[ 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: 75 KB, 300x300, 3285678_50.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6015409 No.6015409 [Reply] [Original]

>In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless and must be a spin-2 boson.

>> No.6015414
File: 151 KB, 250x250, 649846wss.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6015414

>hypothetical elementary particle

>> No.6015419

>>6015414
>yfw gravitons have never been detected

>> No.6015429

>>6015414

>we don't actually know what causes gravity so we'll just make up some shit

how is this any different from philosophy?

>> No.6015437

>>6015429

Because It's mathematically sound.

>> No.6015442

>>6015437

Shut up Susskind.

>> No.6015445

>>6015429

>implying that philosophy is purely hypothetical.

Philosophy, overall, uses better reasoning than science which is purely empirical and inductive.

>> No.6015448

>>6015429
>Not knowing the periodic table of elements was used to predict the properties of elements yet to be discovered.

Almost like reality is working on some kind of SYSTEM.

>> No.6015451

>>6015445
Then why does it never produce anything useful in the way of technology?

Checkmate, philosophers.

>> No.6015461

>>6015451

Doesn't change the fact that philosophy can actually prove shit and that philosophers invented logic. And actually, science is the descendent of philosophy sooooo cool shit.

>> No.6015462

>>6015448

A system set in place by God, only recently discovered by humans.

>> No.6015470

>>6015462

Let's assume your proposition:

What's your point?

>> No.6015473

>>6015461
And just like modern humans are the decent of earlier hominids, both descendants are better than their ancestor.

And what has philosophy actually proven? Science "Proves" lots of things, if you put the standard of proof at a reasonable level (We observe this always happening, thousands or millions of times) instead of absolute certainty, and I can't think of anything philosophy has "Proved" to that level (Even sophism is based on the assumption that "Self" is meaningful).

>> No.6015472

>>6015470

I already made by point, there was no proposition.

>> No.6015474

>>6015473
>sophism
I meant Solipsism.

>> No.6015478

>>6015472

>not knowing the meaning of the word 'proposition'
>not feeling an obligation to elaborate on your point

gr8 job

>> No.6015481

>>6015479
And philosophy proves....

>> No.6015482

>>6015481

That you can not know nothin.

>> No.6015479

>>6015473

Science 'proves' things all the time that we find out five, ten, maybe even a hundred years or more later is actually wrong as fuck.

>> No.6015483

>>6015482
You can't know that you can't know nothin.

>> No.6015486
File: 25 KB, 712x956, 5971.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6015486

>>6015482

Wow that's... useful

>> No.6015485
File: 18 KB, 200x190, you tried.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6015485

>>6015473

>when sciencefags have no idea about shit or fuck

Even deduction, superior as a form of reasoning to induction, is based upon assumptions, but my point is that philosophy begets our methods of proof. Science doesn't prove anything, but it fucking works somehow and that's all that's really important, I suppose.

>> No.6015491

>>6015481

Philosophy proves that we know shit all. We don't KNOW anything from science, but only slightly more from philosophy.

I like how I hi-jacked this thread. /Sci/iencefags prob'ly be maaad.

>> No.6015492

>>6015485

>Science doesn't prove anything, but it fucking works somehow

It's almost like any other route we could have chosen.

>> No.6015496

>>6015485
>When philosophy doesn't understand probability theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem

Evidence proves things, science uses evidence.

>>6015491
When you define philosophy as "Knowing anything at all" it sounds really important, when you look at actual contributions of "Philosophers" it's less impressive.

>> No.6015497

>>6015491

Philisophy proves that without science we would've never made any progress technologically or sociologically

>> No.6015503

>>6015496

Never said science didn't use evidence, but empirical data doesn't prove shit since we'd use inductive reasoning to reach conclusions about said empirical data.

I've studied both science and philosophy, but it's becoming fairly obvious that you haven't studied either and have understanding of mathematical proof.

I didn't define philosophy, I mentioned what philosophy tells us in terms of what we can know. Your mistake is assuming that scientific contribution is the ultimate gift to humankind. Ethical and political philosophers contribute just as much as scientists to the average person's general well-being.

>> No.6015506

>>6015503

*...no understanding of mathematical proof.

>> No.6015514

>>6015503
>Prove

If you use a stupid definition of prove, then yeah, science DOESN'T prove anything. Establish a standard of proof, like 95% likely, 99% likely, 99.999999999999% likely, etc. You're accomplish much if you use absolute proof as the standard.

