/sci/ - Science & Math

virtual particles. You're welcome.

>>1607110
Fuck you, I wanted to say it ;~;

wow, it's FUCKING NOTHING!

>>1607115
I'm sorry =(

>>1607110
can i get a little more of a explination than that?

i trust in you guys to put things in idiot terms. at least more so then google or wiki

>>1607097
Experiments done in the early 20th century showed that an atom is in fact mostly empty space (99.9% of it)

The atom has a nucleas, and then very far away from the nucleas are the electrons. Between the different levels that the electrons occupy and the distance between the electrons and the nucleas is just empty space.

I won't bother explaining more complicated/accurate models of the atom because you'd probably have some trouble understanding, but the jist of what I said should be easy to follow.

>>1607121
They're particles we know exist, but we can only detect by the effects they have on observable energy. Similar to how we detect extrasolar planets, we only know they exist by the effect the exert the light dimming and wobble of a star. At least in practical explanation.

so... okay correct me if im wrong but

wait, first, Is it nothing, or 'nothing' with a possibility of virtual particles?

that being said, isn't true then that the atom isnt the smallest unit of matter if all matter has virtual particles in it too? and THAT being said, isnt it possible that those particles could be composed of something smaller than that?

>>1607142
Higgs Bosons. What are they composed of? Strings.

>>1607145
moonspeak

>>1607110
Ugh, don't start trying to explain virtual particles to this guy, he has no science background at all let alone knowledge in quantum mechanics.

>wait, first, Is it nothing, or 'nothing' with a possibility of virtual particles?
99.9% of an atom is made of empty space, which is nothing (as far as we know). Besides that you've got the electrons and the nucleas.

Forget about virtual particles, there's no way you'd understand that without even knowing the basic structure of an atom and the way it works.

>isn't true then that the atom isnt the smallest unit of matter if all matter has virtual particles in it too? and THAT being said, isnt it possible that those particles could be composed of something smaller than that?
Electrons, protons and neutrons are all composed of smaller particles called quarks, yes. The atom is still the basic unit of matter

>>1607168
okay. so if they are composed of things,... arent the quarks composed of things?

i've been led to beleive the smallest thing in the known universe is a atom. so if the electrons in a atom can be composed of something, then all bets are off.

you guys did pretty good explaining it though. thanks. if anyone wants to try and explain the particles though, go ahead and try your best. consider it a challenge

>>1607125I won't bother explaining more complicated/accurate models of the atom because you'd probably have some trouble understanding
>gives shitty Bohr model of atom which is wrong

See all those electrons floating around in neat little rings? It don't work that way. Electrons (and all particles) occupy probability fields. Until they interfere with another particle, they go through all possible points in space simultaneously. The reason electrons don't fall into the nucleus is because if an electron was in a nucleus then it'd have a known position relative to the nucleus which would require it to have a high enough momentum to kick it out.

>>1607168
>Electrons, protons and neutrons are all composed of smaller particles called quarks

Electrons aren't composed of quarks.

>>1607168
I'm a women, so I'll shut up now and stop trying to help. =P

>>1607223
Fucking leptons...

Nobody noticed that this is delicious copypasta?

>>1607226
Aren't you supposed to be posting tits or getting back in the kitchen? I know we've let the rules slide here the past year or so but you should know better.

>>1607186
Some say strings. I don't know what are /sci/'s thoughts on strings theories.

>>1607227
Fuckin leptons, how do they work???


Btw guys whats a virtual particle? Engineering student here (in a couple of months anyway), I never did like the quantum and particle physics cos it's all fudged but I haven't heard this virtual particle stuff?? What is it

>>1607234
no sir it is not.

this is a question i actually wanted to know, thank you very much.

>>1607237
Michio Kaku got his scholarships because he experimented with engineering in highschool.
/topic

>>1607244
>>1607242
The E word. That's two.

>>1607242
QM allows vacuum to produce particles at will, but they annihilate instantly again. However, using strong EM fields, the "virtual" particles can be separated, and measured as separate ones.

>>1607244
>>Experimenting
>>Engineers

>>1607217
I know that for christ's sake, I'm in university. There's a reason children are taught the Bohr model, it's because it's simple to understand. You really think this guy knows what a probability cloud or an electric field is?

>>1607244
Who is that guy? A /sci/ troll? And I assumed he experimented on the field of strings?

>>1607252
care to elaborate?

>>1607278
google

>>1607278
Michio Kaku (加來 道雄, Kaku Michio?) (born January 24, 1947) is an American theoretical physicist specializing in string field theory, and a futurist. He is a popularizer of science, host of two radio programs and a best-selling author.

>>1607311
The point was that I don't understand the quotation

>>I don't know /sci/'s thoughts on String theories
>>Some guy studied string theories

>>1607237

Nothing:


quantum zero point field
it is the vacuum state of the universe.
imagine a universe with nothing, then imagine you put a single H atom in that universe.


then imagine you excite the atom with a single photon into an excited state (it has to be a bound excited state, obviously)....
according to a sort of "classic" assumption, that particle would remain in an excited state forever.


it was assumed that you must then perturb this atom with another photon (stimulated emission).
spontaneous emission (the process I am describing) is actually a result of coupling with this zero point field (which exists in the vacuum despite the fact that no fermions are present.)

the only thing quantum chromodynamics gives us is better estimates of constants for plugging into DFT calculations designed to model band gaps in K space.
all useful quantum mechanics is "normal" non-relativistic quantum mechanics of composite bosons and fermions (EG: atomic and molecular physics, not subatomic physics)
subatomic and theoretical particle physics have yet to produce truly useful results.


people can proclaim and exclaim over very very accurate predictions of various quantities......
but you will never see those quanties incorporated into stuff you use in your daily life.


indeed, the error inherent in the numerical approximations used in most solid state and molecular computational physics are such that these incredibly accurate values are worthless and serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever.


all of those physicists should try to develop new numerical methods for solving nonlinear coupled PDEs.


if we had better applied math techniques, we could just brute force chug through everything and save endless money and develop exceptionally fast computers, super high quality pharmaceuticals, and powerful energy producing techniques

op is
a) stupid
b) troll

>>1607381
>the only thing quantum chromodynamics gives us >is better estimates of constants for plugging into >DFT calculations designed to model band gaps in >K space.

troll

>>1607391
c) all of the above

Its turtles, turtles all the way down!

Captcha: quarty RWA