/sci/ - Science & Math

bump for science

SMALLER STUFF

energy

Junk.

>>3621411
But what is it?

>>3621402
The smaller stuff is also made of smaller stuff.

And that stuff is made of probability.

>>3621415
magic

Stuff is made up mostly of empty space.

>>3621416
icy what you did there.

/thread

>>3621418
But what is it?

>what is stuff made of?

threads

>>3621419
But what?

atoms.

>>3621422
Its made out of strings. That's what String theory prooved. Everything is made of strings.

>>3621422
stuff

>>3621422
gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood

>>3621429
But what is it made of?
>>3621434
But what is it made of?

Reality cannot exist. We're dreams dreaming.

>>3621457
We need to go deeper.

>>3621480
The dreams are made out of smaller dreams, which are made out of strings.

>>3621480
Who is The Dreamer?

>>3621489
But what is this dreamer?

>>3621495
Sauce on this pic?

>>3621389
Ah! The darned Question...


42

>>3621507
It's pretty catchy, I suggest you watch it all, even if you don't want to just do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C_HReR_McQ&feature=player_embedded

>>3621514
The fuck did I just watch?

>>3621539
That's the question.
What did you see? what was it?

>>3621545
I'm not trying to get philosophical here, what was it that I saw?
photons
what is that?

ok, /sci/ doesn't know anything about science i take it.

honestly, any suggestions on how I might find what is stuff made of?

I don't mean atoms, because that's stuff too.

>>3621593
There is no "stuff". There's Information.

>>3621619
But what is it?

>>3621514
>Listen to the voices in your head.

>>3621619

IT"S ELEVEN DIMENSIONAL STRINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY ARE YOU SO STUBBORN????

>>3621650
But what are those dimensional strings?
what is it made of
what?

>>3621621
I don't think we're in a state of existence that can allow us to understand.

We're in the "stuff" state when/where information is under "complex" -relative to? - configurations that "think" and ask "what is stuff made of ?"

>>3621389
Sugar and kisses.

Turtles

It's Turtles all the way down.

>>3621696
But what are the turtles made of?

>>3621700
smaller turtles

>>3621723
Wouldn't the turtles bleed?
Honestly,this analogy is stupid.

>>3621734
>pic related

>>3621734

1) it is a Metaphor
2) would you understand it better if you were waterboarded?

>>3621749

Wipe that shit-eating grin off your face Mr. Hawkins. You don't know either.

>>3621775
I don't think something can be infinitely small.
so what is it?

>>3621775
What if I feel that I'm too smart for most metaphors? Am I an aspie?

>>3621835
Hey you're not me, I'm not trolling here.
I came here for answers, and not turtles, I mean what is that small thing that makes everything
and what is it?

>>3621841
It's called molecules, dear anon. It looks like candy but it's not actually candy because it is made out of turtles.

>>3621886
lol
are you kidding me?
molecules are xboxHUEG.

I need to go deeper.

>>3621896
Information.

What is it? Can't know. We're a result of it more than we are roleplayers... I don't know if we can't reach these kind of total paradigm shift in our way of thinking...if it's even physically possible .

>>3621896
You mean really small?
Like OP's dick?

>>3621913
Smaller.

>>3621896
>I need to go deeper.

That's what my gf keeps telling me to do.
Go figure

>>3621923
Your gf needs to go deeper?
That looks like a trap.

>>3621923
>>3621934
Are you guys just going to joke around or what?
Some guy didn't know better and just said "information", as if he knew what he's talking about.

>>3621940
Also, that animal doesn't exactly classify as a cock, because a cock is actually a rooster, and that image is of a chicken.

>>3621940
Your cock is quite impressive.

>>3621412
>And that stuff is made of probability.
I thought it was made from even smaller stuff, but because of the uncertainty principle we can only measure that stuff using probability functions. The probability isn't an innate nature of the small stuff but a limitation imposed on us by the inability of the big stuff to interact with the small stuff without effecting the values of the smaller stuff.

I'd really like someone who has more knowledge of these things to confirm/deny?

Is probability an innate nature of small stuff or is it a limitation imposed on us by big stuff interacting with small stuff.

