so that all of reality is an etetnal homogeneous shimmering sea of light.

nobody calls neutrinos “E-neutrinos” or “M-neutrinos” or “T-neutrinos”. they’re electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos, or tau neutrinos. also that picture obscures how gluons are associated with the strong force while the other bosons are associated with the electroweak force. also the idea of higgs yukawa couplings is missing. bad graphic

>>10749102
nobody calls neutrinos “E-neutrinos” or “M-neutrinos” or “T-neutrinos”. they’re electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos, or tau neutrinos. also that picture obscures how gluons are associated with the strong force while the other bosons are associated with the electroweak force. also the idea of higgs yukawa couplings is missing. bad graphic

>>10749002
>electrons don’t decay either anon, at least not in the standard model
Electrons have mass, they likely do decay. Even if they have no particles of lower mass, it is likely there is a positron for every electron to annihilate with.
I have seen the number 60000 yotta years thrown around as a lifespan for electrons.

>>10749091
>Particles can appear and disappear out of a vacuum. They aren't made of anything smaller.
The vacuum is a material and possesses energy and properties. Particle-antiparticle pairs can be created if and only if the local vacuum expected value reaches the energy of a valid combination of particles in a specific volume in a specific period of time. In another sense, it is clearer to interpret any particle (virtual or long lived) as an excitation of the vacuum (which again, isnt a nothingness).

>>10748790
You problem is that you assume discrete "something" are all that exists.
Universe is actually made up of probability foam.

>>10749151
Or there's no probability foam and every possible scenario is simply laid out across multiverse.

>>10749112
Thanks a lot for your detailed answers, I can see that you know your subject very well...
I have many more questions and theories but can’t formulate them
right now bc I have several job interviews tomorrow and I need to prepare for it
If the thread is still up tomorrow I’ll ask them

>>10749133
yes, but that’s not part of the Standard Model. only GUTs or string theory predict such things. don’t confuse established facts with failed attempts at generalizations / speculative ideas

>>10748942

Dumb shit like this is why reductionism is frowned upon even in settings where it's appropriate

>>10748942
>something that can be described as something else does not exist

>>10749306
>>10749315
don’t bother giving you’s to schizos. part of the fun here is letting newfags figure out the schizos on their own

>>10749324

>>10749278
The standard model holds that all massive particles decay even if the lifespans are not calculated, right?

>>10748790
I propose an extension to the Standard Model. What if science is simply yet to discover all of the marionic and warionic particles?

In 2000, we were able to identify the Standard Model relationship with the confirmation of the existence of "Waluigi".

Some have proposed the Supersymmetry Model; I say this model does not go far enough.

What I am proposing is a radical paradigm shift from even just a generation ago: with the confirmed existence of Gooigi, the entire model as we've known it was thrown into disarray.

The String Theory Model attempts to reconcile that which we know to be true, and that which we do not yet know.

>>10748851
I'd say that math doesn't equal being arranged in a periodic pattern.

>>10748790
>Quarks, bound together by muons
Did you just say... Quark and Muon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC83rHA9CU8

I can't believe a shitty Korean game ripping off Starcraft knew what quarks and muons were.

>>10749533
heh, good show anon

>>10748807
Turns out the entire universe is nothing but a quark of the next step up in the fractal.

>>10749519
no, the standard model is based on symmetry principles that say “if you have spin 1/2 then it’s not possible to decay into pairs of particles with integer spins”

this is basic arithmetic

>>10748790

>>10748790
They believe in what they call quantum field, this produce particles if it get excited

>>10748790
>Quarks, bound together by muons
prove it

>>10750029
he can’t because this:
>>10748855
/sci/ posters are generally not very reliable

>>10748790

I thought that a measurable quanta was a function, and that the function is derived of a field for that particular quanta.

>>10748790
>Quarks, bound together by muons
no

>>10748790
The solar system looks kind of like an atom, huh? Everything is larger and smaller matter, going on infinitely. The scale of these structures is only decided by perspective. Our solar system is an atom in a larger structure of atoms in a larger structure of atoms making up mass that we are too small to even see.

Likewise it goes down forever and ever in the same way. It's enough to give a weaker man a panic attack.

