/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5707358
>QM predicts

Are you using naive Quantum Mechanics? Shit that is known to be inheretly flawed and outdated? Why? Do you not know of QFT?

>>4548867
Alot of those are fakes. Wow, I am fucking flattered.

>>4160991
Special Relativity is all about clocks.

1) No matter where I am or how I am traveling, If i look at my wristwatch, I always see the clock click at "one second per second". MY OWN CLOCK ALWAYS LOOKS NORMAL NO ME.

2) If someone else is moving in a direction different then me, at a speed differnt then me, and I catch a glimpse of there wrIstwatch, THERE CLOCK TICKS WILL SEEM ALL FUCKED UP! The clicks wont be at one second per second, In fact I will see there wristwatch click slower then mine. They will apears to be going in slowmotion from my perspective. The faster they get, the more fucked up there clock ticks will become, and the "slower" there time will tick.


WHERE ARE THESE TITS I HEARD OF?

>>4126400
>creating a particle collider the size of the solar system

That day will come.

Also, after physics has finished answering the most "fundamental questions" (which will probably never happen), physicist will likley move to the other fields and fill in the gaps of chemistry and biology.

This actually happens already alot. With more "physics" discoveries, more physicist move to other fields and use physics for these areas of research.

>>3276105
Ok, so you have a spin selector, how very Stern-Gerlach of you. This is very very very old news though, what you are describing is not the double-slit experiment.

The standard double-slit experiment does not require you to subject your particles to a polarizing EM field.

Nice try though

>>3147109
>committing a fallacy

Nope. You seem to have a very narrow view of causal and non-causal structures. You are probably so skewed by your would-view that you may never be able to understand it, sorry. It isn't your fault though, you just need to develop your critical thinking skills more.

There is a big difference between having a "cause" that we just don't know, and a non-causal system. We know the difference between the two, and how to figure out which type of system is which.

>>3002193
A rocket scientist is a physicist who did a phd in rocket science, they usually work at NASA or with space agencies, as project leaders. The "rocket scientist guy" isn't actually a rocket scientist, he is just some shitty engineer (Ie the help, the grunt work).

Calling that guy an actual rocket scientist, is like calling a fast-food worker a chef.

>>2686941
Yes, if you neutralized all electrons with positrons in a molecule, the moelcue would tear apart into atoms.

>>2549619
Electrostatic replusion

>>2549620
Uncertainity isn't a measurement problem.
The problem arises in the way the universe operates, not how we precieve it.

The "varibles" themselves aren't naturally "defined", they actually don't exist, unless we need them to exist.

>>2372248
>only most of it is cancelled

Not really. EM is resonsible for the majority of phenomina we observe on earth. Most notably chemistry. Chemisty directly arises from EM.

>Is there some form of energy constantly travelling through all of us

There are certain particles that travel through us with little or no interaction at all, Ex Muons. Although, this isn't really related to anything you were saying.

Anythine else?

>>2336742
>What signals do a particle accelerator experiments actually detect? I realize that certain signals correspond to certain particles, but what does something like ALICE at the LHC actually detect?

I don't understand your question. The LHC, like most human tech, it is based off electricity. One way or another information about a particle must be converted into an electronic signal.

Hence the fundmental thing that we "dected" will be a charge, current, or voltage change. Enough of these, properly arranged in time and space (that depends on the detector), will correspond to the positive identification of a particle. Once we have particle identifications, we can all the particle interactions.

sup /sci/, can you answer some of my questions about science?

>i) why does water evaporate under 100 degrees?
i thought water only evaporated at 100 degrees. i thought about this when i thought about my hair drying. im pretty sure my hair doesnt reach 100 degrees LOLOL.

ii) ok so 100 degrees is the temperature where water changes from water to a gas right? so when steam goes below 100 degrees it should transform back into water right?
>how can the temperature be, for example, 18 degrees? wouldn't all the water in the air turn back into liquid

this is not a troll thread, im just a dumbass LOL and i never listened in school + never did science