/sci/ - Science & Math

Yes, every particle smaller than an electron is a theoretical (made up) particle.
There is no evidence for the existence of photons.
Quantum mechanics is deliberately misleading.

>>11162689
>somehow my brain is even smaller than my micropenis

i talk about preons, get on my level

>>11162697
kek

>>11162697
If your penis is anything like the evidence for quantum mechanics than it's non-existent.
You can talk about it all you want, but it still doesn't exist ;)
Maybe you have a huge penis when the extradimensional entities take off your virtual reality helmet after you die lol.

I know what quarks are.
AMA

discrete particles literally don't exist, reality is continuous

>>11162898
The workaround I have come up for the issue of points versus continua is that the point density of points should be taken as infinity rather than as one. Usually there is some mildly mysterious feature when one finds that the "cardinality" of a short line segment and an N-dimensional hypervolume 50 miles on a side are the same, but the mystery goes away when you say that each point contains infinity points. Then everything with any points in it has infinity of them in it. There's a few other neat things you can do with an infinite point density for points. (Yes, I know the mystery of the cardinality of continua depends of the semantics of mystery.)

Then, when each point contains infinite points, we can define internal structure on a point. This is a radius. Due to the rotational symmetry of points, the radius sweeps out a 2- or 3-sphere. These spheres "should" represent the abstract phase degrees of freedom in the SU(2) and SU(3) parts of the theory wherein the SU(2) part comes from some constraint on the rotational symmetry of the internal degrees of freedom of the point.

Maldacena gives this nice talk about how electroweak theory is like saying that there is a 2-sphere embedded at every point in spacetime, and I think it is easy to make this happen by changing the point density of points from unity to infinity.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQF7kkWjVWM

>>11162943
Just looking at Maldacena's graphic there: He says there are these weird symmetries at every point in spacetime. My idea is that these are weird when you say the point density of points is unity, but these are the expected symmetries of N-dimensional spacetime points whose point density is infinity.

They are just very social particles, they tend to stick together and it's not that easy to tell them apart.

Also, FRBs are black hole lightning.

>>11162944
>Bro, just expand and truncate!!!
I'm glad I got out of Physics after I graduated

>>11162677
OP, we have this thread every so often and every i talk about quarks fairly often.

anyhow this is obviously a schizo bait thread, look at all these schizos:
>>11162689
>>11162865
>>11162890
>>11162943
>>11162944
>>11162960

anyhow, to answer your question, the idea that quarks weren’t actually real was a thing until the early-mid eighties. a good example is that Feynman, the longtime rival of Gell-Mann (who invented the quark model) recognizes that protons and neutrons has sub-constituent particles but refused to call them quarks and made the name “parton” instead for a few years, but eventually he started acknowledging they are quarks

experimentally we can see telltale signatures of certain quarks, especially b-quarks and top quarks. for example see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-tagging
or something with more human interest:
https://www.rigb.org/blog/2019/september/working-at-cern

Gellman called Feynman diagrams "Stueckelberg diagrams"

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parton_(particle_physics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/nnpss/lectures/11/NNPSS11-2-nobuilds.pdf

TL;DR: Quarks can be observed to make up nucleons, and they explain the existence of every discovered hadron and meson to date. The so called "particle zoo": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_zoo

>>11162677
I can't see or feel them. They don't exist. You are talking about magic.

>>11164391
i think Feynman even referred to the as stueckelberg diagrams for a while. this doesn't really mean anything though, since the real utility of that kind of diagram comes once you have feynman rules for turning them into equations. nobody was doing anything remotely close to that before feynman.

>>11164470
based RF

>>11164618
finally we can agree on something. feynman is one of my heroes because he was not only a once-in-a-generation physicist but also a down-to-earth guy. and he was not ashamed to be masculine. there was a recent quanta article that interviewed a great female astronomer, virginia trimble i think, who happened to be gorgeous enough to pose as a model for feynman’s drawings and she btfo’d the standard SJW “muh harassment” crap and defended dick instead. what a hero

anyhow glad we can find some common ground

>>11164365
Im not trying to be a schizo,
Surely as someone who has studied these fields, you must have noticed some inconsistensies, strong personal bias, incompatible theories.
We are searching for a grand unified theory, and to do that we need to filter out the incorrect theories,
I'll make this statement.
Not every single QM idea is true.
But we act like they are, and what is with purely theoretical mathematicians presenting themselves as QM physicists with no physics in the name.
Just because we can't check if it's real doesn't mean we just accept that it's true.
QM has been derailed by politics and pop sci.

>>11164631
>refuses to share ground
>attacks with lethal force immediately

>>11164641
honestly mr. winkly hoaxington, i don’t feel you deserve replies at this point. jon at least can follow some basic lines of logic, so he deserves some (You)s every so often, but you don’t. you’re basically on the same level as celestial french gf shill. btw thanks for the 641

>>11164641
>We are searching for a grand unified theory
That's a funny way to say, "We are searching for dollars from the USA government and we will fanatically ignore with great zeal anything, no matter how obviously true it is, if not ignoring it is likely to have a detrimental effect on our money-seeking activities."

>>11164668
That's one of my theories man :)
Some QM projects are fradulant and just for research grant money and false glory.

>>11165004
>just for research grant money and false glory
This describes 99% of publicly funded "SCIENCE!"

>>11165004
So someone at one of the USA national labs had their own original idea today that maybe they should examine the case in which the point density of points is infinity rather than unity?

I talk about Quarks all the time in >>>/tv/trek

rip Nog