As for mathematical proofs, they're ultimately truisms. Saying 2 + 2 = 4 is the same as saying 1+1+1+1=1+1+1+1. The question is whether the math is applicable to reality, which it SEEMS to be, but that's in the realm of "Empirical data", which as we all know, doesn't prove shit.

And WHAT, do philosophers contribute? Feel free to be specific.

>> No.6015515

>>6015514
>You won't accomplish much

I need to sleep.

>> No.6015518

>>6015503
>ethical philosophers contribute just as much as scientists to the average person's generall well-being
ok m8

Note that all forms of reasoning are just as bullshit as inductive reasoning, since they all rely on ultimately unjustified premises. So no, philosophy doesn't tell you any more than science; everything tells you sweet fuck all if you're going all the way

In fact, even if we grant that deductive reasoning is good and inductive reasoning is shit philosophy literally cannot tell you anything at all about physical reality without employing inductive and abductive reasoning and becoming science.

>> No.6015523

New recond: Physically motivated thread escalating into childen-talking-about-philosophy within 1 post.
You don't have anything better to do, do you?

>> No.6015524

>>6015523
>4chan
>Something better to do

Get off your high horse, we're all wasting our time.

>> No.6015525

>>6015518

If all reasoning is shit then so is science is it employs reasoning.

You can't escape philosophy, faggot.

>> No.6015526

>>6015514

It's irrational to say that the standard of proof could ever be anything less than 100%, but using likelihoods and statistics is the completely wrong way of finding proofs. So you're saying we should change the standard of proof just so we can say we can prove/achieve more shit? Reality is far more fascinating.

Saying "2+2=4" isn't giving a mathematical proof, we can use metamathematics to prove the equation/proposition by testing for validity, and if we assume that the aforementioned proposition is a truism - as you suggested - then truisms aren't mathematical proofs.

Philosophy created rational discourse, and is the only way we can ascertain (through the study of ethics) how we should treat each other. The fact that you asked that question makes me want to shoot up a school.

>> No.6015528

>>6015525
you're right, but have you ever used philosophy to determine what keeps people alive? Science.

>> No.6015531

>>6015525

If you read what I wrote properly you'd have understood that I was implying just that. The fact is, however, that deductive reasoning would just be less shit than inductive reasoning.

>stating shit we've already established

k

>> No.6015530

>>6015528

Science is a branch of philosophy.

>> No.6015534

>>6015526
Science informs rational discourse, to the point that trying to accomplish rational discourse without scientific knowledge is laughable.

I agree that reality is fascination, that's why science is so useful. You can't make an accurate map of the city without walking the streets (Metaphor, you COULD accumulate photos, use a satellite, etc. the point is you can't do it sitting in your room with the blinds closed and no outside information.

The experimental sciences give us the chance to walk the streets, and they're the primary reason we know the vast majority of what we know. Saying "But it's all just guesswork" is pedantic, something that is 99% likely true is not the same thing as something 1% likely true, and saying "The earth is a sphere" is not the same level of wrong as saying "The earth is flat". trying to attain "Proof" as you define it is stupid and pointless.

>> No.6015536

I think we should try to keep this civil, by the way. I still respect the fuck out of science and scientists.

Captcha = 'afterward dinglol'

>> No.6015538

>>6015531

I said it with less words, I'm more technologically advanced than you are. You can tell by my timecode.

>> No.6015541
File: 7 KB, 230x197, 1331379194728.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6015541

>>6015538

Hah!

>> No.6015559

>>6015409
Why do they always assume the graviton would be mass less when a small mass would significantly decrease (and possibly eliminate) the amount of dark matter needed?

>> No.6015569

>>6015559

Why is it called a graviton when it's supposed to be massless? A ton is pretty heavy.

>> No.6015571

>>6015569
a ton of gravy is pretty light. Lighter than a ton of most other things.

>> No.6015572

>>6015571

Even lighter than a ton of light?

>> No.6015602

>>6015572
Light is massless. a ton of it would be very light.

>> No.6015603

>>6015602

What's heavier? A ton of light or a ton of dark?

>> No.6015619
File: 39 KB, 407x405, 1268980535066.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6015619

>>6015603

dude just go back to /b/.

>> No.6015638

>>6015451
Because philosophy gets to debate and question what 'useful' actually means and weasels out. Philosophers can thus sit smugly in their armchairs, feeling superior.

