/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5478957]

What do you think is the
a) simplest
b) most accurate
way of depicting how matter is constructed?

[Solardarity !DNRaYdJbog No.5478964]

>>5478957

Pic related? Electron orbitals don't seem to help too much in terms of your question.

Also, rephrase the question, as it makes little sense. What do you mean by "How matter is constructed"?

[Anonymous No.5478967]

No such thing as objective simplicity.

[Anonymous No.5478982]

>>5478964
I mean, to understand what everything is made of and what keeps it together. If you want to know what the universe is truly made of, do you feel one would need knowledge about leptons? Or would the proton-neutron-electron -model be sufficient? Or maybe we could ge on to molecular world and study bonds and the forces that cause them?

I'm studying chemistry 1st year in Uni atm, and these things called orbitals have somewhat shocked me - my former understanding about how the bonds form and atoms interact with each other was very simplified, I now see. And just as I thought I now understood how the universe worked, I was introduced to hybridization, MO-models and Heisenberg equations. As such I would like to know if these, too, are all just simplifications, or is this truly the real way the universe works?

[Solardarity !DNRaYdJbog No.5478994]

>>5478982

We don't know if they're simplifications or accurately model how the universe works.

Most of these things are scientific theories with experimental evidence to back it up. They may have put forward the standard model of matter and matter interactions, but it's only a model that describes the microscopic world in a way that it lines up with the macroscopic observations.

Science is really good at making up theories explaining how things work, and then working to find experimental evidence for it, but we can't be sure if what we're experimentally proving (or have proven) truly is fundamental, or it's just a model that describes the world accurately enough for our purposes.

[Solardarity !DNRaYdJbog No.5479004]

>>5478982

The proton-neutron-electron model, lepton, bosons and all is part of the standard model, and it is only a model that explains how all the microscopic interactions between particles leads to the things we see in our daily life.

It's the leading and most experimentally tested theory, and there is no sign of a competing theory just yet. So I would say the standard model IS the most accurate model we have at the moment. It surely isn't the simplest, but since when has science been about the very simple?

[Anonymous No.5479034]

it depends on qualia