/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11035287]

there are no "particles"
only waves

[Anonymous No.11035306]

>>11035287
indeed, i'd like to think of myself as a vaporwave, wbu?

[Anonymous No.11035313]

there are no "waves"
only mescaline

[Anonymous No.11035315]

>>11035287
yeah, well, what do you call this?
[eqn]\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}e^{i\textbf{k}\textbf{x}}\hat{a}^{\dagger}(\textbf{k})|0\rangle[/eqn]

[Anonymous No.11035348]

>>11035315
what the hell is with that weird dagger

[Anonymous No.11035362]

>>11035315
Probably not a particle

[Anonymous No.11035364]

>>11035348
Hermitian conjugate

[Anonymous No.11035390]

>>11035364
oh my bad, i saw the post on my phone in safari and the hat over the [math]a[/math] got moved over so it was on top of a dagger so it looked like a weird [math]\ddagger[/math]

[Anonymous No.11035903]

>>11035315
A single excitation of a quantum vacuum. Not a hard little ball or point i.e., not a particle.

[Anonymous No.11035996]

>>11035287
>only waves

Of what?

[Anonymous No.11036001]

>>11035348
[math]
A=\begin{pmatrix}
a_{11} & a_{12} & a_{13} \\
a_{21} & a_{22} & a_{23} \\
a_{31} & a_{32} & a_{33}
\end{pmatrix}
\\ \\ \\
\bar{A} = \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{a}_{11} & \overline{a}_{12} & \overline{a}_{13} \\
\overline{a}_{21} & \overline{a}_{22} & \overline{a}_{23} \\
\overline{a}_{31} & \overline{a}_{32} & \overline{a}_{33}
\end{pmatrix}
\\ \\ \\
A^T = \begin{pmatrix}
a_{11} & a_{21} & a_{31} \\
a_{12} & a_{22} & a_{32} \\
a_{13} & a_{23} & a_{33}
\end{pmatrix}
\\ \\ \\
\bar{A}^T=\overline{A^T}= A^*=A^\dagger = \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{a}_{11} & \overline{a}_{21} & \overline{a}_{31} \\
\overline{a}_{12} & \overline{a}_{22} & \overline{a}_{32} \\
\overline{a}_{13} & \overline{a}_{23} & \overline{a}_{33}
\end{pmatrix}
\\ \\ \\
if A = A^\dagger, \text{it's called a HERMITIAN}
[/math]

[Anonymous No.11036004]

>>11035996
>he can't conceptualize waves without medium

[Anonymous No.11036007]

>>11035996
probability

[Anonymous No.11036017]

>>11035287
How make wave with no particle? Where wave come from?

[Anonymous No.11036024]

>>11036017
>he can't conceptualize waves without medium too

[Anonymous No.11036038]

>>11036024
You can't answer.

[Anonymous No.11036046]

>>11036004
>he can't conceptualize waves without medium
>concepts mean more to me than what is actually there in reality
Your image is fitting at least
>>11036007
Of what?

[Anonymous No.11036065]

>>11036046
>Of what?
waves

[Anonymous No.11036073]

there are both particles and waves

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LtT3sfbSXs&t=5s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hopd-gKB1Xc&t=18s

[Anonymous No.11036074]

>>11036046
>Of what?
Of measuring a particle* being in a (x,y,z) place

*) it only looks like a particle because measurement is a crude tool limited by quantum uncertainty - reality is more subtle that what we can measure directly
https://youtu.be/RwdY7Eqyguo?t=14m40s

[Anonymous No.11036077]

>>11036046
>Of what?
Of measuring a particle* being in a (x,y,z) place

*) it only looks like a particle because measurement is a crude tool limited by quantum uncertainty - reality is more subtle than what we can measure directly
https://youtu.be/RwdY7Eqyguo?t=14m40s

[Anonymous No.11036094]

>>11036065
Water? Waves of what? What are the waves made of?
>Of measuring a particle* being in a (x,y,z) place

Waves of a coordinate? What the fuck? Can no one seriously answer this and make some semblance of sense? What are the fucking waves made of?

>it only looks like a particle because measurement is a crude tool limited by quantum uncertainty - reality is more subtle than what we can measure directly

What was wrong with simply saying "I don't know"?

[Anonymous No.11036107]

>>11036046
Waves aren't made of something and don't require any medium, they are disturbances of a field with certain properties.

[Anonymous No.11036135]

>>11036107
>Waves aren't made of something and don't require any medium

So then they aren't "something" to be talked about then

>they are disturbances of a field with certain properties.

So then it's just disturbed fields and the waves don't matter? Is a field a particle?

[Anonymous No.11036137]

>>11036135
>Is a field a particle?

[Anonymous No.11036139]

Phonons exist.

[Anonymous No.11036143]

>>11036137
What is a field?

[Anonymous No.11036150]

>>11036143
It's a quantity that has value at each point.

[Anonymous No.11036157]

>>11036094
>Water?
no
>Waves of what? What are the waves made of?
probability

[Anonymous No.11036163]

>>11036150
>It's a quantity
of what?
>>11036157
Is this circular reasoning day on /sci/ or something? Is there some meme I'm not getting or something?

[Anonymous No.11036172]

>>11036163
>of what?
Fields are physical quantities, they aren't made of something, they just exist.

[Anonymous No.11036173]

>>11036150
why

[Anonymous No.11036174]

>>11036163
>of what?
Of literally anything. Temperature, pressure, gravitational potential*, electric potential*, you name it.
*given a probe charge/mass. Also called field strength if normalised to that probe charge/mass

[Anonymous No.11036176]

>>11036173
>why
Not science or math.

[Anonymous No.11036181]

>>11036172
>Fields are physical quantities, they aren't made of something, they just exist.

Well that's fantastic. If only any of what you said actually was an explanation to what a field actually is then you might be onto something.

>>11036174
So a field is nothing specific?

[Anonymous No.11036187]

>>11036094
awww it's retarded

[Anonymous No.11036188]

>>11036181
>Well that's fantastic. If only any of what you said actually was an explanation to what a field actually is then you might be onto something.
That's because you use some simple definition of what it means for something to be, which in its core is incorrect because you will never be able to stop asking what something is or made of.

[Anonymous No.11036191]

>>11036181
Think of a field as a function R^4 -> anything. If it's a scalar (eg temperature), it's a scalar field. If it's a vector (electric field) field. A field defines a value (scalar, vector, tensor) for every point in space-time.

[Anonymous No.11036192]

>>11036188
>That's because you use some simple definition of what it means for something to be,

No it's because "they just exist" isn't an explanation to anything. I could say the same thing about unicorns.

> which in its core is incorrect because you will never be able to stop asking what something is or made of.
Yes this is indeed a science board.

[Anonymous No.11036193]

>>11036192
>I could say the same thing about unicorns.
Physical quantities can be measured, unlike unicorns.

[Anonymous No.11036195]

>>11036192
No one is stopping you from adding a unicorn field. Until it's measured, it's just not very useful though. The Higgs field wasn't known to exist until an excitation (particle) was measured.

[Anonymous No.11036196]

>>11036193
>Physical quantities can be measured
Not if they aren't made of something. It's like saying "I measured nothing". It makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever. So if a field isn't made of something then how the fuck did you measure it?

[Anonymous No.11036205]

>>11036195
No one is stopping you from adding a unicorn field.
I have no doubt since it seems that this field nonsense just seems to be made up anyway.

Until it's measured, it's just not very useful though.
What is a field? If it's made of something then what is it? If it's made of nothing then it's not very useful and you should probably just stop wasting your time.

>The Higgs field wasn't known to exist until an excitation (particle) was measured.

>we know what it is by only measuring what it does.

It was a unicorn that caused it.

[Anonymous No.11036225]

>>11036094
Waves are made of energy.
Energy is a fluid that has no mass, an equilibrium between radiation and matter. You can measure the pressure of this fluid medium by observing the effects it has on radiation and matter, special and general relativity are descriptions of these effects, not explanations. People who believe that fields exist are braindead.

[Anonymous No.11036227]

>>11036205
>What is a field?
See above. I and other anons tried to explain it. If our attempts and all of the information on the internet couldn't explain you this pretty simple concept of "here it's 20 degrees, over there 10 degrees, in my anus 37 degrees", then I don't think it makes sense talking to you. A field is abstract. It can describe anything. Temperatures are just an example. The fact that one can describe things independently of whether they exist, doesn't mean that the concept of fields is wrong. A field is similar to a map, except it's in space and time.

[Anonymous No.11036528]

>2019
>still using wave and particle analogies
>not knowing there's neither, only quantum particles

[Anonymous No.11036679]

>>11036196
A field isn't "naturally" real, like, say, stuff like electric current is, it's just a construction we use to mathematically model the effects of actually real things, like charges and the forces they produce. When we measure fields, we measure the effects of these real things to map our constructed model

[Anonymous No.11036730]

ther are no waves only information

[Anonymous No.11036812]

>>11036730
fuck you

[Anonymous No.11036828]

>no one knows what fields are
Should we ever discover what they are, then we will want to know who or what placed them there. Should we ever discover what placed them there, then we will want to know what placed the thing that placed them there. And so on unto infinity. The short answer is always that there is something infinite in the world. And there is no escaping that.

[Anonymous No.11036849]

>>11036828
asking where fields came from is the same as asking where the universe/big bang came from. so yeah there's a number of theories now that hing on infinity as the ultimate "cause" (a word that is verboten because cause implies time and there was no time)

[Anonymous No.11036850]

>>11036001
Why are undergrads so fucking cringey
Physics undergrads doubly so

[Anonymous No.11036887]

>>11036073
Dead theory since the 60s.

[Anonymous No.11036893]

I now understand why people turn to religion in the face of a lack of answers as to what all of this is about.

[Anonymous No.11036896]

>>11036887
All interpretations are bunk. All we have to go on are the experiments.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/09/18/this-one-experiment-reveals-more-about-reality-than-any-quantum-interpretation-ever-will

[Anonymous No.11036917]

>>11036150
what is value?
is your mother's love value?

[Anonymous No.11036922]

>>11036176
WHY do science and math so intimately intertwine with philosophy when you delve deep enough into them? Just ask Leibniz.

[Anonymous No.11036929]

>>11036896
Wrong. The experiment kills any collapse interpretations. The collapse interpretation requires time traveling explanations. Everett interpretation works just fine as there was never any collapse.

