/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10390425]

Where the fuck is particle physics going?

[Anonymous No.10390436]

>>10390425

[Anonymous No.10390442]

>>10390425
interdimensional travel.

[Anonymous No.10390517]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kXkWXSXRA

[Anonymous No.10390533]

>>10390436
What would happen if physicists confirm the existence of the graviton?

[Anonymous No.10390535]

>>10390533
we can warp spacetime.

[Anonymous No.10390539]

>>10390533
it would be extremely painful

[Anonymous No.10390556]

>>10390539
It's a big particle.

[Anonymous No.10390713]

>>10390556
For (You)

[Anonymous No.10390801]

>>10390436
we'd have experimental evidence of a quantum particle that mediates gravitational interactions

[Anonymous No.10391248]

>>10390425
Further and further from reality and actually explaining anything about nature and reality. It is also sucking up good mathematicians and good minds who have faith in this doomed path.

[Anonymous No.10391790]

>>10391248
How far away do you feel it is currently? Personally I'm skeptical of any theories past the HB, although I do struggle with the idea of dark matter and gravity being unincorporated.

[Anonymous No.10392109]

>>10390425
It appears that you've made a slight mistake in your post.

[Anonymous No.10392117]

>>10390436
Why not three more scalar bosons?

[Anonymous No.10392118]

A lot of people don't realize this but Quarks are actually hypothetical mathematical constructs. They have never been observed and are proven to be impossible to observe due to their nature.

They will always be in pairs in particles such as protons.

Gravitons actually have more direct evidence of their existence than quarks but the ideas of quarks are so interwoven in current theory that we will most likely not break away from them ever again.

[Anonymous No.10392121]

>>10392118
>They have never been observed and are proven to be impossible to observe due to their nature
So not science then

[Anonymous No.10392135]

>>10392118
Why do neutrons having a magnetic dipole moment despite having no net electric charge?

[Anonymous No.10392138]

>>10392121
Yeah the justification of quarks being in pair and unobservable is that when you put in the energy it takes to separate quarks. You put in so much energy that it creates new quarks that immediately pair with the quarks before they even fully separated. So they are unable to be observed.

But they fit certain handy mathematical models so we are stuck with them. Graviton despite actual energetic evidence are considered hypothetical while quarks that have absolutely 0 evidence except for some mathematical glue in certain theories are considered to be solid science.

This is why I kinda hate physics on the quantum scales. Scientists take too much liberties on the quantum scale. You don't see the same inconsistencies in macro physics like general relativity.

Which is probably also why Einstein felt like most quantum mechanics was a croak of shit. It's a lot of "If we assume A then we can assume B and if we assume B then X,Y,Z also exist" While the existence of B is dodgy as best.

X,Y,Z in this case are bosons.

[Anonymous No.10392143]

>>10392135
Despite what you have learned in highschool and freshman physics classes charge and magnetism aren't really related concepts. That is a simplification to make it easier for students to grasp.

Magnetism is caused by spin which is intrisic angular momentum. Charge seen here is actually called "color charge" and NOT net-charge what you see in for example electricity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)

[Anonymous No.10392170]

>>10392143
You want to say magnetic field is caused by color charge?

[Anonymous No.10392233]

>>10392143
How can something with no electric charge cause a magnetic dipole moment when it spins? No neutron electric charge should equal no magnetic dipole. Yet it has one, why?

[Anonymous No.10392248]

>>10392170
>>10392233
No I'm saying it's caused by spin and is irrelevant of the electrical charge. Spin is a physical property.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_magnetic_moment

From wikipedia: "Particles with spin can possess a magnetic dipole moment, just like a rotating electrically charged body in classical electrodynamics."

Basically you cause magnetism with a rotating charged particle OR with spin. These are 2 completely different methods that are not related to each other in any way. And I absolutely hate the fact that we call a rotating particle "spinning particle" because it only adds to the confusion.

[Anonymous No.10392253]

>>10392118
Every particle is a mathematical construct. The atom is too.

[Anonymous No.10392255]

>>10390425
>Where the fuck is particle physics going?
I don't know, but I know where it is.

