/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10429619
Thinly veiled homework thread

>>10429638
Nope. I'm just a guy who can't figure out how particles work despite how """simple""" their behavior is supposed to be...
So simple that nobody has coded even a basic simulation down to elementary particles that anyone can run on their computer.

>>10429658
Have you tried studying quantum mechanics?

>>10429638
Another example of how nobody can tell me how """simple""" stuff is supposed to work.
Imagine an electron being accelerated by a gravitational field at 10 m/s/s.
How many electrons, of what frequency, and in what direction will be emitted per second?
>>10429671
I have ADD, which means I can't focus enough to complete a whole course.
Yet I can wrap my head about anything if I try to learn on my own about it. I can understand the basics of electronics, programming, chemistry, newtonian mechanics and even special relativity when I try to learn about it.
But all I find on QM is 3 minute pop garbage which doesn't actually explain anything, or college level courses which again I can't use because of my short attention span, and I'm skeptical I would actually get any real understanding of physics anyway even if I spent the time on it, because it seems to be based on layers and layers of abstraction which don't actually allow you to predict exactly what happens at the subatomic level.

>>10429619
I see someone failed their first physics exam

>>10429658
The secret is there are no """particles"""

>>10429706
>don't actually allow you to predict exactly what happens at the subatomic level.
But that's exactly what it does. I'm not even a physicist and I know that every introductory textbook on quantum mechanics has a chapter explaining the hydrogen atom.

>>10429738
No. I've actually never had a physics course after high school, which I was pretty good at.

>>10429751
Then can you answer the two question I posted in this thread? Especially the second one about the electron and the photons, which is more concrete than the first one.

>>10429745
Well, they aren't waves or "fields" either since they behave in a discrete manner, so what are they?
Saying that they are a particle or a field but you don't know which one at any particular moment is not an answer.
Plus I don't really know any scenario in which the wave-like behavior such as interference can't be explained by considering things like the density of photons on a certain area of space and so on.

>>10429781
>Then can you answer the two question I posted in this thread?
No because I haven't studied it myself. You'll have to wait for a physics student to post in your thread. Or you can ask your question on stackexchange.

>>10429805
stackexchange is a really bad site for this kind of stuff, because you can't really press the guy answering you when they say "well, it's kinda this, but not really, it's also kinda that, according to this guy".

>>10429814
Ok then you'll just have to wait

I'm trying my best to get an answer to you, but I'm real fucking tired right now.

>>10429842
Well, do you actually know the answer? I've googled for a while and couldn't find an exact answer beyond knowing that the total energy of the collections of photons will equate the change in kinetic+potential energy of the electron, and that photons are mostly emitted in the general direction the electron is traveling at.
Which are really non specific answers of course.
I guess the exact moment each photon is emitted is a result of quantum randomness, just like the alpha decay thing, but I'd like to know what's the exact distribution and why.

The unstable alpha nucleus has too many protons and not enough neutrons.
It has sufficiently many protons and neutrons overall that it spits out a helium nucleus in order to balance out the forces acting on the nucleus.

>>10429871
Right. But what exactly are those forces at the quantum mechanical level? And how does the universe decide when to do it? How exactly does that fluctuation happen?
It's the same with electron orbitals, I have no idea how they're supposed to work.

>>10429867
You know, I'm actually not sure what you're asking me to do at this point.

>>10429877
Oops, sorry, I swapped a word in the question. It should've been:
>Imagine an electron being accelerated by a gravitational field at 10 m/s/s.
>How many *photons*, of what frequency, and in what direction will be emitted per second?
Since, you know, photons are supposed to be the carrier particle of the electromagnetic field, which means an accelerating electrically charged particle is supposed to emit photons.

>>10429781
>Well, they aren't waves or "fields" either since they behave in a discrete manner, so what are they?
Do you know what a Fock space is? That would be the easiest way to explain it. You have a "0 particle" state, a bunch of "1 particle" states, even more "2 particle" states, etc. In a free field theory, it's trivial to actually construct the number operator that defines the particle count. This is the sense in which they are discrete particles. The sense in which they are waves is simply that any physical N particle state is described by an N particle wavefunction.

>>10429876
There's no good way to do finite time dynamics in quantum field theories, so you won't see exact answers.

>>10429889
No. The interaction you're describing is the gravitational force. This force does not use the photon as it's carrier particle, we don't know how gravity works on the quantum level.

>>10429903
He's talking about Bremsstrahlung.

>>10429903
>Do you know what a Fock space is?
No.
>No. The interaction you're describing is the gravitational force. This force does not use the photon as it's carrier particle, we don't know how gravity works on the quantum level.
Then how do other charged particles learn about the change in position of the electron that's being gravitationally accelerated?

>>10429706
>physics is wrong because I lack the mental fortitude to study it seriously, and consider YouTube videos as "rigorous enough", the thread
OP, you're a massive faggota.

>>10429905
>Bremsstrahlung
Wikipedia says that only applies to deceleration. I don't know what that would be the case, though. Why does deceleration generate photons but positive acceleration does not?

>>10429924
Well if you're such an expert on learning physics then maybe answer the questions lol.

>>10429876
>But what exactly are those forces at the quantum mechanical level?
Gauge bosons.
Causal? Excitation.

>>10429931
Positive acceleration doesn't emit photons because the particle is gaining energy.

>>10429619
>Nobody really knows what's going on.
We know enough to design the computer, internet and infrastructure to let you shitpost about how useless physics is. I'm not mentioning mechanical engineering since I'm assuming you never venture from under your rock

>>10429781
>Well, they aren't waves or "fields" either since they behave in a discrete manner, so what are they?

They're eigenstates.

>>10429867
Take the the inner product of all the possible photon energy eigenstates with their complementary electron energy eigenstates. Normalized into a hilbert space, this is the distribution of probabilities of different energies of photon existing at a given point in time. Integrate over time before normalizing to get the decay probabilities.

About the nucleus, you have to realize the weak force, strong force, and electromagnetic force are all involved, so the equations get pretty damn complicated.

But that doesn't mean they don't work.

>>10429931
What the wikipedia article probably means is, the accelerated charge radiates, and that radiation causes an additional deceleration of the particle. But it's a bad article anyways, because deceleration is frame dependent.

>>10429955
Hmm. Makes sense.
>>10429962
Yeah I guess the people who make CPUs have some of that stuff figured out.