[Anonymous No.11036934]

>>11036929
shut up and calculate, asshole

[Anonymous No.11036943]

>>11036929
Go to bed, Sean Carroll.

[Anonymous No.11036987]

>>11036205
I think you're confusing scientific models with ontological reality, go read up on the various interpretations of QM and go with whatever you like best

[Anonymous No.11037082]

>>11036001
>finite dimensions

[Anonymous No.11037091]

>>11036679
So you cannot differentiate it from what it does and you call it a thing?

>>11036987
I think you're confusing scientific models with ontological reality.
And I think you're confusing science with religion. If its not testable then it isn't science. If it's not real then it certainly isn't testable.

>go read up on the various interpretations of QM and go with whatever you like best
Yeah and it all says "here's a quantity" with no explanation as to whether what is being observed is actually a quantity or not. Why would I engage in such an insane prospect?

>>11036225
>Energy is a fluid that has no mass, an equilibrium between radiation and matter.
What is the difference between radiation and matter?

>>11036227
>If our attempts and all of the information on the internet couldn't explain you this pretty simple concept of "here it's 20 degrees, over there 10 degrees, in my anus 37 degrees", then I don't think it makes sense talking to you

Of course it doesn't make sense. You still have not told me what a field is. You just point to a spectrum of whatever property you like and just call it "a field" and expect me to make sense of it. So why do you all waste so much time trying to prove the existence of something you know is not a specific thing? How can the "Higgs Field" even be real when you're basically telling me fields are just a concept to begin with? Were all those conspiracy theorist correct, are you guys just making stuff up as you go along for the research money? What have you actually discovered in your search for that which does not exist?

>A field is abstract. It can describe anything. Temperatures are just an example. The fact that one can describe things independently of whether they exist, doesn't mean that the concept of fields is wrong. A field is similar to a map, except it's in space and time.

Okay. Fields are unicorns. Can I ride the Higgs unicorn sometime?

>>11036528
>Look ma I stuck the word "quantum" in front of another word!

[Anonymous No.11037092]

>>11037091
i see lots of rhetorical questions but i don't know what you were arguing in the first place. are you arguing that fields don't real?

[Anonymous No.11037111]

>>11037091
>when you're basically telling me fields are just a concept to begin with?
You dense motherfucker. Vectors are also just a concept to begin with. Yet, we can talk about velocity vectors. Would you be happy if I told you that a field is just a function f(x, y, z, t)?
inb4
>hurrdurr functions can't exist

[Anonymous No.11037113]

>>11037092
He's just angry because he doesn't understand. and he's too stupid to just open
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

[Anonymous No.11037119]

>>11037111
So then the Higgs Boson is just a bunch of bullshit you morons made up. You're getting funded to research bullshit. No wonder we're still stuck on this fucking rock, all our smartest minds are literally chasing after unicorns.

[Anonymous No.11037125]

>>11037113
>In physics, a field is a physical quantity

I was literally just told that it was an abstraction.

Is anyone here going to answer me without contradicting themselves in the first sentence? If they aren't real then WHERE THE FUCK IS THE QUANTITY YOU MORON?

QUANTITY OF FUCKING WHAT

[Anonymous No.11037141]

>>11037119
The Higgs boson is not the field. And the fact that we measured an excitation means that this field exists. Just like the electron field exists because we know that electrons exist.

>>11037125
>quoting a half sentence in a way that it loses all meaning
Which field are you talking about, moron? The CONCEPT of a field is an abstraction, a specific field (AS I HAVE POINTED OUT BEFORE) relates to a quantity (SUCH AS TEMPERATURE SEE ABOVE). I though, before I start with quantum fields, I start with a quantity that an imbecile like you can understand. Temperature is a quantity, you know? We can define a temperature field. That is a function that depends on space and time. f(my ass, now) = 37 °C. f(my ass + 10m, now) = 5 °C because that's outside. But it's the same field.

[Anonymous No.11037150]

>>11037125
Wiki uses loose terms. "physical quantity" is a weasel word. First of all, fields is not physical. Second of all, its not a quantity, the quantized bits of the fields are "particles" that we know of.

[Anonymous No.11037172]

>>11037150
Also the idea of "physical" is irrelevant because our understanding of "physical", aka the "substance" and "the forces" are not there for field theory. Field theory gives the impression of "substance" and "forces" that our senses can understand.

[Anonymous No.11037179]

>>11037172
BUT FORCES ARE NOT REAL HERPDERP

[Anonymous No.11037204]

>>11037179
"Real" and "reality" are matters of knowledge/understanding of what we observe. We know forces and we can observe the forces in act. But we also know fields theory but we can't observe it, we can only make calculations and predictions for which there is no better. Thus giving a sense of semi-realism.

[Anonymous No.11037218]

>>11037119
coulomb's law says that two charged particles attract of repulse each other. (i.e. they experience a force)
keep one particle fixed, but move the second particle around. put it at a point, measure the force it experiences, and draw a corresponding arrow. do this for all points and what you get is called an electric field.
so the electric field tells you this: if you put a particle with (unit, positive) charge at a point in space, it will experience a force equal to the electric field at that point.
so far an electric field is just a mathematical concept (an arrow at each point, a "hypothetical force")
clearly charged particles generate an electric field, that's how the electric field was defined in the first place
however it is true that an electric field exists even if there are no charged particles present. what do we mean by "exists" ? by definition, electric field is the force which would act on a particle if you place if at the point. so do exactly this, and if the particle moves, then an electric field is present. experiments have confirmed that situations like this indeed occur, therefore the electric field is not just mathematics, but a physical object on its own.

[Anonymous No.11037224]

>>11036143
literally just a function.

[Anonymous No.11037225]

>>11035287
This thread shouldn't have more than 20 posts in any timeline.

[Anonymous No.11037348]

>>11037141
>And the fact that we measured an excitation means that this field exists.
>"I waved my hand and just like that you know exactly who I am".
Only you still don't know anything about me, just that my hand moves.

>a specific field (AS I HAVE POINTED OUT BEFORE) relates to a quantity (SUCH AS TEMPERATURE SEE ABOVE)
>Temperature is a quantity, you know?

"hot" and "cold" are qualities, not quantities you idiot.

>though, before I start with quantum fields, I start with a quantity that an imbecile like you can understand.
Right, you make it up then you "observe" your assumptions.

>We can define a temperature field.
But you can't explain what causes temperature.

>That is a function that depends on space and time

Neither space nor time have qualities that can be measured or cause anything to be "dependent" upon it. Why? Because neither of those things are quantifiable. They aren't real and they have no effect on anything in reality.

>>11037150

>First of all, fields is not physical. Second of all, its not a quantity,
> the quantized bits of the fields are "particles" that we know of.

So that which has no quantity results in quantities?

>>11037218
>coulomb's law says that two charged particles attract of repulse each other. (i.e. they experience a force)
Impossible. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Where did this "force" come from? Luke Skywalker?

>keep one particle fixed, but move the second particle around. put it at a point, measure the force it experiences, and draw a corresponding arrow. do this for all points and what you get is called an electric field.

Still doesn't tell me what causes a field

>clearly charged particles generate an electric field, that's how the electric field was defined in the first place

>Clearly, my ass produces flatulence. What causes it to do this? I don't have to explain why it just does!

>so do exactly this, and if the particle moves, then an electric field is present.
So then a field is motion?

[Anonymous No.11037361]

>>11037348
>So that which has no quantity results in quantities?
Essentially yes. All particles are part of 1 giant mesh of field.

[Anonymous No.11037363]

>>11037348
>Impossible. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Where did this "force" come from? Luke Skywalker?
if you refuse to acknowledge the (hundreds of years old and thousands of times experimentally verified) fact that two charged particles, such as electrons, attract or repulse each other, then there's no point in going any further

>Still doesn't tell me what causes a field
It literally, in this example it is a charged particle

>So then a field is motion?
the value of an electric field at a point of space is the force which would be experienced by a particle with a unit and positive charge when placed at that point.

[Anonymous No.11037377]

>>11037363
>if you refuse to acknowledge the (hundreds of years old and thousands of times experimentally verified) fact that two charged particles, such as electrons, attract or repulse each other, then there's no point in going any further

There is absolutely no empirical evidence of any particle charge carrying or otherwise so basically this sentence means absolutely nothing from a scientific standpoint. Attract? Repulse? What causes that? From where does the force come from that allows these magical bumping particle to execute such contradiction?

>It literally, in this example it is a charged particle
I thought particles were the excitation of fields (what a field does)? At least that's what some people in this thread have been saying. So which is it? What a field does or the cause of a field to begin with?

>the value of an electric field at a point of space is the force which would be experienced by a particle with a unit and positive charge when placed at that point.

That still does not tell me what a field is.

[Anonymous No.11037398]

>>11037377
>There is absolutely no empirical evidence of any particle charge carrying or otherwise so basically this sentence means absolutely nothing from a scientific standpoint. Attract? Repulse? What causes that? From where does the force come from that allows these magical bumping particle to execute such contradiction?
causes are irrelevant now. point is that it happens that way.

>That still does not tell me what a field is.
it literally tells you what an electric field is. people have given you answers for what a general field is, but they were too abstract for you.

[Anonymous No.11037435]

>>11037398
>causes are irrelevant now.

Not science.

>point is that it happens that way.

And you only have absolutely no idea why or how to figure out why.

>it literally tells you what an electric field is.

No it describes what was observed.

"the value of an electric field at a point of space is the force which would be experienced by a particle with a unit and positive charge when placed at that point."

Is a description not an explanation. What "force"? Where does the force come from? This still does not tell me what causes the fucking field! What happens to the electric field when the charge is negative?

>People have given you answers for what a general field is, but they were too abstract for you.
Because they're a fucking abstraction in and of themselves. Even many people here have already agreed with this sentiment. So I fail to see why I should believe that field even exists. They were literally made up because no one understands what the fuck is actually going on.

[Anonymous No.11037460]

>>11037348
Okay, I give up. Chapeau. You're an excellent troll. I got really mad at you.

[Anonymous No.11037462]

>>11037435
>This still does not tell me what causes the fucking field
either particles with charge or changes in the magnetic field

[Anonymous No.11037494]

>>11037462
What happens to the electric field when the charge is negative?

>Changes in another field causes a field
Things don't define themselves, that's illogical. So is a field just "change"? Then it isn't something specific to be studied or known.

>>11037460
>You're an excellent troll. I got really mad at you.

