/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11129033
Because spin

>>11129045
Why does spin exist in the first place?

>>11129053
Because math

>>11129058
Math just describe an abstract world, not the physical world, so it can't really influence it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
Listen to the jew

Because He Wills it.... And by He i mean Will Smith.

>>11129058
Why does math exist in the first place?

>>11129045
It has nothing to do with spin.

>>11129066
>listen to the cringe pseud

>>11129076
then why ?

>>11129087
No one knows

>>11129033
>>11129053
Disparity of pressure

>>11129073
What qualities does math have that make it real?

>>11129092
>What qualities does math have that make it real?
You tell me

>>11129087
If you have no charge how do your particles interact? There aren't many consistent ways to make elementary particles interact in quantum field theory, and almost all of them involve something like charge. If particles didn't interact would you be sitting here typing this?

>>11129092
>Disparity of pressure
?

>>11129107
>it exists because of does

>>11129123
>But why is stuff real?

Are you asking a physics question or a philosophy one? Charged particles interacting with a field is one of very few ways to consistently have interactions in 4 spacetime dimensions. If that doesn't satisfy you nothing will

>>11129128
>Charged particles interacting with a field is one of very few ways to consistently have interactions in 4 spacetime dimensions.
This is an effect, not a cause

>>11129097
math quantifies that which has quality, but has no qualities itself as it is a concept. Not an actual "thing" that exists in reality.
>>11129118
the difference between everything and not a thing

>>11129168
>the difference between everything and not a thing
How about you write a proper sentence explaining your thoughts instead of dropping mysterious clues you fucking schizo

>>11129187
>how about you write about and explain what an absence is

How about I not commit a logical fallacy?

>socratic method
Based OP.

Saying "in the first place" is looking at it from a creationist perspective.
Is if it was programmed or put there on purpose.
People used to think the sky was specifically blue because God made it that colour, and why the sunset was so "beautiful",
Start with "it just is"
Your human interpretation is making you biased,

The same as we still try to put a birthdate on the big bang is if it was "born" and there was an infinity of time before that, so then we need to add a "mother" or creator to bring it into being.
The universe is simply infinitely old. And cycles between big bang singularities and black hole singularities.
Do you have opposite forces, starting with hot and cold, dark and light, negative and positive, north and south, whatever you want to call it.
A natural law is "nature abhors a vacuum"
Matter and energy like to be uniform, but the explosive force of the singularity critical mass sprayed the matter all over the observable universe, now it's trying to get back together, which is one of matters states, the most homogenous, the singularity.
Look up how recrystallisation works, and how a crystalline matrix forms.
All the matter is just trying to get back to a uniform crystalline matrix, you are witnessing this cooling explosion very slowly.

And matter might be energy compressed so hard that it becomes "crystallised" and its internal self attraction can't overcome it's external forces.

>>11129033
Quantum fields

>>11129033
They just do. Physics doesn't say why, it says what. It turns out that if you want your models to accurately predict reality then you need charge, so that's the way it is.

>>11129033
Chiral interaction with time

It is something that the experiments indicate, asking about the origin is meaningless

>>11129066
asking why is objectively important and we can better understand gravity by asking why

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf

(2007) The Physical World as a Virtual Reality:

>The maximum speed a pixel in a virtual reality game can cross a screen is limited by the processing capacity of the computer running it. In general, a virtual world’s maximum event rate is fixed by the allocated processing capacity. In our world, the fixed maximum that comes to mind is the speed of light. That there is an absolute maximum speed could reflect a maximum information processing rate

>On a distributed network, nodes with a high local workload will slow
down, e.g. if a local server has many demands a video download may play slower than usual. Likewise a high matter concentration may constitute a high processing demand, so a massive body could slow down the information processing of space-time, causing space to “curve” and time to slow. Likewise, if faster movement requires more processing, speeds near light speed could affect space/time, causing time to “dilate” and space to extend. Relativity effects could then arise from local processing overloads.

https://youtu.be/gcvq1DAM-DE

>>11129063
>math isn't a part of the real world

>>11129063
Our world is very much an abstract one, anon.

>>11129401
>Saying "in the first place" is looking at it from a creationist perspective.
It's not

>>11129554
Phyiscs does say why

>>11129837
>Likewise, if faster movement requires more processing, speeds near light speed could affect space/time, causing time to “dilate” and space to extend.

No need for some simulation mumbo-jumbo, refute this:

We have a macroscopic object at rest, for example, a clock. Every tick of the clock requires some interactions between atoms, which are mediated by photons. Since photons travel at the speed of light, every interaction and thus clock tick takes some time. Now, if we accelerated the whole system at some fraction of c, the photons would still move at c, but now they also have to move in the direction of acceleration. This means it takes more time for every interaction between atoms to occur, and so the clock seems to tick slower for an unmoving observer.

Nowhere does the need for more processing power come into play. Like, if someone wanted to simulate the universe, why would they cut corners.

>>11130364
Photons can't travel at the speed of c in the presence of atoms, only in an ideal vacuum.

>>11130375
There is a vacuum between the atoms. Light doesn't really slow down, it just takes it longer to travel through some media because it can't go through them in a straight line. It has to bounce around to get though. They teach that in high school, come on.

It wouldn't change anything anyway if they were slowed by even 10% or whatever.

>>11129033
Science doesn't give answers about "purpose" science gives answers about how and why something works. Not the purpose of existence being that way.

Purpose in this way might not even exist and could be a human exclusive invention because we still have a gut feeling like the universe "owes" us an explanation or purpose for existence.

>>11130051
How is it?

The explaination is deep and beautiful, but requires QFT math, which i'm not going to type here. Rather i'm just going to give a handwavish summary and i hope it enlightens/persuades you to look further.