>>10429970
Great, so you concede you are a retard

>>10429955
It still does after t=0, through spontaneous emission. Brehmsstrahlung is spontaneous emission that has an increased likelihood because of the principle of least action, in my understanding. I guess by the same logic an electron would be less likely to release a photon if it is currently being accelerated, however if the particle is continuously accelerated it's only a matter of time it has enough energy to have an overwhelmingly high likelihood of releasing a photon

>>10429969
>deceleration is frame dependent
not for inertial reference frames...

>>10429995
>not for inertial reference frames...
In the frame where a particle is at rest at t=0, how can a particle decelerate?

>>10429980
Ok supposed I'decided to learn this for real. What book should I read first?

>>10430003
Technically t can go to negative velocity but I see what you're saying

at this point you're talking about relativity so you need to use QFT. A relativistic correction to the zero point energy of the electromagnetic field would make the electron release the same distribution of photons as in the original frame.

>>10430041
>A relativistic correction to the zero point energy of the electromagnetic field
Are you just talking out your ass? I suspected it when you were talking about "spontaneous emission", "least action", and an electron having "enough energy to have an overwhelmingly high likelihood of releasing a photon".

>>10429964
>They're eigenstates.
Ok, and what the fuck is an eigenstate?

>>10430057
what? 0 point energy is hbar*w/2

w is frequency which will obviously change with a change in inertial frame (doppler shift)

>I suspected it when you were talking about "spontaneous emission", "least action"
These are both very fundamental concepts in physics.
>an electron having "enough energy to have an overwhelmingly high likelihood of releasing a photon".
...Are you questioning whether higher energy particles are more likely to decay? I mean, I can give you a nuanced explanation as to why if you really want, but it should be common knowledge....

>>10429964
>But that doesn't mean they don't work.
Then why isn't an easy point and click way to run a simulation of it on my computer?
Is it really that complex that I can simulate millions of classical objects in real time but I can simulate a few femtoseconds of an hydrogen atom?

>>10430107
So what is this "energy" we're talking about. Is it potential+kinetic energy, just one of them, or something else entirely?
Wouldn't a decelerating object just be trading kinetic energy for potential energy, just as acceleration would be trading potential for kinetic?
If two masses can orbit each other basically perpetually, why can't an electron orbit another object without releasing synchrotron radiation? Will it eventually crash into the object it's orbiting because of this energy loss through photons?
BTW when I search about eigenstates all I get is linear algebra stuff, not how that actually relates to the physical world...

>>10429619
there are no gluons to bind the particles into the nucleus so they decay out.

>>10430108
partial differential equations be wild, man

I'm sure you could do a hydrogen atom. But not alpha decay of a heavier particle.

>>10430095
An eigenstate is a state which, if you perform an operation on it, is the same as it was before times a constant. The different "measurables" of a state are operators which can act on the state. The eigenvalue of this measurable is the value of the state corresponding to the measurable. The eigenvalues of the pauli matrices are spin. The eigenvalue of the hamiltonian operator is energy. If a state has an eigenvalue 3/2hbar when the angular momentum operator is applied to it, it has 3/2hbar angular momentum. You need to study linear algebra to really understand eigenvalues and eigenstates/vectors.

Systems can be in a combination of eigenstates, as well, and it then behaves like a wave. When an operator acts on the system, it has to choose one of these states, which is known as decoherence.

An operator can be thought of the change in a state with respect to a change in its associated symmetry, in very poor terms, but I wont get in to that.

>>10430154
So there's a continuous flow of gluons that by chance decreases a bit and that causes the decay? Why doesn't that happen on more stable isotopes?

>>10430107
>what? 0 point energy is hbar*w/2
>w is frequency which will obviously change with a change in inertial frame (doppler shift)
Don't forget the part where zero point energy is an integral over all momentum independently of what state you have. It's an additive constant to the energy. And especially don't forget the part where it goes away with normal ordering.

>These are both very fundamental concepts in physics.
"Because least action" is about as good as an explanation as "because differential equations". It's an uninformative explanation that applies to everything. And spontaneous emission is a terrible explanation for bremming photons when what you call an excited state is, again, frame dependent.

>...Are you questioning whether higher energy particles are more likely to decay? I mean, I can give you a nuanced explanation as to why if you really want, but it should be common knowledge....
Do you want to talk about how relativistic muons have longer lifetimes?

>>10430171
So which one of these states the operator chooses is completely random?

>>10430120
potential and kinetic energy are classical physics terms. Energy is really just another dimension of momentum. But as for 0 point it's analagous to potential energy.

When talking about energy in both QM and relativity you're basically (within a linear approximation) talking about rest mass energy+kinetic energy. Potential energy takes the form of perturbations.

>why can't an electron orbit another object without releasing synchrotron radiation?
It can, if it's in it's ground state.

>Will it eventually crash into the object it's orbiting because of this energy loss through photons?
Fermions can't crash into anything lol, exclusion principle.

>>10429619
men i don't really know why but the relativistic kinetic energy tells us that there's energy born in the process

>>10430154
the electron shells trap in the particles in the more stable versions of isotopes.

>>10430174
>the electron shells trap in the particles in the more stable versions of isotopes.

>Imagine an electron being accelerated by a gravitational field at 10 m/s/s.
>How many *photons*, of what frequency, and in what direction will be emitted per second?

This is not a simple question; since you said 'photons' you probably want a quantum description which means using quantum electrodynamics. QED is graduate level stuff.

Also the way you're describing photons as particles is not necessarily false, but limiting.
In the most general case, the em field will be a superposition(sum) of definite frequency waves. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet

And I would describe the emission from an accelerating particle as em waves rather than photons. The term photon is confusing (W.E. Lamb didn't like it; "Anti-photon") as it's used variously to describe an excitation of definite frequency (by theoreticians) or to describe a wavepacket (more so experimentalists).
Furthermore, we think of particles (like a photon) as being marbles that are distinguishable and bounce of each other. However photons do not, they can pile on top of each other in a way that is completely non-classical (see Bose-Einstein condensate).

I realise I haven't answered your question, and I can't since I haven't studied QED, but I can say the way you're framing it is not the way physics describes the phenomenon.

The way physics describes it will be through the very abstract and wholly mathematical language of quantum physics.

>>10430174
wait not just the electrons but all the fermions. quarks and electrons. if you get to much interaction they get unstable.

>>10430174
It's not because of gluons, alpha decay is mediated by the weak interaction. My understanding is that more unstable particles have a higher range of angular momentum states, when in a very high or low angular momentum state the nucleus becomes "deformed" like clay on a wheel and is more likely to rip apart. Another explanation is that there's simply more alpha particles bouncing around inside the nucleus and therefore a higher likelihood one crosses the coulomb barrier.