I'm not trolling. What causes a fucking field? The only one getting really fucking mad right now is me. I am absolutely livid that I have asked this question for more than 12 hours now no one has made any logical answer/explanation behind it. I am simple given description after description.

Imagine that a group in modern day civilization believes in something that they don't even know is real. Then this same group criticizes others groups for doing the exact same thing they're doing and claims that their way is right solely because they theorized about it more and recorded what they observed more.

Which one would be more right? Where would "religion" and "modern day science" fit in as a substitute for said "groups"?

[Anonymous No.11037614]

>>11037494
>I'm not trolling. What causes a fucking field?
GOD. Or what do you want to hear? What causes an electron? What causes a rock?

A field is just a mathematical expression for something. In many senses a good one. I keep telling you, it's just a map that translates position and time into SOMETHING. ANYTHING. WHATEVER YOU WANT. Then it is a field. Maybe not the field you wanted, but it is one.

You write misconceptions so fast I cannot follow up. I am sorry. You keep asking the same stuff again and again ignoring previous answers and not even TRYING to understand. And in the meantime you write shit like
>>coulomb's law says that two charged particles attract of repulse each other. (i.e. they experience a force)
>Impossible. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Where did this "force" come from? Luke Skywalker?
Like. What the hell man? Coulomb's law is impossible? You start mocking people explaining shit to you just because you are too dumb to even think for two seconds what they were saying? Of course, forces exist. And that is not a contradicion with conservation of energy. This misconception of yours would require an hour long lecture on all the details that are wrong with your understanding of the world, but instead of saying "Hey, sorry I don't understand, how can we have a force if energy is conserverd?" you decided to be a little twat and talk about Luke Skywalker. Fuck you. You want free education? Be nice. If you're a twat, go to school where people are being paid to deal with you. You should have learnt that shit in 8th grade.

[Anonymous No.11037719]

>>11037614
>GOD. Or what do you want to hear? What causes an electron? What causes a rock?
he wants to keep asking more and more fundamental questions until that question becomes "why does the nature work like this?", because that's a question which obviously cannot be answered, and at that point he will say "ha I told you so, you know nothing".

[Anonymous No.11037721]

>>11037614
>GOD. Or what do you want to hear? What causes an electron? What causes a rock?

An answer. I want an actual answer that isn't made up religious mumbo jumbo.

>A field is just a mathematical expression for something. In many senses a good one. I keep telling you, it's just a map that translates position and time into SOMETHING. ANYTHING. WHATEVER YOU WANT. Then it is a field. Maybe not the field you wanted, but it is one.

So they don't exist then. Why are they used in a scientific manner then?

>Like. What the hell man? Coulomb's law is impossible?
Descriptions do indeed describe. Anyone on the planet is capable of describing what is observed.

>You start mocking people explaining shit to you just because you are too dumb to even think for two seconds what they were saying? Of course, forces exist

Well Coulombs law doesn't explain where the force comes from. It describes using math to quantify the observation made. It's the same as saying "like poles on a magnet repel hurr durr" but that doesn't tell me why or what causes it.

>And that is not a contradicion with conservation of energy.

Altering the form of something that cannot quantitatively change is not a force. There cannot be force because there cannot be change.

>Fuck you. You want free education? Be nice. If you're a twat, go to school where people are being paid to deal with you. You should have learnt that shit in 8th grade.

>"You should have bought into the ponzi scheme like the rest of us who enjoy the subversion!"

Not science.

[Anonymous No.11037752]

>>11037719
You called it. See the post below yours.

>>11037721
>An answer. I want an actual answer that isn't made up religious mumbo jumbo.
See above. I won't give you an answer that will satisfy you. See this as a proof that I'm dumb, but at some point when your 4 year old daughter keeps asking "why", you arrive at "well, that's just the way our universe is".

>So they don't exist then
Again with that stupid arrogance of yours. Of course it exists. If I create a map of planet earth with elevations, that map exists. If I create a 4D map of the universe with temperatures it exists.
>Why are they used in a scientific manner then?
Because it exists and normally people are not too stupid to understand that

>Well Coulombs law doesn't explain where the force comes from. It describes using math to quantify the observation made.
Well tough tiddies. That's life. That's literally physics. Newton's axions are just that: Axioms. No first principle. Physics just describes the way the world is.

>There cannot be force
Oh, so all science in the last 300 years is wrong then? Or maybe you just apply your own crackpot definitions to established principles?
>Altering the form of something that cannot quantitatively change is not a force.
That is literally what a force is. You lift shit up, you apply force and transform chemical energy in your muscles into potential energy (shit is now high). Then you drop shit, that potential energy is being transformed to kinetic energy by gravitational force and acceleration following that force and when that shit finally hits the ground, the kinetic energy is being transformed into deformation energy and ultimately heat.

>Not science.
Says the guy who doesn't understand what physics is or what forces are. Seriously, some education would help you experss yourself in ways that you don't have to ask the same questions for 12 hours until people understand what you want. May I ask you: Have you been to school? Did you have physics in school?

[Anonymous No.11037806]

>>11037752
>If I create a map of planet earth with elevations, that map exists
and does not pertain to how any of what you charted was formed. Another description with no explanation.

>If I create a 4D map of the universe with temperatures it exists.
It exists to describe a concept. Which again doesn't mean anything.

>Because it exists and normally people are not too stupid to understand that
Sorry that I am too ignorant to make up my own illogical rules and descriptions.

Well that's really fucking stupid then. Sorry that physics ended up being absolutely no different than metaphysics in the end. Hope you didn't drop money on it, I would feel cheated.

>Physics just describes the way the world is.
So do bums on the street. Maybe that's the inspiration for all their whacky hair dos.

>Oh, so all science in the last 300 years is wrong then?
Well I guess so since it can't even tell me where the fucking force it describes comes from. Midi-chlorians? The angel Moroni? It's "not even wrong" tier cause all it does is describe.

>That is literally what a force is.
>geomancy is a force

>You lift shit up, you apply force and transform chemical energy in your muscles into potential energy (shit is now high). Then you drop shit, that potential energy is being transformed to kinetic energy by gravitational force and acceleration following that force and when that shit finally hits the ground, the kinetic energy is being transformed into deformation energy and ultimately heat.

Which is once again a description that doesn't explain where the force came from....

>Says the guy who doesn't understand what physics is or what forces are
>May I ask you: Have you been to school? Did you have physics in school?
Says the guy who was convinced that "forces exist" by a religion that only describes observations yet never explained what causes them. Yeah I totally want to be indoctrinated into your irrational religion.

[Anonymous No.11037825]

>>11037806
>It exists to describe a concept. Which again doesn't mean anything.
Of course temperature means something. You can relate it to kinetic energy and degrees of freedom and shit. Pick up a book.

>Sorry that physics ended up being absolutely no different than metaphysics in the end.
Well, physics describes what we can observe. Just because you're too autistic to believe in forces and temperatures doesn't mean that the rest of the population is.

>it can't even tell me where the fucking force it describes comes from
Well, if you showed that you understand classical mechanics, I might have moved the topic to quantum fields and especially the description of forces. But you fail at classical fields, so I see no point in moving to more advanced topics.

>Which is once again a description that doesn't explain where the force came from....
Maybe YOU should study metaphysics if you're more interested in understanding why our universe works than in how it works.

>Says the guy who was convinced that "forces exist"
If I punch you in the face, what breaks your bones? Midichlorians? Or maybe the electrons in my fist repelling the electrons in your face? "How could you break my nose? Coulomb interaction is nothing but a hoax!"

[Anonymous No.11037827]

>>11037091
>condescending comment about the quantum in quantum particles
Yeah, that's what they're called, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11037834]

What I've been trying to tell you 12 hours ago, when you were busy with your "aha! fields don't exist! why should we give you money?":
Science has no definite truths. Science has hypotheses, which should be testable. They are accepted as long as they describe everything we can observe and are not falsified by observations. Let me claim that the number 60 is divisible by all other numbers. I know the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15 and 20. It's a fair assumption then. Now you show me that there is a number 7 and that 60 is not divisible by 7. Then my theory is proven to be wrong. But you cannot prove it right. Neither can you prove anything right.

[Anonymous No.11037859]

>>11037825
>Of course temperature means something.

What doth cold?

>You can relate it to kinetic energy and degrees of freedom and shit. Pick up a book.
>less stuff is something

>Well, physics describes what we can observe.
That's what I've been saying. At least you get that much.

>Just because you're too autistic to believe in forces and temperatures doesn't mean that the rest of the population is.
Things have qualities, not the other way around you backwards person you. I refuse to believe in forces because there is literally no reason or evidence there to prove they exist. Sorry you watch too much TV like the rest of the population, but we're talking about reality here.

>Well, if you showed that you understand classical mechanics, I might have moved the topic to quantum fields and especially the description of forces. But you fail at classical fields, so I see no point in moving to more advanced topics.

Hahahaha. Are you fucking serious right now? Your retort is;
"Sorry you don't understand my batshit insane descriptions that don't actually explain anything in reality. Too bad so sad for you, I might have lied to you more had you believed me the first time".

And you are so deluded into this rubbish that you actually believe what you said made any sense and would convince me otherwise. I don't even have a reply to this because I don't know what to make of this insanity.

>Maybe YOU should study metaphysics if you're more interested in understanding why our universe works than in how it works.
Maybe You should first figure out whether things are actually physical or not before wasting hundreds of years describing illogical religious nonsense.

>If I punch you in the face, what breaks your bones?

You did, you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.11037861]

>>11037859
If forces don't exist, what keeps you on the ground?

[Anonymous No.11037870]

>>11037859
>I refuse to believe in forces because there is literally no reason or evidence there to prove they exist.
dude if you really mean this sentence, then you got LITERALLY EVERYTHING about physics wrong. what you just said translates to
>I don't believe that oriented arrows are a good description of interactions of objects that change motion.
you don't need to go back to classical mechanics, you need to go back to the preface where they explain how physics work.

[Anonymous No.11037880]

>>11037870
>you need to go back to the preface where they explain how physics work.
We teach this in physics 1 typically, which is mostly classical mechanics. But yeah. I'd take my time to that guy after class, but after an hour or so I'd tell him that I have to leave and if he's more interested in why the universe works than in how, he should study philosophy and not science.

[Anonymous No.11037925]

>>11037861
>If forces don't exist, what keeps you on the ground?

You tell me. "Gravity keeps you on the ground!" is a description by the way, unless you'd like to explain what causes that and extend this thread another 200 posts.

