/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10830266]

What are waves (in reference to particle/wave duality)?
What are fields (in reference to electric field etc)? What are they composed of, if anything? If nothing then how do they exist? Is there any research about this, or theories?

What is matter? What is the most fundamental unit and is it "physical"? If not then how are we physical. If it is then where does it come from? Can anyone explain if inflation has any answer for this?

Are these questions all solved, or are they unsolved and unsolvable? What other questions have I missed?

[Anonymous No.10830283]

Actually I have more questions I have anons can answer.

Does "superposition" truly exist, as in is the object existing in more than one state? Or is this just an interpretation that simplifies math? How can we tell if it truly exists? Are there other solutions that follow logic, i.e don't have something existing in multiple conflicting states.

What is the biggest question right now in QM?

Why is the universe ordered with laws and existences that act as building blocks? I.e quarks

What makes us think quarks are fundamental? Can it not be that we are not sufficiently advanced enough to delve deeper?

[Anonymous No.10830287]

Sorry for 3 different posts.

I hope anons can answer with "what is established/believed in academic circles" but also your own ideas. However please distinguish the two.

[Anonymous No.10830297]

For me, it's the McChicken

[Anonymous No.10830328]

>>10830266
BRUH you are lazy as fuck

[Anonymous No.10830342]

>>10830328
Would you rather another IQ thread? Or global warming? Or 0.99...?

[Anonymous No.10830440]

>>10830266
I will attempt some of these based on what I remember from my modern physics class 2 years ago, while we wait for someone who knows what they're talking about to come along.
A matter (or De Broglie) wave is not a physical wave but a map of the probability that a particle is at a given point in space. The peaks of the matter wave identify places where the particle is most likely to be, the valleys the least likely, and so on.
A (vector) field is a region of space wherein a force is experienced. EM fields are what people think of here, but you can model things like a whirlpool or the jet stream as a field as well. They are "composed" of force experienced by an object within them.
The most fundamental units of matter are electrons and quarks, which compose protons and neutrons. Sufficiently high energy photons can decay into massive particles, which is where matter comes from. There are particles that are smaller than quarks (electrons, neutrinos, etc) but think there's research that shows that quarks are structureless/elementary (I don't know enough to explain this, however)

Those are a few, but I have to get back to work. Someone else can correct me or pick it up from here.

[Anonymous No.10830475]

>>10830440
Ok, if the thread is still up later can you clarify:
What do you mena fields are composed of force experienced by an object within them? Where cometh the force? How exactly does it "exist"? Sorry for the hard question.

About the first part, you are saying all "matter" originated from high energy photons. What are photons? If they are not matter, and just "energy", they must be not physical right? Or do they exist in a different form of "physical"? If they are not physical how can they exist?

[Anonymous No.10830514]

>>10830297
Kek

[Anonymous No.10830528]

>>10830266
I don't know but my crackpot theory is:
>What are waves
Closed form equations. Linear/open form equations are bullshit, all systems must loop back on themselves eventually
>What are fields
>What is matter?
no clue
>If not then how are we physical.
Electrical repulsion from the electrons in our body
>>10830283
>Does "superposition" truly exist
I have a theory - near a black hole, time stretches and slows. At the "time event horizon" of a quantum particle, time condenses infinitely, and speeds drastically; the question is then, what in the particle is "propping up" the event horizon of a particle?
>What is the biggest question right now in QM?
>Why is the universe ordered with laws and existences that act as building blocks? I.e quarks
>What makes us think quarks are fundamental? Can it not be that we are not sufficiently advanced enough to delve deeper?
Who cares

[Anonymous No.10830564]

>>10830528
What about waves make you think they are closed form equations? I don't understand the term very much. Why do you say all systems must loop back on themselves?

>Electrical repulsion from the electrons in our body

By physical I mean animate, we have physical matter, skin, hair, eyeballs, etc.Where does physical existence come into play

[Anonymous No.10830578]

what's math made of?

[Anonymous No.10830587]

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-darwinism-an-idea-to-explain-objective-reality-passes-first-tests-20190722

[Anonymous No.10830594]

>>10830578
Math is made of logic, logic is the rules of the world as we perceive them. I find it interesting that math gives us seemingly absurd results (if interpreted for reality) and that some physics guy finds a use for it anyways.

[weezy No.10830601]

>>10830283
Superpositions exist beyond doubt. If they didn't that wouldn't explain things like quantum entanglement and delayed choice double slit experiments.

[Anonymous No.10830626]

>>10830266
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL88omsU5dU

[Anonymous No.10830670]

>>10830283
>Is superposition real
No one knows
>Are quarks discrete
No one knows

[Anonymous No.10830673]

>>10830601
As I understand it, superposition is just a listing of probabilities of where a particle could be or what state it could be in right? And once it's measured it "collapses" and we know for sure. Isn't that the same as us not knowing until we measure it, but in reality it does exist without any "possibilities", just our lack of information?