>>10430232
...no bro

>>10430195
No, it's based on the (inner product of the) probability amplitude for each state.

>>10430194
>Don't forget the part where zero point energy is an integral over all momentum independently of what state you have.
All the momentum states would be affected by the shift (I want to correct myself, don't actually think this requires relativity but it does require extremely basic QFT)
>And especially don't forget the part where it goes away with normal ordering.
Why would I not forget that part when normal ordering has no physical effect on the system. The eigenvalues a normal ordered hamiltonian has operating on the EM field are the same as the ones of a non normal ordered one with a 0 point energy addition.

>"Because least action" is about as good as an explanation as "because differential equations"
What would you have offered, "because the legrangian"?

>And spontaneous emission is a terrible explanation for bremming photons when what you call an excited state is, again, frame dependent.
Care to provide yours?

>Do you want to talk about how relativistic muons have longer lifetimes?
At 10 m/s/s, I don't think time dilation is taking effect any time soon. Besides, electrons are not muons.

>>10430263
>...no bro
i already corrected myself. it has to do with quarks and electrons interacting not just electrons. night.

>>10430263
>All the momentum states would be affected by the shift (I want to correct myself, don't actually think this requires relativity but it does require extremely basic QFT)
>Why would I not forget that part when normal ordering has no physical effect on the system. The eigenvalues a normal ordered hamiltonian has operating on the EM field are the same as the ones of a non normal ordered one with a 0 point energy addition.
So since zero point energy is a meaningless additive constant, are you taking back your claim that zero point energy gets doppler shifted and that it has anything to do with bremming photons?

>What would you have offered, "because the legrangian"?
It would be nice to at least give something specific to the situation actually being discussed. And are you the same guy who I always see misspelling Lagrangian?

>Care to provide yours?
Just like how electromagnetic waves can accelerate charges, accelerating charges can produce electromagnetic waves.

>At 10 m/s/s, I don't think time dilation is taking effect any time soon. Besides, electrons are not muons.
Hey now, you're the one who said higher energy particles were more likely to decay, all I did was prove you wrong. And id you're going to argue that a gamma factor will affect electrons differently from muons, good luck.

>>10429706
>basics of electronics, programming, chemistry, newtonian mechanics and even special relativity when I try to learn about it

Anyone can understand the "basics" of anything. If you can't muster up the work ethic to get through undergraduate school in order to go to graduate school for a PhD in alpha decay. Or you can continue living in ignorance like the rest of the normalfags.

I'm not a physicist, but I imagine alpha decay happens thanks to entropy.

>>10429658
>So simple that nobody has coded even a basic simulation down to elementary particles that anyone can run on their computer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_field_theory

People have coded simulations. However, for complex systems computation difficulty increases very quickly. Turns out Nature is not easily computable at all. Take that, simulationfags!

>>10429706
Maybe you should work on improving your attention span instead of using it as an excuse to not learn the subject you're acting like you know enough about to claim it's snake oil. I don't know if you'll ever get to the level of being able to study heavy subjects, but I have faith you'll get beyond making retarded threads like this. Seriously, you're just fishing for dopamine shots right now, whether you realize it or not.

>>10430282
Well, let's put it this way.
I feel like for those fields, I would know how to work my way up pretty smoothly to any level of knowledge required, because I understand the basic concepts and principles.
Not so with physics. There seems to be a gap in teaching material between the pop science level stuff and the graduate level stuff that's bigger than in most other fields. Because again, I'm not sure undergraduate students know whats going on as well as undergrads in other fields, at least considering how physics is portrayed in the media by PhDs to be this elegant succinct model of the universe where most of the stuff has already been figured out and there are only a few details left.

>>10430281
>since zero point energy is a meaningless additive constant
it is not constant under a change in inertial reference frame. do you disagree with this? Whether it's more helpful to describe the effect of a shift in terms of a change in the hamiltonian with or without ZPE is frankly not an argument I'm interested in.

>Just like how electromagnetic waves can accelerate charges, accelerating charges can produce electromagnetic waves.
This seems a less intuitive to me than least action principle but to each his own. I'm not sure our explanations are that different given the fact that creating a photon/EM wave decelerates the electron/charge was already discussed. The information is there, I'm not a teacher

>And are you the same guy who I always see misspelling Lagrangian?
Probably

>Hey now, you're the one who said higher energy particles were more likely to decay, all I did was prove you wrong. And id you're going to argue that a gamma factor will affect electrons differently from muons, good luck.
I wasn't going to call you out but relavistic muons don't actually have a longer lifetime than non-relativistic muons. They just appear that way to us. Sorry you had to push the issue.

>>10430304
>Seriously, you're just fishing for dopamine shots right now, whether you realize it or not.
Yeah, what other reason would I have to be trying to learn this stuff? It's not like I'll ever make money with this, use it to help me make important life decisions, or even use it as a topic of conversation in everyday life.
Even if I had perfect attention span, it's not so important to me that I'd spend the time learning the math and going through the textbooks doing exercises and so on.
Amd saying it's a scam is just to get replies you dumb newfag.

>>10430320
>it is not constant under a change in inertial reference frame. do you disagree with this? Whether it's more helpful to describe the effect of a shift in terms of a change in the hamiltonian with or without ZPE is frankly not an argument I'm interested in.
Zero point energy is Lorentz invariant. This is a fairly trivial QFT fact. Just like the vacuum is Lorentz invariant.

>I wasn't going to call you out but relavistic muons don't actually have a longer lifetime than non-relativistic muons. They just appear that way to us. Sorry you had to push the issue.
So now you're using insisting that lifetime has to be done in the rest frame in an attempt to score points. Sorry, but you were the one who talked about how the electron's energy, which is frame dependent, was so important for spontaneous emission in bremsstrahlung rates. You were the one who started with the frame dependent quantities, I just followed suit.

>>10430312
speaking as someone doing honours in physics, you're correct - there is a gap. The thing is, quantum mechanics (even simple qm) is quite abstract and it's not necessarily until you go through the mathematics that you start to get a picture of what's going on.

Graduate level stuff (like QFT) is built right on TOP of QM, and uses its abstract language and ideas as STARTING points, hence why it's very difficult.

If you want to learn about QM, "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by David J. Griffiths is a popular undergrad textbook that you can find online.