>>11037870

>dude if you really mean this sentence, then you got LITERALLY EVERYTHING about physics wrong

Which is a good thing since physics is fundamentally wrong to begin with. You once again assume that this is somehow an insult to me yet you're further proving how closely related physics is to religious beliefs. Most branches of physics actually believe in this poppycock, I do mean this sentence because you yourself told me that Physics describes observations. There is no empirical evidence that support the existence of a "force" because there is NO EXPLINATION OF WHERE THE ALLEGED FORCE COMES FROM. Do things "force" themselves for no reason whatsoever? Does God force them? What causes it? Is it uncaused? Then it's not a fucking force because NOTHING WOULD HAVE CAUSED THE FORCE TO BEGIN WITH.

>I don't believe that oriented arrows are a good description of interactions of objects that change motion.

Descriptions are not explanations!

>You don't need to go back to classical mechanics, you need to go back to the preface where they explain how physics work.

You don't need to invent made up things when there's plenty of empirical evidence to work with and compare. In order for something to actually work in reality it has to actually exist first. You can't just make up things to hypothesis about. They have to actually be observed, then explained even in the case of a hypothesis. You need evidence as a starting point.

[Anonymous No.11037975]

>>11037925
>Descriptions are not explanations!
physics describes,not explains

[Anonymous No.11038003]

>>11036157
"Probability" is not a material. Saying waves are made of probability is like saying smiles are made of happiness.

[Anonymous No.11038009]

>>11037975
>physics describes,not explains

Which is what I've been saying this entire time. I guess my question can't be answered here which is really scary if you ask me. In fact, it makes me realize that physics... isn't actually any form of science at all.

[Anonymous No.11038049]

>>11038009
What's your question?
I'm not reading that entire conversation.

[Anonymous No.11038098]

>>11038049
>I'm not reading that entire conversation.
you better are

[Anonymous No.11038235]

>>11037091
>What is the difference between radiation and matter?

Matter is a vortex in energy, confined to an axis of rotation, produced by perturbation of the medium. Radiation is an acoustic wave in this medium, and is not confined to an axis of rotation.

Radiation and matter are both actions of the medium. We are all one breath, one word.

[Anonymous No.11038240]

>>11038235
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11038261]

>>11038240
I am literally the only person in the entire thread who has even attempted to answer Guts' question of "Waves of what?"

I don't belong on /x/ just because I understand that fields do not exist and I listen to TOOL.

[Anonymous No.11038269]

>>11038261
waves of the quantum field. is this tough to grok for you bro?

i know that EU idiots like to try and push this line of questioning but i hope you aren't one of them. it reeks of that but so far i only see basic-level EU arguments

[Anonymous No.11038275]

>>11038269
Nigger you don't understand.
I said fields do not exist. Using hurr durr flat earth buzzwords and slapping on the word quantum will never convince me otherwise.

[Anonymous No.11038492]

>>11038275
But saying fields don't exist is even more regarded that flat earth stuff. It's like saying "multiplication doesn't exist"

[Anonymous No.11038497]

>>11038492
Whatever faggot

[Anonymous No.11038507]

>>11038009
Go to any subject and ask the same questions. Biology:
>>WHY does this molecule bind to the other one?
>something something hydrogen bonds
>>hydrogen bonds aren't real. Also, you're describing how, not why

Do you see that you are the problem? If you keep asking why, at some point there is no answer. Why are we on this planet? Why are energy states of nuclei the way they are? Why does nuclear fusion work? These are all questions that cannot be answered the way you want answers.

What can be answered if the following: how old are you and what's your level of education?

[Anonymous No.11038573]

>>11038507
You are the glow nigger.

[Anonymous No.11038639]

>>11038573
The question about education wasn't meant as an attack. I want to know if you're some 15 year old learning about physics and just questioning everything he learns or if you should know better because you've been to university and you just purposely pretend you don't know what a force is.

[Anonymous No.11038736]

>>11038639
I'm nobody.
He's Gutsfag.
You are glowing in the dark.

[Anonymous No.11038796]

>>11038736
I do not understand your creole

[Hoaxfag No.11038825]

Quantum mechanics is a hoax.
The reason you all find it confusing is because the people explaining it don't understand it either.
Do you guys remember the cold fusion delusion thing, when that electrochemist published that paper and it turned out he was just fudging his results.
It's called cheating ;)
Anyway if you actually do some research and try and make sense of evidence for wave particle duality, specifically the twin slit experimnt , you will discover that contemporary QM physicists have amalgamated several experiments.
Light is always observed to be a wave, the medium for light wave propagation is the background electromagnetic radiation, left over from the big bang,
Evidence for light being a particle is a theory based of experiments done with electrons, wave particle duality is a thought experiment , it has no actual observed phenomena to suggest that light is ever a particle.
Background EMF is the "aether", QM hoaxters are trying to call it "quantum fluid" to explain away the inconsistencies in the numerous competing QM theories.

Do you wanna know what limits the speed of light?
As the wavelength becomes smaller as the frequency increases, the medium eventually becomes opaque to the propagated wave.
The waves of light are generated by outer valence shell electrons oscillating back and forth between the valence shells.
It's just simple physics, you are all being led on a wild goose chase by charlatans who need research grant money.
All your gods are a lie.

[Hoaxfag No.11038833]

This is why "massless" "photons" are pulled into black holes, it's because the black hole acts as broadband antenna, absorbing the background EMF and thus creating a ring of perfect darkness, because the light waves propagation medium isn't there, it's a EMF void.

[Anonymous No.11038834]

>>11038825
>Evidence for light being a particle is a theory based of experiments done with electrons
Photoelectric effect begs to differ.

[Anonymous No.11038837]

>>11038825
Oh wow, where to start... there are a lot of truths in this and a lot of half truths

[Hoaxfag No.11038849]

>>11038834
Why though?
Light waves strike the surface and create a potential difference between two conducting layers, the electron imbalance creates a current as the excess electrons try to migrate back to the top,
Why does this suggest light is a particle?
If you know, tell me.
:)

[Anonymous No.11038851]

>>11038849
Because a stronger light below the threshold (i.e. a stronger electric field, i.e. a higher potential difference) still doesn't cause a current.

[Hoaxfag No.11038855]

>>11038837
Start wherever you want man :)
Just remember, you are telling me there are several competing QM theories, and only one of them is true. Surely the suggestion that maybe none of them is true is reasonable.
The grand unifieing theory of everything is that Einstein lied.
Nothing is smaller than an electron.
Job done. Have some certainty in an uncertain world.
:)

[Anonymous No.11038871]

How do you explain this?

[Anonymous No.11038876]

>>11038871

[Hoaxfag No.11038885]

>>11038851
That's because the electrons aren't being moved far enough to create the potential difference. There has to be a large enough net migration.
I don't see how this is evidence for light being a particle.
I can generate current in a thermocouple with microwave radiation.
It doesnt mean microwaves are a particle.
You are in a state called "can't see the forest for the trees"
It means you are too involved in the details to see it he bigger picture.
This whole situation is just a snowballing false dichotomy.
It's not ok to explain away confusing phenomenon with magic.
You guys are actually talking about magic and pretending it's real.
Crazy heiroglyphic symbols no one understands, people running particle accelerators to summon imaginary magic stuff and contemplate God and extra dimensional entities.
This has gone way too far.

[Anonymous No.11038896]

>>11038885
>That's because the electrons aren't being moved far enough to create the potential difference. There has to be a large enough net migration.
Ok but what if I increase the light intensity? At some point, do the electrons move far enough?

[Hoaxfag No.11038898]

Oh and the endless persuit of quantum computers.
Where when they turn them on they explode...
And you can't program them.
Oh and the transistors need to exist in a state of being simultaneously on and off.
Have you seen how much money these charlatans get.
Just look at CERN.
Quantum mechanics research grant applications are just a big load of incomprehensible symbols and then they sign the cheque.
Just try being open minded for a minute.

[Anonymous No.11038903]

>>11038898
Typically when you apply for grants, you don't write symbols those brainlet politicians don't understand :)
You try to dumb it down in a way they understand. But QM is hard, so it's not easy to find adequate examples.

[Hoaxfag No.11038917]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/

These guys got a nobel prize. Turned out the were fradulantly representing results by modifying the algorithms to falsely report detection.

You could almost say...that nobel prize winning quantum physicists worked together as a team to cheat, by performing an elaborate hoax.

But you all believed that before it got disproven. Just as you believe in wave particle duality, before it was disproven ;)

Fool me once..shame on you...fool me twice...can't get fooled again.

[Anonymous No.11038919]

>>11038917
And what about the photoelectric effect at high light intensities?

[Anonymous No.11038947]

>>11038917
If you can't even answer >>11038919 I have to assume you're just full of shit and going full dunning kruger

[Hoaxfag No.11038951]

>>11038896
I'm not sure what you mean :) when light waves hit an absorbing surface, the waves vibrate the molecules. This vibration causes friction between the molecules that generates energy in the form of heat. More energy makes the electrons move around further from the nucleus, it's like when you use a flame to heat metal and it gets red, then Orange then white then blue as the electrons vibrate faster the frequency of the outputted light increases, but below a certain heat there is no light output because the electrons aren't vibrating fast enough.

[Anonymous No.11038961]

>>11038951
But no matter how much red light you shine, you will never free electrons. Unless you really heat up that plate. But with blue light you measure a current without significantly heating up the plate. Pls explain.

[Hoaxfag No.11038962]

>>11038947
It's because I don't fully understand the question.
It isn't really worded well enough for a structured answer.
If we are all pretending to understand QM let's word the question in maybe an exam format or something.

Maybe you could ask me?
What about the photoelectric effect suggests light is a particle?

Because below a certain light energy level the solar panel doesn't produce a current ?

Is that answer really good enough for you though?

[Anonymous No.11038980]

>>11038962
Why is the current zero for certain wavelengths irregardless of the light flux? Above a certain wavelength, the current is proportional to the flux. Below that wavelength it's zero. Please explain.

[Hoaxfag No.11039011]

>>11038961
Which experiment are you referring to? Do you mean if I shine monochromatic red light on a solar panel,no matter what the intensity, I won't get a current?

Absorption and emission spectra of elements are all different, different photovoltaic cells are going to respond with different absorrbtion rates to different frequencies of light. So whatever they were using in the photoelectric experimnt probably wasn't sensitive the the red light spectrum.

https://laserpointerforums.com/threads/using-lasers-to-power-solar-cells.48816/

This says a red laser will power a photovoltaic cell.