>> No.6015679

>>6015603
it's gotta be light because light is light.

>> No.6015687

>>6015679
>light is light
lalaa laa lala

>> No.6015698

>>6015491
>You dunt no nuffin.

>> No.6015700

>>6015525
That's what the person you were replying to said, fuckwit

>> No.6015706

>>6015526
>is the only way we can ascertain (through the study of ethics) how we should treat each other
lel, moral philosophy is literally just people sitting in armchairs waving their hands and going "hmm, i don't like how that system sounds, check out this new idea i had"

the idea that science can't touch morality in any sensible understanding of the term is fucking stupid

>> No.6015709

Why does mass bend space-time? Was it ever figured out?

>> No.6015741

>>6015698

Yeah man, I know.

>> No.6015754

>>6015709
Why do you bend a mattress if you stand on it? Imagine the same in 4D.

>> No.6016037

>>6015754
>Imagine in 4D.

I'm not even sure if you're serious or not.

>> No.6016102
File: 220 KB, 984x1500, waefwerwerfw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016102

>>6015409

We already know, from General Relativity, that gravity is not solely due to mass, but is also due to energy and the way that energy moves around. Since we think we have a good idea of the various forms that energy takes (the Standard Model forces and particles), we would like to understand how these understandings can be synchronized.

The problem comes in that the Standard Model treats forces and particles as fields. Although we have an idea as to how classical particles experience gravity, it's important to know how quantum fields experience gravity. So far, we haven't found a good way of doing that.
We have tried to quantize gravity because that worked for the other forces.

The graviton would be to gravitational radiation as the photon is to electromagnetic radiation.

END THREAD.

>> No.6016392

>>6016102

i'm a novice in this area, but i take it what your saying is. If we detected gravitons, they would be the key to unifying classical physics and quantum physics?

>> No.6016426

>>6016392
No, I think what he is saying is that if we find the graviton, we would know there's a gravitational field and that gravity is quantifiable. It's more for unifying GR and QM.

>> No.6016429

>>6015709
>>6015754

Mass bends space-time because of gravity.

We don't know what causes gravity.

>> No.6016440

>>6016429
>We don't know what causes gravity.
Why know it's mass, but we don't know how.

>> No.6016448

>>6016429
What a load of bullshit. You clearly don't know shit about general relativity and you probably never even heard of it. Please stop promoting ignorance and please refrain from posting falsehoods about things you don't understand.

>> No.6016584
File: 41 KB, 268x267, spacetime.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6016584

>>6016037
I'm completely serious. How do you think light changes trajectory while passing near an object with an enormous mass, like a star?
It's like in the pic related, but you can't see the curvature, because it's in the 4th dimension.

I'm saying it in Layman's terms, obviously.

>> No.6016606

>>6016584
Why can't we just say gravity is a transmission medium and its pull is refraction?

>> No.6016633

if photons are bent by gravity, does it not mean photons have mass?

>> No.6016636

>>6016633
The pull of gravity isn't related to mass. More massive objects do not fall faster etc.

>> No.6016639

>>6016636
>More massive objects do not fall faster etc.
If it's massive enough the 'ground' will be accelerated towards the object, resulting in an impression of increased fallspeed.

>> No.6016678

>>6016633
No but they have energy and E=mc^2

>> No.6016715

>>6016636
Wrong. On earth, two masses will fall toward the earth at the same speed. This is because the masses of the objects compared to the mass of the earth is so small as to make them trivial. A ball falling toward the earth will do so more slowly than a ball falling toward the sun from the same distance. Mass has just about everything to do with gravitation.

>> No.6016752

Makes more sense than some sort of force that we can't detect, measure or quantify.

1/5 enough gravitons to pull me in

>> No.6016815

Scientists want to learn about the world and reach verifiable truths.

What is the best way to do this? What are the pros and cons of the scientific method? Are there any alternatives.

>The philosophy of science is concerned with all the assumptions, foundations, methods, implications of science, and with the use and merit of science. This discipline sometimes overlaps metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, viz., when it explores whether scientific results comprise a study of truth.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

I consider philosophy to be the foundation of the sciences and science to be the application.

>> No.6016981

>>6015559
0/10

For anyone curious why this is wrong, it would mean you would have 3 extra polarization degrees of freedom trivially ruled out by experiment, it would break general covariance etc