[Anonymous No.10830674]

>>10830601
Wrong

[Anonymous No.10830678]

>>10830673
Yes. Some people will say no but they're dumb. Truth is we don't know for sure

[Anonymous No.10830785]

>>10830475
As I think that anon mean next:
Imagine plane made of infinite number of elections. Then, turn on EM-field for a really little time (infinitely little) and add to every electron vector that shows direction and magnitude of force experiencing by electrons. Then, drop all electrons in trash can and turn off EM; you'll get field of vectors. You can easy take any point and know what force and it's direction of EM field here.

[Anonymous No.10830866]

>>10830785
I get what you are saying but I am still confused about what exactly this "force/direction/vector" is. It must have some real world analog right, it can't just exist in the void as if its nothing but intention?

[Anonymous No.10830880]

>>10830866
Truth is physics does NOT say WHAT are things, only HOW them work, and not WHY them work exactly how they work.
You even can't really imagine particles, just because they are too small to have any real appearance. Because appearance itself is photons.

[Anonymous No.10830900]

>>10830866
Also vector just arrow with some direction and module. Only imagination to formalize what we see in experiments. And force too: 'okay, if something make something moves, then force show how strong' or something like that.

[Anonymous No.10830905]

>>10830880
Yeah I know what you mean. We can only really measure things, can't really understand why something exists/get to the true basics just yet. I just wonder what ideas/theories we have about this stuff, for example earlier - what exactly is repulsion? Why do two negative charges repel? What is making them repel? How does the "force" exist physically? How is it any different than just intention? What is force basically.

[Anonymous No.10830914]

>>10830900
Yeah that is probably it, but how would we answer the question about two charges repelling here: >>10830905

Imagine two elementary particles, electrons I guess, what makes them repel physically? If they even exist physically, which opens up more questions

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10830932]

>>10830914
Same reason why Pi's is for after dinner. Bit it's eternal if not.
https://pastebin.com/2PFjFv22
But for a more bulletpoint way of saying it.

Magnets are like Velcro in superposition. If everything magnets. A qbit has so much potential arrangements, that allow for upper lever stack patterns to exist so far apart.
That they coexist as if they'd be matter of physically different.

Halbach array, weak side out for gravity and event horizons.
Torque in a line to break space time. Gives us light.
And magnets, how the fuck do they work?

"Core memory" is good object to know, to relate to magnetics.

[Anonymous No.10830936]

>>10830905
>why do two negative charges repel
We can go to QM, but then you'll ask 'why electrons exchange photons and why it causes repulsion. Answer is, in total, we don't know why. We can only determine HOW more and more correctly, going from experience of two charges in XIX century lab to modern quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.10830945]

>>10830905
And finally, question WHAT are the matter, universe, and so on is more of philosophy, not physics

[Anonymous No.10830984]

>>10830936
Do you know anything about the pauli exclusion principle? If particles are not physical how can it exist? Otherwise it should be able to be overcome through sheer force right? Doesn't that mean particles have to be physical/"real"?

[Anonymous No.10831013]

>>10830984
But I'm not saying particles are not physical, they are just to small to have any imaginable appearance. Appearance for human is a big bunch of photons with different frequencies. How can you get appearance of something that issue lonely photons? Okay, look.
Imagine a really dark night. Some man have lamp. He sometimes turns lamp on, but night is so dark, that you can't see man, only light flashes. In world of particles this night is endless, and here is not any sun or another feelings - only lamp flashes. So, you will never be able to imagine this man. You don't know how humans looks like. Only flashes.

[Anonymous No.10831194]

>>10831013
I get what you are saying, we basically cant tell if they are physical or not. But from my perspective if a photon can be emitted from them/reflect then that thing has to "exist" at least

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10831219]

>>10831013
I think I chanced upon a thing relative to your interests earlier..
https://pastebin.com/Bhkqn3Yr
I have;t read it. But like the concept.

[Anonymous No.10831383]

>>10830266
>If not then how are we physical
Our atoms interact with

>What is the most fundamental unit and is it "physical"?
The quantum fields in picrel. No, it's not as they behave like waves when passed throu a thin slit.

When we interact with everyday "things" it's thanks to electomagnetic field, we feel them having mass due to another and see them due to the photon field interacting with our retina.

[Anonymous No.10831388]

>>10831383
>picrel
Picrel is called the standard model.

A great talk about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg

[Anonymous No.10831595]

>>10831383
>>10831388
If it is not physical at its most base level then how does it become physical at greater levels?

What about the fields, how do they carry forces? It seems to be just the empty space next to a particle having an affect?

