/sci/ - Science & Math

and we shall call it dark matter

>>12640455
spoken language can only inadequately describe reality, that’s why physicists use math instead of poetry to describe things like this

if it helps you cope, try this instead
>what is matter?
energy stuck inside a specific space
>what is mass?
the amount of energy stuck in that space

>>12640455
mass is the thing that curves space-time

>>12640455
Nigger

Matter has inertia.

>>12640455
>and space
So point particles aren't matter. Why the fuck are we giving particle physicists grant money to studies shit that isn't even real matter?
>What is mass?
rest energy

>>12640455
Mass is an object's resistance to motion. Incidentally, it's also an object's intrinsic property to induce motion in other objects.

>>12640455
>What is matter?
Fermions
>What is mass?
Nobody knows

>>12640588
>Proton is a boson
>proton has mass
>implying you're an idiot

>>12640593
>>Proton is a boson
>>proton has mass
>>implying you're an idiot
>proton
>boson
Anon...

>>12640455
>What is matter?
Something that has mass.
>What is mass?
A measure of something's resistance to having its motion changed. The more energy needed to cause the change for the same difference in velocity, the more mass it has.

>>12640601
What? I thought if you could write lies, that I could too.

>>12640614
Don't deflect from your stupidity. You actually thought a proton, a 3-quark particle, was a boson.

>>12640623
And you actually thought only fermions constituted mass.
>What is a meson
So I guess we're both idiots.

>>12640602
>axiomatically: mass is a function of inertia
So mass's effect on gravity is a side effect, and one we don't fully understand yet, hence the darkmatter v. modified-newton debates.

I can roll with this

>>12640629
Just because something has mass doesn't make it matter.

>>12640455
mass is a measurement???

>>12640471
helped me

>>12640629
a meson is made of two quarks, retard

>>12640455
>What is mass?
The property of matter that explains its energy at rest. I.e. E(0) = mc^2.
>What is matter?
Anything that has mass.

>>12640477
Wrong.
>>12640523
>>and space
OP is wrong there.
>>What is mass?
>rest energy
Divided by c^2, correct.
>>12640602
>>What is mass?
>A measure of something's resistance to having its motion changed.
How much resistance does a photon exert in having its motion changed?
>>12640631
>So mass's effect on gravity is a side effect, and one we don't fully understand yet
Exactly.
>>12641195
His point is that a meson has spin = ? and are hence?

>>12641195
based retard
even Z and W bosons have mass

>>12640471
Phenomenal

>>12640455
>mass
Anything with "weigh" aka things that curve space-time.

>>12640455
your mom

Mass is a parameter of gravitational field, same way as charge is a parameter of electromagnetic field. Why is this board so retarded?

What is "what"? What is "is"?

>>12640455
science is just the newest religion
our emotions (limbic system) are in control much more than our thoughts (neocortex)
facing reality is too emotionally jarring, so we need to create veils in our mind to keep from going insane

>>12641214
>How much resistance does a photon exert in having its motion changed?
Trick question, photons never change their motion, they are simply absorbed and re-emitted by matter, which makes it seem as if they are changing motion. Since photons thus never really change motion, and have no mass whatsoever (do have momentum) anon's statement about matter being "slowness" is not wrong

>>12644004
Radiation is used to transmit energy and fields across distance. Electromagnetic field have photons as radiation. What do you suppose gravitational fields have? Furthermore, is there anything that can be defined to be a discrete quantum of mass as we can do with charges?
Is there an opossing negative mass?

>>12644136
For grav field it's graviton or his
Higgs boson. Quantum of mass can be a quark, but since they're always tied together, it gets more difficult to define a clear analogy. Regarding charge marks, in grav field you can consider color-anticolor pairs or 3-color chunks.

>>12644188
Interesting take, but the graviton is yet to be found and the higgs boson belongs to the higgs field not the gravitational field, if there is any

>>12644061
this take is pseud. the best science is a record of all the things we know can be measured consistently, because we continue to consistently measure them. whether any of it is real in the ontological sense is a fun exercise, but there is experimental truth behind the vast majority of physical sciences. obviously people exist who wield “science” as a blunt instrument to practice their arrogance, but that doesn’t undermine the demonstrable discoveries of scientific research

>>12644112
>Trick question, photons never change their motion
You're sort of right. Bringing a huge gravitational source near them changes their path, but you're correct in saying they don't change their motion, since it's spacetime that's bent, not the photon's trajectory.
The thing is that mass is not the only thing exerting inertia.

>>12640471
what is energy?

>>12644914
The purely timelike component of the energy-momentum tensor.

>>12644233

>>12644233
Yet the only thing keeping physics, the most physical of sciences, from progressing is ontological prejudice about those "experimental truths", because they have to be related to the real world. You were the pseud all along.