>>10750233
>t. brainlet with grade school knowledge of atomic structure

>>10750200
in the formalism of classical mechanics, measurable quantities are functions of the fields (functionals i guess?)

in quantum theory performing a measurement corresponds to apply a hermetian operator on the state vector in the hilbert space. the “quanta” though are one way of decomposing the state vector in the basis of the eigenvectors of particle number basis, which (in low energy limits or other appropriate setups) are typically (approximate) eigenstates of the energy operator (hamiltonian)

>>10750936

be that as it may he does have a point. fractals prove this.

>>10750206
>TIMESAND
almost puked there
what's with /sci/ and schizos?

>>10748790
Waves in space-time.

Imagine if nuclei were held together by muons. Those would be some thic bois.

>>10748790
>Is everything composed of something infinitely
perhaps, but realistically the lower limit is on the functional level of bosons. we can mathematically extrapolate the behaviors of matter and energy down to the scale of a planck length/time, which is a great deal smaller.

essentially the smallest structures with valid effect are the fluctuations in(of) spacetime we call subatomic particles.I think the larger quarks/neutrinos etc. should be removed from the chart as they are made up of smaller wave particles, which essentially are all made up of combinations/harmonic variations of bosons.

>>10751188
this guy gets it.

>>10751362
>I think the larger quarks/neutrinos etc. should be removed from the chart as they are made up of smaller wave particles
quit talking about shit you know nothing about, you're wrong. in the standard model electrons and neutrinos are fundamental and not "made up of bosons"

>>10750206
that is a sexy fucking image right there

>>10751362
>think the larger quarks/neutrinos etc. should be removed from the chart as they are made up of smaller wave particles, which essentially are all made up of combinations/harmonic variations of bosons.
No they aren't. Combinations of integer spin particles can never make a half integer spin particle.

>>10749123

>>10748977
Often, a decrease in local entropy "accelerates" the laws you are refering to.
Imagine a refrigerator. It also seems to defy that "state". However, by doing what it does (creating a local temperature difference), it is actually consuming more energy and augmenting the "global" entropy in a greater degree than if it did nothing at all.
Organisms do the same.

Subatomic particles definitely have a will, yes.
>"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest."

>>10750206
can I get a source for that image?

>>10751376
what about the interactions of the spins of an odd number of bosons with different spin polarizations? or do their spins not interact at all?
by that same logic could you combine 2 bosons in any way shape or form thet would result in a larger or more energetic particle with a spin of 2?

>>10751376
and don't forget the annihilation of a positron and an electron results in the formation of a gamma ray, could that process not be reversed?

>>10751374
see
>>10751418

>quit talking shit you know nothing about
is asking questions OK? or is your grace sullied by my curiosity?

>>10751415
>what about the interactions of the spins of an odd number of bosons with different spin polarizations?
Still results in integer spin. This is because the spin quantum number is really just a component of the total spin angular momentum that aligns with whatever axis you're measuring along.

>could you combine 2 bosons in any way shape or form thet would result in a larger or more energetic particle with a spin of 2?
Hypothetically, but there are no known ones. Glueballs could have a spin of 2.
>>10751418
An even number of half integers can make a whole integer, but no multiple of whole integers can make a half integer. Also, creation and annihilation processes don't reveal constituent particles, they create entirely new ones.

>>10751448
thank you.

>>10751448
quick question also; does anyone know yet what gives quarks their charges yet and how do gluons transmit that charge, if at all?

>>10748790
It from bit bro

>>10751496
Gluons can transmit color charge because they carry it. You can visualize that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoR3hq5b5yE

As for why particles have charges: there's not much of an answer to that, and there may never be a fully satisfactory answer. Charges are related to so-called internal gauge symmetries of the underlying fields: mathematical parameters that can be changed without changing the observable properties of a system. By Noether's theorem, you can sort of see charges as arising from these symmetries. But you can equally ask why the fields have these symmetries, and we're pretty much back to square one. Some symmetries have been successfully explained as breaking off of larger symmetries (electromagnetism and the weak force off of electroweak theory by the Higgs mechanism), but you can then ask why the larger symmetries are there.

>>10751542
>internal gauge symmetries
neat
thank you very much.

>>10751542
>note; quarks don't actually look like this
I lol'd