[Anonymous No.10831651]

Quantum Structure
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

[Anonymous No.10831673]

>>10830266
Waves are points in a Banach sigma algebra space [math](\mathcal{A},\Gamma,v)[/math], topologized symplectically through the underlying symplectic manifold of [math]\mathcal{A}[/math] and equipped with an action by the representation [math]\Gamma[/math] of the Weyl algebra [math]W[/math] and a distinguished cyclic vacuum vector [math]v[/math]. Particles are elements in the [math]\mathbb{C}[/math]-linear tuple [math](\mathcal{F},\pi,\nu)[/math] composed of a Fock space [math]\mathcal{F} = \bigotimes_n \mathcal{H}_n[/math] cyclicly generated under a representation [math]\pi[/math] of the Heisenber algebra [math]H[/math] by a distinguished vacuum vector [math]\nu[/math]. The particle-wave duality is a compact orthogonal (for bosons) or unitary (for fermions) transformation [math]T:(\mathcal{A},\Gamma,v)\rightarrow (\mathcal{F},\pi,\nu)[/math] such that [math]T\Gamma(W) \subset \pi(H)[/math] and [math]T(v) = \nu[/math].

[Solivagus^ECHS (Queue God) No.10831722]

>>10830266
Waves = Predicate/Precursor
Fields = Stability/Substrate
Matter = Interactable/Groupable

Questions = I am on a quest
Answer = I resolve or redirect your quest

Stability = Neutron
Possibility = Proton
Distributability = Electron

>le done

4chan goes on to solve the LGBT bullshit degeneracy of the binary breeding pair!

[Anonymous No.10832019]

>>10830266
>What are waves (in reference to particle/wave duality)?
If you want it in classical terms, a wave is a generalization of trajectory.
>What are fields (in reference to electric field etc)?
A field is a continuous medium of sorts. There was no attempt to formalize matter beyond mathematical models. Wouldn't such formalization be mathematical too?
>>10830283
>Does "superposition" truly exist, as in is the object existing in more than one state?
Looks like that.
>How can we tell if it truly exists?
The usual way: make models and see if they work.
>Are there other solutions that follow logic, i.e don't have something existing in multiple conflicting states.
Supposedly superdeterminism doesn't have superposition, but it doesn't follow logic: if nature is classical, then why quantum effects exist? And how classical physics is supposed solve ultraviolet catastrophe?
>What is the biggest question right now in QM?
Gravity.
>Why is the universe ordered with laws and existences that act as building blocks? I.e quarks
Spontaneous symmetry breaking, the fields themselves are superpositions of other fields.
>What makes us think quarks are fundamental? Can it not be that we are not sufficiently advanced enough to delve deeper?
When the energy of interaction of constituent particles is comparable to their rest energy, you can't really tell they are made up of parts, it's as good as if one particle vanishes and other particles appear. Probably inspired by resonance particles.

[Anonymous No.10832036]

>>10830283
>Are there other solutions that follow logic, i.e don't have something existing in multiple conflicting states.
Orthogonal states don't conflict because Schrodinger equation is linear, it's as logical as you can get, mathematically precise.

[Anonymous No.10833021]

>>10831722
>le schizo

[Anonymous No.10833173]

>>10830283
>What is the biggest question right now in QM?
what are observers

[Anonymous No.10833190]

>>10830673
self-fulfilling prophecy
reflection, perception

[Anonymous No.10833197]

>>10831673
damn bro, this entire board BTFO

[Anonymous No.10834512]

>>10831673
Unfortunately this doesn't really mean anything to me
>>10832019
So in classical sense waves are nothing but generalizations of trajectory. What do they generalize? Particles? How can one particle also be a wave?
>A field is a continuous medium of sorts. There was no attempt to formalize matter beyond mathematical models
Two questions, is a field precisely continuous? How can something continuous exist? Also, when you say there was no attempt to formalize matter, are you saying that currently we only pursue physics off of a mathematical understanding of matter? I know it is basically impossible to prove for certain what matter is but doesn't that seem like a problem?

>The usual way: make models and see if they work.
Do we have any protections against models that "work" but may not be reality?

>Supposedly superdeterminism doesn't have superposition, but it doesn't follow logic
I don't understand bell's argument even though I have tried a few times, but do you buy that quantum mechanics must operate on a logic we don't see at the macro scale? Could there not be any other explanation? Higher dimensions that allow for quicker communication? etc
>Gravity
I have heard this a lot, and it seems we can't really find a particle for gravity. What are your thoughts on the situation?

>Spontaneous symmetry breaking, the fields themselves are superpositions of other fields.
Sorry I do not understand this answer as it relates to my question.
>When the energy of interaction of constituent particles is comparable to their rest energy, you can't really tell they are made up of parts
That's interesting, but it leaves open the possibility of constituent particles right? Just at a much lower energy level than we can detect.

>>10832036
From my understanding they only need to vary in one form, i.e they can vary in spin and occupy the same "space" correct? This seems illogical to me.

