/sci/ - Science & Math

You've discovered an inconvenient truth which most never make it to. Welcome to the flat light society

an artustuc particle, sparky and speedy in nature, completing a fibonnaci sequence, barely seen as it enters the eye - like energy parasites that prick our eyes with illumination.

>I don't understand it so it's wrong
Why are conservatives like this

>>10526595
what's your theory on sight then bro?

>>10526595
Wrong.
>an (incoherent) excitation of the EM field couples to the energy levels of a collection of atoms (often sufficiently approximated by, but not literally manifesting as, a lattice of fixed nuclei positions each with bound electrons occupying energy modes resulting from primarily charge-charge couplings, but also spin-orbital couplings, spin-magnetic field couplings, etc.), by which the frequency modes of that excitation which correspond to near-resonance of the atomic mode transition energies (taking into account allowed transitions via selection rules of the angular momentum algebra) are absorbed, inducing such energy shifts, and resulting in reflection (for most "everyday" opaque materials at visible light frequencies, R ≈ 1) of the modes that weren't absorbed. (The excitation of the atoms is soon lost due to coupling with the EM field itself, notably the vacuum state, however this is a highly incoherent process and the re-emitted photons due to this spontaneous emission are often too low in frequency and intensity for us to observe them, with obvious exceptions (e.g. metals heated to the point of glowing orange).)

After that, biological processes take place, mainly featuring the light receptors in our eyes (cones and rods) which have unique spectral responses to a different range of these EM excitation modes. I am not in any way qualified to explain this part though, so hopefully a biologist will come along and explain how the eye sends signals correlated to its observed spectral response, how the brain performs post-processing to that signal, etc.

>>10526595
>a tiny particle(also wave) bounces off a "physical" "object" enters your eye and then your biological brain interprets it thus giving you "sight"
They don't "bounce" off anything. The photon is absorbed by the electrons of the atom, which causes them to jump up an energy level, then they go back to their original orbital and emit a photon equal to the difference in energy lost by the electron falling back to where it was.
The photons emitted then photo reactive chemicals in your eye ball which is converted into a nerve impulse and shot through the optic nerve to the brain where it's simultaneously processed by different parts of the brain, and feedback is then sent to the rest of the body.
You've got to be really careful of the imperfect nature of really bad pop-sci explanations for things like quantum phenomenon without being at least vaguely familiar with the underlying equations.
It's a bad analogy that's been been through 50 years of Chinese whispers and stoners trying to blow eachother's minds.

Nice birds tho

>>10527574
>The photon is absorbed by the electrons of the atom, which causes them to jump up an energy level, then they go back to their original orbital and emit a photon equal to the difference in energy lost by the electron falling back to where it was.
wrong. your theory can't explain how mirrors work.

>>10527383
>I don't understand it because it's never been properly fucking explained

FTFY

>>10527574
>They don't "bounce" off anything.
Correct, something that doesn't exist can't "bounce" to begin with.

>It's a bad analogy that's been been through 50 years of Chinese whispers and stoners trying to blow eachother's minds.
>Still talking about the "dualistic" nature of light.
Despite no proof of a electron or photon particle or a "wave" being something that exists as itself by itself.

>>10527594
>Correct, something that doesn't exist can't "bounce" to begin with.
>Despite no proof of a electron or photon particle or a "wave" being something that exists as itself by itself.
>>>/x/

>>10527603
Not an argument

>>10527611
Not an argument.

>>10527618
>provide proof of something that doesn't exist.

Not how it works bro. You first must provide this thing called "empirical evidence" to substantiate a claim that you're making. What you're implying is that it's okay for someone to say that unicorns exist and then never provide evidence that they do and instead relying on others to disprove a claim that never had a basis in reality to begin with. Well you can go chase shadows if you want, I'm certainly not going to bother wasting my time with such mental retardation.

>>10527625
photomultiplier tubes
photoelectric effect
CRT screens
ionizing radiation
oscilloscopes
the sky is blue
franck-hertz experiment
gamma rays
blackbody radiation
polarizers
light bulbs
scintillators
light-emitting diodes
the hydrogen atom
X-ray astronomy
diffraction patterns and interference
electrochemistry
SPDC crystals
silicon photomultipliers
the magnetic moment of the electron
neutral pions
LIGO
hybrid photodiodes
diffraction limits on telescopes
the higgs boson

now prove to me all of these don't exist

>>10527655
>all these electromagnetic phenomena and electric/magnetic powered devices prove light particles exist and are the essence of the thing you're proving to exist
>things that measure something explain what that something is.
>1 apple explains what an apple is.

