/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12758679
By using statistics to calculate probabilities and then cross referencing results with real word measurements, pic related. Once you have some kind of basic theory of what you're looking for, you have to extrapolate it. Deduce what its extremes would be. This is science at its finest.

If there was something you're trying to discover that literally never interacts with the physical universe, like even beyond electrons or dark matter, you're kinda just fucked. You can do lots of theoretical math and can create theories for anything. But if its truly outside of this universe there will be no way of proving that its a real thing and not just something you made up.

>>12691953
>p orbitals
Notice how they only exist when n>2? p orbitals and all other orbitals except S exist as complex or interactive systems. The each orbital doesn't just orbit the nucleus in a cloud or rings, but they kinda interfere and resonate off each other. Its no coincidence a lot of standing wave math applies to orbitals.

electrons are crazy shit, and the orbitals look multi-dimensional if you ask me. I like QM but I still think were never going to get anywhere just brute forcing physics statistically. Electrons as discrete particles are real, so are the orbital shapes their wavefunction takes. But the whole wavefunction is not a description of its actual movement in a nucleus, rather *where* the electron would likely be found. I didn't have to explain p orbitals for my point to still be relevant. Yeah, electrons do weird shit, but they are still particles.

The last hundred years of physics have depended on the mathematical properties of complex numbers. The complex numbers themselves are never observed in measurements, but the mechanics of the theory depends on them crucially.

Say goodbye to your MRIs, PET scans, molecular modeling, lasers, electron microscopes, semiconductor physics, etc.