>>10430312
We can't even reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. I don't know what pop-sci documentary you watched to make you think physicists believe the models are clean and it's just a matter of filling in the blanks, but that's not true. An analogy would be like a rubiks cube where you've managed to make two opposite faces solid but the middle faces are completely messed up and the edges next to the solid faces aren't color matched so it's obvious you're going to have to break up and reform the faces before you solve the whole cube.

>>10430339
So what's the difference? Is QM just a more inaccurate version of the more complex stuff?
Dont the say the whole of everyday reality cam be described by an equation which fits on half an A4 sheet? Does it really take like 8 years to undertand it?
Putting it another way, is there some self contained book, course or theory accurate and concrete enough which would allow me, at least in principle, to code a program that could simulate, say, biological organisms with no hard coded knowledge about atoms and molecules, just from the most basic quantum mechanical concepts possible? How many years does it take to reach that level of understanding?

>>10430356
We can't even simulate complex protein folding correctly, we're lightyears away from what you're describing. How would you even interact with this program to get it to compile life in a non-ludicrous timeframe?

Also, is this a low-key simulationfag thread?

>>10430336
It's lorentz invariant when it's made trivial (to be 0), yeah...

I'm just confused why we're even talking about relativity at 10/m/s/s

>>10430345
I think it was here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdZMXWmlp9g
that Feynman claims all the physics needed to explain everyday phenomena is already done.
I don't remember where I saw the claim about the equation.
Maybe some stuff by the "The Royal Institution" channel, some stuff by Sean Carroll, and admittedly I also remember seeing these kinds of claims by non-physicist Eliezer Yudkowsky, and also I've seen a video called "Katie Barr: Simulating quantum physics in less than 20 lines of pure Python" just a few hours ago.
Admittedly I haven't even tried to understand general relativity, but why can't it be explained in the same way special relativity explains how the limited speed photons travel at causes time and length dilation, electromagnetic waves and all that stuff?
I know gravity affects light in a way that's hard to explain without involving gravity "curving space and time", but can't that be explained just by bodies with mass somehow emitting some kind of particle that interacts with photons to change their path? Wouldn't that be more reasonable than making space whimsically move around to fit our observations?

>>10430380
>We can't even simulate complex protein folding correctly
From what I understand that's just because they're simulated at a level of accuracy lower than what could actually be achieved applying all the knowledge about QM that has been gathered over the years, just to get a reasonable and usable speed and the program doesn't need a supercomputer running for years to fold a single protein.
>How would you even interact with this program to get it to compile life in a non-ludicrous timeframe?
That's not the point, I said in principle. It doesn't matter if it takes fucking forever in practice.
Computing power is always increasing anyways.
>Also, is this a low-key simulationfag thread?
Dunno man. For me both things (physics and simulating reality) are intrinsically linked.
If I'm just going to get a more accurate but not so actually accurate idea of how things are I might as well just stick to what I already know.

>>10430356
1. Quantum mechanics can describe particles in classical fields, it can't describe (quantum) particles interacting with other (quantum) particles. Eg. it describes (to decent accuracy) the states of electrons orbiting in an electric field - but the source of that electric field (proton), and the field itself is not treated quantum mechanically.

Certain things aren't described by QM, eg. vacuum fluctuation - this random fluctuation in the electromagnetic field affects the electron slightly, changing its 'orbit' (see 'Lamb Shift') so QM didn't describe the orbits perfectly.
As I said, it also doesn't describe particle-particle interactions, eg. An electron colliding with a proton and turning into a neutron and a neutrino.

2. I think the image you're talking about is this one, which is the 'Standard Model Lagrangian'. This describes the fundamental processes occurring in the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions. It's not complete, as it doesn't describe gravity, and while gravity has a description (general relativity), it isn't a quantum one. This means there are places (like the centre of a black hole) where we DON'T understand what is happening.

It might take less than 8 years to understand, but certainly at least 5 years. A lot of it is understanding mathematics. I'm taking graduate level maths courses as part of my physics education in order to understand this stuff. Furthermore, it's not just 'understanding it'- as a physics major much of what I did (and continue to do) is solve physical problems, this in itself makes up an important part of my education and I can see when tutoring first-years that it's a skill they don't have.

I'll answer your final question in my next post since this is getting long.

>>10430423
>I think the image you're talking about is this one
Well, no, actually the one I saw was much shorter.

>>10430356
>Putting it another way, is there some self contained book, course or theory accurate and concrete enough which would allow me, at least in principle, to code a program that could simulate, say, biological organisms with no hard coded knowledge about atoms and molecules, just from the most basic quantum mechanical concepts possible? How many years does it take to reach that level of understanding?

Even if you has learnt the entirety of the standard model and everything physics has confirmed thus far, you'd have to be an inhuman genius to simulate (with a computer) an organism. A single cell contains trillions of atoms, let alone particles.

You'd have to describe the immense (atomic) complexity of cellular structures on a massive scale. I'm no biologist but I expect there to be thousands of different molecular processes occurring in a living cell, describing even simple molecular processes from a quantum POV is immensely difficult. You'd need a massive team of researchers working over decades.

I can see that you see gap between the 'simple' fundamentals and the complexity of describing the world. If I can explain this gap by analogy, consider a deck of cards: A single deck has only 52 cards. I can count to 52, I can number them and arrange them by suit and play all sorts of different games with them without difficulty. But there are:

80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000

different ways of arranging a deck of cards. That's how complex simple things can become.

I should finally like to point out, that physics SEEKS to describe the simple basics which underpin everything, and even those are quite difficult. So simulating larger complicated things is often an exercise in which physicists don't take a whole lot of interest, since once you've done that you've described one out of

80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000

possible arrangements.

>>10430489
>You'd have to describe the immense (atomic) complexity of cellular structures on a massive scale. I'm no biologist but I expect there to be thousands of different molecular processes occurring in a living cell, describing even simple molecular processes from a quantum POV is immensely difficult. You'd need a massive team of researchers working over decades.
Yeah, sure, I'm just talking about a physical model accurate enough to emulate proteins and so on over time, not about the knowledge of what the initial state of the system would have to be.
>I can see that you see gap between the 'simple' fundamentals and the complexity of describing the world
I'm not asking to know how the cards are arranged. I just want to have an idea of what rules need to be applied so a certain arrangement of cards X_0 becomes X_1 which becomes X_2 and so on.

>>10430397
Well then, I don't know how your question is different from a weird way of asking if we have a working grand unifying theory of the universe since that's no less than what's required to derive the development of life from physical first principles, in which case, the answer is no.