You wrote this entire list for absolutely no reason. All you had to do was explain to me what a particle is and show empirical evidence of it.

>>10527724

>>10527587
>your theory can't explain how mirrors work.
Sure it does.
The reason a plant looks green is because the energy of the photon being absorbed and the energy of the photon being re-emitted isn't the same - the difference is the energy used to drive photosynthesis. The photons being re-emitted are at the wavelength for green.
Metals have big electron orbitals that tend to absorb more light in IR and the re-emitted photons peak in the ultra violet.
The absorption and emission of photons is so unique to every element that there's a thing called spectroscopy pretty much devoted to using this phenomenon to identify them.

>>10527736
>Metals have big electron orbitals
the fact that you say this makes it very obvious you at best took 1 class in quantum mechanics. in solid state physics you think of metals in terms of fermi liquid theory where electrons aren't localized to "orbitals"

>>10527729
Not an argument
>>10527736
>The photons being re-emitted are at the wavelength for green

Waves of what? Waves of green?

>The absorption and emission of photons is so unique to every element that there's a thing called spectroscopy pretty much devoted to using this phenomenon to identify them.

Every element is dictated by this thing called "gyromagnetic ratio" which is neither a wave nor a particle. Given that light is simple an electromagnetic phenomena, I fail to see how "unique" it can be when it's simple another form of electro/magnetic fields.

>>10527775
dude, how about you tell us what you believe as opposed to saying nothing aside from hurr durr particles don’t real

>>10527724
>show empirical evidence of it.
You mean like pictures?

hurr-durr-particles-dont-realtard BTFO

>>10527778
I just did you illiterate moron.
>Every element is dictated by this thing called "gyromagnetic ratio" which is neither a wave nor a particle. Given that light is simple an electromagnetic phenomena, I fail to see how "unique" it can be when it's simple another form of electro/magnetic fields.

>>10527783
Yeah and according to you this must be a picture of a human right?

>>10527815
>>Every element is dictated by this thing called "gyromagnetic ratio"
so you don't believe in subatomic particles? you think your gyromagnetic ratio is better than different elements/isotopes having different numbers of protons and neutrons?

>Given that light is simple an electromagnetic phenomena
nobody denies this. however the electromagnetic field is really a quantum field, which means its on-shell modes are quantized photons. this is necessary because otherwise you get the ultraviolet catastrophe, which means the spectrum of e.g. the sun or a lightbulb wouldn't be the correct blackbody spectrum

>>10527724
How is that the data from the experiments conducted by scientists numerous times over the years with the same result not considered empirical evidence?

I mean sure, I cant hand you a photon and say “here you go” but if we conduct experiments based entirely around the existence of these things and our experiments require that these things obey highly specific conditions determined by other experiments which operated under this same assumption, and these experiments have predictive power, how is the data derived from them not enpirical and supportive of the idea that they exist (given that there are many of these ‘“layers’ of experimentation more or less amounting to a dogma?

>>10527818
>so you don't believe in subatomic particles? you think your gyromagnetic ratio is better than different elements/isotopes having different numbers of protons and neutrons?
Given that there's no empirical evidence of a photon/neutron being measured by itself and not moving, no I don't believe in them.

>nobody denies this. however the electromagnetic field is really a quantum field which means its on-shell modes are quantized photons.
fields have no quantity, nor Cartesian locus.

> this is necessary because otherwise you get the ultraviolet catastrophe, which means the spectrum of e.g. the sun or a lightbulb wouldn't be the correct blackbody spectrum
>falsified based on an assumption that the universe is "physical" and can be quantized.

>I mean sure, I cant hand you a photon and say “here you go” but if we conduct experiments based entirely around the existence of these things and our experiments require that these things obey highly specific conditions determined by other experiments which operated under this same assumption, and these experiments have predictive power, how is the data derived from them not enpirical and supportive of the idea that they exist (given that there are many of these ‘“layers’ of experimentation more or less amounting to a dogma?
>I cant hand you a photon and say “here you go”
Then it's not empirical

>but if we conduct experiments based entirely around the existence of these things and our experiments require that these things obey highly specific conditions determined by other experiments which operated under this same assumption

>if we keep repeating the same experiment based on an assumption, it will eventually become the real thing as we modify the experiment.
But assumptions aren't empirical. They're based on a false premise which leads to nothing but further error down the line.