>>3621655
One dimensional stuff vibrating at a variable frequency. Next question, what are the one dimensional stuff made out of. Dunno, 0 dimensional stuff?

>>3621992
Obviously, what else would be left.
Wait, how can 1 dimensional stuff exist?
And we inhabit a 3D space.

waves

& frankly... fuckin' magnets, how do they work???

>>3621996
>Implying 3D stuff isn't a hologram projection of 1D stuff
>Implying 3D nature of our observable universe isn't a localized phenomenon.
>Implying a bagel sausage isn't made from delicious 2D bagel sausages.

Excuse me, I want to archive this thread and show it to /a/.

For your fellow scientist, /sci/.

>>3622047
What do you mean about hologram projection?
You mean everything is together?

>>3622047
>Implying Holographic universe has credit.
>Implying implications
>/sci/_incredulous.png

>>3622068
>laughing_/sci/entists.jpg

>>3622068
Thank god for that, seriously the thought of hologram projection scares me (if it is what I think it is, as 1D means no space, or shouldn't).

>>3622085
So now that we're back to it, what is the smallest thing made of and why do people think gravity is energy when it's clearly space-time being bent by the amount of mass there is?

why?

>>3622091
Actually, ignore my question about gravity, I have no idea how it works as you could figure that out if you do know how it should work.

Anyways, is it true that gravitons probably don't exist as we think they do?

>>3622055
>What do you mean about hologram projection?
>>In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the cosmological horizon has a finite area and grows with time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

>>3622068
>/sci/_incredulous.png
>picture is a jpeg

>>3622110
We talking about the shape of the universe?
Because it's a fucking pringle.
>Deal with it nerds.

>>3622109
I imagine they're particles like electron. Except while electrons propogate electricity, gravitons propagate gravity.

>>3622118
The universe is flat, don't be stupid.
Please, I beg you, don't.

>>3622110
>questioning the scientific value of a jpg

>>3622110
Is it wrong if I call this bullshit or is it pretty much proven?
I don't have the comprehension required right now, to as why it could be true.

>>3622128
You're the one being stupid here.

Really?
Are you serious?
Questioning the sheer SCIENCE of pringles?

>>3622162
Yes I am, you have said the universe has the shape of a pringle, it does not have the shape of a pringle, it is flat.

>>3622134
This is not a response to you. I just felt like posting this superior reaction picture.

>>3622152
Its not proven, its pretty much fringe science. But there is an experiment going on to determine if its plausible.

>>3622171
Pringles ARE flat. Its a flat think curved in three dimensions.

Take a piece of paper, hold it then slightly bend it in half. The paper is two dimensional but its being bent in a 3d space.

>>3622213
But we're talking about the universe here, and to say that the universe is bent would imply that it has something to bend over.
The universe is flat, if you don't know why I'm saying this then STOP.
You are stupid.

>>3622227
Also, I'm not talking about the open universe theory, in which case okay, but no the universe is still flat.

also, what is space made of?

>>3622282
What is spehss made of?

>>3622319
What is it?
Why can I move through it?
Don't ignore me /sci/, I know one of you guys knows the answer.

>>3622345
What??

Atoms

/thread

>>3622406
But what is that?
I doubt what I move through is atoms.

OP seems to think we are at the culmination of understanding the Universe we live in. We're far, far from it. As you've already stated once, we don't even know what gravity is, only how it affects things around us.

And that's where we stand. We model mathematical equations into a form we can comprehend. The original model of the atom was incorrect but it helped us picture this strange new idea. We gradually improved on that model until we arrived at Schrodinger equations to predict its shape in time-space.

It's all Math. If you want to understand how Einstein arrived at his theories, check out The Essential Works of A. Einstein (w/ forward by Stephen Hawking). At the most basic level, it's all Math, and some of it can't be modeled, and some of it is plain wrong.

But that's how Science progresses. At one point in our history the Simple Cell was thought to be the smallest form of matter. Here's your simple cell.

For a lot of your questions the answer is simple: we don't know (yet). But we have theories and we'll continue to make progress.