[Anonymous No.10392256]

>>10392138
And i thought that evolutionary biology was fucked up.

[Anonymous No.10392272]

>>10392253
Atoms can be actually observed through electron microscopy. Most of the other subatomic particles can be detected in some way or another indirectly.

Quarks can't even be detected indirectly and only have a mathematical model that says they will never EVER be able to be detected but they totally exist.

This is like saying god himself is hiding in the quarks and seeing the quark makes god appear but it's never ever possible but still true!

[Anonymous No.10392279]

>>10390425
I am kind of a brainlet when it comes to particle physics, but what are the chances that some of this elementary particles don´t even exist outside of the momment when they make collide bigger particles to search them?

[Anonymous No.10392282]

>>10392279
>outside of the momment when they make collide bigger particles to search them?

Sorry man I have absolutely no idea what you meant with this phrase.

[Anonymous No.10392290]

>>10392282
My bad. My english its not that good. I guess my question would be. How do they know what is an elementary particle and what is not?

[Anonymous No.10392306]

>>10392290
What we call "elementary particle" just means smaller than an atom.

It doesn't mean "basics for all particles". Only photons and higgs boson are actually basic particles that give properties to things in the universe.

There is string theory that says every piece of energy is a 1 dimensional string and how they vibrate decides their energies and thus what particles they become. But we don't know if that theory is correct.

All the particles are actually observed in CERN except for quarks.

[Anonymous No.10392311]

>>10392306
Thanks, man. Now its clearer.

[Anonymous No.10392314]

>>10392118
They have asymptotic freedom, so at one point in time they were free particles just like any other

[Anonymous No.10392325]

>>10392248
I don't. I make sure to call it a rotating particle and be precise with my language. Yes I know many physicists do and they shouldn't, but physics has always had the plague of using words the layman uses but with a precise definition that doesn't match the layman's definition. Physics has always had the struggle of fighting "intuition" and terminology.

[Anonymous No.10392328]

>>10392138
>Which is probably also why Einstein felt like most quantum mechanics was a croak of shit
kys brainlet filth

[Anonymous No.10392335]

>>10392118
>They have never been observed
sure bud
https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/0500/slac-pub-0650.pdf

[Anonymous No.10392336]

>>10392282
Basically, the particles are created, decay in nanoseconds, leave a trail that is detectable, and decay down to up, down, electron, photon, and neutrino, and of course gluons. You will not be able to collect enough Higgs bosons to take a picture and share with someone. They are still important in allowing events to happen, like if the W and Z bosons did not exist, nothing could radiatively decay, even though the bosons exist for such a short amount of time.

[Anonymous No.10392341]

>>10392306
Yeah, but this does fail to mention that the tests that have been done at different energies (different length scales) have found different behavior for protons but not for electrons. It is through things like this that we determine a particle is fundamental or composite.

[Anonymous No.10392347]

>>10392314
Sure. But but they have never been observed due to the strong nuclear force gluing them together and the strong nuclear force is the most powerful of the fundamental forces making it impossible to separate them. Even if you attempt it you create more quarks that will immediately bind with them so it's impossible.

>>10392335
Difference in the observation of protons only means that a proton is build out of different particles. It doesn't tell you that those are quarks. Again it's just a mathematical concept to explain away the behavior but it's never been actually observed and the theory tells us it is impossible to observe.

[Anonymous No.10392358]

>>10392347
It's only the strongest force at our every scales. As we reach higher energies, the forces become equal in strength. I'm not saying a particle detector will get anywhere near GUT scale or asymptotic freedom to actually be able to observe it, so I know you won't be satisfied, but saying it's impossible probably isn't fair since early universe it wouldn't happened already.

[Anonymous No.10392371]

wtf is up with the higher level particles anyway? Why do they even exist? Can they form matter? Some charm/strange protons and neutrons?

[Anonymous No.10392381]

>>10392371
Yes they can actually form matter. There are hypothetical stars that will form in the future completely comprised just out of charm/strange matter. They are hypothetical but could actually form one day.

