/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12264385]

/lit/izen here. Can someone with an up to date understanding tell me whether the smallest, simplest material objects are uniform or whether there are multiple types of them.
Thanks in advance /sci/ friends

[Anonymous No.12264389]

their form is the same but not their matter.

[Anonymous No.12264392]

There is a different field for each fundamental particle but that's all cope retarded bullshit.
At the smallest smallest level (which we can never measure but still is there) it's the MONAD

[Anonymous No.12264395]

particles are just waves in field theory. Yes waves can exist on a single field without having to continuously interact with another.

[Anonymous No.12264398]

>>12264392
>MONAD
sure it's not just your GONAD ?

[Anonymous No.12264401]

>>12264385
you retards should stop discussing philosophy there and leave it up to /his/
don't think that you can read kant just because you love your shitty hemingway potterlstoy and have read it 5 times

[Anonymous No.12264491]

Technically, atomic scale is the smallest and simplest "particle".
The atoms of carbon found on Earth is bound to be the same anywhere else in the universe, isotopes aside (isotopes meaning said atom has extra or less neutrons thereby unstable and radioactive)

However, I'm sure that you are actually referring to the very foundation of everything. And that is where the problem begins
Atomic level is the very border from which Classical Mechanics end and Quantum Mechanics begin

At Subatomic/Quantum level, we no longer have particles. Instead, we have clouds of probabilities that makes it look like a particle only if zoomed out. And states of energy and angular momentum can cause great damages on the result

I'll try to do my best to give you a simplified explanation but rest assure that it's actually super complex

We have 16 "particles" in the Standard Model
Which can be divided into fermions and baryons.
Baryons are what we consider as Matter (atoms) and Bosons are the force generators

Atoms are made up of 3 quarks. (mostly up down up)
There are 6 types of quarks
Quarks are always in pairs because they are atttached by a gluon
Splitting a quark pair is impossible because if you give too much energy, said energy shall only produce more quarks
All quarks are given mass by the Higgs field
However, 99% of your mass is actually brought about by the quarks continuesly moving inside the atom at near light speed
Because E=mc^2, objects in motion is heavier than static, and thereby giving you mass.
The Quarks cannot escape the atom because of the strong nuclear force
That's the basic gist of the baryons

On the boson, things are much more complex. Photon, Electron, Z and W boson, etc
Each one of them handles the 4 fundamental forces and they are too complex for a single shitpost

But I guess you don't really mind that.
You are only asking for the matter part which is the baryonic matters

[Anonymous No.12264501]

>>12264401
Based, I'm tired of philosophy schizos filling up my fiction board

[Anonymous No.12264529]

>>12264401
I don’t think that’s totally fair. I’ve had a few good philosophy discussions on /lit/. They’re definitely better with philosophy than the physics undergrads here who read the sparknotes of the prolegomena and think they understand philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12264726]

>>12264401
>leave it up to /his/

[Anonymous No.12264743]

>>12264385
>. Can someone with an up to date understanding tell me whether the smallest, simplest material objects are uniform
>/lit/

You would be interested in fractals.

[Anonymous No.12264744]

>>12264401
bruh /his/ doesn't even understand descartes

[Anonymous No.12266071]

>>12264491
So they aren’t really “objects” at that levelled just forces. Surely there has to be some object the forces act upon? Or are they just continually acting on other forces? Are these simple forces that I would understand like gravity or any other simple attraction or are they different?

[Anonymous No.12266091]

>>12264401
/his/ is filled with bigger retards than /pol/, its honestly better to have the pseuds who aren't self aware contained there. Keep /lit/ as the board for actual discussion between smart people and pseuds who know they're retarded and want to get better.

[Anonymous No.12266356]

>>12264726
Only issue I see is that the y axis is unlabeled. It's actually a lot scale

[Anonymous No.12266409]

>>12266071
>Or are they just continually acting on other forces?
Yes, technically.
Think of it like your computer screen

You found out that every image is just pixels changing colors
Then you delved deeper and found out that pixels are just chemical reactions instigated by electricity which is absolutely different from the world you knew.