>>10527915
>Given that there's no empirical evidence of a photon/neutron being measured by itself and not moving, no I don't believe in them.
so you admit you already got shown a picture of individual particle traps, so empirical evidence obviously exists, but nuh uh because they're moving? so you believe in there being an absolute "rest frame" of the universe? dumb. anyhow you should look up "trapping", like you mentioned neutrons -- neutron trapping exists. there are also electron bubbles, laser trapping, heck, even in chemistry PH is a measure of how many protons are floating around in your water. it's either sophistry or plain bad-faith argumentation to claim no evidence exists, and then when someone shows you evidence, you say no, that doesn't work for you because you insist on some nonsense form of evidence. "by itself" is nonsense because you (not even in principle because of QFT) can have just one particle and nothing else, much less perform a measurement on it when you demand "nothing else" be present. i bet if i showed you the data from a particle detector lighting up after a single neutron in a trap decays into a proton an electron and a neutrino, you'd be like "nooo because it's not by itself, your lab bench is still a meter away, i require it to be done in deep space". (or would that convince you? you tell me) and requiring something to be "not moving" is actually nonsense because of the principle of relativity

the rest of your arguments are nonsense too.

>>10528042
oops, first sentence i meant **individual particle tracks

>>10528042
>"by itself" is nonsense because you (not even in principle because of QFT) can have just one particle and nothing else
ugh, second typo, that should be "can't" instead of can

>>10528042
>>10528049
A humans footprints are not a human, just as a trail of something is not the something itself.
Shadow
Chasing

>neutron trapping exists
I fail to see how it's not "proton making" instead of "neutron trapping"

>"by itself" is nonsense
Then why the fuck are you quacks counting particles?

>because you (not even in principle because of QFT) can(t) have just one particle and nothing else, much less perform a measurement on it when you demand "nothing else" be present
So it's not very fucking "discrete" then now is it? It's mutually impelled by other shit, there's nothing "discrete" or "particular" about what you just said.

>i bet if i showed you the data from a particle detector lighting up after a single neutron in a trap decays into a proton an electron and a neutrino, you'd be like "nooo because it's not by itself, your lab bench is still a meter away, i require it to be done in deep space". (or would that convince you? you tell me) and requiring something to be "not moving" is actually nonsense because of the principle of relativity

I would actually ask what the difference in the neutron and proton is. If a neutron magically turns into a proton after being isolated for 15 minutes or whatever, then what the fuck difference is there? They are literally the same thing, so that negates whatever the fuck you have to say about the neutron (because it's actually now a proton).

>and requiring something to be "not moving" is actually nonsense because of the principle of relativity
Conservation of energy*. The principles of relativity reifies time and space as phenomena that have properties when they in fact do not. They have no properties to be measured yet they are reified as causes/effects that happen so as far as I'm concerned it doesn't mean shit.

>the rest of your arguments are nonsense too.
You just disproved discrete particles and you're not even aware of it. That's how deep the quantum psychosis has affected you.

>>10528113
well the idea of particles as manifestations of quantum fields is subtle, and takes a while to actually understand. counting particles refers to a particular recipe that looks at which discrete energy state your quantum field is in, and actually you can have a non-integer expectation value for that number. the number corresponds to how many _on shell_ particles make up that quantum state of the quantum field, but there are also other field configurations that do go on in the field that can be represented as virtual particles. however, when you make the measurement of particle number, that is guaranteed to be an integer, and it corresponds to the on-shell particles which are what leave tracks in the particle detector.

i’m sorry you don’t find it intuitive but that’s how the theory works and it has more empirical confirmation than any other theory, period

>>10528136
>i’m sorry you don’t find it intuitive but that’s how the theory works and it has more empirical confirmation than any other theory, period

And I'm sorry you described everything a field does without explaining the cause of a field, shadow chaser.

It's like believing "Bob the human" turns into something completely different when he waves his hand at you. No he's still "Bob the human", he's only causing the action of "waving". Now tell me what "Bob the human" is please. "Bob the human is" is nice and all and it's great that we can count him and assign a number to him, but that doesn't tell me what "Bob the human" actually is.

>>10527724
The quantized energy of photons is required to derive the correct spectral density function of black body radiators, that can be measured by direct experiments.

/sci/ is easy to b8, they're all full of themselves and autistic so they both feel the need to try to teach you and can't recognize intent.

>>10526595
what do you believe in, then!??