[Anonymous No.10392399]

>>10392248
Doesn't spin exist because of mass charge as it should?

[Anonymous No.10392412]

quarks are real tho bros. the argument over this died after the bootstrap model failed as far as real physics is concerned. the argument “it’s just a mathematical abstraction” is dumb because one could make that argument about any mathematical concept in physics, like eg the wavefunction

[Anonymous No.10392416]

>>10392118
Then what is this https://www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/top/singletop_observation/

[Anonymous No.10392420]

>>10392412
Which is why copenhagen interpretation is just that, an interpretation.

It's not lauded as the truth but just the most likely theory that is most accepted. Meanwhile pilot-wave and even comedy theories like many worlds can also explain away the same phenomenon with different mathematics.

Quarks however are being lauded as facts. No one says "quark interpretation". Everyone that is thought the standard model assumes quarks are hardcore facts while they simply aren't.

Are they the most likely solution, yet they are. But we don't have hard proof of them either and build tons of models based on the assumption they are real.

[Anonymous No.10392432]

>>10392420
No, they say quark model when you first learn about it and shorten that to quark thereafter

[Anonymous No.10392434]

>>10390425
Angels. Demons. Consciousness and higher planes.

[Anonymous No.10392437]

>>10392138
>But they fit certain handy mathematical models so we are stuck with them.
Just like epicycles

[Anonymous No.10392443]

>>10392416
This is not the observation of an isolated quark. Instead it's proof of the production of a top quark within another particle. The quark is NEVER observed as an individual particle and that would actually violate the law of strong nuclear force.

This is akin to saying you saw a particle moving faster than light.

[Anonymous No.10392452]

>>10392420
interpretations have no bearing on the mathematics of quantum theory—the calculations are all the same and the predictions are all the same, and the “interpretation” only matters as part of a philosophical way to describe what the equations mean—i.e. it doesn’t really matter scientifically

just because a person might say “quark model” is not anything against the model, just like the “rutherford model” of the atom doesn’t mean nuclei are not real and just like the “theory of special relativity” does not mean it isn’t correct

[Anonymous No.10392457]

>>10392443
In other words it exists, but not observed in isolation?

[Anonymous No.10392461]

>>10392443
>This is akin to saying you saw a particle moving faster than light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

[Anonymous No.10392468]

>>10392461
not FTL, cherenkov radiation is due to a particle moving at v through a medium where c<v<v’ where v’ is the speed of light in a medium

[Anonymous No.10392469]

>>10392452
>i.e. it doesn’t really matter mathematically
fixed

[Anonymous No.10392475]

>>10392468
oops i meant c>v>v’

[Anonymous No.10392516]

>>10392457
No the only thing they have confirmed is that protons or other particles are made of other stuff.

They ASSUME it's quarks because of the mathematics behind it. But there is no hard evidence this is the case at all since they are never detected. The only proof they have is that protons are made of other stuff and some other particles are made of other stuff as well. What this stuff is is pure speculation. We just made math to describe them to make OTHER theories make more sense such as the copenhagen interpretation and the workings of electrons in certain scenarios.

[Anonymous No.10392534]

>>10392118
>and are proven to be impossible to observe due to their nature
That has not been proven at all. Please stop pretending to know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10392538]

>>10392516
Isn't that just agnosticism?
>never detected
The experiment does it?

[Anonymous No.10392570]

>>10392534
Due to the strong nuclear force being the same strength at all distances the moment you try to separate quarks into separate ones you put in so much energy that you create new quarks that bind to them before being separated therefor it's impossible to separate and observe them.

Don't act condescending to other people if you yourself don't know what you are talking about. It doesn't add anything to the conversation and looks bad, especially if you are wrong.

>>10392538
No because we now build entire models based on the assumption that quarks are real and have these specific properties and on those models even more models are built. models being built on assumptions which in turn were themselves built on assumptions is probably one of the reasons our quantum theories and macro theories like general relativity don't really fit together. So professors should at least try to tell students that things like quarks are purely conjecture. Most people take them as straight up fact instead of mathematical artifacts.