>>10430432
It takes long to understand because that representation assumes a lot of knowledge, some of the veriables are matrices, so it implicitly has the needed matrix laws in it, there are much more complex math in it, and even then, the Lagrangian is not just an equation to solve, it's a function you need to use in another equation which is again a while another field of math. That 4 line equation s the physical part in That you can have many Lagrangians, each representing a posible universe which will have different particles and forces, and this one represents ours, but it implicitly holds thousands of pages of other mathematical laws and axioms in it.

>>10430388
>It's lorentz invariant when it's made trivial (to be 0), yeah...
Uhh. No. It's always Lorentz invariant because it contributes to the cosmological constant, which is Lorentz invariant. It's fine if you didn't know that, but don't pretend that you know what you're talking about when you clearly don't.

>I'm just confused why we're even talking about relativity at 10/m/s/s
Remember when you said the energy of the electron is important for spontaneous emission in bremsstrahlung? That's why I'm bringing it up. Because you're saying things that are relevant to relativity.

>>10429745
> The secret is there are no """particles"""
>>10429781
> Well, they aren't waves or "fields" either since they behave in a discrete manner, so what are they?

Both of you are right, Tesla was the only one who got it from the begining.
Aether theory is going to make a comeback with a vengence.

>>10429706
>goldfish attention span
>teenage hormone mentality
>PHYSICS IS FAKE NEWS LOOK AT ME
See you in the next schizo thread friendo.

>>10429745
https://youtu.be/XGNvAEtYZkw?t=100

>>10429619
If that was true then wouldn't be able to apply our knowledge, but we can. Therefore you're wrong fuck you.

>>10431275
Aether would be waves though.

>>10431319
S󠀀 E󠀀 E󠀀 T󠀀 H󠀀 I󠀀 N󠀀 G
E󠀀
E󠀀
T󠀀
H󠀀
I󠀀
N󠀀
G󠀀

>>10429745
Based

>>10431669
waves of what?

>>10431669
perturbations

>>10429781
Everything is fields and fields are not particles. "particles" are quantified mathmatical abstractions used in equations. There is nothing "discrete" about a field since at the center of any field there is "none" of that field.

>>10431275
"Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, ... In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether.” -N. Tesla

>>10431714
>Everything is fields and fields are not particles.
Have you ever done quantum field theory?

>>10431714
>waves of what?
Waves of aether.

>>10431714
>"particles" are quantified mathematical abstractions used in equations
Except you can see the particles in a ionization chamber.

>>10431727
Have you ever understood what the word "Quantum" means?

>>10431730
How does aether "wave"? By what means?

>Except you can see the particles in a ionization chamber.

>yeah this thing that's an electromagnetic phenomena is reacting with an electric field.
>the reaction is the thing itself.

Cool story bro, now tell me how a "particle" is not a non physical field/perturbation.

I don't care how it happens, I just want to know the result based on some variables that can be proven empirically

>>10431771
>yeah this thing that's an electromagnetic phenomena is reacting with an electric field.
The point is that you can't have an arbitrarily weak electromagnetic wave because it comes in the form of individual particles.
You can't have stronger or dimmer ionizations for a certain wavelength of radiation.
>How does aether "wave"? By what means?
It doesn't, because aether doesn't exist. But it would wave by some means if it was the medium through which EM waves propagated.

>>10431233
>It's always Lorentz invariant because it contributes to the cosmological constant
A contribution which is off experimentally by 120 orders of magnitude? Sorry if I'm not sold by your hand waving.

I'll admit it was a mistake to use the concept of ZPE without bringing up renormalization. For a QFT to be Lorentz invariant, as we assume they must be, it must be renormalized so that the expectation of the ground state is 0, and thus the ZPE is thought of as "unphysical". I just wanted to illustrate how decay/production of photons arises as fluctuation from the vacuum state.

I am not going to regress on the fact that if you do take the ZPE to be non-0, it most definitely is not Lorentz invariant, which is obvious from its 4-momentum <E, 0>, or the equation I posted earlier.

Also, just because zpe contributes to something that is Lorentz invariant doesn't mean it itself is Lorentz invariant. ct, x1, x2, and x3 all contribute to spacetime interval, which is Lorentz invariant. Neither ct nor x1 nor x2 nor x3 are Lorentz invariant.

>Remember when you said the energy of the electron is important for spontaneous emission in bremsstrahlung?
Remember when I said the gamma factor had to be significant? Oh wait, I didn't, and I'm not sure why you would think that it does. Even a non-relativistic change in reference frame affects what state the electron is in, sure, but it will also change the eigenvalues and probability amplitudes of the photon eigenstates.

Cringey how you keep bringing up relativity for no reason. I mean what are you trying to argue? That branching ratio is not Lorentz invariant? Good luck with that.

I mean sorry but do you seriously think "bUt wHaT If iT's iN a DifFeRenT fRaMe" is a valid argument against a system being accurately described in one frame of reference? It's not like the knowledge that the laws of physics are invariant under the poincare group is prerequisite to a discussion like this, or anything.

>>10431786

>It doesn't, because aether doesn't exist

Why are you answering questions not directed at you?

>But it would wave by some means if it was the medium through which EM waves propagated.

What would be the difference between aether and light that is "traveling through the medium(aether)? What if it was an expression of the medium itself?

>>10431814
>Why are you answering questions not directed at you?
I'm not. Both of the posts you responded to were made by myself.
>What would be the difference between aether and light that is "traveling through the medium(aether)? What if it was an expression of the medium itself?
Aether would be the thing that is rippling, and light would be the ripple itself.
The different densities of aether at any given point then would interact with charged particles such as electrons, physically accelerating them in the direction of the aether density gradient.

>>10431744
The only thing you can ever "see" is photons, which are about the least particle like "particles" we know of

>>10431823
what If I told you that electrons were also just perturbations in the aether.

>>10430289
Didn’t Carl Sagan make a pretty good model of the universe?

>>10431814
In my uninformed opinion I think you would have to have a "medium" that would allow changes in the electric field to propagate through space like they do. But photons provide a more accurate prediction of the observed behavior of electromagnetic fields (again, the intensity of a wave not being possible to modulate below a certain limit and so on).
>>10431829
>The only thing you can ever "see" is photons, which are about the least particle like "particles" we know of
You can use instruments to detect electrons and other charged particles, what we can see with our God granted faculties is pretty much irrelevant.
>what If I told you that electrons were also just perturbations in the aether.
Then how are these perturbations different than the perturbations constituting photons?

