/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9411805]

What's an Electron made out of?

[Anonymous No.9411812]

>>9411805
Electronium aether.

[Anonymous No.9411833]

>>9411805
smaller electrons

[Anonymous No.9411855]

>>9411805
Red and green quarks, which is why they are Yellow in the textbook diagrams.

[Anonymous No.9411861]

>>9411805
love.

[Anonymous No.9411862]

Lipton tea, or was it lepton?

[Anonymous No.9411877]

>>9411805
larger than normal anime tits in the electron field.

[Anonymous No.9411893]

>>9411805
Energy.
Specifically energy located within the electron field.

[Anonymous No.9411922]

>>9411805
Electrons aren't made of quarks.
They are EITHER not made of sub-particles (i.e. electron is as far down as you can go) OR are tiny vibrating loops of "string".
No one knows, at present, which is correct.

[Anonymous No.9411936]

An electron is a fundamental excitation of the electron field.

What is the electron field made of? Nobody has a fucking clue, it's just there.

[Anonymous No.9411941]

>>9411805
Allah's will. PBUH

[Anonymous No.9411975]

>>9411936
>>9411805

Electrons are an arbitrary concept with no empirical evidence or basis in reality and are mostly just used to plug into math to make it correct, (much like every particle). Since I know I'm going to get posters with massive butt hurt replying to this comment I will kindly ask said posters to:

Denote what a field is and what causes a field (try and give physicality to it for bonus tendies).
Explain what a wave is as opposed to what it does (because we now don't understand the difference betweem a verb and a noun)

>>9411812
>aether

Be careful, that's a cancer word here. They like to call it "Dark matter" nowadays.

[Anonymous No.9411996]

>>9411855
Humans can't see yellow, which is why red and green mixes appear as "yellow" to us.

[Anonymous No.9412087]

>>9411975
>t. Bill Gaede.

Go back to making songs you crank.

[Anonymous No.9412094]

>>9411975
Fuck off brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9412108]

>>9411975
>Since I know I'm going to get posters with massive butt hurt replying to this comment
>lets make a dumb comment and get people to call me dumb, that'll show them

>no empirical evidence or basis in reality
we've measured their mass, how spherical they are, their larmor precession, their charge, how electricity works, etc

>Denote what a field is
something that has a value at every point in space (leave a footnote for blackholes)

>what causes a field
moron

>(try and give physicality to it for bonus tendies).
moron

>Explain what a wave is
a value that oscillates on an axis

>as opposed to what it does
moron

>They like to call it "Dark matter" nowadays.
>thinking dark matter and the aether are in any way related

[Anonymous No.9412122]

>>9411975
That's just being pedantic. If you accept that the word 'exists' has any meaning beyond the physical model, you accept the model is referring to something outside the model. We call that the electron.

[Anonymous No.9412129]

Strings

[Anonymous No.9412144]

>>9412087
>>9412087
>>9412094
>>9412122
That's it, let the butthurt flow.

>>9412108

>couldn't answer simple questions so he ad hominems.

>we've measured their mass, how spherical they are, their larmor precession, their charge, how electricity works, etc

How do you measure something that is incommensurable? Also I would be interested to see if you can actually tell me how electricity works. (protip: no there are no "electrons" flowing through the solid copper lines like a water pipe)

>(try and give physicality to it for bonus tendies).
moron

So if nothing is physical then how does it have mass?

>a value that oscillates on an axis

So a wave is not a thing then? It's a "value" but of what?
Keep it coming /sci/ I have many more holes to push people into.

[Anonymous No.9412154]

>>9411975
lul3d this bait is premium

[Anonymous No.9413669]

electronite

[Anonymous No.9413846]

Tiny vibrating strings, you should know this S M H...

[Anonymous No.9413866]

>>9411805
Hitler.

Hitler is literally the constituent particle of reality.

[Anonymous No.9413872]

Electrons aren't real

[Anonymous No.9413920]

Electrons are made of electrolytes (lighter electrons, basically).

[Anonymous No.9413957]

>>9413866
2010 is that you?

[Anonymous No.9414389]

>>9411805
node for back end and v8 for front end

[Anonymous No.9414455]

>>9411805
A value in the electron field

[Anonymous No.9414461]

Isn't electrons made of quarks? What am I missing here?

[Anonymous No.9414465]

>>9414455
>the electron is made of a value in the electron field

So is nobody going to answer:
>>9411975
>>9412144


>>9413872
smartest post so far.