The quantum world no longer has any real structure. They are all just conglomerations of mass and energy with varying angular momentum that reacts in various ways in the presence of different fields and forces.

I really wish I could teach you what I know but I am still studying it and I am a bad teacher

[Anonymous No.12266418]

>>12264385
At the smallest scales, particles are no longer a thing, there's no solidity, this is the wave-particle duality. Particles are only energy in vibration. Solidity is ultimately only an illusion.

[Anonymous No.12266641]

>>12266409
Are there multiple kinds of these forces or only one uniform kind in different arrangements?

[Anonymous No.12266665]

>>12266641
4 fundamental forces
Strong Nuclear Force
Electromagnetism
Weak Nuclear Force
And Gravity

Gravity is the weakest. So weak that it hardly exists in the quantum world.
Like, for real
Weak Nuclear is second weakes and it is stronger than gravity by 10^25. 24 zeroes.

To scale, that's 1 meter vs the entire Laniakea super cluster
(basically solar system<galaxy<local galactic group<virgo cluster<local supercluster<Liniakea)

That's how big it is.
Said fundamental forces are administered by the reactions of Bosons

Currently, physicists are attempting to unite the four forces into a single force which they believed existed on the exact time as the Big Bang. So far, they only managed to unite the Weak and Electromagnetism into the Electro-Weak Force which also explained the Higgs field

Anyone that can create the Grand Unified theory shall recieve an instant Nobel

[Anonymous No.12266667]

with no floor, idk how you would expect to ever answer such a question

[Anonymous No.12266678]

>>12266641
By the way:
SNF = force that keeps atoms/baryons intact
Electromagnetism = charges between proton and electron
WNF = radiation

STN and WNF are super strong but limited range and therefore does not exist outside of subatomic world
Electromagnetism has infi range (a proton and electron shall feel each other even if it's beyond the observable universe) However, once they paired up, they become neutral

Gravity is weak but infinite range hence why it is the dominant force in classical mechanics

[Anonymous No.12266733]

>>12266641
Oh, and I almost forgot: we currently have 16 in the Standard Model but it can still increase as we still don't know what makes gravity because it is just too weak to be scanned

Graviton is already predicted by General Relavitty but it may take some time to confirm

Hope it increases by more than that.
People believe that Physics is almost over.
Which is exactly what happened until Einstein came in and destroyed Newtonian Mechanics

[Anonymous No.12266740]

>>12266733
>He still thinks the Gravitational force is mediated via virtual Gravitons
No hope for you

[Anonymous No.12266759]

>>12264385
Hi /lit/. I know this board is called /sci/, but it's filled to the brim with Dunning-Kruger victims. Take everything here questionable. For example >>12266733
>Graviton is already predicted by General Relavitty
this is utterly wrong.
Are you researching for a book?

>>12264726
>kangdom
lol

[Anonymous No.12266830]

>>12266740
>>12266759
gravitons are more likely then any current modified gravity theory

[Anonymous No.12266835]

>>12266830
Baseless assumption. There's no evidence at all either for or against them. It's just a hypothesis.
Since GR seems to work well and portrays gravity not as a force, it seems unlikely to me though. Then again GR doesn't include Mach's principle and is obviously incomplete.

[Anonymous No.12266939]

>>12266830
The only hope for gravitons is String theory and its mathematical consistency.

[Anonymous No.12266961]

>>12264401
>/his/
Literally nothing more than a few oldfags a fuckton of plebbitor tourist. The only thing they "discuss" is how racist everything is history is and how we can re-write history so when they close their eyes they can imagine they live in a perfect world and their soul searing anguish over imperfection of human life wont exist.

[Anonymous No.12267027]

>>12266759
>>12266740
I mean, Gravitons existing is something that was said in Fermilab vids. They are real physicists in the energy department thus, by all means, I am taking their words over you

[Anonymous No.12267150]

>>12266665
Thanks anon this post was very helpful

[Anonymous No.12267166]

>>12266939
String theory is just a thought exercise that in no way reflects reality. Its as retarded as the 1 electron universe if not more so.