>>10431803
Look, zero point energy showing up as a cosmological constant contribution is a fairly trivial thing. It's not handwaving, it's just part of the QFT framework. If you don't understand how the (infinite) energy from a cosmological constant is Lorentz invariant, I'd suggest you go through the literature. A stress-energy tensor that's just a constant times the Minkowski metric transforms trivially under Lorentz transformations.

You keep bringing up shit that says nothing about bremming photons, and when I call you out on it, you say things like "what does the correct physics have to do with the incorrect physics I brought up?"

>>10431841
>You can use instruments to detect electrons and other charged particles
You can measure the depth at one point in the ocean, that doesn't mean it's not made of waves

>Then how are these perturbations different than the perturbations constituting photons?
spin, what you thought it was?

>>10431859
Define "spin" and how does the aether do it.

>>10431823

>Aether would be the thing that is rippling, and light would be the ripple itself.

So then light would just be the effect of the aether? If that were the case then the Michelson-Morley experiment made a big mistake. Good thing it didn't start with a false premise that light was different and traveled by the medium dubbed "aether". Except for the part where it and somehow magically proved that the aether didn't exist period. Whoops. That's okay, what's another 100 years of psychosis on top of the thousands we already have?

>The different densities of aether at any given point then would interact with charged particles such as electrons, physically accelerating them in the direction of the aether density gradient.

How can light possible "travel" if this were the case? How can anything be "physical" if it were dependent on density changing?

>>10431859
>You can measure the depth at one point in the ocean, that doesn't mean it's not made of waves.
It's made of water you dumbass. The water is what's doing the "waving". A "wave" is what something does.

>>10431861
Pressure mediation. Water flows down the bathtub drain, towards the absence of itself.

>>10429619
wtf do you not understand?

you know a nucleus is composed of positively charged protons. this is not stable due to electrostatic force causing them to repel each other. it's only held together by the strong force which operates at a tiny distance.

for larger elements, the distance increases to a point where the electrostatic repulsion takes over.

>>10431881
>Pressure mediation. Water flows down the bathtub drain, towards the absence of itself.
Ok. So "spin" is "pressure mediation". How does pressure mediation of the aether make the electrons be affected by other charged particles, but not photons?

>>10431882
>wtf do you not understand?

he doesn't understand quantum gravity and nobody does. we don't have the tools to measure everything yet. fermions attract yet repel at the same time. truth be told it's the motion or spin that repels it... when you cool atoms their fermions slow in motion and the size of the atom shrinks. at low enough temps atoms with quantum tunnel though each other and loose their repelling powers.

>>10431899
>How does pressure mediation of the aether make the electrons be affected by other charged particles, but not photons?
Tell me the difference between a 5 watt laser and a 5 watt lightbulb. (hint: It's not going to be quantitative)

>>10429619
Shit-quality thread posted by a shit-quality brainlet excuse for a human being. Fuck the fuck off, 90 IQ brainlet.

>>10431854
>zero point energy showing up as a cosmological constant contribution is a fairly trivial thing
>The discrepancy between theorized vacuum energy from QFT and observed vacuum energy from cosmology is a source of major contention, with the values predicted exceeding observation by some 120 orders of magnitude, a discrepancy that has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!" (source wikipedia)
lmao just stop

>A stress-energy tensor that's just a constant times the Minkowski metric transforms trivially under Lorentz transformations.
I'd hope so... Nothing about this suggests that the constant in question is specifically the zero point energy.

Rest of your argument is basically "lol just trust me on this one bro"

Are you just going to keep repeating non-arguments or start replying to my actual substantial ones?

I asked for your explanation of bremsstrahlung and you basically gave a less complete version of mine then freaked out when I non-rigoursly mentioned ZPE (One of the least rigorous topics in physics).

But I guess it's easy to claim your physics is the "correct" one when you refuse to make any quantitative or even somewhat illuminating qualitative claims.

>>10431908
The laser emits photons in the same direction and generally of the same frequency. Light bulb emits photons mostly omnidirectionally following a black body frequency distribution.
Now answer my question.

>>10431881
>It's made of water you dumbass. The water is what's doing the "waving". A "wave" is what something does
I agree but you get the point.

>>10431861
I'm not>>10431881
but that's actually a pretty good explanation. Don't steal my theory nigga.

>>10431899
>How does pressure mediation of the aether make the electrons be affected by other charged particles, but not photons?
Wait do you think electrons aren't affected by photons? The fuck?

>>10429619
They don't claim to know. They provide theories.

>>10431882
Right. And why does a force that previously was enough to keep them together, suddenly become not enough to do so?

>>10431928
>Wait do you think electrons aren't affected by photons? The fuck?
Not at-a-distance. Only when they collide does the photon increase the energy of the electron.

>>10431916
>lmao just stop
I never said it was the only source of a cosmological constant.

>I'd hope so... Nothing about this suggests that the constant in question is specifically the zero point energy.
I'm looking at eq. 22.12 in Peskin & Schroeder as we speak. You'd better let them know that they are wrong.

>Are you just going to keep repeating non-arguments or start replying to my actual substantial ones?
I'm still waiting for one.

>non-rigoursly mentioned ZPE
You mean incorrectly.

>>10431928

>The laser emits photons
Light is not an "emission"

>in the same direction and generally of the same frequency
Doesn't travel, but yes. The "quality of light" is the same.

>Light bulb emits photons mostly omnidirectionally


>Now answer my question.
Okay, photons don't exist. What you call a "photon" is a crest in a coaxial circuit of magnetism and electricity.

>>10431903
>at low enough temps atoms with quantum tunnel though each other and loose their repelling powers.

what? quantum tunneling happens all the time in fusion.

fermions aren't force carriers though.

>>10431933
every force operates at a distance. the strong force operates at a shorter distance. when you have heavier elements crowded together like in uranium, it's unstable and you can shoot a neutron at it whose diameter is enough to push two protons apart enabling the ES force to take over.

>>10431933

>>10431958
quoted wrong person, meant to quote
>>10431924

>>10431959
>what? quantum tunneling happens all the time in fusion.

this is true but it also happens at really low temps that are close to absolute zero. if your interested in this you should look into helium b.e.c. studies. they have even made condensates of light itself. these are repeatable in a lab.

>>10431959
That's a fallacy.
You're saying it decays because it's unstable, and that it's unstable because it sometimes decays.
Let me put it another way: why do these particles randomly move around enough that the ratio between all the forces change enough to cause a decay event?