Keep asking questions though, let's hack this out.

[Hoaxfag No.11039032]

>>11038980
It's regardless not irregardless, unless you are doing a subtle American Dad quote in which case I applaud.
Anyway
Flux means a change in levels of energy, you might mean lux, which is a measure of light energy ;).

If the energy of the light, the amplitude, is below a certain level, the solar panel doesnt have enough energy for the electrons to move across the doped semi conductor layers, so there is no potential difference.

Also different photovoltaic cells have different light frequency responses , so if it's sensitive to blue light then red light is far from the optimal absorrbtion curve.
They have red and infra red solar panels though....

If you struggle with the definition of basic science words then you need to learn more before you can discuss advanced physics concepts ;) you must walk before you can run my good man :)

[Anonymous No.11039047]

>>11036812
t. waveling

[Anonymous No.11039088]

>one description doesn't make sense but can be formalized and makes testable prediction
>the other description is not formalized, doesn't make testable predictions and makes sense only to mentally ill cranks
Hmm, I wonder which one I should pick.

[Anonymous No.11039093]

>>11039011
>Which experiment are you referring to?
Not solar cells. I am referring to Photoelectric emission.
>This says a red laser will power a photovoltaic cell.
Does not matter. Let's look at zinc, just because I found a plot of this on wikipedia. Why don't we see a current for light below a certain wavelength? Shown here is the kinetic energy of electrons emitted from a metal plate. If you have electrons, the number of electrons (i. e. current) increases with the intensity of the light.

[Anonymous No.11039203]

>>11039093
>No answer
I can't say I'm surprised.

[Hoaxfag No.11039212]

>>11039093
From the wikipedia article on the photoelectric effect
"Emissions can be induced with photons with energies approaching zero"

I understand your confusion, because I felt the same way, Quantum mechanics theory is a Rubik's cube of information, but in the example just given, where apparently there is a threshhold minimum, it also states there is no minimum for emission.

You can try for a while lifetime and you will never make the pieces fit, because the theory is diluted with too many lies.

[Anonymous No.11039218]

>>11039212
>Emissions can be induced with photons with energies approaching zero"
(in the case of negative electron affinity)

What about materials with positive electron affinity? Why are you evading my questions? Let's talk about zinc.

>it also states there is no minimum for emission
For certain materials. For others, there is a minimum. Please explain where that minimum comes from.

[Hoaxfag No.11039273]

>>11039218
Wikipedia says that the threshold increases based on how heavy the element is.
So zinc is relatively heavy, so it has a threshold for photoemission relatively higher than the lighter elements that have a lower threshold.

I'm not evading your questions, you are not presenting them in a standard science like format, so I have no way to answer them in a standard science like format.
You have obviously done an exam and at least studied high school physics, surely you can word your questions a little better, it feels like you are being deliberately vague and confusing in an effort to make this difficult ;)

But I already answered where the minimum comes from, it's because you need to stimulate the element with enough energy to move the electrons fast enough that they leave the surface of the element.

[Anonymous No.11039296]

>>11039273
For the 100th time:
Why is there a threshold wavelength for light-induced electron emission in zinc? How much more precise can I be? If I had to write an exercise for an exam, I would ask you to describe what is shown in this plot. I'd give you half a point for describing what's on the axes, half a point for "zero, then at some point linear" and 2 points for the subsequent explanation. Half a bonus point if you describe the point where the linear part would meet the y axis. So if you want this to be exam-like, I ask you to answer this as if it was an exam question.

>But I already answered where the minimum comes from, it's because you need to stimulate the element with enough energy to move the electrons fast enough that they leave the surface of the element.
Wrong. F. See me after class. If you tune up the energy, you still won't get electron emission (up to the moment where you heat up the plate enough with a big ass laser)

[Anonymous No.11039317]

>>11039273
>I'm not evading your questions, you are not presenting them in a standard science like format, so I have no way to answer them in a standard science like format.

[Anonymous No.11039325]

>Model reality with mathematical object called a field
>Retards start sperging out about what is real
Go read some philosophy

[Anonymous No.11039435]

>>11039296
>I'd give you points
Your life is pointless

[Anonymous No.11039460]

>>11039435
That is evading the question.... Again.

[Anonymous No.11039483]

>>11039460
I think, he ran out of ways to troll. I mean, it's fun to pretend to be retarded, but when he has no other way than go give the correct answer, it's hard to keep pretending.

[Anonymous No.11039553]

What a surprise, the platonic idealists and the dialectical materialists are fighting again.

>Fuckin' commie bastards tryna fuck my hwife.
WELL I'M NOT SHARIN'!

>Cyka Blyat these capitalist dogs will stop at nothing to deceive, deride and delude the proletariat with their lies!

Meanwhile Gutsfag is just like
>waves of what

God damn I love this board.

[Anonymous No.11039567]

>>11035287
There are no particles and there are no waves. Just useful and unuseful models.

[Anonymous No.11039635]

>>11039553
The internet is the biggest philosophical battleground in history

[Anonymous No.11039664]

>>11038961
More frequencyin the blue spectrum in the same footprint of space than the red spectrum causes more agitation, obviously so.

>>11039093
>the number of electrons (i. e. current) increases with the intensity of the light.

Smaller the space the higher the capacitance. The blue light is effectively doing the same thing as the red, only faster and in a smaller space.

>>11039325
Philosophically, fields do not exist as something with a basis in reality and neither do waves because a wave is what something else does. Both are concepts which while "real" in the conceptual sense are not actually real in a physical sense because they are not "something" empirical to be testable. They are not an actual "object" to be negated or supported. They are 100 percent made up as an abstraction for use by the human mind when solving human problems. This is a fact, otherwise someone in this thread would have already pointed to a field/wave that is testable. They are privations of an actual real testable thing whether it be a magnet or an antennae or whatever. Which is why when you change that "thing" the field/waves change with it.

>>11039553
Never doubt the power of asking a question.

>>11039088
>one description doesn't make sense but can be formalized and makes testable prediction
>the other description is not formalized, doesn't make testable predictions and makes sense only to mentally ill cranks

>You can test and formalize that which made no logical sense to begin with without formulating some semblance of an explanation in the form of a hypothesis to first see if what you're trying to explain is even a real thing.

You should pick neither because both would lead you to the exact same conclusion depending on what it "is"(or isn't !) that you're "testing". Do each of those processes with the description of a shadow for instance and you'll find that both will lead you to the wrong answer. Why? Cause shadows aren't real even though they're empirically demonstrable.

[El Arcón No.11039684]

>>11035287
>there are no "particles"
>only waves
I think it what it comes down to is that the point density of points is infinity and not one like you would expect.

[Anonymous No.11039702]

>>11038961
>But no matter how much red light you shine, you will never free electrons
With high enough intensity, you increase the probability of enough synchronous hits to free an electron out of it's gravity well

[Anonymous No.11039708]

>>11039702
This experimentally isn't true

[Anonymous No.11039711]

>>11039664
>More frequencyin the blue spectrum in the same footprint of space than the red spectrum causes more agitation, obviously so.
No. If it was just that, you could increase the intensity of the red light and you would pull out electrons. However, that's not what happens. Any frequency below the threshold won't pull out electrons and the current will be zero.

>>11039702
>>But no matter how much red light you shine, you will never free electrons
>With high enough intensity, you increase the probability of enough synchronous hits to free an electron out of it's gravity well
No, you can even measure the kinetic energy of the pulled out electrons and you can see that it is INDEPENDENT of the intensity of the light.

[Anonymous No.11039718]

>>11039708
>>11039711
I can't remember where I read it, but it was verified experimentally

[Anonymous No.11039736]

>>11039664
The Universe is not obliged to be constrained by your puny imagination.

[Anonymous No.11039758]

>>11035287
Wrong.
1. Waves are necessarily made out of particles.
2. Particles are not necessarily made out of waves.
3. Therefore particles are primary.

[Anonymous No.11039764]

>>11039758
>1. Waves are necessarily made out of particles.
Why?

[Anonymous No.11039772]

>>11039764
By experiment, and by definition, waves are comprised of particles.

[Anonymous No.11039775]

>>11039772
Get a new dictionary.

[Anonymous No.11039781]

>>11039772
>and by definition
I'm gonna need the mentioned definition, preferably with a reference

[Anonymous No.11039782]

ITT Ken Wheeler spouting bullshit to trick normies into pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.11039800]

>>11039775
No.
>>11039781
Pic related.

Next, you'll ask for a definition of medium, so I'll answer pre-emptively.
1. A medium isn't a vacuum.
2. A medium isn't a continuous solid.
3. A medium is comprised of discontinuous solid regions. QED.

[Anonymous No.11039804]

>>11039800
It literally says there "or of some quantity with different values at different points in space".

[Anonymous No.11039805]

>>11039800
just press Ken on what he actually believes. he wrote a book about his ideas which is basically a bunch of schizo nonsense that directly contradicts scientific facts

[Anonymous No.11039807]

>>11039800
literally no mention of particles, and literally with an example of waves which do not propagate through particles

[Anonymous No.11039811]

>>11039804
aka "fields" or "just numbers"

[Anonymous No.11039814]

>>11039811
Source on fields being just numbers?

[Anonymous No.11039817]

>>11039807
>>11039804
Learn to fucking read. Discontinuous solid regions = particles. Oh, and solid means indivisible.

[Anonymous No.11039818]

>>11039814
Physicist's asses.
Source on fields being anything but just numbers?

[Anonymous No.11039819]

>>11039811
"Look at me, I believe that the electromagnetic field doesn't exists"

[Anonymous No.11039823]

>>11039817
>Discontinuous solid regions = particles
>A medium is comprised of discontinuous solid regions.
I'm gonna need a reference for this

[Anonymous No.11039832]

>>11039823
My post is the reference, retard. You're incapable of following a logical proof.

Reread the dictionary definition I posted.

First of all particles are implicit in water and air waves (by experiment, we know that water and air are comprised of particles called atoms).

>some quantity
This implies a number of things, i.e., particles, or a scalar quantity, but
>at different points in space.
Implies the quantity isn't scalar (by definition), therefore particles.

[Anonymous No.11039834]

>>11039832
>Implies the quantity isn't scalar (by definition), therefore particles.
Why does "not being a scalar" imply "particles"?

[Anonymous No.11039835]

>>11039832
>Implies the quantity isn't scalar (by definition), therefore particles.
By what definition?