[Anonymous No.10392626]

>>10392255
Underrated

[Anonymous No.10392923]

>>10392534
The current theory to explain reality with particles has so many holes that new particles need to be made up to fill the gaps.

This is so far from a natural reality. I truly think we need to go back to 1900 and restart the path. As so much money is being lost in particle physics and nothing applicable or helpful to humanity will come from it. Just more math with holes in it.
That's why I for one am giving fields and non physical phenomena the reins to describe the nature of reality.

[Anonymous No.10392930]

>>10392923
You're wrong, everything on Earth and in the Solar System is perfectly explained by current theory, you need to go at galactic scales or larger for it to break down.

[Anonymous No.10392993]

>>10392930
Yes lorenztian manifold etc I know. But the same explanation can be said for field theory to as it explains all this as well.
Why is the galaxy rotating on the same plane, why are all the planet's rotating on the same plane?
Why does the suns nature suit an electric model better?

[Anonymous No.10393025]

>>10392993
>Why is the galaxy rotating on the same plane
friction and angular momentum
>why are all the planet's rotating on the same plane
they're not, Uranus for example has its axis of rotation tilted sideways
or if you meant why there's an invariable plane, same reason, this video explains it pretty well https://youtu.be/tmNXKqeUtJM
not touching the electric model thing

[Anonymous No.10393040]

>>10392923
Yeah, you are exactly wrong. The reason why LHC hasn't made it into the news lately and nothing new "comes out" of particle physics, is that the standard model works too well. The hope would have been to reach energies, where you find new physics, or supersymmetry, or anything. But so far the standard model (plus Higgs) is so powerfull that it explains everything measured. So, the exact opposite of what you said.

[Anonymous No.10393058]

>>10393025
There is no friction in free space, and the model of the sun as electromagnetic still accepts angular momentum but couples the suns magnetic field (the dielectric inertial plane) as the force holding them in this form.
I meant with the sun in the middle drawing a circle from it's equator and all the planet's are on this line, like all space related phenomena.

[Anonymous No.10393062]

>>10393040
except for gravity.

[Anonymous No.10393067]

>>10393040
higher dimensions.

[Anonymous No.10393081]

>>10393040
The standard model and particle physics are stagnant, because money and people in positions of power don't want it to change. Particles are not a driving force of reality, they are part of it but fields are the true driving force in this universe.

Think of the irony of the LHC using electromagnetic fields to speed up the particles to do these tests. The fact that fields are being used to prove a particle based reality is ironic and funny.

[Anonymous No.10393102]

>>10393058
The sun is not at rest, it's traveling with tremendous speed around the center of the Galaxy, so is the earth and all other planets in the solar system. This symmetry breaking favours the plane orthogonal to the traveling direction of the sun as the plane in which most planets rotate around the sun (although not all of them actually do). Also not all Galaxies are disk shaped, there are also Galaxies in the form of a ball and nebulas and so on. Not all stars in our Galaxy travel around it center exactly in one plane, The disk shape is caused by an initial angular momentum, where one rotational plane simply dominates. That's actually very likely to happen.

[Anonymous No.10393110]

>>10393081
pretty sure fields are an essential part of current theories, sounds like you think they're a huge suppressed secret

[Anonymous No.10393115]

>>10393062
That's the point. We know that the standard model iisn't complete, since it forgets about GR effects, we know that there is a scale where it breaks. Without reaching the scale, which we obviously haven't, where the standard model breaks measurably, we cannot tell which theory of quantum gravity (i.e. loop q.g., several string theories with different compactifications) is the rigt one.

[Anonymous No.10393122]

>>10393102
One field can be trapped in another fields. E.g. solar system trapped in galaxy's field.

>>10393110
No but people keep saying matter is the driving force, they add particles to waves and other non physical phenomena to quantify them to measure them and it's a pathway that won't get to a unified theory of everything. Which there is.

[Anonymous No.10393126]

Quarks don't exist

[Anonymous No.10393133]

>>10393122
QCD, QED, the standard model, those ARE field theories. I really don't know where you want to go with this.