[Anonymous No.12267190]

different subatomic particles have different mass, energy and spin.
different atoms have different mass and different electron configurations and different properties

[Anonymous No.12267230]

>>12264385
Up to date understanding is, that material simply does not exist, and everything is in it's own way a field.

[Anonymous No.12267289]

>>12267166
>no way reflects reality
Last I check, all matter is is energy in a state of vibration. So String theory is indeed close to reality, not to add that doing String theory equations you get Einstein's equations, mathematically it is correct, and is also the best there is to a ToE, if you have a better ToE solution then let me know, reality is not what you want it to be, reality just is, it doesn't care about you.

[Anonymous No.12267342]

>>12264491
Ok
So what are fermions

[Anonymous No.12267370]

>>12264491
Capacity of your shitposting isn't limited to one shitpost.

How does those quarks reaarange exactly same in all matter in alfa or beta decay?

[Anonymous No.12267375]

Gravitons is something that doesn't exist and gravity is property of space.

[Anonymous No.12267493]

>>12267027
Then you probably need to watch that video again and listen more carefully because I am one of them.
>appeal to authority
Guess you're underage?

>>12267289
>So String theory is indeed close to reality,
If it's close to reality, you surely can design an experiment that shows this?
Right now, every experiment ever did not show evidence of particles having an inner structure. String theory assumes an inner structure (1D strings).

[Anonymous No.12267516]

>>12267493
>muh experiment
Shut the fuck up. You conveniently ignored everything I said so you can now appeal to ignorance, fuck off. Show me a better alternative ToE, if you don't have one then just fuck off.

[Anonymous No.12267688]

>>12267516
Your reading comprehension is even below the already catastrophically low average on this board, Dunning-Kruger victim.
>it's good because we have nothing better
Oh you're retarded, I see. Apologies for thinking I'm conversing with a normal human.
Btw, I know at least two equally shitty competitors to string theory off the top of my head. Do you?

[Anonymous No.12267698]

>>12267688
see>>12267516
If you have nothing to add just fuck off dude, pretend you know what reality with your scientism crap. Never solve anything just wait for the lab coats to tell you what to believe in.

[Anonymous No.12267701]

>>12267516
>You conveniently ignored everything I said
Ah, you mean the part where you claimed
>>12267289
>Last I check, all matter is is energy in a state of vibration
which is total bullshit? And used that to reason that string theory is therefore close to "reality"? I addressed that by mentioning inner structure of particles, because what's vibrating in string theory is the string, which is the inner structure of a particle then.
Or do you mean
>doing String theory equations you get Einstein's equations,
which sounds like you vaguely remembered what you saw in a "fuck yeah science" video? It's equally retarded since string theory (actually superstring theory) was constructed as a generalization of GR. It's like putting a cover around your hentai magazine and when taking it off again being amazed that there is a hentai magazine again.

[Anonymous No.12267707]

>>12267698
>pretend you know what reality with your scientism crap
Never did that. Are you schizophrenic?
>Never solve anything just wait for the lab coats to tell you what to believe in.
What does that even mean? Are you drunk or high?

[Anonymous No.12267718]

>>12267701
>which is total bullshit?
Nope, that's what wave-particle duality in QM shows, everything is just wave energy vibration under the EM spectrum.

[Anonymous No.12267728]

>>12267707
If you have nothing to add just fuck off dude. Keep appealing to ignorance.

[Anonymous No.12267811]

>>12267718
>Nope, that's what wave-particle duality in QM shows
First, no. It does not show that particles are "vibrating energy". Second, wave-particle duality was a problem form before quantum mechanics, where some experiments showed light to behave wave-like, and others showed light to be particle-like (photoeffect). This wasn't explainable by classical physics, because light showed a dual nature. Both those concepts were superseded by quantum mechanics and hence, wave-particle duality is solved.
>everything is just wave energy vibration under the EM spectrum.
No, particles are excitations of their respective particle fields. It's not "vibrating energy".
>>12267728
I contributed by calling out your bullshit using facts. Man up and accept that you're wrong instead of persistently ignoring what I said.

