/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11371385]

>particles are just abstractions dude

[Anonymous No.11371386]

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

[Anonymous No.11371391]

>>11371385
>particles are just abstractions dude
Yes they are retard

[Anonymous No.11372033]

>>11371391
*Yes, they are, retard.
Brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11372063]

>he didn't do this in high school

[Anonymous No.11372072]

>>11371385
Bro there's literally INTEGERS in my computer

[Anonymous No.11372140]

>>11371385

[Anonymous No.11372148]

>>11372140
wrong thread my b

[Anonymous No.11372841]

>>11372033
>Grr me mad so i corret u're gremer
>me also call u branlet
>hehe got him

[Anonymous No.11372897]

>>11371385
yes anon, i know the youtube pseud community loves to try and deny physics and be like “OP IMAGE IS CGI”. it is sad

rest assured that the standard model of particle physics is as real hard science as it gets and it says that there are fundamental point particles. case closed. flatearther electric universe anti-vaxxer creationists are literally mentally ill

[Anonymous No.11372907]

>>11372897
wrong

[Anonymous No.11372914]

>>11371385

Mommy, why are there so many retards posting on the internet?

[Anonymous No.11372981]

>>11372907
nice cope flerthtard

[Anonymous No.11372982]

>>11372841
>cannot form coherent sentence
>get called out
>try to play down retardation by mocking Anon with incoherent sentence

[Anonymous No.11372984]

>>11372897
I thought OPs argument was more "look they're real, they're not abstractions" ?

[Anonymous No.11372990]

>>11372984
sure, my point is that if you believe in science then
> "look they're real, they're not abstractions" ?
is true and that the naysayers are retarded

[Anonymous No.11372991]

>>11372990
ok so you _are_ arguing that the video of the particle emissions is CGI?

[Anonymous No.11372993]

>>11372991
no, i am not. that pic from OP a bubble chamber and anyone who stares at a bubble chamber would agree that particles are real and easy to see by the naked eye

[Anonymous No.11372996]

>>11372990
oh I see; you believe in science; disregard the post above about cgi;
they are abstractions though, too; you can think of them as particles and not as [insert whatever it is they are composed of here]

[Anonymous No.11373000]

>>11372993
correction: that’s probably actually a cloud chamber. insignificant distinction—it doesn’t really matter what the difference is, same argument

[Anonymous No.11373008]

>>11372996
i am fine with people imagining they are not particles, for example string theorists imagine that they are planck-scale loops instead of points. that’s fine. but the idea that they are point particles is empirically the most successful and perfectly accurate for all empirical intents and purposes. arguing over what is and isn’t is an abstraction is useless when the theory works

[Anonymous No.11373055]

>>11372981
>flerthtard
what is that?

>>11372982
retard

[Anonymous No.11373806]

>>11372993

That it causes an effect in the bubble chamber just shows that it has localized and has discreteness at some time. It doesn't say anything about what it is, only what it does and and how interacts.

What IS it? It's not a particle, because that's a silly conceptualization in order to nicely wrap up it and it's interactions with the environment which for all intents and purposes is a slice of what it actually is, seeing as it decays into something else or gets absorbed, etc...

[Anonymous No.11373858]

>>11372072
Integers are abstractions

Show me an integer in a vacuum
Stumped?
You would be.

[Anonymous No.11373863]

>>11373806
How it interacts is literally the isness of it. Its all we have to go off of. So no matter what its technical underlying characteristics, its obvious enough that particles in terms of point like instances which interact with the world according to some rules, exist. They may only exist in certain conditions, but a cloud chamber is evidence enough that particle interactions are taking place.

A building is an abstraction of assembly of various buildng materials. And yet we dont say buildings dont exist. That would be fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.11375346]

>>11373863

A more apt analogy would be waves that exist on water instead of building blocks making up buildings.

Particles are an outdated concept IMO. When you smash two particles in a collider, other particles that were inside of them aren't popping out, so where do those particles come from then? What causes the energy to manifest into the scaffolding of a discrete particle if only for an instant?

QFT describes the fields which exist whereby energy is transferred into other fields (or scaffolding) during the collision, causing the manifestation of the thing you call particle which is better thought of as a field excitation.

It would be more useful to think of a particle as a stable field excitation such that the energy required to excite the minimum measurable quantity of the field has been met and is in some type of equalibrium.

The point is if you think of them has particles you are ignoring most of QFT and QM and the mechanisms that allow the process or function to be referred to as a particle.

It's like seeing the tip of an iceberg and saying that's all there is to it.

[Anonymous No.11375364]

>>11371385
It's essentially people dropping an apple and then saying QRD gravity is a force
There's so many missing steps, but to argue would come off as pedantic so nobody ever wins

[Owner No.11375383]

Particles are an excellent concept.

It works and thanks to my units of space we are closer to understand things about size.

Using my incomplete formula of space you would get closer to understand things.

Rememer 1 space = x F.V/t^2 where F = force, V = volume and t=time

time of existence

[Anonymous No.11375390]

>>11371385
What particle is this pic?

