/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15494162
no matter how deeply we probe the quarks, a seemingly infinite sea of gluons consistently pops up. the evidence thus suggests that quarks are indivisible. of course, we could be wrong. it's just what evidence suggests.

>>15494162
Quarks can be proven to be the fundamental particle.

>>15494163
people said this about atoms too though

>>15494176
atoms were different. there it seemed there was a blockade preventing you from probing deeper into the atom. so, fire more energy to pass the barrier. with quarks and gluons, what happens instead is gluons arising from the vacuum as you probe with more energy. that is, it's not a barrier in the conventional sense. it's more like the vacuum itself resisting the excitation of hadrons.

>>15494162

Matter is a mental fiction/construction. Reality is mental, not physical.

Inb4 triggered materialist dogmatists seethe. The fact is the only thing we will ever know is consciousness. And they can never show otherwise, so they will spend their lives seething and coping in a vain attempt to make reality fit their belief system, rather than building their belief system from reality.

>>15494197
>all we will ever know is not the fundamental physical principles we measure, but rather the literally most complex emergent phenomenon that's eluded quantification for millennia
yeah, you don't understand that image macro you posted.

i wonder if there are some gargantuan conscious entities that look at galaxies which are their building blocks of reality. and they just figured out galaxies are made up of solar systems and planets and they wonder if there are smaller units than suns and planets but have no way of measuring something that small

>>15494162
Strings

>>15494255
prove it

>>15494255
pseud

>>15494255
Strings are not sub-components of quarks. Quarks are themselves strings, and so are allegedly other fundamental particles.
In less speculative physics (in relativistic 4d spacetime) quarks are solutions of dirac's equation and therefore fundamental particles with no other parts.

>>15494197
hey buddy, >>>/x/ is the thread you were looking for

>>15494270
>15494270
asking proof material to a string theorist ? lmao

>>15494181
>it's more like the vacuum itself resisting the excitation of hadrons.
so the era of high energy proton collisions is over? is there anything else to see with that tech?

>>15494675
>there anything else to see with that tech?
Different configurations of quarks like the vaunted pentaquarks

I wonder at what level consciousness interacts with matter. Of course it can interact with quarks or else we wouldn't know about them. But under normal conditions there are no free quarks to observe. They're bound in bigger particles. Consciousness alone cannot separate them anymore, can merely collapse their composite wave function.

ops dick

>>15494728
>consciousness interacts with quarks because it came up with the concept to describe something machines interpret as happening.
if I think of your mother am I really interacting with her?

>>15494163
>we
You are a fat loser

>>15494197
Based Bentov poster

The more you zoom the more you'll denote smaller elements oscillating at higher vibrational rates

All matter is nothingness undergoing motion to different scales. This has been known for 50 years but set aside because of the implications it has. Read itzakh bentov if you wanna know more.

>>15494932
i guarantee with absolute certainty that i am more fit than you are.
>>15494675
not necessarily. the proper response is "we don't know". there are talks of a linear collider (electron-positron) which could achieve about an energy of about 1TeV. while this seems less than the LHC's collision energy of 14 TeV, linear colliders provide much cleaner collision data, and we get to retain it all (insofar that we don't lose information along the beam pipe like we do with the LHC). anyhow, if the future linear collider (wherever it ends up being built) doesn't reveal new physics, then i'd say you're right and HEP collisions are a dead avenue.

to more directly answer your question, the quark-gluon plasma is the most exciting "new" thing going on with collisions right now. there are a lot of properties that aren't well understood.

>>15494255
BAZINGA

>>15494652
>quarks are solutions of dirac's equation and therefore fundamental particles with no other parts
doesn't follow

>>15494728

Matter exists within consciousness. It is a mental construction.

>>15495060
Does consciousmess also exist within matter?

>>15494162
>okay so atoms are the smallest
source?

>>15495074
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atom
> The smallest possible amount of matter
u retarded my guy

>>15495080
why'd you cut off the quote? liar.
>The smallest possible amount of matter which still retains its identity as a chemical element

>>15495109
To make my focus clear? What's the difference you lying shit.