[Anonymous No.12267857]

>>12267811
>wave-particle duality is solved.
Are you fucking retarded, solved what? Everything is only waves, that's the vibration of the energy. Wave duality was confirmed and proved by QM, it was showed that electrons and every single particle behave like waves, thus everything is vibration.
>No, particles are excitations of their respective particle fields.
It is vibrating energy because all particles have wave duality, they are ultimately waves and not particles.

[Anonymous No.12267885]

>>12266733
>Graviton is already predicted by General Relavitty but it may take some time to confirm
>It may take some time
understatement of the year

[Anonymous No.12267981]

>>12267857
>solved what?
I explained what. Learn to read.
>Everything is only waves
No, everything is a quantum particle. Wave is a classical concept. Our world is quantum.
>that's the vibration of the energy
No, it's excitations of particle fields. Learn to read.
>Wave duality was confirmed and proved by QM,
No, wave-particle duality was solved by QM. Learn to read. There is no dual nature anymore where we need two models to describe light. A single model (QM) suffices. There is no dual nature anymore. You are completely retarded.
>it was showed that electrons and every single particle behave like waves
Explain the photoelectric effect then. You can't explain it with waves.
>It is vibrating energy
No.
>because all particles have wave duality
What is wave duality? It doesn't make sense, duality needs TWO states.
>they are ultimately waves and not particles.
Wring. They are neither. Both wave and particle are classical concepts superseded by quantum mechanics. Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.12268005]

>>12264491
>>12266733
>16 fundamental particles
There are 18 types of fundamental particles, and when you actually inspect those types there are 72 quarks, 24 leptons (although 3 leptons have never been seen) and 13 bosons (14 if the graviton exists). If supersymmetry exists, the 109 (maybe 110) particles are doubled to 218 or 220.

[Anonymous No.12268011]

>>12267289
>all matter is is energy in a state of vibration
lmao. Source?

[Anonymous No.12268021]

>>12267981
>everything is a quantum particle
There's no particles in the quantum realm, there's only waves.
>No, it's excitations of particle fields.
No, is the vibration of waves, since everything is only waves and not particles.
>There is no dual nature anymore.
Correct, there's only waves, particles are an illusion.
>Explain the photoelectric effect then
Everything under the EM, is only waves with different frequencies and different vibrations ultimately.
>No.
Yes.
>What is wave duality? It doesn't make sense, duality needs TWO states.
See the double slit experiment
>hey are neither. Both wave and particle are classical concepts superseded by quantum mechanics
Nothing is "superceded" by quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics is only a concept, everything is ruled by EM spectrum. Photons behave like waves afterall.
Get a new brain my dude.

[Anonymous No.12268024]

>>12268005
>72 quarks
What do you mean? There are 6 quarks, plus their anti-particles. That makes 12. Where do you get 6 times that many?
Same for leptons.

[Anonymous No.12268054]

>>12268021
>There's no particles in the quantum realm, there's only waves.
Wrong. Both waves and particles are classical concepts superseded by quantum mechanics, which describes phenomena as quantum particles (not particles). Learn to read.
>No, is the vibration of waves
Waves can't vibrate, they ARE vibrations. Are you trolling?
>since everything is only waves and not particles.
Explain the photoelectric effect with waves. I'll wait.
>Correct, there's only waves, particles are an illusion
See above.
>Everything under the EM, is only waves with different frequencies and different vibrations ultimately
Wrong. Explain the photoelectric effect.
>Yes
Source?
>See the double slit experiment
Don't ignore the question. What do you think "wave duality" is?
The double slit experiment can be described using a single concept, namely quantum mechanics, or by using two concepts, namely classical waves and particles. The latter is what caused the discussion about the dual nature of light and electrons, which was solved by introducing quantum particles (described as probability waves).
>Nothing is "superceded" by quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics is only a concept, everything is ruled by EM spectrum
Ohhhh you could have saved us all a lot of time by directly saying that you're an EM schizo.
>Photons behave like waves afterall
Explain the photoelectric effect then.