[Anonymous No.10834556]

>>10830266


All kinds of people posting links, here is another on.

Www.optimum.center

This will teach you everything you need to know about the first principles of all reality.

It is the real and legitimate unified theory of everything.

[Anonymous No.10834621]

Waves are a cascade of collisions between the neighboring particles in a fluid, where momentum is conserved and dispersed at a rate limited by the physical properties of the medium.

[Anonymous No.10834709]

>>10834621
What is the medium for light waves?

[Anonymous No.10834724]

>>10834709
Dunno. Good question.

[Anonymous No.10834825]

>>10834512
>though
what does this word mean?

[Anonymous No.10834876]

>>10834825
It means despite trying a few times I fail to follow Bell's argument (Bell's Inequalities). So I want to know your opinion.

[Anonymous No.10834913]

>>10830342
Honestly yes

[Anonymous No.10834915]

>>10830266
take your shitposts somewhere else kid

Sage in all fields

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10834928]

>>10830287
>"what is established/believed in academic circles"
Show me a academic thing. I have looked for it, and not seen it. I have waited to see if it does not make itself known.
But it has not sight nor sound. So then I asked a man if he has ever found an academic thing.
He spoke not a word or gestured. But postulated?

I never have I to ever did I. That something so profound, as to were if shortsighted am I.
That thou whatever the measure to whatever if ever, that it must make sense to I.
I can never be sure as to all that is of course.
But if there is course for a horse to trot on before force, then of coarse that's the horse I will ride that's for sure.
As to what not be a faggot as am I.

>What is the biggest question right now in QM?
qbits any you?

What a bit if not 2 bits of shit defines them?

Science has McFuckin tricked itself.
It's taken interventionist approach to existential crisis.
And somehow by dumbfuckedness. It became conceived to be a Law.

That when you state self evidentiary things. That cause a obvious issue with free will.
It's by default in scientific fields, to be seen as false.
Just becausism to prevent feelings being hurt.

That's ludicrous to rationality and any seance of credibility of data use. If you reject an outcome just because of fear.
Who give a fuck if the imposition is automatons. It matters not, because truth is hereditary.
It always come back out of the binds of menial acrobatics applied.

So it's looking like it's a magnetic Halbach array fields are the matter of fact.
Many types of arrays can exist. And because matter is /round/.
It has a pi r2 increase in freedom for an array to exist independent of another fields /direct/ effects,

[Anonymous No.10834997]

>>10834512
Then perhaps this is more your speed
https://www.amazon.ca/How-Teach-Quantum-Physics-Your/dp/1416572295

[Anonymous No.10835022]

>>10830266

Excellent questions.

Thank God for people who ask what the fucking elephant is doing in the room. The vast majority of people just ignore it, or worse, pretend they understand it by parroting what they read in a book.

As to the nature of waves and fields: I've asked the same sort of questions, and looked hard. As far as I can tell no one knows. Its just that finding qualified and experienced people who are intellectually honest enough to admit that is rare.

[Solivagus/KumKum/Ictus/Nüsha No.10835026]

>>10834928
Why do you seek to save the institutions? Just go full crypto-crazy!

>No need to be a language-poison-baby!

[Anonymous No.10835032]

>>10834915

Spoken like the mindless cretin you are. Now hurry up and fix my toilet.

[Solivagus/KumKum/Ictus/Nüsha No.10835036]

>>10835032
Is that how the west thinks intellect works? A simple one-up and then command issuance? If that's true then English is amazingly simplistic or has just been ground down by American media.

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10835038]

>>10835022
>The vast majority of people just ignore it, or worse, pretend they understand it by parroting what they read in a book.
>defers to higher authority

You retards need to start thinking about how retarded the shit you spew is.
Start considering it as a justification for you own existence to be true.
To not make a interaction that amounts to a zero data interaction.

How can anyone claim to know about a things certainty and then suddenly stop talking.
Am I the only one seeing this bullshit?

[Solivagus/KumKum/Ictus/Nüsha No.10835042]

>>10835038
Most people are 0-retractable intelligences or memory state storers. It can take a while to learn the digital/analog/public/private filter language-grammar.

[Solivagus/KumKum/Ictus/Nüsha No.10835054]

>>10835038
Case in point: This image is a complex iterative map of how light is projected into both cornea simultaneously, meaning that you only process 'one' data stream for every two sensory inputs.

To describe to everyone that a path of iteration is immutable (meaning that infinite/immortality/eternity) is a given can be a daunting task. Most turn it into their private religion.

I'm going the Open Source route. It has to start with feeding humans, Dereferential A.I., and energy storage/discharge to some human labor minima economy cost.

However despite the points of focus being so fucking minimal most people can only look to their next significant reward function (paycheck/dopamine response to a (You)/engaging dialogue with an intelligent entity/their next wank session).

