/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15587226
nobody's gonna know this

>>15587226
Since this is basically smart questions thread, here's mine:

does mass ACTUALLY increase as the object goes closer to the speed of light? Or is it just that the laws of motion change and they decided to redefine mass as mass*(that factor that depends on v/c) ?

>>15587226
>Does classical electron radius (or any other radius) have any physical meaning or is it just a useful tool to solve problems within some error?
It's used to make calculations easier. For more precise understanding you need QM

>>15587292
>For more precise understanding you need QM
I know the basics of QM, just forgot most of that shit and now revising stuff

>>15587291
your question is slightly malformed.
the momentum increases.
so compared to the classical result, you could say the mass increases.
or you could say under the new laws it doesn't change, yet the momentum does.

>>15587304
but mass is also a source of gravity, so if the gravitational interaction doesn't change by that "something v/c" factor, that means mass is constant. I just don't know if it does

>>15587291
Even orthodox relativists are split on what to make of relativistic mass, some accept it some don't and some get confused about terminology.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504110

You could think of it like added mass in fluid mechanics, dE = dm*c^2, but of course spacetime is not a fluid, that would be aether.

>>15587291
nah, weight is what you're thinking of, meanwhile mass is weight * speed

>>15587292
>For more precise understanding you need QM
nope, you're naive, statistics is not understanding

>>15587226
>Am I correct in understanding that...
No.

>>15587291
This is just semantics. Since "relativistic mass" that depends on velocity is just proportional to the energy, no one actually uses the concept. "Mass" as used by practicing physicists means the mass in the rest frame which is by definition something that does not depend on velocity.

>>15587226
Electrons are a material instantiation of the quality you encounter all the time in probability theory, that being probability distributions. A certain points, determined by various factors, their distributions peak. By whatever measure you use (e.g. winnings in a casino, or quantum effects), so do effects transpiring in this temporal-spatial location.

I don't get what the big discussion is. The only next step beyond that is asking why sheer existence even exists, which is inherently metaphysics.

>>15587788
I get that we can view particles as probabilistically distributed mass, charge etc, but what IS an electron, essentially? Is it just a kind of EM field that interacts with other EM fields and under certain conditions produces photons?

>>15587482
WTF? Weight is mass*(acceleration from gravity) and gravity strength is proportional to masses

>schizophasia thread

>>15587497
>No.
What is it then?

>>15587226
An election is the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction, according to JJ Thompson. It's not really a particle.

>>15587226
piss and shid, gib nobel

>>15587226

Its obviously not "just" and electric field.
It's something that has charge i.e. the ability to affect and be affected by the EM field... But it also has a bunch of other stuff associated with it: spin, mass, energy levels etc. Also, it can interact with the world in more ways than just electrically. So you can't say that it's just an EM field. Its an actual thing holding information.

It seems like you are trying to simplify the concept of superposition, or explain it away with another effect. Try and wrap your head around superposition.

So faster things have more gravity???

>>15587226
its a little vortex in the aether

>>15588008

I think everything that can mathematically exist in (physical) reality, does exist. This renders as a variety of fields. Only some fields interact. It might be that infinite fields exist, and only 20? or something are relevant to our (human) physical existence. The other fields might not interact (with these 20) at all, or they might actually interact but be fully imperceivable to us -- for obvious reasons.

But what did I mean with "can mathematically exist"? Well, you have to understand that a lot of physics reduces down to descriptions that (sincerely) shockingly sounds exactly like math. For example, how particles are equivalent to certain irreducible elements of groups (groups as in mathematics). This Wikipedia article almost certainly too much for most readers (including me), but you might still distill something from it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_classification

Back to fields: I think these are just measures of raw existence, but only those that mathematically "can be instantiated". For example, the fact that particles are positive or negative models the behaviour that positive and negative integers can exist.

We can't even genuinely talk about it, because humans are not equipped to deal with this level of "abstraction". Describing the fundamental fields that our reality is constructed from, however, is actually the opposite of abstraction -- they are the least abstract things. But our description of them meanwhile ironically sounds maximally abstract.

But if you think about it, the name "electron", or any name, does understanding these fields a disservice, as this makes them seem too much like their "own thing". Electrons, a wonderfully descriptive name, it's the stuff electricity is made of, no? But such names might do a disservice to true understanding. We should maybe have just numbered these fields, or used pure math language like "special unitary group number 3" or something.

>>15588684
> I think everything that can mathematically exist in (physical) reality, does exist.
> But what did I mean with "can mathematically exist"? Well, you have to understand that a lot of physics reduces down to descriptions that (sincerely) shockingly sounds exactly like math.
That's insane level of extrapolation and goes against Occam's Razor

>>15588405
no, which is why saying "le mass increases" is retarded.

>>15587226
I have a better question. Does the fact that we say "electron is like a wave in this situation and is like a particle in this" is basically a concession that we don't have a math that's precise/advanced enough to simply include both of these behaviors in one model?