[Anonymous No.9414472]

>>9411975
Particles and fields are indistinguishable.

It's just as valid to speak of a particle as it is a field, because the field is uniquely defined by the particle and vice versa.

A field is just a vector function defined by the physics being discussed.

[Anonymous No.9414982]

>>9411805
atoms

[Anonymous No.9415048]

>>9411805
Electron is made from matter.

[Anonymous No.9415051]

>>9414472
>Particles and fields are indistinguishable.
Really? Particles are supposed to be physical concepts i.e. something that existing outside our mind. Fields are mental concepts.

[Anonymous No.9415052]

>>9414461
They aren't. This post:
>>9411855
was a joke.

[Anonymous No.9415063]

Caloric

[Anonymous No.9415086]

>>9415051
QFT

[Anonymous No.9415095]

>>9411975
What is a force ? Try to use a different definition than Newton's second law,

[Anonymous No.9415116]

>>9415095
The loss of inertia.

[Anonymous No.9415173]

>>9415051
>nd fields are indistinguishable.
>Really? Particles are supposed to be physical concepts i.e. something that existing outside our mind. Fields are mental concepts.
>>>
>>9414465
>>9412144
>>9411975
this guy is singlehandledly exposing /sci/
op what do u suggest it is?

[Anonymous No.9415985]

If QFT is true, then what exactly are emitting the fields or do they just... appear?

[Anonymous No.9416063]

>>9415051
But even if you can't detect a particle, its field necessitates its existence. We know a given field is uniquely defined by its corresponding particle, so which one is more real? In my opinion, they're two sides of the same coin, so it doesn't really matter which view you take.

[Anonymous No.9416086]

>>9415051
You got it backwards m80

[Anonymous No.9416225]

>>9415051
wtf

[Anonymous No.9416233]

>>9411805
electron membrane/field

[Anonymous No.9416272]

I think the interactions between whatever vertical particles (mostly photons and some higgs bosons) that don't cancel themselves out after an increment of time at a particular point in space are what define an electron, but every time you measure it you affect(and effect) the state of those interactions, so I guess it's impossible to really know.

[Anonymous No.9416276]

>>9416063
>le two sides of the same coin

Yeah well I'm not concerned with how many sides the coin has, I'm interested in what the coin contains(silver/gold/nickle).

>>9415985
>>9416063

Everything is fields and fields are most certainly not particles. The reason "electrons" seem to appear out of nowhere is because they aren't even a thing. It's an interaction of something else, so you can't say that what something does is what something is. In fact you can even say this about photons or "waves" of light in general because you cannot differentiate what light is as to what it does (illuminates). Light doesn't even move, nor is it emitted. The "speed of light" is simply a rate of induction of electricity and magnetism.

>>9415173

An "electron" quite simply is a bloch wall perturbation between magnetism and the inert "zero point" of an "atom"(incommensurate). This is why they seem to magically "disappear" and "reappear" out of reality, because they were never a real thing to begin with and are simply the result of change in another medium. However to call it a "medium" would be wrong as the Michelson Morley experiment proved that there is no luminous ether OF MEASURABLE OR TANGIBLE VALUE. This was mistaken as "there is no ether, period" which is a totally wrong conclusion based on an incorrect hypothesis (believing the ether was measurable).

You cannot measure or define what has no origin, locus or "beginning".

[Anonymous No.9416311]

>>9411862
underrated

[Anonymous No.9416320]

>>9411936
Would you say its ether or dark matter?

[Anonymous No.9416323]

>>9412144
This post is the best bait I have seen on sci so far.

[Anonymous No.9416324]

>>9415173
that guy is single handedly retarded

[Anonymous No.9416328]

>>9416276
Where do you get your drugs?

[Anonymous No.9416333]

>>9416276
You guys are dangerously close to multiverse at this point.

[Anonymous No.9416344]

>>9416328
>>9416324


Do you want to refute my points or?

Let's start off with light. What do you actually think light is?

>le wave-particle duality!

waves of what?

particles of what?

duality? So it can be both because???

Seriously, I fucking dare you to try and explain why "light" is a noun. I'm not trolling in the slightest, see for yourself how there is no difference between light and illumination.

[Anonymous No.9416374]

>>9411805
Tinier particles.

[Anonymous No.9416384]

>>9416276
Fields and particles are literally describing the same thing. The only difference is the math you use to describe it.