[Anonymous No.12268086]

>>12268054
>Wrong. Both waves and particles are classical concepts superseded by quantum mechanics, which describes phenomena as quantum particles (not particles). Learn to read.
There's only waves, with different frequencies.
>Waves can't vibrate, they ARE vibrations. Are you trolling?
Exactly, everything is just vibration of energy, see the EM spectrum.
>Explain the photoelectric effect with waves. I'll wait.
Waves can also behave like particles, done. They are only illusions though, since we have limited senses.
>Source?
Quantum mechanics
>which was solved by introducing quantum particles (described as probability waves).
Nope not never solved, measurement problem is still unsolved.
>Ohhhh you could have saved us all a lot of time by directly saying that you're an EM schizo.
Not an argument
>Explain the photoelectric effect then.
Photons can also behave like particles, see the double slit experiment.

[Anonymous No.12268143]

>>12268086
>There's only waves, with different frequencies.
Wrong.
>Exactly, everything is just vibration of energy
Wrong. Post source or shut up. This is boring.
>Waves can also behave like particles,
They literally can't, that's why there was wave-particle duality. Explain the photoelectric effect with waves.
>>Source?
Post a source.
>Nope not never solved
I literally explained how it was solved by QM.
>measurement problem is still unsolved.
Yes. That's a different problem though.
Are you an AI in learning mode? Cause you suck at basic conversation.
>Photons can also behave like particles
Yes, that's what I've been saying and you've been denying all along. I'm 90% convinced you're an early stage AI. Prove me right with your next illiterate reply.

[Anonymous No.12268144]

>>12268024
6 green left handed quarks
6 blue left handed quarks
6 red left handed quarks
6 green right handed quarks
6 blue right handed quarks
6 red right handed quarks
6 antigreen left handed antiquarks
6 antiblue left handed antiquarks
6 antired left handed antiquarks
6 antigreen right handed antiquarks
6 antiblue right handed antiquarks
6 antired right handed antiquarks

[Anonymous No.12268182]

>>12268143
>Wrong.
Correct, everything is reduced to waves, particles are an illusion.
> Post source or shut up
Source of what? Waves are vibrations and everything in this world is made out of waves.
>They literally can't, that's why there was wave-particle duality. Explain the photoelectric effect with waves.
Waves also behave like particles. Learn to read.
>I literally explained how it was solved by QM
By QM? There's multiple interpretations of QM, you are just using an ad hoc and pretend "QM" in your mind solved what we are talking about.
>Yes. That's a different problem though.
See above.
>Yes, that's what I've been saying and you've been denying all along.
Never denied such thing, they also behave like waves, and they are under the EM spectrum, so everything is ultimately waves.

[Anonymous No.12268221]

>>12264385
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by

>whether the smallest, simplest material objects are uniform or whether there are multiple types of them

If all you're asking is whether fundamentally things consist out of a single type of "lego brick" or if there are multiples ones, then the answer is that (as far as we know) there are multiple ones although whether it's as simple as there being a "smallest, simplest object" is kinda questionable.

Reality seems (again as far as we know) to be made out of fields. What's a field? Well that's kinda hard to answer without going into the math, but an example of a field that you're familiar with is the electromagnetic field. In school you may have learned that a magnet generates a magnetic field, but that's not quite right. The field was always there and in fact permeates the entire universe. The magnet just changed the field's strength in the area surrounding it. That's what you see in picture it's the impact of the magnetic field on the iron filings.

Now the story get a bit more complicated, because the fields that we consider fundamental are quantum fields, but I don't have a good way of explaining them. Suffice it to say fields are not just responsible for forces as in the magnet example, but also for matter. Roughly speaking if a matter field's strength at one point in space is enough we may detect a particle of the corresponding field there(really simplified, not exactly correct).