>>12644914
the potential to move

>>12645519
>place ball on table
>move it sideways
>still has same energy

>>12644947
how have physics stopped progressing? grants are still being awarded to theoretical physicists and research projects that are pushing the boundary (e.g. JWST, LIGO, etc.). But I don't think it's a stretch to say that this pure theoretical focus is partly responsible for less public interest in hard sciences as a whole, because to the layman it's indistinguishable from nonsense. Personally I love that mathematicians have learned to "speak" math so fluently that they're now describing dimensions that exceed our ability to properly perceive them, but this has a repulsive quality to the average person seeking answers in the same way that contemporary philosophy's verbosity shuts people out of its richest revelations.

>>12645532
how far the ball moved is a reflection of its mass. anon I'm trying to keep the language as simple as possible for a reason, can't do that without gross oversimplification

>Mass is energy and vice versa.
So, seeing as how light has energy it must also have mass too, right?
>No

>>12644933
The difference is the top one is total broken clock bullshit while bottom is the truth. Only retards falling for texas sharpshooter fallacy would think it's even remotely equivalent.

>>12645612
>what is momentum

>>12645562
And now your own words validate the words of the poster you replied to.
Science is the newest religion, its continued existence being validation for its continued existence, even if its mysteries are too deep and profound to be digested by the masses. You defend what you do not understand, because of what you assume it be, like a Christian defends the Church, because of the promise of eternal salvation.
The mathematician speaks of higher dimensions, ineffable quantities, and bizarre topological spaces like the priest used to speak of angels, demon, and circles of hell, when the reality of it all is much more mundane. The mathematician is shielded from criticism by the fact that he is certainly describing something, but even religious figures are an allegory for real life, complicated by taking them as more real than they really are.

>>12640455
Just take the Heisenbergpill bro.

>>12645720
at what point did I defend science? if anything I defend the people that wish to doubt it because theoretical frameworks cannot be understood practically. I acknowledged that science does indeed have a repulsive quality to many people and I don't wish to invalidate that reaction. I myself am actually a devout believer in God, and I hold a great deal of reverence for any religious belief. I'm terrible at math but my pedestrian interest in physics stems from the fact that cosmology is, as you point out, effectively the contemporary analogue to theology.

I don't come from the school of thought where religion and science are enemies, they are both enriched when they are taken together, and I strive to discover all the ways to marry the two.

>>12645810
I'm talking mostly about this that you said.
>Personally I love that mathematicians have learned to "speak" math so fluently that they're now describing dimensions that exceed our ability to properly perceive them,

Maybe I misunderstood your tone, but everything I said is valid criticism of the science believer. Grants and research projects mean nothing without actual, tangible results. Physics today is mostly physicists stroking their cocks, putting to test vague conjectures that lead to meaningless answers, never actually taking any risks in their theorizing. It's in their best interest to keep their open questions open, not to question the foundation of them all.

I don't think of science and theism as opposed either, but I'll make the comparison between religious dogmatism, where the Church is infallible and anything bad coming from it must have a deeper reason, and scientific dogmatism, where the inherent fallibility of science is taken as proof of its eventual infallibility, and lack of meaningful progress is justified as exploring the space of possibilities.

>>12645864
I meant love in the way that parents love the crayon drawings of their children.

I absolutely second you on the religious dogmatism of science-lovers, but this same kind of dogmatism describes the overwhelming trend of our time, anon. People have become increasingly religious about everything, from fundamental beliefs to politics to dietary choices; arrogance is sadly the mode of the day. It takes a bit of work to disarm people to the extent that they'd recognize how much they're driven by bias (as we all are).

However, I'd caution you to steer clear of transforming the scientific community into a monolith, because there are absolutely research scientists that are trying
>to question the foundation of them all
but because research is selectively funded, there isn't a lot of financial interest in throwing General Relativity into the trash.

>>12645883
I apologize for misinterpreting you then.

I separate the institution from the individuals. To maintain the religious analogy, even if the Church is corrupt, there's still pious priests that believe in it, or at least in its original message.
The biggest injustice is done to them, as they are those who try to restore dignity to the failed institution that puts them down, while saving its face by being the ones producing actual results.

>>12645933
>I apologize for misinterpreting you then.
oh that’s OK! this has been a wonderful convo. I wish you the best.

also,
>checked

>>12640455
Maybe you should ask an actual physicist and not /r/science.

>>12645567
No, it's not. Mass is completely irrelevant in that situation. You can move it around the table without expending energy.

>>12645612
>>Mass is energy and vice versa.
Who are you quoting? Nobody said that.

>>12640471
what is energy and what is space