>>10431978
maybe you should try to tell him to think about it like trying to store a bunch of water in a sponge and when you put to much water in it squirts out.

>>10431958
>Okay, photons don't exist. What you call a "photon" is a crest in a coaxial circuit of magnetism and electricity.
And if both are "crest in a coaxial circuit of magnetism and electricity", why does an electron repel another electron at a distance but not a photon? What's the difference in that "crest in a coaxial circuit" between an electron and a photon?

The secrets are all in my new book called
Sponge Theory.
it's only $199.99 + tax

>>10431989
photons aren't real yet we need the sun's radiation to make plants grow and so the planet doesn't fall into a ice age. lmao. what???

>>10431996
Where can I buy it?

>>10432012
Nice non answer retard. Sounds like you don't understand physics as well as you thought.

>>10431989
>And if both are "crest in a coaxial circuit of magnetism and electricity", why does an electron repel another electron at a distance but not a photon? What's the difference in that "crest in a coaxial circuit" between an electron and a photon?

I can't answer this question because there is no empirical evidence of a "photon" or "electron" but let me give an analogy.

>What's the difference in that "crest in a coaxial circuit" between an electron and a photon?
>What is the difference between you perturbing a pool with your hand creating "waves" and water flowing down a drain in the pool.

It's all water and the absence of water. What is does is not what it is.

>>10431945
So the extremely basic and fundamental expressions I have explicitly posted are incorrect, because you say so, and the equations you reference yet don’t provide, are correct, also because you say so.

Pleasure talking to you! Riveting arguments!

>>10431978
>You're saying it decays because it's unstable, and that it's unstable because it sometimes decays.
no that is not what i am saying.

i am saying it's unstable because it is crowded with protons that are homophobic and repel each other.

this isn't a tautology.

>>10432017
in a pineapple under the sea

>>10432028
Do you seriously not have Peskin and Schroeder?

>>10431973
ahh you talking about bose einstein condensates?

>>10432032
But it can't be that, because if it was merely that the forces keeping it together aren't strong enough as opposed to the forces pushing them apart, then the atom would instantly decay as soon as it's formed.
There's gotta be some kind of change that shifts around the forces enough to cause a decay event after years of the particles in the nucleus sticking together just fine.

>>10431939
Lmao waves don’t interact at a distance either bro

>>10432019
sounds like i understand what light is made out of and how it interacts with other bosons the quantum foam and fermions.

>>10432025
>I can't answer this question because there is no empirical evidence of a "photon" or "electron" but let me give an analogy.
Ok, let me put it another way. How can your theory explain observable phenomena such as an oscillator circuit connected to an antenna causing a light bulb to go off at the speed of 300,000km/s when connected to an antenna, tuning and amplification circuit?
Can your theory predict what will happen when using different kinds of antennas, orienting them in different directions, putting obstacles in the way, and so on?
Have you ever ran the numbers yourself to see that your theory is indeed predictive of most real life phenomena? Can you show me your calculations?

>>10432070
When you apply electrical currents to a wire, you induce electrical currents in a remote wire too. What is that if not interaction between electrons at a distance?

>>10432041
You said times a constant, not times a constant plus an “uhh this other thing because the answer is 10^-120 off”
Or do you think dimensional analysis trumps experimentation now?

You’re using a conjecture that is PROVEN to be incomplete or incorrect as an argument in a hilariously simple problem. Come up with something else.

>>10432043
indeed i am.
i highly recommend reading into it. it gives a lot of insight into the physics of matter and immaterial things.

>>10432117
yeah, i took condensed matter physics. physics was my major. what in particular are you talking about though?

>>10432088
Does a whirlpool, especially a precessing one, not cause waves and pertubations to emenate from it?

>>10432101
time is nothing more then the motion of the fundamental particles, atoms, and the universe. things like gravity, atmospheric pressure, and thermodynamics can change how fast/slow it moves. the working theory is that at absolute zero time is halted.

>>10432131
So? We're not talking about water here.

>>10432101
>You said times a constant, not times a constant plus an “uhh this other thing because the answer is 10^-120 off”
What I said was "it contributes to the cosmological constant" and "show[s] up as a cosmological constant contribution". Notice how I said "contribution" instead of "the entire fucking cosmological constant". I don't know what you're referring to with this "uhh this other thing" nonsense. But, hey, I've got a source for what I'm saying.

>>10432123
it's all important. i find the light one to be extremely impressive due to the fact though solar power, light... or in this care infrared microwaves can be turned into electrons which happen to be a building block of all atoms. i've never read any reports on microwave condensates but it should be just a touch more easy then photonic ones. the experiment lets people understand better about the building blocks of the quantum foam/planck field/11 dimension (m theory) or whatever you want to call it. the working theory is that these building blocks form all the fundamental particles. light/microwaves can be polarized out of the quantum foam. trying to measure the quantum foam itself is impossible due to it being so tiny and weak, our measurement tools just warp everything and cause fluctuate. it would be like trying to measure a grain of sand with a basketball. we need better tools.

>>10432143
And I’m telling you that your source has not been experimentally verified, and in fact looks quite wrong. Not to mention that you still haven’t addressed the “contributes to lorentz invariant quantity=\=lorentz invariant” argument

You can easily find the ground state energy that i posted in griffiths or any undergrad qm textbook

>>10432081
You're filtering the medium. There is no "equation" or calculation, it depends on what the fuck you're doing. What the medium does is not "something" separate from the medium, it's the action of the medium. You're basically asking me to quantify the quality of it. How do I do this?

>>10432138
Yeah, we’re talking about a medium that has all the same properties as water

>>10432194
If that was true we could simulate reality by just generating the right vibrations in water and watching it unfold. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

>>10432171
>And I’m telling you that your source has not been experimentally verified, and in fact looks quite wrong.
You'd better send an email to Peskin, then.

>Not to mention that you still haven’t addressed the “contributes to lorentz invariant quantity=\=lorentz invariant” argument
It's not an argument, it's just a random statement. Take the energy density component which is constant, integrate it over an infinite volume. Where's the frame dependence?

>You can easily find the ground state energy that i posted in griffiths or any undergrad qm textbook
And as I already said way back, you have to integrate that expression you gave over all momentum to get the vacuum energy. If you want me to go into more details, fine, I'll humor you. When you Lorentz transform that expression, you get a gamma factor for the energy, and a 1/gamma factor from the integral measure. There's also a contribution from the boost that's proportional to the spacial momentum component in the boost direction. That extra component is odd under integration, and pretty much any regularization worth the ink sets odd integrals to zero. So the extra additive part cancels when integrated, and the gamma factor from the energy cancels with the gamma factor from the integration measure, and hey, look, Lorentz invariant result.

