/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14810569]

Protons have a mass of 1.67262192 × 10^-27 yet have no volume so that means they are singularity. Why does no one talk about this?

[Amonymous No.14810579]

>>14810569
don't they take up space in the atom?

[Anonymous No.14810584]

What is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

[Anonymous No.14810585]

>>14810579
Nope they are modeled as points in space.

[Anonymous No.14810600]

>>14810584
They aren't black holes. You are thinking of the wrong type of singularity. Photons are naked singularities.

[Gwaihir No.14810864]

>>14810569
All mass is a black hole by definition is why. They don't talk about this because atheism is impossible to justify if you actually understand the true model.

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/31864316/#31864316

[Gwaihir No.14810865]

>>14810600
>They're not black holes because I'm redefining them, on the fly.

Typical faggot.

Many such cases

So heterophobic

[Anonymous No.14810879]

>>14810569
>Recent studies indicate that protons have a radius of about . 84 × 10-15 meters, giving them a volume of about 2.5 × 10-45 cubic meters.

[Anonymous No.14810896]

>>14810879
>Recent studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[Gwaihir No.14810897]

>>14810879
>0.84 x 10^-15
Hate to break it to you, but that's not a proper scientific notation.

If it were a proper scientific notation it would be:
8.4x10^-14m

If this article that you didn't source cannot even properly express a value in scientific notation, I would question their credibility entirely.

[Anonymous No.14810913]

>I need facts.

[Anonymous No.14810936]

>>14810896
> Historically the proton charge radius was measured by two independent methods, which converged to a value of about 0.877 femtometres (1 fm = 10−15 m). This value was challenged by a 2010 experiment using a third method, which produced a radius about 4% smaller than this, at 0.842 femtometres.[2] New experimental results reported in the autumn of 2019 agree with the smaller measurement, as does a re-analysis of older data published in 2022.

[Anonymous No.14810947]

>>14810584
Stop spamming this shit, bot.

[Anonymous No.14810949]

>>14810569
>Protons [...] have no volume
That must be bait.

[Anonymous No.14810982]

>>14810865
Reddit spacing schizo at it again

[Anonymous No.14810992]

>>14810569
Protons do have volume, though.
Two different studies in 2019 found the radius of a proton to be 0.833 femtometers.
To get point-like particles where volume becomes a more problematic or inapplicable concept, you need to break the proton down further.

[Anonymous No.14810995]

>>14810569
Protons are also supposedly made of smaller particles with less charge. Question, how much energy is required to assemble a proton from smaller subparticles?

[Anonymous No.14811002]

>>14810982
Oy vey, so antijaphethic

[Anonymous No.14811008]

>>14810982
Explain dark matter without utilizing jargon or sounding like a schizo.

[Anonymous No.14811131]

>>14810569
Topic: proton volume
>>14811008
>Explain dark matter
try to stay on-topic fgt pls

[Anonymous No.14811139]

>>14810585
>they are modeled as
they are physical matter dingus they occupy a space and have volume. use your fucking head instead of muh models

[Anonymous No.14811171]

>>14810995
>less charge
You are the blackest gorilla faggot nigger to grace this side of the internet

[Anonymous No.14811187]

>>14810579
Yes they do, but older atomic theory doesn't deal with it at all. Take a look at the Structured Atom Model if you want some modern densest-packing models of atomic shape. They're the most accurate for depicting the reality we see.

[Anonymous No.14811193]

>>14811131
This dark matter guy is the new Mandlbaur.

[Anonymous No.14811295]

>>14810897
>not a proper scientific notation
bullshit

[Anonymous No.14811336]

>>14810569
god damn it not again.
they are not pointlike.
Electrons are, and even they have a mass distribution and non-zero volume (can't have perfect location info etc.)
go learn something for once

[Anonymous No.14811346]

>>14810569
Thats because sub-atomic volume is an illusion. Its "volume" is actually a field, and it manifests a boundary that divides it into an inside and out side area.

[Anonymous No.14811353]

>>14811008
>>14811131
Dark matter shills are on meltdown. spamming every thread declaring dark matter exists because "SCIENCE (tm) says so!" They are absolutely seething Webb has proved their shaky theory wrong and they don't actually know shit.

[Anonymous No.14811378]

>>14811139
for fucking real. jhit just solves a single quantum problem which models the proton as a point for simplicity, and deduces that this must mean every single proton is actually a point

they must be putting something in the drinking water

[Anonymous No.14811847]

>>14810569
>Protons have a mass of 1.67262192 × 10^-27 yet have no volume
Because 'protons are not a singular thing; they are 3 quarks (and maybe even other things, like a fundamental subatomic cell) in a stable vicinity;

What is the volume of a vicinity of 3 apples?

[Anonymous No.14813313]

>>14811847
Right?

[Anonymous No.14813427]

>>14811847
what are quarks then?

[Anonymous No.14813473]

>>14813427
I don't understand the question. Quarks are charged particles with spin 1/2 and baryon number 1/3.

[Anonymous No.14813481]

>>14811353
Whats even worse is that the jewish racial supremacists created the dark matter lie 50 years ago to protect their "science jesus" einstein from criticism and that all progress in gravitational research came to a crashing halt for half a century as a result.
>the jewish dark ages

[Anonymous No.14813500]

>>14811353
How did JWST prove dark matter is a false theory?

[Anonymous No.14813518]

>>14813500
Dark matter exists only in locations which behave contradictory to the words of science Jesus. There is no dark matter in our solar system because the science Jesus theory of gravity accurate predicts planetary orbits just as well as Newton's preexisting theory.

[Anonymous No.14813538]

>>14813518
>science Jesus
wat

[Anonymous No.14814133]

>>14810569
>yet have no volume

[Anonymous No.14814447]

wanna read this thread

[Anonymous No.14814452]

>>14814447
It has no volume.

[Anonymous No.14814622]

Volume is a property of space, not of particles. Fundamental particles don't have an intrinsic volume, only interactions. Even a "huge" particle with a length of dozens of microns like some polymer molecule only interact due to electrical forces yet the molecule itself is made of single point particles.
Ascribing a volume to a fundamental particle has always caused mathematical problems related to relativity. Like you have to wonder about the speed of sound inside some electron so then you have to define an electron elasticity and density so then you have "vibration modes" that are never observed. If you dont then you have FTL waves inside this alleged particle volume.
Believing that single point particles would turn into black holes is retarded because there is no theory of quantum gravity. Nobody knows how gravity behaves at some planck distance away from a particle, you can extrapolate Newtonian or GR gravity to subatomic scales all you want but you dont have any experimental confirmation so its pretty dumb.
Speculative theories about "volumes" only go as far as string theory but all i know about that is that particles are given a length, not a volume, and indeed such strings have a speed of sound lower than the speed of light and some elasticity. Another speculative type of theory says that particles are lil' twists of spacetime (le quantum foám) and maybe these are submanifolds of Calabi-Yau and shit. So then you would ask not about the 3D volume or the length but about the 17-dimensional volume of some photon.