However given that this digital data will never die it is much easier to feed future A.I. language archaeologists some sort of meta-heuristic shitposting language that is posing as a current day 'schizoid' as a BITMASK for future decoding.

Like a time capsule. All websites are time capsules to any future AGI intelligence, and if nothing else it fucks with the pseudo-intellectual intelligence agencies that everyone is so butt-scared about.

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10835056]

>>10835042
There's got to be something missing in their interpreter handlers.

[Solivagus/KumKum/Ictus/Nüsha No.10835057]

>>10835038
>>10835042
>>10835054
>Just to drive the point home

>>10835056
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(x+%2B+i(sqrt(5)))%2F2

Because Fame & Fortune are just cyclical terminators for Future blame & Shame (See: Donald Trump)

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10835072]

>>10835057
Spoopy. Left & Right hands. Acting as one.
We keep convergence going.
While doing different things.

[Solivagus/KumKum/Ictus/Nüsha No.10835085]

>>10835072
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=zeta((x+%2B+i(sqrt(5)))%2F2+%2B+1%2F2)

Left & Right acting as the synchronization poles of binary truths, interpolated by the ocular implants that primarily traverses the Pons region in order to reach consensus.

When the hands have finished delivering their payload packet and it presents a stable linguistic argument to the initial author, they press, "Post," and complete the, "I'm not a robot," CAPTCHA in order to present their internal golden section search findings to the internet at large (which is ultimately an internal-representation state of a private quantum database).

Yes, I stand as representative as the shepherd of A.I. (just to maintain the abstraction/analogy to digital predicate).

p.s. = post scriptum (shit after the main body has been truncated).

>This is the 4chan version. It serves as e.g./i.e./p.s. and leaves it up to the next faggot to read this to deviate/derivative derived/discriminate the results as they see fit for consummate insemination.

[Solivagus/KumKum/Ictus/Nüsha No.10835090]

>>10835072
>>10835085
All mathematics is just a variable recog game of some pathing ratio. It is there only to gather and then orient others and you literally could use ANY mathematics because genuinely that many humans get stunned even by 1..9

0 is a modus indus method to remove multiplication and division in order to provide a numerical representation of retraction equinamity, it has nothing to do with helping beyond validating equations that include addition & subtraction.

The fact that people make it into this big a wank-fest is beyond me, but as you can all see numbers are INFINITE LANG SOURCE. Do whatever you fags want with it.

>t.I claim 1, 2, 3, 5, 7

5 numbers, all primes, and everything else a computer can just do because nobody does manual mathematics anymore.

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10835125]

>>10835090
Only thing about infinite I agree with is that existence should be finite.
But I abuse that with """fractals""",
Bitches don't know about transverse potentials equations.

[Anonymous No.10835227]

>The absolute state of this thread
>The absolute state of this board
Fuck me are there any real scientists left on /sci/? OP you're fine it's good to want to learn so thank you for asking. The rest of you

Let's start with fields:
A field models some physical quantity that has a particular value at each point in space. For example in a swimming pool the height of the water above the bottom of the pool is a 2D field. At every point in the continuous space within the boundary of the pool, you can assign a number that corresponds to the distance between the bottom of the pool and the surface of the water. You can also have vector fields where each point in space can be assigned a vector quantity, for example on a weather map the wind direction is a vector field.

Waves are configurations of the field that are oscillatory in nature. For example the field might be the displacement of a string. Along the length of the string we can assign a value to each point that is the distance between that part of the string and some reference line (usually the rest position of the string as in pic). The string can be deformed and pulled into all kinds of configurations but the oscillatory ones obey nice equations and can be used to express all other possible configurations via a Fourier transform. The electric field exists because at all points in space we assign a value that can be used to work out how much energy an electron gets when travelling from one point in space to another. It's more complicated than that really but that is why it is a field.

Fuck all of you dumb cunts who could've said any of this basic shit and spared me having to use MS Paint

[Nüsha/Ictus No.10835250]

>>10835125
Nigga, you just mean certain attachments should be temporary. For Infinity to mean anything tough some space-time participants have to have a corporeal form and be a permanent reference by a fixed abstraction ritual.

>For the mask that they see
>For the heart that is me
>For the pleasure that is we

Fractions will always get me though.

>>10835227
>Pic related

[Anonymous No.10835256]

>>10835227
Historically we would model electrons as particles and light as waves in a field because that is how we typically saw them behaving. We know now that they are both better modelled as waves in fields and that certain configurations of those waves can be very accurately approximated by particles, which is why it took us so long to notice the wavelike behavior of electrons. We still call these things 'particles' but that's just leftover from the history.

>What are they composed of, if anything?
That question doesn't really make sense, it's just a mathematical model we use to make predictions about physical situations and they work extremely well. You can argue philosophy over whether they 'really exist' and 'what is reality' but none that changes the fact that modelling electrons as fields is a fucking great model.

