/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15721290
>If non integer quantities exist in nature, then it stands to reason that there must exist elements with a non-whole number of protons
???

>>15721381
???

>>15721383
>If it exists in my mind then it exists in real life
OP is dumb enough to believe the Ontological Argument

>>15721399
Explain yourself.

>If non integer quantities exist in nature, then it stands to reason that there must exist elements with a non-whole number of protons.

>>15721446
Well, why should it be so?

>>15721448
I didn't say it should be so.

>>15721450
As in, why should it be so that elements should consist solely of a whole number non integer quantity of protons?

>>15721453
*integer

>whole number non integer quantity

>>15721443
What you meant is "if non-integer quantities exist, then it is possible to imagine elements with non-integer atomic number". That doesn't imply that these things exist in the real world.

>>15721458
>unironically posting a macro from ifunny
ishygddt

>>15721461
Too late.

>>15721459
No, it doesn't thus the purpose of the thread. It seems to me that if non-integer quantities exist of their own accord in nature, then it seems illogical to assume that there are NO elements which exist inside that framework, or outside of a whole number quantity of protons. There logically exists therefore a non zero possibility that there are in-between quantities and therefore in-between elements. Can you explain why that would be difficult or even impossible to occur? How do we KNOW that there are not proton fragments, or a similar force which dictates the elemental identity?

>>15721469
>if non-integer quantities exist of their own accord in nature, then it seems illogical to assume that there are NO elements which exist inside that framework
"Integer quantities" are one level of abstraction on top of the reality of countable things. "Non-integer quantities" are another level of abstraction on top of that. :|

>>15721469
You can imagine anything existing in nature. We can't prove for sure that leprechauns don't exist, so does it seem illogical to you that we *assume* there are no leprechauns hiding under our beds? Stop being retarded. There's no point in speculating about the existence of these things unless we have some actual indication that they might exist. Just because it's conceivably true to you doesn't mean there's any likelihood of it actually existing.

Also, this thread is kind of meaningless unless you explain what you mean by a non-integer number of protons. Are you talking about splitting a proton into its constituent quarks and having those bind to the atom somehow?

>>15721473
x n+1 =r⋅x n⋅(1−x n )
in chaos theory, it would be mainly phase transitions, emergent behavior and self organization which would seem to point to this being a possibility. Whether it is or not, I've no fucking clue, but it seems top tier weird to me that elements should necessarily align themselves naturally to order rather than atrophy.

>>15721482
I'm sorry, I thought it was self explanatory kek
yes, basically, but more fundamentally, proton fragments- whether that be another type of baryon altogether, or else an undiscovered proton which consists of more or less than three quarks. "up" or "down" quarks may in that model need an intermediary stage as well. If there is another stage of quark position, it stands to reason that there is another "in-between" atomic number to be determined. "up" or "down" seems to me to be entirely too binary for a life in three or more dimensions.

>>15721491
Nonsensical babble.

>>15721290
Try smashing two protons against each other and see what they're made of
But don't observe the result as it may interfere with the result

>>15721512
Explain yourself

>>15721500
>it stands to reason that there is another "in-between" atomic number to be determined
No

>>15721525
>Never conclude an experiment
No

>>15721290
Now tell us what happens when the "number" is indeterminable using math.

>>15721954
It is not subject to ambiguity or uncertainty when dealing with standard atomic theory. The problem arises when you consider that standard atomic theory could be wrong.

>>15721976
>It is not subject to ambiguity or uncertainty when dealing with standard atomic theory.
Well of course not, those use numbers reified in order to use math.
>The problem arises when you consider that standard atomic theory could be wrong.
>could be
Imagine believing reality is composed of indivisible particles that have no explanation for being animated. I say "believing" because it's a belief system.