>>15495119
difference is general vs specific case. for example, you're the biggest faggot (in this thread). i could omit the parenthesis and imply you're the biggest faggot in the world, or i could be clear that i'm talking about this thread only. atoms are only the smallest constituents of matter that retain identity as a chemical element, they are not the general smallest amounts of matter.

>>15495129
You literally challenged
>okay so atoms are the smallest
by asking
>>15495074
> >okay so atoms are the smallest
> source?
and I gave you the source. (not OP)
You're an idiot.

>>15494197
mental this brick that I'm about to slap into your non-physical space lmao

>>15495137
you have to be over 18 to post here

>>15494163
What do you mean 'we'?

Certainly not you or 99,9999% of the world population. The remaining 100 people might be doing something to it.

>>15494176
Dalton, Faraday, Thomson used wording like 'not divisible by any known means'.

>>15495150
I'm sorry your dick is under 18cm but mine isn't lol.

>>15495152
flit as fuck

>>15495152
>What do you mean 'we'?
exactly what you think. believe it or not, i do mean "we".

>>15495041
>doesn't follow
What doesnt follow? Particles that follow Dirac's equation are fundamental by definition, because we already found the mathematical forms of all fundamental particles coherent with 4D relativistic spacetime.
Any spin 1/2 particle with mass follows Dirac's equation and is fundamental, this is a mathematical theorem if you accept 4D relativistic spacetime as reality. Which it might not be due to extra dimension speculations

>>15494162
There's a planck resolution. They will keep rendering smaller things until you get down to the finest resolution, if it ever happens. Quite a way to go still. All they have to do is render the effect on the measuring device or the effect of an interaction as the creation of information.

>>15494162
FIELDS

>>15495491
Fields are not real. Fields are just functions meant to describe a set of particles configurations, essentially a so-called field encodes coefficients for the "state vector" or ket in Fock space. Its just a list of numbers not some spooky ethereal energy

>>15495723

Particles aren't real

>>15494162
Microquarks.

>>15494247
is that at all realistic?

>>15494162
Go beyond the planck length and you enter the implicate order

Go beyond that and you enter the superimplicate order

*Sniff* And so on and so on... You will reach towards the Absolute but never arrive there, else it wouldn't be Absolute

It's beautiful and terrifying

>>15495797
If i tell you the position and momentum of an object by giving you a series of numbers that doesnt mean these numbers are magical wiggly energies floating in space

>>15496146

>object

Objects don't exist except in our mind. A chair is no different than an electron or a quark. It is a mental construction, a language, that we use to make sense of what we experience.

>>15496691
I'm not sure why we keep doing this again and again, where we keep playing with words.
The concept of something existing came from exactly what we experience. How can you experience something which doesn't exist? Why do we have these words in our vocabulary? Why do we have "real"? What do we use it for?

>>15496700

Matter has no subjective qualities outside of our consciousness. The stuff that makes up a chair (assuming for a moment that there is "stuff" in a physical sense) is no different from any other stuff. The entire universe is simply matter and not-matter. There are no colors, edges, borders, tastes, smells, textures, or anything to differentiate anything. We only find "objects" because we invent them in our mind to try and make sense of what we experience. I think that's a fairly neutral statement and does not matter whether you are an idealist or materialist or whatever. Matter has no qualities independent of observation. And funnily enough, QM shows that observation by a conscious observer affects matter... interesting.

>>15496712
You have not addressed what I asked tho. Why do we use the word "real"? Why did we come up with it? What is your best guess?

>>15495318
Dirac's equation is physics from the 1930s, and is not the pinnacle of modern physics that you seem to think it is. You can write a Dirac equation for the proton. You can write a Dirac equation for excitations in graphene. It has nothing to do with fundamental particles.

>>15495723
>Tried to learn QFT and stopped after learning about the trivial free fields in the first chapter.

>>15494255
literally just another word for aether

>>15496715

Real means what we experience. It is a mistaken term, however. Just like an illusion is real until you realize it's not.

>>15495491
>>15495723
>>15495797
Fields and particles are abstractions that describe literally the same phenomena

>>15496804
You can describe phase transitions and extended topological defects like strings and domain walls using fields but not particles