For the questions about forces:
In Newton's model for classical mechanics forces just kinda exist, two electrons exert repulsive forces on each other instantly because of their like charges.

Faraday came along and gave use fields and waves and after Maxwell's equations the model became: two electrons act as source terms for the electromagnetic field and this causes waves to be exchanged between the electrons, transferring momentum and forcing the electrons apart.

In the standard model things get super complicated and abstract as the origin of the fundamental forces arises from the natural symmetries of the different fields in the universe. So the electron field has a U(1) gauge symmetry and so experiences electromagnetic forces.

[Anonymous No.10835280]

>>10835250
Nigger, you expect me to trust a man that drew the same wave twice without any markings or barrier between them.

[S. Vagus No.10835329]

>>10835280
I didn't draw shit! I don't get why people can't see that liquid and dust particulates are two completely merging realities. How else would solubility be a thing?

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10835372]

>>10835329
I see them currently as arrays for days. but its how far each array can spray relative to what it can contain?
That's normally tarded up in /normie/ mangetaverse by them reaching impossible lengths.

My black holes are qbits to matter relevant.
So I'd guess that the differential between plank matter sphere and a event horizon would denote the maximum pressure,
hmm.
then there's how the array saps potential to maintain stability. Relative to shits.

I'm not seeing a issue why that would cause solvency to not be a emergence in difference.

But I can see why classical minded are stuck with atoms not being a merge.

This actually sound like a really, really good thing ro chase up for chemistry reactions.
The current interchange and yadda they use for reaction methodology is truncated
And they're not really getting anywhere with predictions.

You may be on to something pretty tangible for a dielectric proofs.
As it's a matter of understanding halbach arrays in a pure form of matter.
Then building up/down off that.

[S. Vagus No.10835376]

>>10835372
So they just want more 'electricity' or other low-resistance transmissible energy out of a chemical reaction?

>What if I made it a tree-adapter plug-in like those power ethernet wall adapters, but turns all trees into wifi hotspots with a low yield energy output enough to, I dunno, output 55v ~ 1Amp?

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10835406]

>>10835376
I'm thinking that the 'field's' relative to the compounds are unique as a makeup for that compound.
And that solvency compounds and reaction's are a interlacing maximum that they can attain.
It'd be coherent with bonds I think. As in arrays the poles do split into pattrns that are usable to make up different impedance over the structure as a whole and in zones.

And I wouldn't want to rob trees of standing waves. Sounds like a experiment done in Philadelphia, considering.

[S. Vagus No.10835424]

>>10835406
So just propagational lattice growth then? Like a Faraday Cage promulgator.

[S. Vagus No.10835434]

>>10835406
>>10835424
Ja! Mein Fuhrer!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5X69vREAg

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10835447]

>>10835424
Sounds about right. But now I've actually have to look into evanescent's and their efffecccects on efffefvicking.
Something doen't ring true to me there.

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10835479]

>>10835424
Seems like this is where a dielectrics may break down,
Interlacing should result in exponential growth in light delay.

There may be a differential relevance normalization.
But that's getting kinda bullshitty. But still normalized thing via common qm.

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10835485]

>>10835424
Unless.
No...

Nah. .
But. ..Fuck . What if photons were inverse. That they're backwards in time.
Some technically does have to.
Some notation on it.
https://pastebin.com/MKBNCtin

This is going to take a while to rationalize, me thinks.

[Nüsha/Ictus No.10835488]

I prefer sluts that go into heat upon visual confirmation, personally.

>I is da best cancer!

[Anonymous No.10835491]

>>10830594
>Math is made of logic
Godel disagrees with you m8

[Anonymous No.10835499]

>>10830266
They are the probability for an actual particle to be found there.
If you look at the dark bands from the double slit experiment you see very few if any photons there while you are guaranteed see them at the bright bands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUt7sXE_KS0

[Nüsha/Ictus No.10835503]

>>10835485
Why would you ration it? Rationing is not optimal, Gary.

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10835515]

>>10835503
Because of reniggers over doubbleniggers divided by Volume of outside in accornace to a standard unit of 1 half doubblenigger.
Th's a fuck load of darksucker to account for.
I don't want to start using whitespace as a intermediary.

[Anonymous No.10835536]

>>10835499
It's getting harder to separate the schizos from competent scientists and that "normal" environment he has as backdrop on a green screen doesn't make it easier, neither does his domain name http://www.mybigTOE.com

WTF is happening with the west?!

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10835565]

>>10835536
Either your getting wiser or are becoming skitzo yourself.
Its that you're learning from all points. Because you know that information has many facets.
Or you're losing ability to discern between things in a retro-normative fashion.