>>15722013
The Standard Model of particle physics is not considered the final theory of the universe. Don't you think it's possible, even likely, that the universe consists of more than just gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force? Isn't it LIKELY that we will discover that there is also something fundamentally wrong with chemistry and particle physics? Its less "belief" and more probability mechanics. You seem to forget that we are scientifically still in the dark ages. We haven't even discovered everything on our planet yet. Beyond that why would it be so that there are always 4,7,3, etc protons in the nucleus of the atom? Like, look in your sock drawer. Are there 6 pairs of socks, or maybe 6.5? Look in your pocket. Are there exactly 4 dollars or $4.17? When is anything EVER a whole number on this planet of it's own accord? Doesn't that worry you?

>>15722083
>The Standard Model of particle physics is not considered the final theory of the universe.
>Don't you think it's possible, even likely, that the universe consists of more than just gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force?

Try again and this time exclude the fancy description with no explanation (gravity/electomagnetims "nuclear weak/strong force"). To me these are fancy ways of describing an animated piece of matter, the irony is that it treats them as "separate forces" despite the goal being allegedly unification. How do you unify when you consistently particularize? It's contradictory.

>Its less "belief" and more probability mechanics.
So gambling?

>When is anything EVER a whole number on this planet of it's own accord? Doesn't that worry you?
And you think practicing and parroting atomistic fallacies and descriptions of their own invented "discoveries" is going to fix it?
Lol, lmao.

>>15722112
thats all well and good laddie but obviously a GUT or TOE is going to have some serious shit figured out that we obviously don't today.
>protons, neutrons and electrons are always whole numbers
can you tell me why that reads like a CLUE instruction book? It's in the nucleus of the atom with the candlestick! It's all so bizarre. So, we know that no known non-integer components or fractional quantities of protons, neutrons, or electrons exist within the standard atomic model. Bref. To be clear, with the ELECTRONS, they are "typically treated" "as though" they have a whole number charge. I mean, wtf is that?
I estimate a high degree of probability that the answer rests in all of this "dark matter" "dark energy" gobbledegook. Obviously we've a fuckton of information still to acquire.
I mean, can YOU tell me why it should be so that there should ALWAYS be a whole number quantity of protons?

>>15722112
>humans are built on the carbon atom
Ok, jolly good, and there are how many protons?
>Six :----)
Ok, great. Nobody has even thought about the improbability of it having a WHOLE NUMBER quantity?
>tfw we find out the gravitational constant is acting like it's 0.0000004% of a proton
1. the gravitational constant is known to be a fundamental constant that is not a whole number.
2.
The gravitational constant plays a negligible role in the behavior and structure of elemental atoms at the atomic and molecular scales, not NO role, a negligible one. wtf is that?
>NoOoOOooooO it's all the dominance of the electromagnetic and quantum mechanics
There is something seriously the matter here.

>What they say an atom is

>What we're going to find out it really is
I am fundamentally disturbed
Can anybody DEFINITIVELY answer these questions?

"That's correct; a singular, free quark cannot exist in isolation outside of a particle called a hadron, which includes protons and neutrons. This phenomenon is explained by a concept called color confinement, which is a fundamental principle of the strong nuclear force (also known as the strong interaction) described by quantum chromodynamics (QCD).
Quarks: Quarks are elementary particles that come in six "flavors" (up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top). Quarks are the constituents of hadrons, which are particles that experience the strong force. They carry a property called "color charge," which is analogous to the electric charge in the electromagnetic force.
Gluons: The strong force is mediated by particles called gluons, which are massless and also carry color charge. Gluons "glue" quarks together by exchanging color charge, thereby transmitting the strong force.
Color Confinement: Color confinement is the principle that quarks are never found as isolated, free particles in nature. Instead, quarks are always confined within hadrons, which are color-neutral particles. Hadrons like protons and neutrons are composed of combinations of quarks and gluons."

There must be some transitive property bullshit going on behind the scenes here. Gluon these nuts, bro.

"While the idea of unknown particles or forces affecting the "count" of protons is a concept explored in theoretical physics, it is important to emphasize that the current understanding of the atomic nucleus and the behavior of protons is well-supported by experimental evidence and has been successful in explaining and predicting the properties of matter."
?
>chatGPT says its being "explored"
There is nothing that makes sense about carbon for instance having only six protons. There must be another force that is "acting" like a proton.