/sci/ - Science & Math

Observing requires performing work, which makes this state hard for me to visualize.

>>7101032
>Can a particle's charge still "spin"?
That's not what spin is, and yes, even at equilibrium, particles still must move. That's the Uncertainty Principle at its most basic.

> Is preforming work necessary for matter to "exist"?
When you accidentally leave the milk out on the counter when you go on vacation, and it comes to equilibrium with the room... does it just go away on its own? Or do you have to throw it out yourself?

Before asking this question, ponder whether or not the observable universe can actually achieve equilibrium. The existence of the CMB suggests no.

>>7101032
Depends on what you mean by 'subatomic particle scale'. For example, QCD shits itself at lower energies and we literally don't know how quarks are inside a (stationary) proton, for example (color confinement problem), while QED works wonderfully at lower energies.

My visualization of metric expansion is something along the lines of four people loosely holding the corners of a large sheet. On the sheet there are weights of varying masses and densities that displace the part of the sheet they are touching relative to the "smooth" parts of the sheet in between the weights.

Space expanding is like the four people on the corners/edges pulling the sheet taught, and when pulled taught enough, the weights don't create "valleys" or "sinkholes" in the sheet.

How can I improve this intuitive model?

>>7101108
Studying general relativity and cosmology.

>>7101108

You're getting pretty far ahead of yourself there. By the time the MES alters local warping, allegedly Dark Energy will have become quite dominant.

boltsmann distribution

>>7101090
So equilibrium is more like the absence of the ability to exploit those particles movements. The particles are still moving, just not interacting ath each other? I'm unsure of the role of uncertainty. What I know about it is that one can only know the probable location or speed of a particle and not both. Which aspects relate?

I thought heat death and equilibrium was the leading model for the fate of the universe?

>>7101107
I'll read some more wiki on these models. QED is more reliable for these questions?

>>7101127
QED and QCD are models for different fields, not for the same. QED deals with electromagnetic interactions, while QCD with the strong interaction.

>>7101113
I'm still building up my math ability for true understanding of relativity.

I was thinking about getting this book, anyone have experience with this one or others at this level to recommend?

>>7101132
Forgot to ctrl+v. D'oh.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Cosmology-Barbara-Ryden/dp/0805389121

>>7101132
Use this:

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/GRLecturenotes.html

It's absolutely amazing an complete.

>>7101129
Loving the QED wiki page and the related articles. Lots to dive into here.

>>7101139
>http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/GRLecturenotes.html
Wow. What a resource. I can't thank you enough kind anon.

Only semi-related question:
The Cosmological Principle and Baryogenesis seem to be dissonant ideas. How can there be asymmetry? Am I assuming the CP means too much more than an experiment could work the same anywhere in space?

>>7101169
>How can there be asymmetry?

We don't exactly know the answer, but we think it's related to the weak force, since it's the only one who can break CP.