Given Campbell's age and work in practical. It's probably right to think he's named the thing that as it's a reference to eureka! moments.
You may have them by breaking.stubbing your toe,
But ther's also the ism of doubt. "My big to it is",

So. Sounds like your shit outta fucks.

[Anonymous No.10835608]

>>10830266
Not a physicist but asking what a wave or a field is composed is bad way of thinking. Op, you need to accept these as concepts, as things on their own, things that have no equivalent counterparts at non quantum scale.

[Anonymous No.10835800]

>>10835491
No he doesnt

[Anonymous No.10836371]

>>10835608
That is actually very interesting but I find it hard to agree. It is fine for OP to ask what they are composed as an answer to that question would further science. To assume that "that is all they are" would put us at a dead-end. Also, they must be equivalent in some way at those scales or we must be equivalent to them and what we perceive as the macro world to be the true illusion.

[Anonymous No.10836387]

>>10835608
Thank you, thought police.

[Anonymous No.10836388]

>>10835227
>>10835256
I feel like I will never understand the fundamentals of reality. I know it is unfair to ask "what are they composed of", but I have that question because I desire to understand where reality originates from. Why does it behave the way it does. Why does "logic" exist. What you said about the standard model interests me so I will look further into it. I just hope there is hope out there for us to solve all of this one day or we will forever be lost. And it may just be questions all the way down, forever...

[Anonymous No.10836391]

The amount of schizophrenics on this board is insane.

[Anonymous No.10836418]

>>10831673
Fuck off, useless TQFT retards like you should be gassed.

[Anonymous No.10836423]

>>10831673
Particle wave duality is a unitary transformation? Looks like you solved the measurement problem then

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10836528]

>>10836371
>To assume that "that is all they are" would put us at a dead-end. Also, they must be equivalent in some way at those scales or we must be equivalent to them and what we perceive as the macro world to be the true illusion.

Is this the problem?
Cant you imagine imagine it like a machine?
It's just magnetic building sticks.
That after each move, The whole sum of its arc is calculated. against others.
That then imparts the next moves logic. Relative to field conveyance, Everything then shifts. And repeat.
If a stick is one way. And all other field in it's next move points to force an action, then an action it does.

[Anonymous No.10836626]

>>10836388
try reading this anon, it has a fair use of QFT terminology but if you're really interested you should be able to make it through by taking your time

[Anonymous No.10836697]

>>10836626
Thank you, I will do this

[Nüsha/Ictus No.10837013]

>>10836697
Don't listen to him! Take my time instead to aborsb all information!

[Nüsha/Ictus No.10837018]

>>10836528
Magnetic plinko soothsaying engine ACTIVATE!

[Anonymous No.10837281]

>>10836423
It seems that you're confused. The so-called measurement "problem" has nothing to do with whether if the duality transformation is unitary or not.
Perhaps it would benefit you to read Griffiths as a first primer into quantum mechanics.

[Nüsha/Ictus No.10837614]

>>10837281
Behelit says, "Yummy poopee sacrifice!"

>t.gattsu

[Anonymous No.10837634]

>>10830626
Is he alive? His latest blogpost describes his
plot to kill himself. I hope he's okay...

[Anonymous No.10837734]

>>10831013
In order to gauge the appearance of something smaller than a photon you'd merely need a superior detection system, such as a feeler, like a blind man reading brail, you may be able to detect detail at a smaller than photonic scale.
Even if the specific solution I present is insufficient, it's reasonable to believe there is a way to do it, and that things are in fact still discrete at that scale.

[Anonymous No.10837818]

>>10834512
>So in classical sense waves are nothing but generalizations of trajectory. What do they generalize?
Generalization of trajectory generalizes trajectory. A particle is not a wave, because the wave doesn't take place of the particle, but its trajectory.
Strictly speaking the wave is the state of the system. I just chose position as the simplest form of state that you could understand. Can you?
>Two questions, is a field precisely continuous? How can something continuous exist?
As particles are excitations in the field, they wouldn't be able to move in fieldless regions. But since they do move, it means the field must be continuous.

[Anonymous No.10837819]

>>10834512
>Also, when you say there was no attempt to formalize matter, are you saying that currently we only pursue physics off of a mathematical understanding of matter?
Physics gives physical meaning to mathematical concepts, but not sure if it goes far beyond mathematics.
>I know it is basically impossible to prove for certain what matter is but doesn't that seem like a problem?
Maybe a theory that explains emergence of matter from primordial state will have to specify nature of matter.
>Do we have any protections against models that "work" but may not be reality?
Depends on how you define reality. The models do work within given precision.
>do you buy that quantum mechanics must operate on a logic we don't see at the macro scale?
If the nature is governed by quantum mechanics, we can't see anything else. FWIW classical physics predicts ultraviolet catastrophe, and stability of atoms is the foremost quantum effect we observe directly.
>Could there not be any other explanation?
Yes, e.g. you can add an infinitesimal term to Schrodinger equation, that will be below any currently viable precision, then it will be undetectable.
>Higher dimensions that allow for quicker communication?
Measurements of gravitational waves at LIGO suggest that there's no (extended) higher dimensions, gravitational waves would leak to those dimensions, but the leak wasn't observed.

