[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 114 KB, 500x375, reality2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1114909 No.1114909 [Reply] [Original]

OK bear with me for a minute here.

We never actually TOUCH anything, right?

the electrons are repelling each other when we "touch" something.

when accelerators make atoms collide, they aren't really colliding at all

right?

and the majority of an atom is made up of empty space. The electron wavelength. So, everything we see, everything we smell, everything we touch, is mostly empty space. There's nothing there.

So, what the fuck is real? We're not really touching anything, and that anything is mostly empty in the first place.

What is reality, is what I am asking.

>> No.1114956

We don't touch anything because of electron clouds, when CERN accelerations things to the speed that they're at, they can overcome the repulsive force and actually do hit each other.

(I think, there might be even a smaller quantum force where they still don't touch each other)

>> No.1114951
File: 39 KB, 500x375, 070504_Quantum_mechanics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1114951

bump

/sci/ is moving fast.. all these fucking troll threads.

>> No.1114958

No matter how badly you want to believe in an orderly universe, everything consists of particles that make no sense on any level of current physics

>> No.1114966

When we touch something we feel electromagnetic repulsive forces

When you collide particles in an accelerator you actually break the emf barrier and you have strong and weak interactions on atomic scales.

>> No.1114976

>>1114966
>When we touch something we feel electromagnetic repulsive forces
But why does glass then feel differently from plastic?

>> No.1114982

>We never actually TOUCH anything, right?

Correct.

>when accelerators make atoms collide, they aren't really colliding at all, right?

They probably are. I'm not sure.

>the majority of an atom is made up of empty space. The electron wavelength. So, everything we see, everything we smell, everything we touch, is mostly empty space.

True.

>There's nothing there.

False, there are atoms there.

So you're saying that since we can't actually touch anything do to electromagnetic forces, nothing exists?

You're an idiot.

>> No.1114984

>>1114958

>implying if we don't understand it it cannot be orderly.

OP, lots of things are pretty mindfucky. Basically everything you see is just an expression of energy. (string theory)

>> No.1114993

By quantum physics, we never touch anything. We're just a growing sphere of energy.

>> No.1114994

>>1114976

Because of the orientation of the molecules and the bond structure of the surface (i.e. texture) and the heat conductivity of the material

>> No.1115015
File: 11 KB, 301x160, ywe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1115015

>>1114982
>do to
>You're an idiot.
Oh god I lol'd

>> No.1115026

>>1115015

Hahaha, you got me.

>> No.1115036

>>1114909
Technically, we are touching, the definition of touching would just be the interaction between electrons. Therefore we touch, but not as the common definition says.

Amicorrect ?

>> No.1115034

>>1114984
>string theory
Get the fuck out.

>> No.1115052

>>1114982
You fucking idiot. That's not what the OP implied at all.

>> No.1115063

It was wrong of you to trust reality with sense of touch from the start. Vision and hearing occasionally plays tricks on us so we do not rely on them much but touch is essential right? Wrong, perceptive impulses cannot be used to interpret reality. That's why maths is invented, it is nothing fundamental but a consistent system that remains the same no matter what. We used idealistic assumptions to create materialism. There is no other way, you define what reality is.

>> No.1115067

>>1115036
That's better. A lot of things just seem confusing because we have confusing definitions for them.

Look at the whole consciouness/mind clusterfuck. It's like 90% semantics.

>> No.1115082

If things never touch, then how do I make baby?

>> No.1115089

>>1115052

Since you're so fucking smart and apparently know what OP is talking about, despite it being quite clear, then what is he talking about?

>> No.1115116

>>1114976
it doesn't if the temperature is right and both surfaces are smooth enough you can't tell the difference

try filling a thin plastic bag with oil then touch the bag while not watching it's just like touching the oil you'll feel greecy

>> No.1115188

>>1115036

Basically, this. Your sense of touch - the feeling relayed to your brain - comes from the force of something against your skin activating the nerves there. That means that our sense of touch is entirely in terms of forces. So, when the electrons repel each other, you feel the resulting force. Make sense?

>when accelerators make atoms collide, they aren't really colliding at all
Not true. Well, not quite. Atom smashers give particles enough energy to overcome the electromagnetic forces repelling them. But when they get close enough together, other forces start taking effect. The one most particle collisions are concerned about is the strong nuclear force which, if you think of the objects as 'particles' and not 'crazy-ass quantum deelies' acts to first order like an actual collision, like billiard balls bouncing off each other.

The 'not quite' part that I mentioned earlier is that the particles are in fact crazy-ass quantum deelies. While the idea of a flat-out collision is a good first-order description of the interaction when you know what particles go in and which are going to come out, thinking of it that way isn't quite right because you *don't* know exactly which particles are going to come out. The collision idea is fine after-the-fact, but as a way to hypothesize/predict/understand results it's pretty shitty.