>>10432201
>If that was true we could simulate reality by just generating the right vibrations in water and watching it unfold. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

>Holy fuck there's this shit called electricity?

What planet do you live on? Try using this thing called a "radio" sometime. No, there's not a little person speaking inside the speaker.

>>10432213
How does water simulate polarization of radio waves?

>>10432214
>water
missed that part, my bad.

>>10432201
Actually, it does. Look up John Bush hydrodynamic analog of qm

>>10429619
you are completely wrong if you expect answer from physics. physics tries to approximate reality with maths. see it like this: just because you know and can describe every part of a car doesnt mean you understand the concept of a car and its deeper meaning.
what you are looking for is philosophy. but even there you will only find questions

>>10429658
CS here. There are certain things that are just not possible to compute (in our brief existence) no matter how powerful our computers are. This simple program for example:
https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Ackermann_function

Computing even small fragments of reality requires algorthms with such complexity that they have a prohibitly high runtime cost (you can consider them impossible, since they would still be far away from completion after the heat death of the universe).

>>10432393
Sure, but I doubt computing physics is that hard.

>>10432393
>CS here
>completely misses the point
kek

>>10432208
I’m sure a Peskin knows. You seem to be unique among physicists in not knowing.

...Why are you integrating over infinite volume??

>That extra component is odd under integration, and pretty much any regularization worth the ink sets odd integrals to zero
What? Regularization is just the imposition of cutoffs to keep values from diverging... Are you positing that any odd parity state is unphysical?

>>10432432
>...Why are you integrating over infinite volume??
Because, when you do QFT in Minkowski space, you have infinite volume...


>What? Regularization is just the imposition of cutoffs to keep values from diverging... Are you positing that any odd parity state is unphysical?
Cutoffs are one of the most primitive forms of regularization, but regularization is not "just the imposition of cutoffs". Are you denying that odd functions integrate to zero when you have symmetric limits?

>>10432421
>There are certain things that are just not possible to compute
here is a nice example of a self righteous ego nut that can't figure something out so he thinks nobody can do it. what he is saying is "i don't get is so nobody can get it i'm the smartest fucker around." lol... i'm just joking around with some trolling.

>>10429619
Physics is built from the cult of Atomism, religion and other ancient occult beliefs.

Atum = Atom

>>10432440
Ok you have infinite volume, are we talking about total vacuum energy or vacuum energy density? I thought we were talking about density.

Also, he rate of divergence of the volume is not Lorentz invariant, so if the charge density is, then...

>Are you denying that odd functions integrate to zero when you have symmetric limits?
You mean anti-symmetric? What does this have to do with regularization?

>>10432533
>Ok you have infinite volume, are we talking about total vacuum energy or vacuum energy density? I thought we were talking about density.
??? You were the one who was taking about the 4-momentum <E,0> and claiming it obviously transformed.

>Also, he rate of divergence of the volume is not Lorentz invariant, so if the charge density is, then...
Are you going to argue that the infinite volume of Minkowski space changes with Lorentz transformations?

>You mean anti-symmetric? What does this have to do with regularization?
Read what I said. Sensible regularization integrates odd functions to zero.

>>10432533
In fact, I'll go ahead and ask this now: what's the preferred reference frame where the vacuum energy of Minkowski space is the lowest?

>>10429619
>I'm too stupid to understand a thing
>therefore that thing is wrong
Absolute retard tier

From what I understand:
>Quantum is heavily limited, only accurately describes the hydrogen atom
>Particle physics is accurate as fuck, literally to 10 decimal places
>GR is saddled by poor observation equipment, thus the theory has run way out in front of any experimental evidence often into the realm of delusion
>Solid State physics is basically just data gathering. Nobody really "understands" it. Any "theories" that emerge from the data are very limited and only loosely applicable.
>Thermo, classical, and bio physics are dead fields with 0 funding and no applications beyond rudimentary engineering
>Mathematical physics and String Theory has transcended anything that can be considered science and is into the realm of philosophy now

Not to say there isn't good work being done, but the physics meme is kind of dead. Physics graduates are better placed in other fields, and succeed well as hedge fund managers, engineers, and programmers.

The biggest success in Physics is definitely High-energy particle physics, no question

>>10433358
Imagine bring this brainlet lmao

>>10433358
>GR
What's GR?

>>10429658
>Nope. I'm just a guy who can't figure out how particles work despite how """simple""" their behavior is supposed to be...
Why do you think their behavior is supposed to be simple?
Physics attempts to model reality, it uses experiments to test its models, but that only goes as fat as to say that the model approaches reality, not that it explains it.

>>10433424
general relativity

>>10433492
Ahh. Do you believe the gravity acts like a lens stuff in the solar eclipse observations or not and it's just an artifact of the telescopes etc.?

>>10433519
I'm not him so...

>>10429619
Ey! Noone ever said that the explanation of the world wasn't meant to keep the brainlets our.

Noone who is a scientist, looks at science and thinks it explains the world to him. What goes on in his mind, always happens to him alone and his concept of the universe will always be individual.

Broken down to stupid numbers, he has the tools to explain the most complex case to the most stupid executors.

>>10433341
He's probably trying to argue the fact that physicists truly don't understand the implications of quantum mechanics, even if they understand the mechanics through which they operate.
Physicists can't decide whether wave-functions are real or not for one example.

>>10429619
>the basics
>step by step, to the lowest level of detail you can go, how and why alpha decay of an an unstable isotope atom happens

If you think that's a basic thing to explain you clearly have no right to complain that physics is a scam

>>10432447
>(in our brief existence)

Good luck computing superexponential shit! Just try to not exceed a trillion years!

>>10435075
>I'll just make shit up
Thank you for your professional opinion, code monkey.

>>10435075
wouldn't you just love a cpu that could super conduct.

>>10432395
>I doubt computing physics is that hard
It is probably difficult. As in, many physical problems have complexity that are NP complete or worse

>>10432447
Not him, and I’m not even in CS, but there are problems that are legitimately provably difficult. Complexity theory was started legitimately to answer “is it unsolvable/infeasible or am I just stupid?”

>>10435355
*provably

>>10429619
>tell me exactly, step by step, to the lowest level of detail you can go, how and why alpha decay of an an unstable isotope atom happens.
Why should anyone waste their time with you?