>>10528190
what question do you want me to answer? i don't get it with the "Bob the human" stuff, sounds like you're making some nonscientific rhetorical gotcha crap. for all intents and purposes in quantum field theory, the field is just there from the beginning and no 'cause' needs to motivate why you assume a certain field content. the reason we settled on the field content in the standard model is all based on empirical observations. historically QED was the first QFT and the field content corresponded to the electromagnetic field and another field that represents electrons and positrons. if you asked feynman and schwinger and tomonaga what cause they had to use those particular fields, they probably would have said because there is observational evidence for electromagnetism and electrons, so thats why they made the model that has fields that represent them. the model isn't a cosmological model and doesn't explain why it turned out that way, though theories like string theory exist that help to explain that. and even if string theory does answer what is the "cause" of certain fields arising, you could still ask why string theory is what it is, and why is the answer to that, and why why why ad infinitum, so for the purposes of understanding the standard model, we just take all the fields that we know exist as granted from the getgo, and it just werks. an analogy is, say, making a model for the solar system. we know there's an earth and a sun and they're separated by 93 million miles. you can write down the equations of orbital mechanics right from here. why 93 million miles? it really doesn't matter, the model still works just fine

>>10527783
how do they make this exposure? this is directly inside a particle accelerator or what?

>>10528298
typically in old cloud/bubble chambers, the way they worked was that there were windows on the sides of the chamber, and high-speed cameras took the photos through the windows. with the big bubble chambers they would either run them by shooting a beam into the chamber or just looking at cosmic rays.

here is a picture of guys inside Gargamelle where you can see the camera windows

>>10528235
>the field is just there from the beginning and no 'cause' needs to motivate why you assume a certain field content

So you're just making it up as you go along then.

>the reason we settled on the field content in the standard model is all based on empirical observations
No it's not because you don't know what a fucking field is!

>if you asked feynman and schwinger and tomonaga what cause they had to use those particular fields, they probably would have said because there is observational evidence for electromagnetism and electrons, so thats why they made the model that has fields that represent them.

Feynmann was actually once asked what causes magnetism in his "fun to imagine" show. He literally could not explain shit and went on to describe what they do as opposed to the cause, ending his jabbering by not answering the question;"I can't tell you because you wouldn't understand" type shit. Also, no there is no observational evidence because a field is not fucking physical. Quantitatively a magnet and a block of the same material non-magnetized is the same. One has a different quality than the other.

>the model isn't a cosmological model and doesn't explain why it turned out that way, though theories like string theory exist that help to explain that
"We think we know but have no proof".

>and even if string theory does answer what is the "cause" of certain fields arising, you could still ask why string theory is what it is, and why is the answer to that, and why why why ad infinitum, so for the purposes of understanding the standard model, we just take all the fields that we know exist as granted from the getgo, and it just werks.

TL;DR: an actual roleplay of "The blind men and an elephant" parable.

>you can write down the equations of orbital mechanics right from here. why 93 million miles? it really doesn't matter, the model still works just fine
>measurements pertain to reality.
Now how? Otherwise you're full of shit.

>>10528387
>So you're just making it up as you go along then.
that's how physics works. you "make up" a theory to model phenomena and check how well it works. in math, you start out by making up some "axioms" to work with. they don't come from some divine miracle

>No it's not because you don't know what a fucking field is!
i'm sure i know what a field is better than you, since you already posted your basic misconceptions over the concept

>Feynmann
learn to spell his name, for one. also, you're not as smart as Feynman and you need to see the wisdom in what he said instead of being stuck in your hurr durr mindset

>"We think we know but have no proof".
yes, it's more about empirical tests that support the theory. proofs are only in math and what separates science from math is that empirical evidence is what establishes confidence in theories scientific theories.

>TL;DR: an actual roleplay of "The blind men and an elephant" parable.
Not an argument?

>measurements pertain to reality.
>Now how? Otherwise you're full of shit.
this has no bearing on my solar system model analogy as far as i can tell. gonna have to clarify

>>10528445
>i'm sure i know what a field is better than you, since you already posted your basic misconceptions over the concept

Yet you've clearly elaborated that you don't know what a field is in the statement:
> the field is just there from the beginning and no 'cause' needs to motivate why you assume a certain field content. the reason we settled on the field content in the standard model is all based on empirical observations.

Yet your empirical observations are simply "guess and check" based on assumptions on top of assumptions.

>learn to spell his name, for one
Learn what causes fucking magnetism, for one.

>also, you're not as smart as Feynman and you need to see the wisdom in what he said instead of being stuck in your hurr durr mindset
Wisdom? "I don't know", "what do you mean?", "They simply are." and "I can't tell you because I think you won't understand" are not indicative of wisdom.

>proofs are only in math and what separates science from math is that empirical evidence is what establishes confidence in theories scientific theories.
No, all math does is describe using quantification. That is all. A language really.

