[ 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: 3.43 MB, 1000x563, Waves_BM.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15196212 No.15196212 [Reply] [Original]

What the fuck is a particle exactly?

>> No.15196217
File: 200 KB, 1080x1080, E3ugUQhXoAUWfMB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15196217

>>15196212

>> No.15196231

>>15196212
a vortex in the aether, of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_theory_of_the_atom

>> No.15196233

>>15196212
a standing wave in the vaccuum

>> No.15196237

>>15196231
>>15196233
>>>/x/

>> No.15196242

>>15196212
A useful fiction.

You're stuck in consciousness, so the existence of anything outside of consciousness can never be known.

>> No.15196246

>>15196212
doesnt exist. the wavefunction is all that is or ever was

>> No.15196261

>>15196246
Why is wave function interpreted as a probability density function when pilot wave interpretations apply to it as well?

>> No.15196264

>>15196261
Because pilot wave theory makes no new predictions when compared to the wavefunction formalism while also being much harder mathematically to use.

>> No.15196275

>>15196264
It makes more sense than le mysterious probability curves.

>> No.15196281

>>15196275
Unfortunately that isn't enough to prove it's the correct interpretation.

>> No.15196293

>>15196281
Making sense when compared with observable reality is the only defined trait of good theories.

>> No.15196298

>>15196281
So what makes Copenhagen interpretation correct that mainstream scientists can't stop shilling its literal meaning?

>> No.15196306

https://youtu.be/nmC0ygr08tE

>> No.15196313

>>15196293
Sure but observed reality agrees with every single interpretation of quantum mechanics. That all make identical predictions so all agree with reality.

>>15196298
It doesn't make it correct. The simple answer is because it was developed first and is still the easiest to use, and so it's what gets taught to undergrads.

>> No.15196324

>>15196212
a big charged fields with a bit of particle in the middle

>> No.15196347
File: 33 KB, 500x308, iso.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15196347

2 N1P1 + N -> N3P2

>> No.15196380

https://youtu.be/pg7LMdtvu3g

>> No.15196490

>>15196212
A cope

>> No.15196578

>>15196298
>So what makes Copenhagen interpretation correct that mainstream scientists can't stop shilling its literal meaning?
Bad science, obviously. Good scientists support Everett's interpretation since it doesn't require things to magically pop in and out of existence.

>> No.15196584

>>15196264
Wtf are you talking about? Pilot wave theory is the exact same as Copenhagen mathematically. The origin of the wave function is reinterpreted though.

>> No.15196604

>>15196212
A packet of energy.

>> No.15196607

>>15196604
This brings back memories from middle school. The teacher there said the same thing.

>> No.15196627

>>15196237
the second response is actually completely accurate, though
that's exactly what quantum field theory, the most successful theory of science ever devised, tells us a "particle" really is

>> No.15196635

>>15196627
no, that's what a field is

a particle is a 0 dimensional dot

>> No.15196655

>>15196635
no, the field is the medium within which the waves are standing
the "field" is like an "ocean", and a "particle" is like a "wave" in that "ocean"

>> No.15196684

>>15196212

Who knows what the substance is. Pure elemental Qualia? Nothing?

Doesn't matter though...
A thing is defined by it's properties, so a particle like a photon is the set of all the fundamental values like Spin and equations describing its behaviour.

>> No.15196696
File: 5 KB, 188x196, apu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15196696

>>15196212
I don't really know physics, but I think particle is an energy vortex.
I've come to that conclusion myself and it's based purely on my logic and intuition.

>> No.15196756

>>15196655
a dot in that ocean*

>> No.15196771

>>15196756
no, "particles" are essentially standing waves in the underlying field
there's no such thing as a "point particle", that's the myth being exposed here
it's a useful abstraction in some contexts, but not the fundamental truth of the matter

>> No.15196788

>>15196771
wouldnt a wave be a more complicated abstraction than a point particle

>> No.15196847

>>15196788
first of all, it's not an abstraction, it's quite literally a wave
secondly, being more complicated is not something to avoid if it's more correct
Occam's razor only says to not make more assumptions than necessary, but it's long been known that numerous flaws with the "particle" abstraction very quickly appear when testing it empirically, thus one needs to make a more accurate model

>> No.15196852

>>15196847
>it's quite literally a wave
NTA but a wave is an abstraction.

>> No.15196855

>>15196852
it really isn't
you could say that an ideal mathematical wave is an abstraction, but in this case we're talking about an underlying field that is literally waving, just as literally as the ocean does

>> No.15196877

>>15196855
>it really isn't
Are waves in a pool of water also magical entities separate from the water, or is it just water?

>> No.15196884 [DELETED] 

>>15196877
well, that's now what I'm saying
of course the waves aren't "real" in and of themselves, since they're just expressions of the underlying field
however, the field is literally waving
in other words, a wave is something the field is doing, not abstractly, but literally

>> No.15196889

>>15196877
well, that's not what I'm saying
of course the waves aren't "real" in and of themselves, since they're just expressions of the underlying field
however, the field is literally waving
in other words, a wave is something the field is doing, not abstractly, but literally

>> No.15196890

>>15196884
>of course the waves aren't "real" in and of themselves
So they're an abstraction.

>a wave is something the field is doing
A field is also an abstraction.

>> No.15196893

>>15196890
>So they're an abstraction.
wrong
a wave is literally what the field is doing
that's not an abstraction at all
>A field is also an abstraction.
completely wrong, the underlying quantum field is real, and is the ultimate substance of everything

>> No.15196897

>>15196893
>wrong
You just told me that:
>of course the waves aren't "real" in and of themselves
Given how you're devolving into overt schizophrenia, I'm forced to autohide all further posts form you.

>> No.15196898

>>15196897
>>of course the waves aren't "real" in and of themselves
correct
they're what the field is doing, not what the field is
but they're not abstractions, the field is literally waving

>> No.15196901

When did /sci/ become the untreated mental illness board?

>> No.15196906

>>15196901
Hasn't it always been that?

>> No.15196927

>>15196901
yeah, it's pretty weird how many people still believe in "particles"

>> No.15196941

>>15196578
MWI is pure cope and proposes absurd bullshit. Even if it is true somehow, it's not good science between it doesn't make a testable model with good predictions better than any other "interpretation."

>> No.15196942

>>15196901
I blame covid and the vax for bringing /x/ and /pol/ here.

Before, if someone posted something stupid here, you could tell they were trolling or meming. But now, these people are 100$ serious as if they have some kind of agenda to push, and every conversation devolves into trying to (unsuccessfully) explain someone how he's wrong, because they're literally in every thread.

>> No.15196946

>>15196212
a discrete thing with non zero volume

>> No.15196947

>>15196946
common misconception, but in reality a "particle" just describes the underlying behavior of a field
it's essentially a standing wave in the underlying quantum field

>> No.15197036

>>15196212
Nobody knows and anyone who says they know knows less than what they know they know

>> No.15197039

>>15197036
This isn't a profound or helpful thing to say btw, and you aren't "above" those who make theories about particles by not making them.

>> No.15197422

>>15197039
>you aren't "above" those who make theories about particles
Yes I am

>> No.15197911

>>15196212
It's a self contained loop of energy

>> No.15197915

Sharticle Pissics

>> No.15197927

>>15196212
A misrepresentation.

>> No.15197992

>>15196696
Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense based on your logic and intuition. Why don't more people do this?

>> No.15198143

>>15197992
I didn't get the irony, care to explain?