Point being, what's fundamental are the fields, not the particles and for each type of matter particle we know there is a field. As it turns out we know there are a variety of matter particles and in turn multiple fundamental matter fields.

I hope that answer you question. No it's not only one smallest, simplest material object nor are they objects as we would usually think of them either!

[Anonymous No.12268392]

>>12267493
The hell you mean appeal to authority.
They ARE the experts in this matter

If Gravitons do not exists, they wouldn't perform experiments attempting to find it, dumbass

[Anonymous No.12268416]

>>12268392
gravitons are unconfirmed faggot and we've previously looked for particles that turned out not to exist

[Anonymous No.12268436]

>>12268416
Oh sure, so don't talk absolute saying it does not exist.
Nigger

[Anonymous No.12268512]

>>12268144
Are differently colored quarks really "different"? It's just a matter of rotating in color space to get another one. I don't know, to me it just seems they're the same, but displaying a different property of the same underlying thing. Kinda like it feels weird to me at least to call electrons with spin up and down different kinds of particles. It's all relative anyway. Same with chirality.

[Anonymous No.12268526]

>>12264398
Kek'd

[Anonymous No.12268528]

>>12268182
>Waves also behave like particles
Explain the word wave-particle duality.
>There's multiple interpretations of QM,
Irrelevant here.
>See above.
See above what? You just switched the discussion to a different problem because you're deliberately avoiding the actual problem.
>Never denied such thing
You literally did so again in this post.
Wave and particle are both classical models. They are incompatible. Hence the term duality. In quantum mechanics, everything is a quantum particle which is neither a classical wave nor a classical particle. Sorry bro, the maths just doesn't support your schizoid ramblings.

So, got a source for
>everything is vibrating energy
or can we stop pretending you're not trolling now?

[Anonymous No.12268535]

>>12268392
>The hell you mean appeal to authority.
Instead of producing any argument you're saying that you saw it in a video (which is incorrect, since your statement is wrong and Fermilab employees wouldn't make such a mistake).
>If Gravitons do not exists, they wouldn't perform experiments attempting to find it, dumbass
I never said they don't exist. You're the retard here. Stop making shit up and read a book.

[Anonymous No.12268674]

>>12268512
You can only change color through gluon interactions in the same way that you can only change quark flavor through weak interactions.

[Anonymous No.12268756]

>>12268674
Yeah sure, that's what causes the rotations but still, it doesn't really feel "different" to me and all the colors change over time anyway without causing any effects apart from quark-gluon plasma fluctuations.

[Anonymous No.12269020]

>>12264401
>/his/
Possibly the only place on the internet less historically literate than /pol/

[Anonymous No.12269209]

>>12268756
The quarks inside a neutron constantly fluctuate due to W interactions as well, it doesn't mean they are the same.

[Anonymous No.12270697]

>>12269209
Does them changing causes any measurable effect?

[Anonymous No.12270794]

>>12264401
/his/ is just a bait board to get some of redditors/pol out of /lit/

[Anonymous No.12271057]

>>12268528
>everything is a quantum particle
What does this even mean?

[Anonymous No.12271155]

>>12271057
That every phenomenon is quantum mechanically described as a quantum particle, which mathematically is a probability wave.
It's a generalization. This explains why in some circumstances phenomena behave like classical waves (oscillating media) and sometimes like classical particles (rigid points).

[Anonymous No.12271739]

>>12270697
Yes, it contributes to the masses and spin of the nucleons

[Anonymous No.12272565]

>>12271739
Of course, I mean does them changing from green up, blue up, red down to blue up, red up, green down change anything? The mass contribution is constant.

[Anonymous No.12273153]

>>12266418
OK, so what is the ontological status of energy? you are arguing that energy is a substance.

[Anonymous No.12273177]

>>12268221
>In school you may have learned that a magnet generates a magnetic field, but that's not quite right. The field was always there and in fact permeates the entire universe. The magnet just changed the field's strength in the area surrounding it.

I wish I studied fewer liberal-arts subjects. This blew my mind.