/sci/ - Science & Math

you so smaaawt

>not string theory
Into the trash

>>10881379

I think a problem that people have is that this sounds like nonsense. What is "spin" oh it's angular momentum? Well what's that? What is color?

Einsteins says that if you cannot explain something simply then you don't understand it, and this diagram - the standard model - fails that test.

>>10881754

Anyone can say "the spin is 1/2" but what is that supposed to mean? I have never heard anyone attempt to explain this in a way that is understandable, and this is not an intelligence issue, it's an issue that people who study Standard Model are not being clear and or upfront with their model.

Let's start here:

What is color in your model? What does 1/2 spin mean?

>>10881754
>>10881756

This will help you explain your model as a proponent of the Standard Model:

Can you sketch the standard model on a graph? Like can you draw it out on a grid with units, and vector arrows? If not then how can we possible take this seriously. Please, sketch the standard model on pgraph paper showing the unit scales represented by cells on the grid vector arrows and mass represented by the number of grids cells used or whatever you think is appropriate, but instead of TELLING us, SHOW US. Showing is better than telling

>>10881756
it's a misnomer desu there could have been a better name for it, but at the end of the day it's just a name. Short version is it's just a property that's been sort of indirectly observed in particles - I say indirectly because it's not like you can actually observe it spinning a certain way, but it does exist as a special kind of orientation, or state, within particles that affects their behavior.

>>10881775
how have I never noticed t.b.h. gets changed to desu

>>10881775

If you understand the standard model then are you able to sketch it on a graph with units vectors?

>>10881799
>>10881775

Has anyone ever done this? Is there a graph showing the comparable sizes of the elementary particles with their vector arrows?

>>10881379
also deciphering some particle physics doesn't translate to understanding of the brain or other complex systems in totality

>>10881756
I didn't understand spin either. It always seemed to me that it was just some quantity pulled out of some physicists ass and says it was "angular momentum" never made sense to me. However it wasn't until I did my QFT courses that I got it since it's derived from first principles there and simply appears from the maths.

>>10881827
"comes from the math" I always hear this. Are you able to graph this out in 3d space with cells representing space coordinates and each cell having a vector and quantity? Has that ever been done?

>>10881827
>>10881834

I ask because unless you can do that, actually diagram / graph this model then the math does not really mean much. Respectfully, we live in a 4d "grid" universe, not a flat blackboard with equatins.

>>10881834
>>10881827
>>10881835

We always see diagrams like the attached but that is not how the Universe actually operates. EVERY CELL of our grid like universe is doing something. Respectfully, can you graph that using your model? Can you draw out a grid, and give every single square / cube of your grid a vector direction, and mass quantity?

>>10881379
>your house, your car, your body, your brain, your neurons
I'd be very impressed if you could describe any of these in useful detail using only the standard model.

>>10881379
this is why physics is a scam and has relied too much on experimental foundations
The only solution is to start building the theoretical mathematical foundations.

>>10881834
That's the thing about spin. It really isn't angular momentum. That's just the simple undergraduate level explanation. QFT derives it as a fundamental quantum property like charge that doesn't have an exact classical explanation.

>>10881847

But charge does have a classical explanation. It is indistinguishable from the movement of a "perfect fluid" through a 4d grid space

>>10881853
>>10881847

And that charge has direction which we give a vector. So, can you take your standard model and QUANTIZE it on a grid using nothing but vectors and mass-energy quantities? If not, why not?

>>10881847
>>10881853
>>10881857

See attached gif. This is what QFT looks like. Can you apply this "diffusion system" to your standard model and give every single cell f grid-space a vector and QUANTity

>>10881859

Whops gif t big. See here, https://www.google.com/search?q=quantum+field+theory&safe=off&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS728US728&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwir_crC6vzjAhVrwlQKHbLaC6EQ_AUIEygD&biw=1366&bih=608#imgrc=RBwR3WyEeH9AOM:

QFT Gif,

https://www.google.com/search?q=quantum+field+theory&safe=off&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS728US728&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwir_crC6vzjAhVrwlQKHbLaC6EQ_AUIEygD&biw=1366&bih=608#imgrc=RBwR3WyEeH9AOM:

>>10881864

Quit posting links to (((Garys))) fake boxblur photoshop tool

>>10881866

Who? That gif is one of the most advanced models of QFT, ever. It was developed by an advanced academic lab.

See here,

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/this-is-why-quantum-field-theory-is-more-fundamental-than-quantum-mechanics-b37c5e05ed0d

It's not a photoshop tool, like wtf?

>>10881842
this

>>10881867
>>10881864
>>10881862
>>10881859

you mean this gif?

>>10882018
>you mean this gif?

Its literally just a blur kernel. So sick of these stupid fucking frauds trying to pretend that averaging numbers on a grid is the TOE

>>10881379
t.neutrino mass

>>10882029

Again, that is not Gary. That is the actual established model for quantum field theory. Yes I knows it looks like Garys automaton. Garys automaton looks like a lot of established models, go search for computation models of fundamental physics. Im not saying that Garys model isnt wrong, or that he isnt an asshat for trying to get funding for it, or that he isnt one of (((them))), but lets get our facts straight

>>10881756
From how I understood it, it means how much the particle has to rotate around its own axis to get to the original form.
Spin 1 means it needs to do a full rotation that defines bosons, spin 1/2 means only half a cycle, minus means opposite direction.
Weird shit happens when you talk about spin 3/2, this means you need to rotate a particle more than a full cycle to get to original form which contradicts to our normal logic since it doesn't make any sense.

>>10881843
>>10881379
Modern Physical models are garbage because they try so hard to exactly conform to experimental results. What good is a model that makes no intuitive/philosophical sense and only explains as much as it does because there are hundreds of exceptions due to experiments that the model deals with by duct tape and superglue? I’d rather have a Newtonian physical system that starts with intuitive axioms and explains a large amount of observable reality than shit like the OP that is only comprehensible because of abuse of mathematics

>>10882744

Careful. With this logic before long you will be saying that all that exists is energy and space, locally interacting in a 4d gridlike universe.

>>10882744
>What good is a model that makes no intuitive/philosophical sense and only explains as much as it does because there are hundreds of exceptions due to experiments that the model deals with by duct tape and superglue?

Well, if the complicated, non intuitive model makes more accurate predictions than the "intuitive" model, it may let you create & operate things that are impossible with the simpler models. Like fancy atomic clocks, transistors measured in nanometers, and so on. Sounds pretty good to me, even if the math gets difficult.

The universe has no obligation for its rules to be simple to understand, or be derivable from a small set of "intuitive" axioms. Complicated models, with lots of exceptions and arbitrary values here there might just be how the universe functions.

>>10882753
oh fuck that was retarded. what happened with that giy in the end/. did he get btfo?

>>10881754
what is angular momentum? its momentum of spinning around on an axis. spin is the direction of the spin either up or down

Nobody posted the equation yet? Seriously, /sci/?

>>10883190
that actually isn’t the SM, i think that’s the Georgi SU(5) lagrangian or something since it has X boson and Y boson terms, which aren’t SM. but the SM is the same up until the last 5 or so lines

>>10883206
Huh. Thanks for pointing that out.

>>10882706
many everyday things have to turn twice to return to start point
https://youtu.be/JDJKfs3HqRg?t=25s
https://youtu.be/rC0jAICfNwc?t=40s

>>10882753
Brainlet here. How true is this?

>>10883190

>>10881379
what a terrible infographic. i hurt my eyes trying to find any actual relations of concepts information in it (like a graphic is for). it might as well junt be a list of words and some numbers

>>10884306
ah