[Anonymous No.10393138]

>>10393126
then explain all the deep inelastic scattering experiments done so far
I won't wait

[Anonymous No.10393161]

>>10393126
Yes they do. And even if they wouldn't you could see them as mathematical hacks (similar to virtual particles, which actually don't exist, since off shell) that help to describe scattering precesses remarkably well.

[Anonymous No.10393187]

>>10393161
If it has no rest mass and can only be calculated mathematically, do you see how people struggle to have faith they exist. This kind of science is more like a religion where you need faith and to believe it exists and the dogmatic believer will fight the disbeliever.

[Anonymous No.10393213]

>>10393187
quarks have rest mass, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about, why do you hate science so much if you never even studied it seriously? a religion? please

[Anonymous No.10393219]

>>10393213
I think he means that you can't directly measure a quarks rest mass since it's always a part of another particle and a quark has never been observed independently.

[Anonymous No.10393235]

>>10393187
They do have rest mass. There are experiments that show their existence (deep inelastic scattering, if protons wouldn't be built up by quarks, the hadronic tensor enetering the S-matrix would just look like the leptonic, so without structure functions, this would give you a different differential cross section, which you can measure).

[Anonymous No.10393257]

>>10393138
>>10393235
>>10393161
Scattering basically only show that protons are more than likely build up of other particles. There is no indication that these are quarks or have the features of quarks. The features of the quarks themselves are only made up because it would give other theories at that time more backing such as the copenhagen interpretation and to explain away color charge of gluons.

There is no true evidence pointing towards the existence of quarks or any of their features. They just found a couple of holes and then made up mathematics to plug the holes in different theories at the time with the same math and assumptions.

[Anonymous No.10393296]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement
>"Dude quarks are totally real even though it's by theory impossible to EVER detect them individually they are real, just trust me bro we have math and stuff. Shhhh don't even try to find them through physical experiments it's impossible, they are real though just trust me"

This is the "science" of quantum physics in 2019.

What If I said that the proton is made up of 3 entire universes condensed into balls. You can't see them because you can never separate them and individually observe them. But they totally exist!!! Here is some crackpot math to accompany with it!

[Anonymous No.10393304]

>>10393257
top-quark: decays before hadronization, so it can be measured via it's decay products and their properties plus conservation laws.
Also you can measure the featrue of other quarks, by measuring the features of the scattering products during an experiment.
(Flavour-)Group theory predicts partcles that then were found afterwards.

[Anonymous No.10393314]

>>10393296
If your crackpt math actually predixts new particles that are then found and explains measurements of high energy scattering amplitudes to several decimal places then we can talk, before that you are the crackpot.

[Anonymous No.10393325]

>>10393235
No rest mass. If you can't sit it on a surface and it rests there then it's imaginary numbers to fill relativity holes, you can calculate and assume the effects of this and that must equate to This, but it's educated guessing, with great maths backing it up.
Relativity is ironically not relative to relative.

[Anonymous No.10393339]

>>10393325
That's not how it works. That's not how anything works.

[Anonymous No.10393355]

I see no reason why you cant keep going down in scale past higgs and gravitrons.

[Anonymous No.10393364]

>>10393339
Define "it"
Because if it's not naturally aligning with reality then it's fancy math that may as well be on /x/

[Anonymous No.10393382]

>>10393355
that's just because you don't realize the absurdly small scales involved and that there's nothing you can use to probe those scales with

[Anonymous No.10393515]

>quark denialism

Not like QCD makes predictions or anything.

[Anonymous No.10393698]

>>10392923
>we need to go back to 1900
you sure have, retard

[Anonymous No.10393817]

>>10393698
Well yeah that’s the idea isn’t it...

[Anonymous No.10393974]

I have an idea
>Magic

[Anonymous No.10394490]

>>10393515
>predictions

Just because a model makes accurate predictions doesn't mean they are actually correct. Proof by induction and all that.

For example quantum mechanics can be predicted by copenhagen interpretation, pilot-wave and many worlds.

All three have different mathematics and theory behind it yet they make the same predictions about the universe. It's only possible for one or none of them the be right.