>Not an argument?
You're right. Conglomerating a bunch of incorrect assumptions into one massive incorrect assumption is indeed not an argument. It's not even science.

>this has no bearing on my solar system model analogy as far as i can tell
>how reality works has nothing to do with how the things in reality work.

Cool Story Bro.

>>10528566
how about now you tell us more about your gyromagnetic ratio theory and why it's superior and the predictions it makes. flesh that out a bit, since you're so wise

>>10527815
>Yeah and according to you this must be a picture of a human right?
What kind of organic brain damage have you suffered that you think this was an intelligent response? Stop moving the goal posts and accept that you're actually and unironically retarded.

10528566
10528445
10528387
Does this retard think no one notices when he replies to himself with these autistic walls of reddit spaced schizospam?

>>10526595
>quantized em waves don't exist, but localized gyrations do
>the component parts of sight don't exist because I can't see them
>inference doesn't count because reasons
>that's not empirical because I don't believe it
What is with the schizoposters on this board these days. Are you the guy from yesterday who asked if gang stalking was real?

This thread sure is berserkerfag.
>hurr durr ur just describing a thing not explaining deeper cause
>dude light and gravity dun exist even though we directly observe them
>magnetism totally real though, for arbitrary reasons

>>10527594
Are you the same guy that doesn't believe stars exists?

>>10530020
>hurr durr ur just describing a thing not explaining deeper cause
It's not a distinction without a difference you dumb furfag.

>dude light and gravity dun exist even though we directly observe them
>observe gravity
>yes we "observe" the effects of a force that has never been explained so we should automatically assume it's real.
Tell me what the "gravity" at the center of earth is. Then realize how bad you dub goofed.
>magnetism totally real though, for arbitrary reasons
I would love to see a dumb furfag such as yourself explain what magnetism is. Hint: It's a conjugate.

>>10528589
Non-euclidean geometry. The universe follows Poincare disk model/hyperbolic geometry. There are no "straight lines" anywhere.

>>10528758
>being this paranoid

Yeah that's right, I'm same fagging on one of the slowest boards on a Taiwanese basket weaving forum.

>>10530070
No. Stars exist. I'm one of the people that believe "Space" and "time" do not exist, and light does not travel.

>>10528752
Retard. I was linked a picture of a fucking gas chamber reaction. That's not a goddamn particle, it's the tracks of what has been dubbed "particles". So I put the tracks of an alleged human as a comparison

>>10530386
>Non-euclidean geometry. The universe follows Poincare disk model/hyperbolic geometry. There are no "straight lines" anywhere.
so the universe is 2D? is that your argument? I'm pretty sure I could show you some evidence of there being at least 3 dimensions, pic related.

also weren't you talking about particles and electromagnetism? how does your model explain e.g. magnets? or how about something simpler like, i don't know, why billiard balls seem to go in straight lines?

>>10530865
>I'm pretty sure I could show you some evidence of there being at least 3 dimensions, pic related.

If only you could actually fucking explain how it's 3 dimensional and how all life comes from what is unmanifested (aka has no dimensional properties). The manifested part is "3 dimensional" but nothing about it is concrete. The only concreteness comes from what projects it (the euclidian geometry). Yes little Timmy, this means you're a hologram. If you're not then cease reproducing all the cells in your body from self-similarity. Also why the fuck do you think a magnet/atoms have the expressed fields that they do? What is in the "donut hole" is what I'm asking. It certainly isn't "3 dimensional", its the absence of dimension. At the center of gravity there is no fucking gravity. At the center of magnetism THERE IS NO FUCKING MAGNETISM.

But "muh math" describes what is observed and measured using a language, it does not explain anything. Nor does pure empirical evidence. For instance, from your picture I "see" a shadow coming from the box. This shadow can be measured, and I could even "feel" the difference in temperature "coming" from it.Yet a shadow does not logically exist. It is the absence of light, a privation of it. It has no means of having a basis in reality because it is literally an absence of something that has the actual properties that it consists of. Absences cannot be reified, they are absent.

>also weren't you talking about particles and electromagnetism? how does your model explain e.g. magnets?

A magnet is a coherent dielectric object. A coherent point-nonspecific hologram that runs on pressure mediation. Slice it and it will turn into another magnet because its nature is holographic and therefore is self-similar to itself. The only thing that differentiates it from gravity is that gravity is incoherent dielectric acceleration and magnet is coherent.

>>10530941
>magnets are dielectric
But that isn't fucking true

Me in the left

>>10530941
ok, you have a holographic model. how do i use it to calculate something? do you have any equations that relate to empirical facts? how about you show me how to find e.g. the time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun