/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14686546]

>"quantum foam"

[Anonymous No.14686733]

>>14686546
Something, something flux tubes...

[Anonymous No.14686843]

Random spontenaous vacuum particle anti particle pairs anihilating

[Anonymous No.14686879]

>>14686843
>Random spontenaous vacuum particle anti particle pairs anihilating

[Anonymous No.14686881]

>>14686843
Makes more sense when you understand the fields are everywhere and 'particles' are just specific waveforms.

[Anonymous No.14686901]

>>14686546
I use it to wash my dick

[Anonymous No.14686915]

>>14686881
>fields are everywhere and 'particles' are just specific waveforms
Just a theory

[Anonymous No.14686923]

>>14686881
How many different unique fields are there, that are everywhere?

How many different wave forms are possible?

If you look at the surface of the ocean, you will see bigger waves and many smaller waves, many little little ripples and waves, so is it like cataloguing each different size ripple as a different thing?

And if two little ripples interact and then in that location there is no longer ripples for a pico second is that a ripple and anti ripple anihilating?

[Anonymous No.14686953]

>>14686881
>>14686923
https://youtu.be/QR707vRwFqM

Look at the different sized wave peaks, those would be different masses and energies, different particles, different types of excitations of the water field/medium

[Anonymous No.14686954]

>>14686901
Good, wash your penis carefully.

[Anonymous No.14686987]

>>14686923
Each type of elementary particle has its own field.

[Anonymous No.14687120]

>>14686987
Doubt it. The medium fields make sense, to then trigger happily apply that concept to particles is very likely less about reality and more about method

[Anonymous No.14687124]

>>14686953
Answer

[Anonymous No.14687132]

There is only:
Something
And
Nothing

Nothing cannot physically act on Something

Either the EM field is stationary in relation to earths motions

And/or

The EM field moves along with the Earths movements


There is a difference between the EM field and EM waves

There is a difference between the Gravity field and Gravity wells

Not being able to measure something does not mean something has no measurement

Everything we know of has a measurement
That is substantial evidence what we can't measure has a measurement


Out of 100% total Planck lengths that occupy an average volume away from stars and planets

What percent of that 100% is composed of what?

How much is EM field?
How much is gravity field?

The volume of the universe must be composed of some ratio of Something and Nothing, possibly 100% to 0% possibly 50% to 50% I don't know.

There is some amount of EM field
Some amount of Gravity field
And possibly some amount of nothing.

To the best of your knowledge, what is your educated geuss at the percental make up?


Mass is the fact something exists instead of nothing, and that it may be slowed down and relatively steadied in a place

Energy is,
Motion of things.


Somethings exist (a lot)
They are moving (a lot)

Motion is energy.

What is motion.

Motion is not a thing.

Motion cannot exist without a thing.

Certain things would not exist as they do without motion.

EM is considerd "pure energy" because it is a thing that cannot be stopped from moving.

Mass is that which can be stopped from moving.

The ocean has mass. An ocean wave is mass plus motion. The wave of the ocean cannot be stopped and kept in place. The wave of the ocean is motion. The wave of the ocean is energy.

Energy is not a thing. Energy is motion. Motion cannot exist without a thing. Energy cannot exist without a thing. Energy is the motion of a thing.

[vvvvvvv No.14687136]

There is only:
Something
And
Nothing

Nothing cannot physically act on Something

Either the EM field is stationary in relation to earths motions

And/or

The EM field moves along with the Earths movements


There is a difference between the EM field and EM waves

There is a difference between the Gravity field and Gravity wells

Not being able to measure something does not mean something has no measurement

Everything we know of has a measurement
That is substantial evidence what we can't measure has a measurement


Out of 100% total Planck lengths that occupy an average volume away from stars and planets

What percent of that 100% is composed of what?

How much is EM field?
How much is gravity field?

The volume of the universe must be composed of some ratio of Something and Nothing, possibly 100% to 0% possibly 50% to 50% I don't know.

There is some amount of EM field
Some amount of Gravity field
And possibly some amount of nothing.

To the best of your knowledge, what is your educated geuss at the percental make up?


Mass is the fact something exists instead of nothing, and that it may be slowed down and relatively steadied in a place

Energy is,
Motion of things.


Somethings exist (a lot)
They are moving (a lot)

Motion is energy.

What is motion.

Motion is not a thing.

Motion cannot exist without a thing.

Certain things would not exist as they do without motion.

EM is considerd "pure energy" because it is a thing that cannot be stopped from moving.

Mass is that which can be stopped from moving.

The ocean has mass. An ocean wave is mass plus motion. The wave of the ocean cannot be stopped and kept in place. The wave of the ocean is motion. The wave of the ocean is energy.

Energy is not a thing. Energy is motion. Motion cannot exist without a thing. Energy cannot exist without a thing. Energy is the motion of a thing.

[Anonymous No.14687138]

>>14686881
>>14686923
>>14687120
When will you nigras realize that everything we can perceive and study is a property of spacetime. Nothing REALLY exists but spacetime, it's all just empty shapes and smoke.

[Anonymous No.14687153]

>>14687136
cntd

When it is said particles are anihilated into pure energy , does this mean;

A particle is a thingness of sorts: P for particle

(P1)

It interacts with other particles

(P1)........(P2)(P3)..(P4)(P5)(P6)

And the total physical body of (P1) can entirely dissapear and in it's place the pure energy that remains is some of the particles on the right now are moving?.

[Anonymous No.14687161]

>>14687138
Because stabilities make no sense then.

And spacetime is a silly term admittedly not even trying to refer to substance. The universe is variety of substances, spacetime is a man made map idea attempting to map the movement of substances.

Let's talk about the territory

[Anonymous No.14687704]

>>14687136
>>14687153
Respond to this if you dare

[Anonymous No.14687885]

>>14687704
ok
>>14687136
>>14687153
poop nigger

[Anonymous No.14688005]

>>14687885
hmm, I never considered that before, thanks.


Anyone else?

[Anonymous No.14688010]

>Quantum field THEORY is basically WHAT GOD USED

[Anonymous No.14688015]

>>14686987
That's so stupid, who accepted this?

[Anonymous No.14688073]

>>14688015
thor

[Anonymous No.14689340]

>>14688015
Uhhh most scientists for almost a century, sweetie.

[Anonymous No.14689381]

>>14687885
why did you say poop twice?

[Anonymous No.14690350]

>>14687136
>>14687153
Respond to this if you're not too scared

[Anonymous No.14690365]

>>14686881
is there any evidence to support the existence of quantum foam?

[Anonymous No.14690373]

>>14690350
banana

[Anonymous No.14690384]

>>14686546
>"electromagnetism"

[Anonymous No.14691015]

>>14690365
Yeah, vacuum fluctuations

[Anonymous No.14691024]

>>14690365
hawking radiation

[Anonymous No.14691026]

>>14691015
that's not evidence of a quantum foam.
>>14691024
hawking radiation has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.14691029]

>>14691026
what? do you know what hawking radiation is?

[Anonymous No.14691032]

>>14691029
oh, i'm sorry, i thought we were saying random stuff that had nothing to do with the previous post. hawking radiation has never been observed, dummy. i asked for experimental evidence, not theoretical masturbation.

[Anonymous No.14691044]

>>14691032
if you need tangible evidence to accept anything then the entire foundation of our math and understanding of the universe is unacceptable. Might aswell throw it all away and go back to bumping rocks together

[Anonymous No.14691046]

>>14691044
that's not even close to what my very simple criterion is. the original post i responded to said this malarkey
>[quantum foam] makes more sense when you understand the fields are everywhere and 'particles' are just specific waveforms.
this pretends that theory is reality. no, theory kowtows to experiment. reality is reflected by experiments, and an overwhelming majority of theoretical explanations get thrown to the trash heap after being falsified by experiment. what you fail to understand is that THEORY IS NOT REALITY until it is verified by experiment. so don't fucking pretend that a theory---no matter how elegant it may seem---reflects reality. pisses me off.

[Anonymous No.14691104]

>>14691046
There is evidence of quantum foam due to Pauli exclusion uncertainty superposition particle pair creation wave particle duality measurement problem wave function entanglement principle

[Anonymous No.14691130]

>>14691104
electronic brain pancake crystal elderly

[Anonymous No.14691355]

>>14688010
me wearing the mask

[Anonymous No.14691729]

>>14687136
>>14687153
Answer

[Anonymous No.14691949]

>>14691024
hawking radiation has never been observed

[Anonymous No.14692742]

>>14691729
Um. Vacuum density?

[Anonymous No.14693478]

>>14687136
Someone respond to this. The fundamental axioms of physics

[Anonymous No.14693482]

>>14687153
>When it is said particles are anihilated into pure energy , does this mean;
>A particle is a thingness of sorts: P for particle
>(P1)
>It interacts with other particles
>(P1)........(P2)(P3)..(P4)(P5)(P6)
>And the total physical body of (P1) can entirely dissapear and in it's place the pure energy that remains is some of the particles on the right now are moving?.
Answer this

[Anonymous No.14693583]

>>14693482
Particles aren't a thing.

[Anonymous No.14693739]

>>14693583
https://youtu.be/EtsXgODHMWk
2:45

A single photon cannot be made, only a wave packet of light particles

[Anonymous No.14694251]

>>14686546
>quantum "chromodynamics"

[Anonymous No.14694795]

Bose-Einstein condensate.....

[Anonymous No.14694860]

>>14693739
This is a limitation of our technology. Single photons or electrons have a very tiny amount of energy, so any attempt to emit them produces at least a few.

[Anonymous No.14695367]

>The Superintegrable Chiral Potts Model

[Anonymous No.14695379]

>>14691044
>if you need tangible evidence
yes dipshit that's what science is

now everything is fucked up because it's all worthless theory. relativity, qm, none of it is real.

[Anonymous No.14695843]

>>14695379
>relativity isn't real
is that why atomic clocks on satellites need to be adjusted often? or why we have photos of galaxies turning light into a donut?

[Anonymous No.14696193]

>>14694860
If light always travels same speed, and doesn't have mass ;. What is the difference between a single high energy photon and a single low energy photon?

[Anonymous No.14696321]

>>14696193
Frequency.

[Anonymous No.14696889]

>>14696321
So single photons do not have an associated energy, or, all single photons have equal energy;

The energy associated with light, the frequency, is the amount of photons generated in a time.

[Anonymous No.14696938]

>>14696889
Luminosity is the rate at which photons are produced. Frequency is the reciprocal of the wavelength; how many times per second the wave completes a full cycle.

[vvvvvvv No.14697180]

>>14696938
>how many times per second the wave completes a full cycle.
Wave is only a quantity of multiple photons.

All single photons have the same frequency 1. A single photon is frequent 1 time.

Unless it's counted the photons body crashes into an object and has a reverberation.

The wavelength of a photon, the frequency, are entirely characteristics of how the electron that produces the photon is accelerated.

If it is accelerated slowly the wave length is long. Quickly the wave length is short.

If the electron is accelerated very frequently the photons produced will be high frequency.

If the electro ln is accelerated not that frequently, the photons produced will be a low frequency batch of photons.

[Anonymous No.14697225]

>>14686546

is it more likely that the universe appear to be fine-tuned because there are a trillion other universes and we just happen to be inside of one that enables life to form, or that the universe appear to be fine-tuned because it was actully fine-tuned by an omnipotent creator?

[Anonymous No.14697997]

>>14697180
Twould like to see a response

[Anonymous No.14698087]

>>14697997
>>14697180
Unless this has some kind of consequence, you haven't changed anything. You've just said the wave is made of particles, but the particles can't exist in isolation so they will always behave like a wave anyway.

[Anonymous No.14698505]

>>14698087
I'm trying to elucidate vague conulutions for my self

[Anonymous No.14698931]

>>14686881
>>14686843
Dude weed lmao

[Anonymous No.14698934]

>>14690365
No there is 0 evidence and all of these pop sci retards don't know the difference between metaphysics and real physics

[Anonymous No.14698942]

>>14691044
You do know the difference between a mathematical model and the real world right??

[Anonymous No.14699593]

>>14698931
God invented weed bruh so we could understand this stuff

[Anonymous No.14701004]

>>14687136
Respond to this fundamental foundational exposition on physics

[Anonymous No.14701573]

>>14701004
Can you formulate it less like a schizo?

[Anonymous No.14702346]

>>14699593
Too bad God didn't invent something that could make you understand how to get a job and stop disappointing your parents.

[Anonymous No.14702366]

>>14686546
>>14686733
>>14686843
>>14686879
virtual photons

[Anonymous No.14702384]

>>14687136
>To the best of your knowledge, what is your educated geuss at the percental make up?
100% unified field, whose modalities all include what we've thus far taken to be different fields
"nothing" obviously by definition does not exist

[Anonymous No.14702551]

>>14702384
>nothing" obviously by definition does not exist
Only a particularly ill thinking 12 year old would say such a thing, or those many who have much in mental common

[Anonymous No.14703463]

>>14702551
only a 5-year old kid would try to reify "nothing"

[Anonymous No.14703614]

>>14687136
>EM field
0 real world evidence that this is something real

>Gravity field
0 real world evidence that this is something real

>Gravity wells
0 real world evidence that this is something real

>Planck lengths
0 real world evidence that this is something real

>The volume of the universe must be composed of some ratio of Something and Nothing
Pop-sci brainlet retard never studied metaphysics

[Anonymous No.14703630]

>metaphysics

get a load of this spiritard

[Anonymous No.14703645]

>>14703614
>>EM field
>0 real world evidence that this is something real
except we know that photons are waves, and a wave is not something in particular, it describes what something is doing, in this case the electromagnetic field
but ultimately there aren't different fields, there's just one underlying field of which all the different fields we think of are just various modalities
there is in fact zero evidence for "particles" at all, everything we know of is that single field waving
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3930.pdf

[Anonymous No.14704171]

>>14703614
Doesn't matter if it's 'real'. It just needs to produce the same results as reality in at least one circumstance better than any other model.

[Anonymous No.14704277]

>>14703614
>em field
compass always points north, electric generators
>gravity well
gravitational lensing, orbital mechanics, gravitational waves

[Anonymous No.14704361]

>>14686843
>>14686915
>>14694251

[Anonymous No.14704381]

>>14703645
Particle essentially means quantised wave packet.

[Anonymous No.14704391]

Foam is a symptom of rabies, and indicates the host is about to DIE. Quantum foam indicates the host, quantum mechanics, is about to die. I'm dating general relativity now. The curves on her get me massive. Meanwhile quantum cucks don't even know if their gf exists before seeing her. Sad.

[Anonymous No.14704487]

>>14704381
yes, that is precisely right
that is also what is emphasized in the paper I provided

[Anonymous No.14704928]

>>14704487
I thought that was just the standard interpretation and no-one had taken 'wave-particle duality' seriously for almost a century.

[Anonymous No.14705122]

>>14704928
no, it seems many people still think "particles" exist as such, as small and individual objects, including the person I responded to who were spouting some nonsense about fields not existing, when the only thing with inherent existence is ultimately the unified field

[Anonymous No.14705144]

>>14705122
>particles don't exist
Tie a noose. And thread your neck through it.

[Anonymous No.14705165]

>>14705144
Those are atoms, not particles, and it is an image of the effect of those atoms, not directly viewing the atoms through an optical microscope.

[Anonymous No.14705188]

>>14705144
>>particles don't exist
correct

[Anonymous No.14705207]

>>14705165
Tell the audience what an atom is, pseud. Hint: it's not an excitation of a field.

[Anonymous No.14705222]

>>14705165
>not directly viewing the atoms through an optical microscope.
You're such moron. Why do you feel qualified to speak about things you have only a surface level understanding of?

[Anonymous No.14705224]

>>14705207
An atom is the outcome of multiple types of waves in the field interacting. The only type that contributes to that image is electromagnetic, though.

[Anonymous No.14705227]

>>14705224
Proof? Stop making shit up.

[Anonymous No.14705236]

>>14705222
Those are produced by an electrically sensitive tip scanning across a sample and mapping how it is repelled with respect to 2D position on the sample.

[Anonymous No.14705291]

>>14705207
>what an atom is
already did
see: >>14703645
>not an excitation of a field
that's exactly what literally everything is, excitations of the underlying unified field

[Anonymous No.14705298]

>>14705227
Quantum field theory works really well.

[Anonymous No.14705312]

>>14688015

It's astonishingly precise model.

[Anonymous No.14705328]

Single electron/photon experiments have never been done
protip: cosmic background radiation

Soibrain believes he influences universe by spying on things like the pervert he is, he believes he's really important and somehow this proves he has free will.
Grains of sands are not even real there's no proof they're grains of sand! Yet in same time multiple wave fields with blurry probability equations are completely real and logical!

[Anonymous No.14705333]

When healthy relational person sees pic related and you ask him to explain what he sees, he will say it's clearly these particles were made up from 2 or 3 things from beginning, the photon only caused them to split.

But no this is not the case with delusional crack brain of quantum mechanic, you see there was always 1 particle, and then wave collapsed into more wavey particles because it's the rules okay! all because you used the magic trick of looking at it!

[Anonymous No.14705421]

>>14705333
>you see there was always 1 particle, and then wave collapsed
incorrect
there was never any particle, there's no such thing
electrons and photons are wave packets, excitations of the underlying unified field

[Anonymous No.14705623]

>>14703645
>except we know that photons are waves
Incorrect. A wave describes the movement of something not what it is in itself. Try again brainlet retard.

[Anonymous No.14705627]

>compass always points north, electric generators
Does not prove that em fields exist

>gravitational lensing, orbital mechanics, gravitational waves
Does not prove that gravity wells exist

[Anonymous No.14705635]

>>14703645
There is 0 evidence that any kind of field exits

[Anonymous No.14705641]

>>14704277
>compass always points north, electric generators
Does not prove that em fields exist

>gravitational lensing, orbital mechanics, gravitational waves
Does not prove that gravity wells exist

[Anonymous No.14705645]

>>14705635
>There is 0 evidence that any kind of field exits
Iron filings around magnet

Earth stays around sun at distance, moon stays around earth at distance

[Anonymous No.14705757]

>>14705645
None of that proves the existence of a field

[Anonymous No.14706258]

>>14702346
>Malignant projection: the post

[Anonymous No.14706359]

>>14705333
I see pp

[Anonymous No.14706378]

>>14705757
the double slit experiment proves the existence of phenomena that demands explanations. fields explains it

[vvvvvvv No.14708349]

>>14687136
>There is only:
>Something
>And
>Nothing
>Nothing cannot physically act on Something
>Either the EM field is stationary in relation to earths motions
>And/or
>The EM field moves along with the Earths movements
>There is a difference between the EM field and EM waves
>There is a difference between the Gravity field and Gravity wells
>Not being able to measure something does not mean something has no measurement
>Everything we know of has a measurement
>That is substantial evidence what we can't measure has a measurement
>Out of 100% total Planck lengths that occupy an average volume away from stars and planets
>What percent of that 100% is composed of what?
>How much is EM field?
>How much is gravity field?
>The volume of the universe must be composed of some ratio of Something and Nothing, possibly 100% to 0% possibly 50% to 50% I don't know.
>There is some amount of EM field
>Some amount of Gravity field
>And possibly some amount of nothing.
>To the best of your knowledge, what is your educated geuss at the percental make up?
>Mass is the fact something exists instead of nothing, and that it may be slowed down and relatively steadied in a place
>Energy is,
>Motion of things.
>Somethings exist (a lot)
>They are moving (a lot)
>Motion is energy.
>What is motion.
>Motion is not a thing.
>Motion cannot exist without a thing.
>Certain things would not exist as they do without motion.
>EM is considerd "pure energy" because it is a thing that cannot be stopped from moving.
>Mass is that which can be stopped from moving.
>The ocean has mass. An ocean wave is mass plus motion. The wave of the ocean cannot be stopped and kept in place. The wave of the ocean is motion. The wave of the ocean is energy.
>Energy is not a thing. Energy is motion. Motion cannot exist without a thing. Energy cannot exist without a thing. Energy is the motion of a thing.
This is the foundation of fundamental theoretical physics

[Anonymous No.14708353]

>>14705757
>None of that proves the existence of a field
Explain why not

[[e-mail] No.14708371]

>>14686733
nice pen set

[Anonymous No.14708841]

>>14706378
It does not prove it
>>14708353
Explain how it does

[Anonymous No.14708870]

>math

[Anonymous No.14709091]

>>14708841
>Explain how it does
Bring 2 strongest permenant magnets Npole to Npole together in vacuum;

You feel a repulsion between them at some distance. What is occuring between their bodies?

[Anonymous No.14709102]

>>14686546
Its the decay of the timelines, and you know it.
There is a dimension breaching full of energy and it shifts into this dimension, this is what tears the universe apart and creates time.

[Anonymous No.14709111]

>>14709102
If we look backwards in to time, we expect the universe doesn't just have mega structures but is breaching full. This is not the case. But with an dimensional shift you expect ofc an change in physics over time.

[Anonymous No.14709443]

>>14705641
?

[Anonymous No.14710387]

spontaneous symmetry breaking

[Anonymous No.14711789]

quantum spin

[Anonymous No.14712402]

WHATEVER THE ACTUAL FUCKING SHIT "CHARGE" ACTUALLY FUNDAMENTALLY PHYSICALLY MECHANICALLY ESSENTIALLY SUBSTANTIALLY IS

[Anonymous No.14712425]

>>14686923
>How many different wave forms are possible?
Exactly 2. I will name them Ligma and Sugma waves

[Anonymous No.14712467]

Guys, what if things like """quantum chromodynamics""" and """weak isospin""" are real things? What if we've been living under the powers of Gods that we don't even understand? What if they're mad at us for not making statues with massive schlongs recognizing their gifts?

[Anonymous No.14712493]

>>14712467
Art and statues celebrating and epic-izing Science and it's achievements would be real cool. A whole Museum dedicated to Art which interprets and honors Science and the hidden complexities of nature

[Anonymous No.14712530]

>>14697225
I really hate the starburst meme from the JWST
when are we putting a giant optical telescope somewhere in spess and getting some real kino

[Anonymous No.14712549]

>>14712493
They got virtual ones

[Anonymous No.14712552]

>>14712530
But that's what the JWST is

[Anonymous No.14712611]

>>14712493
Theres a statue of Twum at the Smithsonian, its next to the Einstein statue.
>mfw the smithsonian has no statues of americans and focuses exclusively on promoting foreigners
>no ben franklin, no wright bros, no edison, no tombaugh, instead they have a jew and a ghana dyke

[Anonymous No.14713912]

>>14712402
Guys what a actually is charge physically?

All it means is there is an EM field that exists everywhere;

And different fundamental bits of stuff make larger or smaller, different shapes in it?

[Anonymous No.14713922]

>>14713912

[Anonymous No.14714318]

>>14686915
A field theory

[Anonymous No.14714342]

>>14691044
>if you need tangible evidence to accept anything then the entire foundation of our math and understanding of the universe is unacceptable
Yes
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cosmology-has-some-big-problems/

[Anonymous No.14715245]

>>14708349
Yes

[Anonymous No.14715820]

>>14695843
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Essen

[Anonymous No.14716180]

figures

[Anonymous No.14717106]

Propagating 90 degree e and h fields at the speed of light

[Anonymous No.14717118]

>>14717106
>90 degree e and h fields at the speed of light

[Anonymous No.14717123]

>>14708841
>>14705635
>None of that proves the existence of a field
What are you referring to when you use the word "field" then?

[Anonymous No.14717949]

>>14717118
Do the self propagating switching 90 degree fields each travel half light speed or twice light speed?

C^2?

Because it would take time for each field to flip 90. Then the next, takes time to flip 90, next flip 90, next flip 90, next flip 90

All this chain reaction of neighboring perpendicular fields, flipping. Flipping. Flipping.

Takes place in total linear time and space at c.

But the flipping is not entirely a linear action, and each one itself takes time.

How does the e field cause the b field to move; flip, 90 degrees?

[Anonymous No.14718345]

>>14717949
If I knew I'd tell you