Quarks are in a similar position right now but without a rival theory. There is no hard evidence for their existence and they are only in use because of the handy math that people want to push because it helps other shaky theories.

Yet everyone and their mum acts like quarks are completely confirmed and real while there has been 0 and will forever be 0 evidence against them due to their own theory. This is borderline not even science anymore since it isn't verifiable by experimentation.

[Anonymous No.10394524]

>>10390425
Towards the truths of the universe, with no brakes.

[Anonymous No.10394526]

>>10392255
Wanna compare notes? I know where it's going but I dunno where it is.

[Anonymous No.10394534]

>>10394490
>quantum mechanics can be predicted by copenhagen interpretation, pilot-wave and many worlds
no, those are different interpretations of the same quantum theory, you're a moron with no clue what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.10394539]

>>10390425
Idealism/simulation hypothesis ofcoarse.
Turns out Kant was right all along

[Anonymous No.10394559]

>>10393325
>If you can't sit it on a surface and it rests there then it's imaginary numbers to fill relativity holes, you can calculate and assume the effects of this and that must equate to This, but it's educated guessing, with great maths backing it up.
Air doesn't exist.
You heard it here.
Helium? Doesn't exist. You can't sit it on a surface and have it rest there.

[Anonymous No.10394569]

>>10394534
They have different mathematics to explain the same physical phenomenon but their theory is completely different. Why are you being condescending if what you say doesn't add anything?

[Anonymous No.10394570]

>>10394490
>This is borderline not even science anymore since it isn't verifiable by experimentation.

I don't know what your standard for "verifiable" is, but that's not the point of a scientific theory. The quark model is falsifiable since it makes predictions. That makes it science.

[Anonymous No.10394603]

>>10390425
This is where it's going

[Anonymous No.10394852]

>>10390425
It's a black hole for talent.

[Anonymous No.10394870]

>>10393817
mission accomplished, retard

[Anonymous No.10395399]

the future is an accelerator in space right between where two celestial bodies contradict, moving back and forth to counteract gravity, if in fact gravity is the only question

[Anonymous No.10395403]

>>10394603
By Z' you mean the photon that's already listed?

[Anonymous No.10395418]

>>10392570
physics-let here. I thought that the strong nuclear force was only really powerful and useful when it was at close ranges? I thought that was why nuclei would stick together, but not all particles in the universe are speeding towards each other. enlighten me?

[Anonymous No.10395434]

>>10392255
kek

[Anonymous No.10395452]

>>10390425
Brainlet here. Why do people call fermions "matter" and bosons "force carriers"? I always thought fermion/boson categorization was based on spin. Is there any reason why a force carrier necessarily couldn't have 1/2 spin, or a matter particle couldn't have integer spin? Or is it just a coincidence?

E.g. I know compound matter particles like helium atoms are bosons.

[Anonymous No.10395647]

>>10395403
No, he means the extra neutral gauge boson from left-right unification.

>>10395452
Pauli exclusion is a nice property that goes with our intuition of matter. And our modern idea of forces comes from gauge symmetry, which requires spin 1. The Higgs is the odd one out here, because it's the only thing in the Standard Model that's not either a fermion or a gauge boson. Sometimes you'll hear the Higgs called a force carrier even though it's a different sort of thing from gauge bosons. But ultimately, which things we choose to call matter is mostly arbitrary.

Notably, dark matter could be fermionic or bosonic.

[Anonymous No.10395869]

>>10395647
Thanks. So we basically don't call, e.g. W bosons "matter" because they don't obey Pauli exclusion?

>And our modern idea of forces comes from gauge symmetry, which requires spin 1.
Can you please explain why this is?

[Anonymous No.10395911]

>>10395869
>Can you please explain why this is?

Local gauge symmetry requires using gauge covariant derivatives, which are partial derivatives plus a new term involving the gauge field. Just by Lorentz transformation properties, since the partial derivative is a 4-vector, the gauge field also has to be a 4-vector. Showing that 4-vector fields give spin 1 particles is pretty simple.