[Anonymous No.11039837]

>>11039832
>Reread the dictionary definition I posted.
I did, still no mention of particles.

>Implies the quantity isn't scalar (by definition), therefore particles.
I'm gonna need a reference for this

[Anonymous No.11039839]

>>11039834
>>11039835
>at different points in space

Neither of you can fucking read.

[Anonymous No.11039845]

>>11039839
>he thinks that "scalar quantity" means it's just a single number

[Anonymous No.11039846]

>>11039839
Scalar field is by definition a field that associates a scalar to every point in space which contradicts your interpretation of the definition you cited.

[Anonymous No.11039849]

>>11039839
Temperature or pressure are fields that you can evaluate at different points in space and are scalars, uneducated buffoon.

[Anonymous No.11039853]

>>11038003
Smiles are carriers of happiness.

[Anonymous No.11039872]

>>11039849
Forget it. I have told him 5 times or so. At this point, I am just sure, this is trolls trolling trolls.

[Anonymous No.11039904]

>>11039849
>>11039872
>field
Lol. In mathematics field implies interspaced numbers. I would think that in physics it implies interspaced matter. Maybe physishits have a different definition. If so, please provide it.

[Anonymous No.11039906]

>>11039684
Holy shit this is gold.
Whoa fuck.
How did I not think of that?
That's actually really insightful.

[Anonymous No.11039918]

>>11039758
>>11039800
Based

[Anonymous No.11039927]

>>11039849
>Temperature or pressure are fields

[Anonymous No.11039931]

>>11039904
A field in mathematics has nothing to do with a field in physics. In other languages they also have very different names (Körper vs Feld)

[Anonymous No.11039934]

>>11039846
The scalar value represents a quantity of something at each point in the field. It's an abstraction that glosses over the minor detail that the scalar represents a quantity of particles.

[Anonymous No.11039942]

>>11039931
I know, but physishits seem to think scalar fields are something magical.

[Anonymous No.11039973]

>>11039711
>No. If it was just that, you could increase the intensity of the red light and you would pull out electrons.

Increasing the intensity of red light does not decrease the spacial footprint of it.

>However, that's not what happens

Because you're still doing the same thing, only with more power. Kind of like how you'll never be able to clean a sidewalk as well with a 1600 psi pressure washer as opposed to a 3000 psi pressure washer. Even if you increase the volume of water to the 1600psi it doesn't matter because it's still being shot at 1600psi in the same amount of space and will never clean as well as the 3000 despite the fact that the 3000 uses less water.

>>11039736
Which is precisely why fields and waves don't exist you moron.

>>11039832
>by experiment, we know that water and air are comprised of particles called atoms.

There is no empirical evidence of any particle, photon, electron or otherwise.

>>11039772
>>11039758
A wave is what something does, not a thing. Stop perpetuating this falsehood. It's "made" out of anything. It's an action.

>>11039772
You're full of shit and there is no proof for this. It's WHAT SOMETHING DOES YOU MORON. IT LITERALLY CANNOT BE "MADE" OF ANYTHING.

>>11039817
>Learn to fucking read. Discontinuous solid regions = particles. Oh, and solid means indivisible.
>Discontinuous solid regions

So which is it you moron? Why do you think a contradiction defines something specific? Shit literally makes zero sense, explain it to me.

[Anonymous No.11040019]

>>11039904
>>11039927
This is what an uneducated buffoon looks like.

>>11039942
>I know, but physishits seem to think scalar fields are something magical.
This is somebody that have never talked with a real physicists.

[Anonymous No.11040031]

>>11036094
Im not a physicsfag, but I am a mathfag and let me say this: STOP TRYING TO IMPORT YOUR PHYSICAL INTUITIONS FROM EVERYDAY LIFE
I can't emphasize this enough, but its truly import to grasp as you progress towards more an more abstract topics. If it helps to provide some motivation, recognize that your intuitions are probably true in some sense, but don't describe reality at its most fundamental level. The conceptual rules and principles governing "common sense" and "physical intuition" may themselves be the product of a more fundamental set of rules that are even more general and abstract then the "common sense" you've inherited and acquired as an macroscopic lifeform.

[Anonymous No.11040040]

>>11037125
Asking "where the quantity is" is a category mistake - its akin to asking where the number 7 is in your pocket if you have $7.

[Anonymous No.11040051]

>>11039973
You say now
>Kind of like how you'll never be able to clean a sidewalk as well with a 1600 psi pressure washer as opposed to a 3000 psi pressure washer
But you also said
>With high enough intensity, you increase the probability of enough synchronous hits to free an electron out of it's gravity well
Which way do you want it? The magnitude that takes the role of pressure in your comparison is the intensity of the light (both are the "ratio at which you are pumping energy"), not the wavelength. You are contradicting yourself because you are just an uneducated buffoon.

[Anonymous No.11040073]

>>11040031
Why are you defending them? They can't follow logical arguments. They steal mathematical terms and use them to gloss over details, then mistake these terms for quasi-mystical primary things. A scalar field is a field of quantities. Quantities of what?

>>11040040
>category mistake
Typical behavior of physishit, using a vague (mathematical?) term without defining its meaning in the current context.

[Anonymous No.11040079]

>>11040040
>its akin to asking where the number 7 is in your pocket if you have $7
No. It's akin to asking where the 7 things are when you have the number 7.

[Anonymous No.11040084]

>>11040031
>Im not a physicsfag, but I am a mathfag and let me say this: STOP TRYING TO IMPORT YOUR PHYSICAL INTUITIONS FROM EVERYDAY LIFE.

Well mathfag, let me say this: MATH QUANTIFIES WHAT IS REAL, MEANING IT TAKES WHAT IS REAL AND TRANSLATES IT INTO THE LANGUAGE DUBBED "MATHEMATICS".
Math does not:

1. determine what is real
2. make things real
3. invent things that may be real
It quantifies that which is real, which doesn't really mean anything to anyone other than a mathematician looking to apply a standard of measure to something.
So as far as I'm concerned, all the math involving the idea of waves and fields is just that. An idea with absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. A recording of a thought experiment. For what on earth was your standard of measure for something that wasn't real to begin with? The answer is that it was completely made up.

>I can't emphasize this enough, but its truly import to grasp as you progress towards more an more abstract topics
Even if those topics have absolutely nothing to do with anything in reality. Study them anyway and waste your time simply because you have an overactive imagination...

>>11040040
This is what I mean. Math only quantifies. It can't actually tell you whether or not something is real.
>Asking "where the quantity is" is a category mistake
So if you can't even tell me where the fucking quantity is then how the fuck did you quantify it to begin with!

[Anonymous No.11040091]

>>11040079
In fact, we know *where* the things are -- near the point in the scalar field. The question is what structure do the individual things have and how are they arranged in this region. As a mathematicians you should demand this sort of rigor. Physicists don't seem to give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.11040094]

>>11040084
>Well mathfag, let me say this: MATH QUANTIFIES WHAT IS REAL, MEANING IT TAKES WHAT IS REAL AND TRANSLATES IT INTO THE LANGUAGE DUBBED "MATHEMATICS".
lmao where the hell did you hear this

[Anonymous No.11040095]

>>11040051
I never said that, you're speaking to a different poster.

[Anonymous No.11040105]

>>11040094
It is literally the "Study of quantity". To "quantify" means to "put into numbers". The language of quantification. "Mathematics".

[Anonymous No.11040110]

>>11040105
read some Max Tegmark

[Anonymous No.11040114]

>>11040105
>It is literally the "Study of quantity"
it literally isn't.

[Anonymous No.11040118]

>>11040095
That's because you are equally retarded that you are indistinguishable.

[Anonymous No.11040141]

>>11040118
You don't even know what the electromagnetic spectrum delineates. I could care less about your uneducated opinion.

>>11040114
>>11040110
>>11040105
Welcome to the math and science board. Where almost nobody knows what math or science actually is or is supposed to be used for.

[Anonymous No.11040147]

>>11040118
"I don't know what the electromagnetic spectrum delineates"


>>11040110
>>11040114

Welcome to the math and science board. Where almost nobody knows what math or science actually is or is supposed to be used for.

[Anonymous No.11040156]

>>11040118
Intensity dependence of the photoelectric effect induced by a circularly polarized laser beam
Zhang, Qi-Ren

Abstract
We show:

(1) The photoelectric effect induced by a circularly polarized light beam is exactly equivalent to a quantum transition induced by a time independent perturbation between stationary states. The equivalent energy level of the target system is then light intensity dependent.

(2) This energy shift, in the dipole approximation, is similar to that of a combined Zeeman-Stark effect in magnetic and electric fields perpendicular to each other.


https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PhLA..216..125Z/abstract

[Anonymous No.11040164]

Is "a wave in what" a new /sci/ meme?

[Anonymous No.11040232]

>>11040164
A wave in the Higgs field (aether).

[Anonymous No.11040271]

>>11040147
>>11040156
That is what happens when an idiot that don't believe in particles tries to be smart.
Also, you know that in that picture you have added "energy" means [math] E= \hbar \nu [/math], which comes from the particle interpretation of the EM field. The classical energy of an EM field is [math] E=c \epsilon_0 E_0^2/2[/math]: depends on the amplitude but not the frequency.

[Anonymous No.11040275]

>>11035315
What do you call calculus? What IS calculus? What is the relationship between integration and differentiation?

Relationships, how do they work? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q6cDp0C-I8

[Anonymous No.11040284]

>>11040275
Our perceived experience of change, how does it work? Spoiler: it isn't "points on a timeline."

[Anonymous No.11040287]

>>11040284
What would it be like to "feel like an integral" and "feel like a derivative" in a similar way to how Einstein tried to "feel like a photon" in his thought experiments?

[Anonymous No.11040291]

>>11040287
the same since you're feeling things(space/time) as they approach 0

[Anonymous No.11040309]

>>11040291
I am not talking about approaching a limit, but what the processes of integration and differentiation feel like. These processes are "instantaneous change in the present" and "cumulative change over time." Alfred North Whitehead describes these perceptual modes as presentational immediacy and causal efficacy, with their mixed mode (they are always mixed in human experience) being that of symbolism.

If only Whitehead had abandoned Platonism and realized that mathematics comes from experience, he could have completed the System of British Empericism and created a physics of human psychology as robust as mathematical physics.

What derailed this was that the nonsense of substance theory is hard-baked into how we think about ourselves psychologically, especially by placing "choice" as primary in human self-creative evolution and literally worshiping choice at the alter of capitalism. Religious dogma dies hard.