>>15587291
Ok I have a question too then.

Is it because of Pauli's exclusion principle that particles can only interfere with themselves?

>>15588030
Electrons are usually treated on equal footing with the EM field through an "electron field" that describes both electrons and positrons. You are trying to describe everything through the EM itself.

(Sidenote: This is somewhat advanced but actually you can get pretty far considering just the EM itself even in QFT by using something called the worldline formalism, but the main thing you are missing is the importance of spin.)

>>15588897
No it isn't. OR is about assumptions. If I assume everything tangible in math (of course, the "everything" is debatable, but it at least implies a larger cardinality than merely the physics we already know via the standard model), then I only perform one assumption. It's more parsimonious than assuming reality is very selective about what nature "admits" into its circle of natural laws/fields.

By the same token, if I assume between 1 and "infinity" there is a sub-infinity of integers, then I am not doing somehow a less parsimonious assumption than assuming beween 1 and 1 billion there is a sub-infinity of integers.

>>15587226
We literally don't know.

>>15589877
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation

>>15590464
What a pointless comment

>>15590526
>pointless
More like pointlike lol

>>15587226
They're a part of the subatomic particles known as leptons. Unless if you want to dive into nuclear physics (the end result of which will lead you to a bunch of unknowns that we can basically never understand [einstein died on this hill]), you should just take their quantized properties for granted, it makes your life simpler.

>>15590545
Oh I've taken that dive before, just... never hit the bottom.

>>15590471
Yeah I forgot about wave function. I guess aside from something like String Theory there's nothing more to know about elementary particles

>>15590855
The bottom is like a limit, you can never hit it; it's bottomless.

>>15589510
I saw a youtibe video and quroa post and stackoverflow post which says you do indeed experience stronger gravity
so youre wrong then
or what is your counter argument?

It's the same electron backwards and forwards through the path integral

>>15591746
why did feynman day this

>>15590545
(Einstein died on this hill) no and step aside

>>15591751
Because there exists exactly one and only one electron at any discrete time

>>15591756
proof?

>>15591766
What is the mass and charge of every electron ever observed?

>>15591771
When was an electron observed?

>>15587226
Everything points to reality being a continuous (or at least of very high granularity) field where changes propagate in wave-like fashion.
Particles don't exist - they're identifiable, highly localized properties of said field, but they're emergent from the field and not point-like.

>>15587226
>Does classical electron radius (or any other radius) have any physical meaning or is it just a useful tool to solve problems within some error?
electrons do this thing where they orbit protons, and there is a direct relationship with the electrons effective radius and the radius of the charged nucleus its trying to orbit.

I'm pretty sure we know the size of the electron not just by theory but through experimentation with electron beams. A diffraction grating between an electron beam and a phosphor screen could be used to measure the size of the particle with high accuracy.

>>15587226
Electrons don't exist.

>>15591105
You can hit some limits. Truth is we don't know. And more than that I don't even understand how could you possibly answer the question "how did it start" since how do you get something from nothing?

>>15591732
It's due to different formula of kinetic energy which includes (gamma - 1). Spoiler alert: gravity doesn't depend just on mass, but on mass-energy.

>>15591771
Who's asking?

>>15591809
> Particles don't exist - they're identifiable, highly localized properties of said field, but they're emergent from the field and not point-like.
That's what I thought, but how do they get their angular momentum, charge and mass then?

>>15593153
How would a point particle get it?

>>15587226
All electrons are exactly the same as they are all manifestations/reflections of the same thing. Idealism won get over it materialfags.

>>15587226
It's all waves of somekind

>>15587226
Quantum interpretation is retarded. Wanting reality to conform to our lived experience is hubris. We can understand qm through mathematics. That's all we need.

>>15594449
Well they clearly aren't particles and not infinitely small. Of course it wouldn't.

>>15591809
thats gay though, fuck wave fags, i cant simulate huge wave fields without supercomputer

>>15596275
While you are obviously schizo/troll, I do feel like we take identicity of elementary particles for granted. Isn't that remarkable? Shouldn't it be explained somehow?
Like it's actually oscillations of strings or maybe it really is just one electron everywhere and always.

>>15593153
more fields

>>15597278
Meaning separate fields of mass, spin and charge that are somehow attached to the "main" EM radiation field of the given particle?

>>15597236
If electrons are real, why can't we ever see the effects of their lack or excess? Even such a common thing as an upcoming thunderstorm should throw chemistry out of whack.

>>15597443
what a retarded thing to say. Ever heard of an ION?

The whole point of lightning is that the earth has EXCESS ELECTRONS which is why lightning rods help PREVENT LIGHTNING by letting them out.

>>15597236
Yes it is remarkable. Call me a schizo if you want.

>>15598742
>The whole point of lightning is that the earth has EXCESS ELECTRONS
Prove it. Show me a way of measuring the excess.