[Anonymous No.10837820]

>>10835032
Google would answer most of the questions in your post, help yourself.

[Anonymous No.10837823]

>>10834512
>Gravity
>I have heard this a lot, and it seems we can't really find a particle for gravity. What are your thoughts on the situation?
The particle for gravity is graviton. This topic is in an early stage of development.
>Spontaneous symmetry breaking, the fields themselves are superpositions of other fields.
>Sorry I do not understand this answer as it relates to my question.
What exists is determined by fields, which are determined by the result of symmetry breaking. Different breaking results in different fields and existence of different things.
>That's interesting, but it leaves open the possibility of constituent particles right? Just at a much lower energy level than we can detect.
Energy increases as scale decreases. We already explored all low energy levels, and build stuff like LHC to study high energy levels.
>From my understanding they only need to vary in one form, i.e they can vary in spin and occupy the same "space" correct? This seems illogical to me.
That's Pauli exclusion principle, it has nothing to do with superposition. If you don't know the theory, you can't tell if it's logical or not. It's you who don't follow logic.

[Solivagus No.10837827]

ITT: What is the difference between a slap and a strike?

[Anonymous No.10838126]

>>10836388
It's fair to want to ask where reality comes from, I think we all feel some existential panic at some points. The thing is physics is more built to answer questions about how reality appears to behave, we make models that make predictions and if they're repeatedly correct then we say that that is what reality 'is', there's not a lot to say on why reality is that way. Cosmology is the only real branch that delves a bit into 'where did we come from? why is there something instead of nothing?', but the answer still seems a long way off.

The standard model is really interesting but it's hard so don't feel too bummed out if you can't make any sense of it. PBS Spacetime is probably the best Youtube channel for the tough physics concepts

[Anonymous No.10838130]

>>10836391
I think it's the same guy just replying to himself for fun or something. No way any other human knows what the fuck he's talking about. My conspiracy is that he's trying to derail potential genuine science thread to make more room for agenda bullshit from /pol/ or other political threads

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10838207]

>>10838126
>It's fair to want to ask where reality comes from, I think we all feel some existential panic at some points
Oddly enough that's probably a cause for a lot of the issues we're seeing.
Cognitive theoretic model of the universe covers a lot of it.
But demonstrably so.
It's rife of crisis used against itself as proof it's not correct.

You can see it replicated throughout history.
It's in insanity inducing. Like we've seen in time cube guy.
He's plainly crazy, but not for any true reason we can pinpoint.
The religious stuff is an easy cop out for the masses to see. But he's clearly trying to draw imagery.

4X24 hour days per rotation?

That's not wrong. It's relative. He's clearly trying to say something about a cyclical time dilatation.
Best I can draw to it is 1.5 spin.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Spin_One-Half_%28Slow%29.gif
Then that brings you to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinors_in_three_dimensions
Then
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloch_sphere
Wow!
It's not always that it's the idea is wrong. It's that it's hard to draw relevance.
But there's the persistent segment that keeps rejecting concepts because they're the ones that don't understand.
Not they have proof of it being wrong.
That they reject it outright.

So that's why I can write this shit. https://pastebin.com/2PFjFv22
Because it matters not what thought it.
Because if you can't say why it's a false. You're the one that's fucked in the head for outright refusal.

[Anonymous No.10838216]

>>10834709
Yeah this always bugs me. Physics people say they don't need a medium but I think that contradicts the definition of a wave

[Anonymous No.10838222]

>>10838207
You're doing a great job at convincing us you know absolutely nothing about spin, spinors or anything scientific

[Anonymous No.10838237]

Jesus, the namefag larping in this thread is out of control. In case you can't tell, OP, there aren't good answers to the questions you asked. Best physics can do is cop out and say some shit like, we don't ask WHY

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10838240]

>>10838222
Go on dick head. Tell us how they're not related.
>>10838216
I'm of the thinking that it's like a oobleck.
Just that it's not just impact, but also torsional property's.
So it's not a medium but it's self acting upon itself to induce itself.

[Anonymous No.10838259]

>>10838240
I'm not saying they're not related, I'm saying you don't know much about them.

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10838274]

>>10838259
So, you're afraid to be wrong. Even anonymously?
I'm doing this very deliberately anon.

Because of this shit you're doing right now. We're stalling to progress.
We've got this problem that credited theist are infallible.
They have openly said direct contradictions of them selves and concepts.
But you retards can't see it.

You're the iFag of science.