Human consciousness is an evolutionary process. Everything else follows from this, if you can follow the lines of inquiry close enough.

[Anonymous No.11040333]

Long story short, through 19 years of my adult life I learned to become a professional psychologist to myself to such an incredible degree that I actualized recursively self-improving mental health. I am the most emotionally healthy person on the planet due to trying not to be stupid as hard as I can.

[Anonymous No.11040356]

>>11040333
Oh yeah I opensourced that shit BTW, you're welcome. This is how the singularity starts: an explosion of emotional intelligence, which is the only thing that can save us from the devolutionary mutually reinforcing stupidity that is cultural conservativism. When Trump and his co-conspirators fall, the only place for humanity to go is up.

[Anonymous No.11040365]

Here's a self-help book for cyborgs: https://old.reddit.com/r/Tao_of_Calculus/comments/9rpnrl/space_taoism_101/
Here's a memepunk anime series for the kiddos: https://vimeo.com/specalblend

[G No.11040445]

>>11035287
ahhh i see youre a man of Theoria Apophasis as well

[Anonymous No.11040449]

>>11040333
>>11040356
>>11040365

So like, you all from reddit or what? The thread was already derailed just so you know. It was ever since OP made his first assumption based on another assumption.

>>11040291
How do you feel things that have no properties?

[Anonymous No.11040495]

>>11035287
This looks like a vaporwave album cover.

[Anonymous No.11040892]

>>11040449
>So like, you all from reddit or what?
I'm an oldfag, older than reddit. I've been online since 1998.

Anyways here's a throwback from 1993 with modern relevance, before "meme" meant "retarded image spam.": https://pastebin.com/4s91qRn6

"Memetic engineering" has nothing to do with convincing dullards to vote for dullards. Memetic engineering is "the science and technology of human creativity."

[Anonymous No.11040912]

>>11040892
Oh okay, let me phrase it a little different for someone like yourself.

"Memories of what?"

[Anonymous No.11040959]

why is this thread still going? it’s an obvious ken wheeler fan posting electric universe pseud rhetoric. part of being a good /sci/bro is posting “lel” once or twice in pseud threads and then letting them die

[Anonymous No.11041052]

Everyone in this thread needs to watch this (required viewing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg

[Anonymous No.11041073]

>>11040232
kek

[Hoaxfag No.11041098]

>>11039296
>>>11039273 (You) #
For the 100th time:
Why is there a threshold wavelength for light-induced electron emission in zinc? How much more precise can I be? If I had to write an exercise for an exam, I would ask you to describe what is shown in this plot. I'd give you half a point for describing what's on the axes, half a point for "zero, then at some point linear" and 2 points for the subsequent explanation. Half a bonus point if you describe the point where the linear part would meet the y axis. So if you want this to be exam-like, I ask you to answer this as if it was an exam question.

>But I already answered where the minimum comes from, it's because you need to stimulate the element with enough energy to move the electrons fast enough that they leave the surface of the element.

My answer is
The electrons on the surface of the zinc are bound to the nucleus by electronegativity, this binding force needs to be overcome for the electrons to reach escape velocity, so below a certain threshold the electrons remain bound to the zinc atom.
To explain the red versus blue light phenomenon I will use this analogy.
If you have a blowtorch with a low heat setting, creating a big yellow flame, and a high heat setting, with a small blue flame,
With the same amount of gas (energy) dueling the flame, it will be impossible to get the low heat setting to make a metal rod glow, but with the high setting you will be able to make the metal rod glow and begin emitting electrons,
So a low energy red light source with the same power as a high energy blue light source will never be able to cause electron emission in the same way.

Another way to imagine it is with low frequency bass versus high frequency treble, if you put 100 watts of power into a big subwoofer and play 50 hertz, versus 100 watts into a small tweeter and play 25000 hertz, the low frequency will be only moderately loud, say 80 decibels, while the tweeter will reach approx 140 decibels.

[Hoaxfag No.11041108]

>>11041098
Also if you want me to analyse the graph, why is the visible light spectrum outside of the threshold range ?
I believe you presented erroneous data in an effort to discredit my opinion through deceit ;)

[Anonymous No.11041122]

>>11040959
God you're dumb. Watch the video >>11041052
It's David Tong talking about how fields, not particles, are the actual building blocks of the universe at the Royal Institution, the very same place where Michael Faraday introduced the very concept of fields to the world.

[Anonymous No.11041134]

>>11035287

[Anonymous No.11041139]

>>11041134

[Anonymous No.11041140]

>>11041139

[Anonymous No.11041147]

>>11041140

[Anonymous No.11041150]

>>11041147

[Anonymous No.11041155]

>>11041098
>So a low energy red light source with the same power as a high energy blue light source will never be able to cause electron emission in the same way.
You can use low frequency light with however high of intensity (and thus power) you like, and you won't get electron emission. The slightest bit of light with a high enough frequency, however, and you get electron emission.
>Another way to imagine it is with low frequency bass versus high frequency treble, if you put 100 watts of power into a big subwoofer and play 50 hertz, versus 100 watts into a small tweeter and play 25000 hertz, the low frequency will be only moderately loud, say 80 decibels, while the tweeter will reach approx 140 decibels.
This is incorrect. The power of a sound wave doesn't depend on frequency. In fact, the energy of classical electromagnetic radiation doesn't depend on frequency, either. This is precisely why you end up with the ultraviolet catastrophe in classical physics: there are an ever-increasing number of available vibrational modes in matter as you go up in frequency, and since classical physics has no energy dependence on frequency, equipartition of thermal energy should cause all of a body's thermal energy to enter arbitrarily high frequency modes and radiate away. Quantum mechanics fixes this by giving higher-frequency modes an inherently higher energy, meaning the amount of radiation per unit frequency drops off very quickly past the ultraviolet.

[Anonymous No.11041157]

>>11041150

[Anonymous No.11041159]

>>11041157

[Anonymous No.11041163]

>>11041159

[Anonymous No.11041190]

>>11041163
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBqcXU0t_Xc

[Hoaxfag No.11041195]

>>11041155
We are both agreeing in the first half ;)

I strongly disagree with the second half.
In the scenario I described, the power of the sound waves was a constant, generated by the amplifier, measures in watts ;)
Frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional, the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength.
I will use this analogy to explain the maximum limit of frequency/minimum wavelength limit.
As a wavelength becomes smaller, the mediums it travel through become more opaque, exponentially.
And by opaque I mean thicker.
So what limits a wave and puts waves in discrete energy levels, is that at the limit of the medium, if you go any higher you will destroy the medium because the energy will be so great the medium will begin to disassociate.
If I blast a piece of metal with a million watts of red laser light, it will briefly emit electrons before it is broken down into sub atomic particles and plasma, these are practical limits ;) not real limits, this is a complex misunderstanding :)

[Anonymous No.11041196]

>>11041190
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OacVy8_nJi0

[Anonymous No.11041200]

>>11041190
Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi, Naqoyqatsi.

It's been years since I've watched that trilogy. I actually have them on my hard drive.

[Anonymous No.11041203]

>>11041196
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HcnmthntUo

[Anonymous No.11041206]

>>11041163

[Anonymous No.11041210]

>>11041206

[Anonymous No.11041216]

>>11041203
I teared up a little bit watching that.

[Anonymous No.11041224]

>>11041210

[Anonymous No.11041228]

>>11041224

[Anonymous No.11041230]

>>11041228

[Hoaxfag No.11041242]

>>11041200
https://youtu.be/6x_Eijnn1Ak

Let's take it to a whole nother level

[Anonymous No.11041247]

Since we seem to be derailing the thread, how about some o scope music? Very few people have ever heard of it. What you see is an actual x/y graph of what you hear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2YQD8Go_Hc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XziuEdpVUe0

[Anonymous No.11041252]

>>11041242
This is what happens when you completely shun Nu-Simpsons. You miss out on gems like this.

[Anonymous No.11041256]

>>11041247
No. This thread exists because of this single video and everyone must watch it before they die.
>>11041052
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg

[Anonymous No.11041271]

>>11041256
2.5 yr old video.

eh. ok, I bookmarked it.

[Anonymous No.11041274]

Thread is retardedly long for what it is.

[Hoaxfag No.11041280]

>>11041252
Season One through ten, anything after that just ruins the experience. The Simpsons is one of the greatest things humanity has ever done I think.
But like all of history it had to obey this rule,
And for a while, it was good.

[Hoaxfag No.11041286]

>>11041274
Debating discoveries on the cutting edge of science takes alot of work.
Scientists love to debate, it's how you work out who is the most correct.
And it typically gets heated.
You know if you leave scientists working in isolated research facilities they end up going crazy and trying to kill each other.
It's just the nature of the beast :)

[Anonymous No.11041304]

>>11041274
You don't realize the stakes involved. The implications are nothing short of all encompassing.
Either you don't understand that, and you're a bit naive, or you do understand it and you're glowing in the dark.

[Anonymous No.11041307]

>>11041304
You assume way too much.
>>11041286
I know.

[Anonymous No.11041318]

>>11041307
He's not wrong, though. Quantum mechanics is the most pressing issue of our day. And it's not even the various interpretations, per se. (Fuck you Sean Carroll) It's The experiments themselves.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/09/18/this-one-experiment-reveals-more-about-reality-than-any-quantum-interpretation-ever-will/

[Anonymous No.11041323]

>>11041318
>He's not wrong
Who says he was? Knuckle head.

[Anonymous No.11041339]

>>11041307
What exactly do I assume?
Hypocrite that your are, assuming I cannot elucidate the exact reasoning behind my arguments, simply because those reasons do not occur to your pathetic intellect.

[Anonymous No.11041345]

>>11041339
>your pathetic intellect
> "I, in my great and unmatched wisdom..."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181232249821388801

[Anonymous No.11041348]

>>11041304
Without an ether, how do light waves travel? Without a eher, why does light have a finite velocity? How could you polarize vacuum without an ether?

[Anonymous No.11041349]

>>11041345
I ain't clicking that shit nigger

[Anonymous No.11041350]

>>11041345
Wow. That dude is really off the rails if he wasn't before

[Anonymous No.11041353]

>>11041349
It's not even clickable. It requires a couple of more steps that you might not be able to comprehend. I think you might be on the wrong board. Perhaps
>>>pol
is more of your liking?