[Owner No.11375403]

a great conclusion of my formula is that space only exists because there is a certain force that makes it

otherwise things wouldn't be tangible.. it's tangible because a force compress it and creates space

[Anonymous No.11375606]

>>11372993
>>11372991
>no, i am not. that pic from OP a bubble chamber and anyone who stares at a bubble chamber would agree that particles are real and easy to see by the naked eye

Then why do you need a specific chamber to see it?

>>11371385
Can you please show me where the neutrons, protons and electrons are in this image?

>>11372897
>flatearther electric universe anti-vaxxer creationists are literally mentally ill
>I'm just gonna make all these unrelated biased claims which will cause people that believe in them all to come into this thread to shit it up and correct my ignorance.
Luckily for you I'm not gonna correct your retardation, I'm just warning you.

[Anonymous No.11375680]

>>11375346
this is a decent post and sure, particles are subtle in QFT. you have a nugget of truth saying that the (fundamental) particles of the standard model are really fields. but actually it is quite possible in QFT to define particle “creation” and “annihilation” operators, and even a particle number operator that counts how many particles there are. at low energies these (multi) particle states are basically what is observed

>>11375390
there are mostly alpha particles (fat tracks) and electrons [beta particles] (thin wiggly tracks) in that picture.

>>11375606
you need a special chamber to see the tracks with the naked eye because otherwise tracks don’t form. is this surprising to you?

[Anonymous No.11375703]

>>11373858
>printf("%d", x);
see, you can see them! they're not abstractions! they're right there, IN the computer!

[Anonymous No.11375730]

>>11371385
Is particle emission an example of wavefunction collapse?

[Anonymous No.11375764]

>>11371385
Who the fuck said particles are abstractions? Atomic and subatomic particles are weird, sure, but they're physical things. They're not weird dualities like photons.

[Anonymous No.11375771]

>>11375730
no, not really. even in the classic schrodinger's cat example his example has a radioactive element inside a detector that releases the cat poison -- in other words even in that example the wavefunction isn't "collapsed" in his interpretation until the "measurement" is performed by the "observer"

in reality this is all nonsense, "observer" is a stupid concept. the actual way to think about this is that decoherence happens when something interacts with the unstable atom that decoheres it from a "decayed+undecayed" state into one or the other. so in a cloud chamber scenario, the decoherence would happen when the cloud particles interact with (or don't interact with) outgoing particles from the nuclei... so it really takes a teeny tiny bit of time after the emission of the decay products before decoherence occurs and before decoherence one could argue that it is in a "superposition" state

in any case, you need to stop worrying about wavefunction collapse. that's a shit term for popsci normies to incoherently blather about and undergrads to use to get the right answers on exam questions. a more enlightened view would say that decoherence is a natural process that follows naturally from unitary wavefunction evolution, with no discontinuous jumps like "collapse"

[Anonymous No.11375782]

>>11375764
plenty of retards say this, and some smart people before the 1970's said this.

the retards are e.g. electric universe idiots who believe that electromagnetism is everything. they shit up this board every couple of weeks to a month, so be on your toes for them. there is even one or two in this thread already.

smart people who said this were e.g. Heisenberg and the bootstrap people like Geoffrey Chew. they had this argument that all of physics should be in terms of the S-matrix and that the underlying particle dynamics were flawed. like for example, Chew said there was this thing called "nuclear democracy" where bound states of particles were just as fundamental as fundamental particles.... like e.g. a neutron is made of quarks but at the same time quarks are made of neutrons (he talked more about rho and pi mesons but same concept). but ever since 't Hooft renormalized yang-mills and especially since the charm quark was discovered in the first half of the 1970's, those ideas died out. and rightfully so since they were nonsense

[Anonymous No.11375795]

>>11375764
>photons
Light isn't a particle, it's a wave.

[Anonymous No.11375801]

>>11375795
light is made of photons which are particles anon. but in QM we have this thing called "wave-particle duality" which means that all "particles" are somewhat wave-like and all waves are in a certain sense "made" of particles. crack open Griffiths

[Anonymous No.11375816]

>>11375680
>you need a special chamber to see the tracks with the naked eye because otherwise tracks don’t form. is this surprising to you?
Then you can't actually see them with the naked eye. You have to use something else to "see" them.
>yes without this special device, the particles would not be visible or detectable by the eye"
>all you see is the distortions in mode used to see
>This somehow means that "particles" exist and are causing the distortions.
Particles are only visible when drunk on isopropyl alcohol? Okay but that still doesn't actually explain what is causing them.

[Anonymous No.11375822]

>>11375795
>Light isn't a particle, it's a wave.

Of what?