Basically we start from classical Electromagnetism. Maxwell's equations are most often stated in terms of fields (electric and magnetic) and sources (charges and currents). There exists an alternative formulation in terms of potentials that, mathematically was identical to forces with a small caveat, that potentials are not unique.

What i mean by not unique is that say a potential A(x) is associated with the fields F(x). Then there could be another different potential A(x)+λ(x) that is also associated with fields F(x). What this means mathematically is that 2 sets of differing potentials describe 1 reality. Now this is bad, because which one is correct?

Answer: Both. The reason is that there are strict conditions on what λ(x) can be. In less mathematical terms, Its akin to taking the EM fields in the lab you have now, fudging up the electromagetic potential by adding this λ(x), and seeing which λ(x) will keep the lab fields exactly the same as before. If this λ(x) leaves the fields invariant, its called a symmetry and Nother's theorem tells us something is conserved (hint:ELECTRIC CHARGE).

For other forces, there exists different λ(x) that obey different mathematical structures, the general study/understanding of these λ(x) is known as local gauge symmetry.

Back to the question, why charge exists. Honestly, in this understanding, charge is basically just a concept we made-up to bookkeep. We gave particles (+) and (-) charges, but the universe doesn't really care which is (+) or (-). It only ensures that at the end of the day, the (+) and (-) cancel or net (+) or (-) remain constant. You could redefine protons as +11 charge and electrons +9 charge, but at the end of the day, it will always remain as +20 charge regardless how you collide the particles.

>>11130739
Also to add on since 2000/2000, the strict conditions on what λ(x) are is colliqually known as U(1), the set of transformations that leave A(x) invariant. A(x) incidentally is also the (for lack of a better nomenclature) wavefunction of the photon.

Since its A(x) thats doing the conservation, you can think of the photons as travelling between every charged particle in the universe ensuring all charges are accounted for, and this accounting-for of charges is basically what we experience as the electric force. This is also why the photons, along with the Ws and Z, are also called the "force carriers" because they literally transmit the forces.

>>11130051
He is right. Infinity for example is a mathematical concept but it makes no sense IRL. It's even a hint when you occurs infinity in physics, you know there is something wrong or there is something you don't understand yet.

There are no mass less charged particles.

>it's another math is substitute for reasoning episode

>>11129058
Math is conscious process which describes the nature of phenomena in conscious being.

Without consciousness those symbols and principles doesn't mean anything and are basically as useful as bunch of rocks. ( Yes, even unconscious beings such as well trained statisticians working for certain institutions ( computers ) can throw pieces of maths at each other )

...

>>11129033
Particles aren't charged. They are "the" charge.

>>11130773
>Particles aren't charged. They are "the" charge.
Unironic woah

>>11130759
Say i have an experimental setup where i have a stream of objects (call O) that exit a gun, 3 detectors that determines whether the object leaving the gun is a green or not (call A), and whether it is soft or hard (call B).

So object O enters A, its green. So apparently O is green.

Object O goes though B, its soft. O is soft too, apparently.

When O goes through A1, then B, then A2 again, 50% of O exit A2 as green and 50% exit A2 as not green.

So is O green or not green?

If you're looking for an English answer, you're wrong either way.

Only mathematically can accurately you represent a state of O like that.

Also these metaphysical posters are making me terribly worried for this board.

>>11130409
That high school explanation is a lie to children that breaks down under some simple scrutiny. If the photons bounce around in the medium, how do all the photons in a beam remain traveling in a tight beam through the medium, without spreading out over a range of angles? It's a bogus explanation. The real explanation involves no bouncing along a zig zag path, nor any absorption and re-emission after a time delay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUjt36SD3h8

>>11130782
Are you aware that mathematical symbols can be described by english?

Apparently the softness measure can make object non green.

You shouldn't cut little green mans in half to see their softness and their skin would remain green.

>>11130782
So, the cannabis coming out of your grinder is no longer green in half case?

>>11129033
Because otherwise the state wouldn't get any revenue.

>>11129033
>asking why instead of how
Intrinsic failing of limited human capacity to interpret reality. "Why" doesn't exist.

>>11130870
>"Why" doesn't exist
It does. Causality allows "why" to exist

>>11130881
Then the answer to every "why" question is causality. How helpful!

>>11130904
no, shithead
there is a right, actual answer and sometimes we don't know it and need to find it

>>11130881
Describe your perception of causality.

Because the universe is locally gauge invariant

>>11130832
>Apparently the softness measure can make object non green.

Not exactly, rather the measurement of softness directly interferes with its green-ness.

The object can't be simultaneously green and soft, the 2 qualities of the objects are said to be non-commutative; testing first before the other is not the same as testing the other before the first

>>11130364
>This means it takes more time for every interaction between atoms to occur,
Why does it take more time if the photons are faster?

>>11129033
>Why are particles charged in the first place?
Assault and battery?

All I know is that if an anti matter universe were to annihilate with ours, there would be nothing left, not even charge, except pure light.

>>11131526
>not even charge, except pure light.
How can you have electromagnetic radiation without charge?

>>11131806
Photons carry no charge.

>>11129033
Because more fundamental laws dictate that.
The reason why laws are like they are is not part of physics. Science only discovers and describes what is observable. What is beyond the physical universe is irrelevant as it cannot be observed and verified.

>>11131367
They aren't faster. They move constantly at c. If we accelerate the whole system, the photons will accelerate in that direction too, but in order to maintain the constant speed will have to slow down in other directions. So it will take more time to reach the target, and every electromagnetic interaction in an object will be slower and time dilation will be observed.

>>11130814
Point taken.

>>11130066
ok boomer