[Anonymous No.11041354]

>>11041345
what is even happening

[Anonymous No.11041356]

there is only information
whether it looks like a wave or a particle depends how you are looking at it

[Anonymous No.11041358]

>>11041349
It's not even clickable. It requires a couple of more steps that you might not be able to comprehend. I think you might be on the wrong board. Perhaps
>>>/pol/
is more of your liking?

>>11041350
He likes to say "sad" a lot.

What's sad is that he's not even aware of his own mental illness.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

[Anonymous No.11041359]

>>11041356
So... we ARE in a simulation??

[Anonymous No.11041363]

>>11041353
I'm shocked at your sheer level of faggotry.
Try as you might, you can't dismiss an argument with buzzwords and links to Donald Trumps twitter you fucking tranny nigger kike.

[Anonymous No.11041366]

>>11041356
>>11041359
Hi JIDF

[Anonymous No.11041369]

>>11041363
>up high!

>down low!

>TOO SLOW!

Go back to /pol/ you wannabe troll.

These are useless words that have absolutely no effect:
>tranny
>nigger
>kike

[Anonymous No.11041387]

>>11041369
>The absolute state of the absolute state
HMMM does this meaningless platitude that doesn't constitute an argument rhyme????
>pic related

[Anonymous No.11041394]

>>11041387
That's 2 smart 4 me.

Your wisdom might be unmatched.

[Hoaxfag No.11041397]

>>11041348
There is aether, it's the background electromagnetic waves left over from the big bang, a uniform homogenous "heat soup"
Light waves use this medium to travel.
Quantum physicists call it "quantum fluid" but they are well wrong.

[Anonymous No.11041399]

>>11041394
I actually laughed out loud and it woke up my dog. Thanks. Now I have to lull him back to sleep all night.

[Hoaxfag No.11041402]

>>11041356
This isn't true, if you research the experiments that showed this were fraudulent.
The twin slit experiment showed light was a wave.
Twin slit done with electrons showed they were a particle,
Then it was theorised that light shares properties of electrons so they proposed that light exhibited particle properties.
But no evidence ever showed light was a particle.

[Anonymous No.11041405]

>>11041397
Lmao radiation can not be a medium and mechanism for the transport of radiation you fucking brainlet. That's circular logic. The aether is a real physical body, a fluid lattice of energy with neither kinetic nor potential with which to extract useful work.

[Anonymous No.11041408]

I am made of this weird "wave" stuff and it is making me hella uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.11041410]

>>11041408
That feel when the mescaline kicks in.

[Hoaxfag No.11041411]

>>11041405
Do you have any evidence to support that?
Because I think it exists only in your imagination.

[Anonymous No.11041415]

>>11041411
You're saying that EM waves are the medium for EM waves. This is a contradictory statement.

[Anonymous No.11041423]

>>11041411
Well it makes more sense than your fucked up hypothesis.
>Hurr durr the medium by which electromagnetic waves traverse space is electromagnetic waves.

If I had fucking evidence do you think I would be comparing dick sizes with you on this Burmese tiger semen trading forum?
How does one use electromagnetic waves to measure the presence of the medium by which they traverse? We have already done this with the observations supporting general and special relativity. The observations are perfect evidence for a physical medium, hurr durr spacetymu

[Anonymous No.11041426]

NO ONE KNOWS
end of story

[Anonymous No.11041427]

>>11041426
t. glow nigger

[Hoaxfag No.11041438]

>>11041423
Sorry to offend you man, that wasn't my intention.
Light is the highest frequency of electromagnetic radiation, that's why EM travels 1% slower than light, the energy we perceive as light is ripples in this electromagnetic field.
When light strikes something, like the chemicals in your retinas or a photovoltaic cell, the ripples vibrate the molecules and generate energy in the molecules.
Light works the same as electromagnetic waves, it's just at such a high frequency that the wavelength is so small it actually interacts with the actual crystalline matrix,
Light is just very high frequency ripples in a massive EMF field.

[Anonymous No.11041440]

Don't click this if you have seizures.

[Anonymous No.11041444]

>>11041438
>Hoaxfag
ayy you took my advice lol
filtered

[Anonymous No.11041462]

I don't understand how the universe works. Please help me.

[Hoaxfag No.11041470]

>>11041444
Don't filter me bro
Lol
How will I ever tell you about manipulating EMF fields with high explosives to distort the speed at which the light travels through the EMF and manipulate time :(

[Anonymous No.11041471]

>>11041271
The physics hasn't changed

[Anonymous No.11041478]

>>11041471
Has my understanding changed though?

Probably not.

I'll watch it later.

[Hoaxfag No.11041482]

>>11041444
>Hoaxfag
I thought that sounded pretty apt actually haha,

But don't you wanna know what would happen if you got a hollow sphere of superconducting ceramic and utilised the Meissner effect to create an EMF void, how would matter behave in this void.
Don't these questions keep you up at night?

[Anonymous No.11041487]

>>11041052
Thanks, anon.

[Anonymous No.11041490]

>>11041345
>> "I, in my great and unmatched wisdom..."
Holy shit is this guy crazy or what?

[Anonymous No.11041491]

>>11041490
That's the state of the world right now.

We're at a breaking point.

Enjoy whatever you have of your life.

The end is near.

[Anonymous No.11041498]

lmao this thread is the best

[Anonymous No.11041543]

>>11041482
Not him but yeah actually I would love to see what happens. I'm not offended man, I'm just on the war path with against the normal fags. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides. Not my fault I'm a belligerent, paranoid son of a bitch. This shit is a learned behavior. Anyways. How you doing?

[Anonymous No.11041552]

>>11041402
>Twin slit done with electrons showed they were a particle,
That's just half of the story (and the history). You can make electrons behave like waves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction

>Then it was theorised that light shares properties of electrons so they proposed that light exhibited particle properties.
And because electrons can behave like waves, people theorized that

>But no evidence ever showed light was a particle.
Only if you are a retarded that don't accept the photoelectric effect or the Compton effect.

[Anonymous No.11041767]

>>11036181
You may have specific fields, electromagnetic field for example, but the concept of a 'field' has no defined value assigned to it

[Anonymous No.11041777]

>>11035315
> yeah what do you call this

Non sense

[Anonymous No.11041810]

>>11041552
>Only if you are a retarded that don't accept the photoelectric effect or the Compton effect.
Or PET scanners. Or any single photon detectors like photomultiplier tubes or silicon photomultipliers.

[Anonymous No.11041891]

>>11041767
>the concept of a 'field' has no defined value assigned to it
"I don't understand what's a field", the post

[Anonymous No.11041945]

>>11041767
>You may have specific fields, electromagnetic field for example, but the concept of a 'field' has no defined value assigned to it
it's s section of some (usually tensor) bundle m8

[Anonymous No.11041990]

Everything that exists is composed of exactly one fundamental substance, energy. Radiation and matter are just different configurations of the same thing. One breath, one word. Do not take this message lightly.

[Anonymous No.11042014]

>>11041990
If that's true, explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry.

[Anonymous No.11042056]

>>11041339
That wasn't me. This shit ain't so big. What are the implications, as you see them? what will change?

[Anonymous No.11042096]

>>11042014
I don't think there is a matter, antimatter asymmetry until the entire universe has been observed, or the big bang theory has been proven to be factually true in entirety.
>>11042056
The implications are all encompassing to every facet of our lives, not just because of the implications for technology but simply by virtue that all ethics *and therefore politics* is a direct extension of metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.11042256]

>>11041990
The trouble is, of course, that no one really knows what energy actually is.

[Anonymous No.11042338]

>>11042256
Well, maybe. There could be a handful of guys working in a pentagon think tank who know exactly what it is. There are a lot of people. Maybe that statement that nobody knows would fly when there were literally like 100 guys on Earth who could do calculus. But now, I'm not so sure. It's definitely not impossible to know what it is, and given that it is the most basic, fundamental physical stuff, it's likely not all that complicated.

[Anonymous No.11042340]

>>11042256
It's the time-like component of the energy-momentum tensor, or in other words, the Noether current associated with the homogeneity of time.

[Anonymous No.11042361]

>>11042340
What

[Anonymous No.11042365]

>>11042340
Finally, somebody that knows something....

[Anonymous No.11042393]

>>11042340
>current
Current of what?

[Anonymous No.11042405]

>>11042393
Conserved current, just that

[Anonymous No.11042429]

>>11042340
Lmao time doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.11042450]

>>11042405
Not an answer.

[Anonymous No.11042507]

>>11042429
Again, the idiot that doesn't believe in time....

>>11042450
The conserved current associated to the energy is a fancy way of saying "relativistic version of the energy conservation law", but you can associated this conservation law to the invariance of a system under time shifts (i.e., the laws of physics are the same yesterday than today).

[Anonymous No.11042546]

>>11037348
"hot" and "cold" are qualities, not quantities you idiot.

Excellent bait. Heres your (you)

[Anonymous No.11042550]

>>11042507
>believe in time

Yeah just believe in a measurement of nothing physically real or a force or modality observed.

[Anonymous No.11042552]

>>11042546
How many hots and colds are there in the universe?

[Anonymous No.11042583]

>>11042552

The set of possible temperatures is a subset of R and has the cardinality of the continuum.

[Anonymous No.11042595]

even a three yo wouldnt be spouting shit like this, this is painfully dumb

[Anonymous No.11042602]

>>11042583
>R
even in a quantum universe?

[Anonymous No.11042629]

>>11042583
"They aren't quantifable but we assigned quantity to them", does not make an ice cube exhibit the quality of coldness.

What of hardness and softness? A scale of hardness/softness doesn't make coal into diamonds.

[Anonymous No.11042648]

>>11042629
Coldness is captured by the binary ordering operation <

[Anonymous No.11042672]

>>11042648
> the absence of motion is measurable and something to be measured.

[Anonymous No.11043015]

>>11042550
Do you believe in space? If you answered yes, you do also believe in time.

[Anonymous No.11043108]

>>11043015
"No".

>why

Because it has no properties. It has no quantity or quality whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.11043209]

>>11041891
Why am I wrong then.
A field requires a quantity, even if the quantity is arbitrary, for any sort of calculation to be performed. A non-numerical, non-probabilistic field is a nice idea but has no baring on matters

[Anonymous No.11043443]

Why is the world so hard?

[Anonymous No.11043795]

Good thread, mathemagicks btfo

[Anonymous No.11043802]

>>11042096
>implications
People already believe this. Big whoop.