>>15597443
>...if Electron are real...

Get a car battery
put a wrench on both connections
THAT proves they are 'Real'

>>15587226
If this a smart questions thread - what is the ultimate stuff of the universe?
What is the stuff that physics deal with, what fundamental concepts it uses to describe the universe?

As far as I know particles aren't real and fields seem like some mathematical abstraction (since they're infinite and occuly all space in their dimensions)

>>15597443
>why can't we ever see the effects of their lack or excess?
take a large ceramic capacitor
put the leads into your nearest socket while holding the ceramic part
now take it out and put the leads on your tongue :)

>>15599323
put it on my dick and came buckets. Any other cool experiments like this?

>>15587472
At what speed does relativistic mass cause the accelerated object to collapse into a black hole? Oh it doesn't? Then it isn't mass.

>>15598839
>>15599323
Why are you being a smartass, if you don't understand the question?

>he better not be pondering his orbitals again

>>15600524
Because you don't seem to have the minimum understanding to understand a proper reply.

>>15600956
You don't seem to have the minimum understanding to understand the question.

>>15600437
fuck are you talking about? That never happens cause it's still not enough mass

>>15598839
>>15599323
I mean, you can see the flow from (A) to (B), or the difference between them. But you can't see any effects of the excess electrons in (A), or they lack in (B), even though such effects should be obvious.

>>15601371
Effect of extra electrons in boy's head.

>>15601328
But accelerating physical mass to lightspeed gives it infinite relativistic mass so it should also cause the physical mass to collapse into a blackhole, which it doesn't because relativistic mass is not the same as physical mass.

>>15604256
I'm just a math person who literally knows nothing about physics but I recently watched this video from a physics PhD about this exact topic. The tl;dr is that there's no such thing as relativistic mass, mass is an intrinsic property that reflects the internal energy of the object and has nothing to do with its velocity. It's used as a teaching tool for historical reasons. Even the paper here >>15587472 (which is a paper on physics education) says more or less the same thing. But if you just asked the question so that you could argue with physics undergrads ITT, go on ahead.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HlCfwEduqA

>>15603076
How can you tell it's extra electrons, and not missing electrons?

>>15604594
This is actually an image of a boy in wonderland, and this is a positron excess above what the negatively charged nuclei cancel out.

>>15604616
Stop being silly. I mean if the hair was charged positively, for example, you should have naked protons in place of a hydrogen atom, that surely should have some dramatic effects. (and in fact a lot of molecules don't even work with quantized bonds. They are drawn with real number bonds by convention, but instead may have six 1.5 bonds, and not 3 single bonds and three double bonds)

>>15604616
Stop being silly. I mean if the hair was charged positively, for example, you should have naked protons in place of a hydrogen atom, that surely should have some dramatic effects. (and in fact a lot of molecules don't even work with quantized bonds. They are drawn with natural number bonds by convention, but instead may have six 1.5 bonds, and not 3 single bonds and three double bonds)

>>15604283
this is of course a simplification itself
there is no such thing as mass, in general, it's all gravitational effects (bent spacetime) all the way down
in that sense, relativistic mass does exist, because obviously the apparent curvature of space will depend on your choice of inertial frame of reference
in non-inertial frames, it gets so fucky that the maths isn't there yet to describe all that happens, and most of those few who can do some of the maths don't understand the results they're getting

>>15604256
it is of course impossible to accelerate any massy particle to lightspeed, can only approach it asymptotically, from either direction

>>15604670
you don't really understand what quantization is, but that's fine
I am going to explain it to you in one simple sentence that even your chemistry-fumes addled brain can understand:
you cannot make a molecule donate half a proton, or spit out 1/3 of a free electron

>>15605257
>you cannot make a molecule donate half a proton,
Semiheavy water.

>>15605257
>>15605332
I mean, can you tell the difference between "pure" HDO, and a mixture of D2O and H2O? You can't, they are in fact the exact same thing. Somehow the extra neutrons don't seem to belong to particular molecules.
Science built a neat model of the world made of discrete particles, then spent the last century building an extra layer of quantum mechanics to patch it up and explain why it almost never seems to work as discrete particles. Maybe there are no particles after all, but instead certain events only occur with particular energies.

>>15605332
keks
but still no
>>15605423
sure I can, it's in fact trivial to do so
the mixture will separate by any number of well known physical chemistry techniques, HDO won't

>>15587226

>electron is inherently an electromagnetic field

fields aren't real. fields are an abstraction. it's like saying sine waves are actual real, tangible objects

>>15606722
remember when they were saying the same thing about vector potential?

>>15598842
Prime Matter

>>15606709
>sure I can, it's in fact trivial to do so
>the mixture will separate by any number of well known physical chemistry techniques, HDO won't
It will.

>>15587226
>what is a subatomic particle
anon, does this board look like top secret bleeding edge quantum laboratory?

>>15587226
It's a topological anomaly