[Anonymous No.11375837]

>>11375816
>teslabrain
>>11375822
>berzerkfag

you know what guys, you're both fucking brainlets and should die. go back to your EU cesspools or ken's pseud YT channel comments section

[Anonymous No.11375942]

>>11375822
of fields. not the guy you're replying to btw

[Anonymous No.11375951]

>>11375942
AHEM... *tink* *tink* *tink*
I have an announcement.
Time and Space do not exist.
Fields do not exist.
Numbers do not exist.
A valid argument for the non-existence of a dynamic luminiferous aether does not exist.

[Anonymous No.11376002]

>>11375951
anyone who posts like this is obviously a fucking idiot troll. therefore we can all be safely assured that aether does not exist, if we ever needed a double-check of established science since 1905

[Anonymous No.11376025]

>>11375951
>Time and Space do not exist.
ultimately no
>Fields do not exist.
now those do *exist*. They are there in that they are observable and have an effect on something else. They're really the only thing that comes close to what you would call "existence"
>Numbers do not exist
Not as something n. They are invented as a standard to be used to for quantifying something.(used to count real things).
>A valid argument for the non-existence of a dynamic luminiferous aether does not exist.
Nor one for the existence of it.

>>11375942
So they're neither the particle or a wave then. Its what a field does, the action of it being a "wave".

>>11376002
>therefore we can all be safely assured that aether does not exist
Wrong, and there is no experiment that proves nor disproves the "Aether" let alone one theory of it.

[Anonymous No.11376033]

>>11376025
>there is no experiment that proves nor disproves the "Aether" let alone one theory of it.
the basic idea of aether is that galilean symmetry is true. that is disproved. lorentz invariance as embodied by special relativity is confirmed and debunks a galilean aether.

[Anonymous No.11376038]

>>11376033
further reading:
> The equations below are only valid in a Newtonian framework, and not applicable to physical coordinate systems moving relative to each other at speeds approaching the speed of light. In special relativity the Galilean transformations are replaced by the Lorentz transformations and Poincaré transformations; conversely, the group contraction in the classical limit c ∞ of Poincaré transformations yields Galilean transformations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation

>inb4 wikipedia is fake news!!!!

[Anonymous No.11376042]

well the idea is that spacetime is made out of fields and that virtual "particles" can pop in and out of existence, but how this works in relativity, where you can't tell or say something is moving except relative to something else, i don't know.

[Anonymous No.11376117]

>>11375822
Oscillations propagating through the electric and magnetic fields.

[Anonymous No.11376218]

>>11376117
don’t forget to use the vocabulary word “rarefactions”! without that smart word you will never be an EUer

[Anonymous No.11376677]

>>11375822
Oh, you again. Still can't read even a single Wikipedia page and come here to shitpost instead?

[Anonymous No.11376683]

>>11376218
is that pronounced oyer?

[Anonymous No.11377249]

>>11376218
well given that it's the opposite of compression, yeah. Oh wait are you the Wiki guy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rarefaction this should be enough of an answer for you then.

>>11376038
It may not be fake news but it still doesn't mean light propagates without a medium

>>11376677
>Oh, you again.
Like I'm supposed to remember you, or something.
>Still can't read even a single Wikipedia page and come here to shitpost instead?
To be honest, I think everyone would be better off shitposting than than reading and taking a Wikipedia page seriously.

>>11375837
Please keep posting, I do like to check up on my rent free tenant every now and then.

[Anonymous No.11377339]

>>11373806
It's not a banana

[Anonymous No.11377879]

>>11372897
btw you can literally do this at home, you just something very cold, isopropyl alcohol and something radioactive.

[Anonymous No.11379090]

>>11377249
>Like I'm supposed to remember you, or something.
No, like, you're still as retarded as before and you haven't learned a thing.

[Anonymous No.11379154]

>>11375703
Whats it made of Watson?

[Anonymous No.11379162]

>>11375346
Thats retarded, youre retarded.

Particles literally are a description of behavior. All it means is a point like object in space. And thats exactly what field excitations are. Jesus fuck why do I actually have to explain this.

[Anonymous No.11379171]

>>11371385
pretty sure that language is just the conservative approach because it's quite possible we will find new subatomic particles and need to update the model.

that being said, "just abstractions" only detracts from current prediction and theory if you're a postmodernist or theologist who has no idea what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.11379196]

>>11377879
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xky3f1aSkB8

[Anonymous No.11379208]

>>11379196
>women in the thumbnail
pass

[Anonymous No.11379221]

>>11379208

[Anonymous No.11379427]

>>11375942
>fields
What this "fields" made off ?

[Anonymous No.11379513]

when was the last time you experienced the number \pi^{e}?
when was the last time you experienced the tautology (AvB)->(AvB)?
when was the last time you experienced a black hole?
when was the last time you experienced an W boson?
when was the last time you experienced np+e^−+\overbar{v}_e ?
when was the last time you experienced the gene C14orf4?
when was the last time you experienced a dinosaur?
when was the last time you experienced the planet mars?
when was the last time you experienced a non-flat earth?

[Anonymous No.11379516]

>>11379427
a mathematical function from manifold to R

[Anonymous No.11379527]

>>11371385
You know what ELSE is an abstraction?
MY MOM