/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10981259]

>atoms are not mostly empty space, they are filled by the wave function
How can atoms be filled with an abstract mathematical model? Wave functions are not a physical thing, and so can take up no physical space - what the hell does Sean Carroll mean by this?

[Anonymous No.10981265]

>>10981259
the quote is pretty stupid. he is probably trying to dumb down the pauli exclusion principle to normie level

[Anonymous No.10981271]

>>10981259
I will not answer your question because I hide every thread with this bald man.

[Anonymous No.10981391]

someone once told me sean carroll is a wack job

[Anonymous No.10981396]

>>10981259
>abstract
Only if you're a COPEnhagen retard.

[Anonymous No.10981413]

>>10981396
even in MW or CH or whatever interpretation, nobody says that the wavefunction inhabits literal space. you need to get the absolute magnitude to relate it to stuff in real space. nobody says the complex-valued wavefunction is a property of space in normal QM

in QFT the fields are _operator_ valued, and they do live in real space, but the only way to make sense of it is using path-integral stuff which leads to the many-paths interpretation, which is kind of obscure

[Anonymous No.10981438]

>>10981413
In many worlds, the "particles" are not particles in atomic sense. The wave function is the true reality of "particles".

QFT fields are only quantizing the probabilities of where particles may be observed at any given space. Its not assigning value to whether they have existence in "real space." That job is left to the interpretation.

[Anonymous No.10981491]

>non epistemic interpretations

[Anonymous No.10982032]

>>10981491
>epistemic interpretations

[Anonymous No.10982524]

Oh thank god me a dummy came here to see what smarty people thought of bald ape lover podcast.
Correct me, I thought treating the particle as a wave was just short hand for "it's roughly here" and you can plug that into maths, Not that it doesn't have a fixed point until observed.

[Anonymous No.10982680]

“I think thatmodern physicshas definitelydecided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”

[Anonymous No.10982848]

>>10982680
Based. Meanwhile there are people on this board right now who think the electron is a tiny yellow ball

[Anonymous No.10982853]

>>10982848
Haha fucking retards, everyone knows that electrons are blue

[Anonymous No.10982865]

>>10982524
>Correct me, I thought treating the particle as a wave was just short hand for "it's roughly here" and you can plug that into maths, Not that it doesn't have a fixed point until observed.
Well truth is particles do not behave like a small clump of physical matter would, and neither do they behave as a wave. That's because whatever it is atoms are made of are neither particles nor waves. They are a substance that seems counterintuitive to us macroscopic beings so we call it waveparticles.
Particles aren't tiny balls. There is a diffuse 'something' in a certain energy range, smeared across a small bit of space and time (superposition). That 'something' is in several places at once, has a range of energies and momentum and can be observed in several places in time. But most importantly, all of these properties are interrelated and if you change one, the others must conform such that all properties combined result in one of many physically possible configurations, and all of them move as a unit. So we call this thing a waveparticle.

For you to 'observe' a physical system, you force it to settle into one of the many equivalent configurations and lose superposition. You effectively 'locked' it down or severely restricted it.

If particles had 'fixed points' instead of being actual probability based clouds of waveparticleness, quantum tunnelling wouldn't work, and so you wouldn't have QTE microscopes, MRAM in computers, etc.

[Anonymous No.10982871]

>>10982524
No, the probabilistic nature of particles is from what we know a feature of it, not a measurement problem.

[Anonymous No.10982876]

>there is no matter or energy, joe
>only quantum fields interacting on top of each other

[Anonymous No.10983480]

>>10982865
Oh, for some reason the concept that matter doesn't exist below the atomic level just snapped together in my brain.
I think all these metaphorical explanations (cat in the box, multi worlds) are making things more confusing.

[Anonymous No.10983488]

>>10981259
What he meant is that the the "empty space" is filled with electrons that distribute themselves according to the wave functions (orbitals)

[Anonymous No.10983591]

>>10983488
But at any given time, are the electrons in a single position?

[Anonymous No.10983597]

>>10981259
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL88omsU5dU

[Anonymous No.10983770]

>>10983591
No. There are several energy distributions possible for a particle at a moment in time, and several different spatial configurations for those energy levels. The particle is not in any one place, it is in a state of superposition of configurations that are all over the place, and the particle both occupies them all and none, simultaneously. Any physical states that are mathematically isomorphic are actually the exact same state. And in QM, such states can be written as a linear combination of other states with possible different spatial coordinates, with no preferred one.
When it interacts in a way that breaks superposition, it snaps to occupying another more restricted group of superposed states, information is irreversibly lost, entropy in the Universe increases and time is said to pass. In Copenhagen, the particle decoheres from superposition to a single (more) definite state and other states are said to somehow stop existing. In Many Worlds, the particle only appears to an observer to have decohered, and alternative states are instead said to still exist and it is possible to interact with them.

[Anonymous No.10983776]

Can't believe he went on Joe Rogan lol

[Anonymous No.10983777]

>>10981259
He probably means that the wave function spreads across the entire atom. In fact, it spreads across the entire universe.

[Anonymous No.10983828]

>>10981259
>empty space
No such thing in nature.

[Anonymous No.10983829]

>>10981413
hes redefining concept "electron" and trying to make sense of it using our regular concepts of language etc.


>>10982848
>>10982680
these are the only posts worth reading. Its insane that so many people cannot conceptualize that there could exist "things" or better said, concepts that dont conform to some surface level reality that we experience in everyday life. Particles are no just "little things" in the sense that they are things like notebooks, tables, or rocks. They are literally fundamentally physically different.

It always ironic when the sheer amount of philosophy hatred on this board is exposed for what it truly is: ignorance or unwillingness to use your mind to conceive of things that exist, and can be proven to exist scientifically. What sean is doing is trying to help re analyze what something "is" especially at the quantum level

[Anonymous No.10983848]

What is energy and how does it occupy space at the lowest level?

[Anonymous No.10983982]

>>10983828
No empty space = no motion. You can't displace matter if it doesn't have somewhere to go.

[Anonymous No.10984654]

>>10983982
Sure you can, it's known as compression. The particles compress to allow for something else to exist in their area. For instance, if you have enough force you can keep pushing air into a closed container up to a certain point, even after the space is "filled."

[T !CkVRGtgYP6 No.10984658]

>>10981259
How can your brain be full of so much imagination?