If you take two fields and allow them to interact, the resulting field (s) is representative of the corresponding particle interaction.

In other words, it is impossible by definition, to separate the field from the particle. We often use particles in describing systems because it's been the convention for 200 years, and makes the most sense to us. If instead we only conceived of waves and never particles, the physics would still be the same.

So, to say that one is more fundamental than the other is misguided at best.

[Anonymous No.9416397]

>>9416344
Dude so far your points have essentially been "but why" "but what is it" ad infinitum. No one knows why or how wave particle duality works, just that it exists and is observable repetitively. We say particles have mass in physics because of mass energy equivalence and we know that what we are trying to model has a non zero value. Similarly thinking applies when we deal with fields in physics. Finally the difference between light and illumination is one of concept, generally people use the word light when talking about photons specifically and illumination when the mass they strike is relevant.

No one in physics pretends to have magic answers to any of these questions among others like what causes gravity and is there an arrow of time. Pseuds on here claim retarded shit all the time and it is well to flame them for it, but unless you have a workable model you have developed that is superior to any in use now arbitrary criticism of the extant models is moot.

[Anonymous No.9416416]

>>9416344
Idk if this second post here was also you, I'm guessing not based on it being unsubstantiated unprovable nonsense mixed with existential truism. But in case:
>>9416276
>Everything is fields and fields are most certainly not particles. The reason "electrons" seem to appear out of nowhere is because they aren't even a thing. It's an interaction of something else, so you can't say that what something does is what something is. In fact you can even say this about photons or "waves" of light in general because you cannot differentiate what light is as to what it does (illuminates). Light doesn't even move, nor is it emitted. The "speed of light" is simply a rate of induction of electricity and magnetism.
As I said literally none of this is substantiated in any way and would require completely new physics to validate. In particular the statement " The "speed of light" is simply a rate of induction of electricity and magnetism." shows you have an extremely weak grasp on both general and special relativity.

>An "electron" quite simply is a bloch wall perturbation between magnetism and the inert "zero point" of an "atom"(incommensurate). This is why they seem to magically "disappear" and "reappear" out of reality, because they were never a real thing to begin with and are simply the result of change in another medium. However to call it a "medium" would be wrong as the Michelson Morley experiment proved that there is no luminous ether OF MEASURABLE OR TANGIBLE VALUE. This was mistaken as "there is no ether, period" which is a totally wrong conclusion based on an incorrect hypothesis (believing the ether was measurable).
Again there is no evidence to substantiate this idea. If something cannot be measured by definition it moves from the realm of physics to the realm of philosophy full stop. Saying something that cannot be measured cannot be measured isnt a point, its a tautology not worth discussion.

[Anonymous No.9416465]

>>9416416
>As I said literally none of this is substantiated in any way and would require completely new physics to validate. In particular the statement " The "speed of light" is simply a rate of induction of electricity and magnetism." shows you have an extremely weak grasp on both general and special relativity.

If you think that light moves or is emitted, then you are as dumb as the rest of the physicists that believe that the "speed of light" is constant or a speed limit. It's nothing more than a field perturbation. Saying light is a thing that does something is like standing in the middle of a pool of water, flapping your arms and creating waves in the water and then saying that you are emitting water. No you moron that's not how it works. Waving is what something DOES not what it is.

>Again there is no evidence to substantiate this idea. If something cannot be measured by definition it moves from the realm of physics to the realm of philosophy full stop.

Holy shit, what a revelation. Metaphysics and physics are the same thing :0.

>Saying something that cannot be measured cannot be measured isnt a point, its a tautology not worth discussion.

Good. You may all now stop believing in particles.

[Anonymous No.9416476]

>>9416465
Ok explain how a solar sail is functional then lmao, you are beyond retarded.

[Anonymous No.9416535]

>>9416476
I think it would be far more hilarious if you were to try and explain how a solar sail works.

To put it simply though, it creates a pressure difference with light.

[Anonymous No.9416551]

>>9411855
Wrong

[Anonymous No.9416552]

>>9411941
I agree

[Anonymous No.9416595]

>>9416476
>how a solar sail is functional
Has this been experimentally verified? Just a third party here, by the way.

[Anonymous No.9416753]

>>9416595
Yes, you can do it here on earth with a vacuum sealed container.
>>9416465
Your claim is nonsense. You can consider light as a perturbation of em fields, but it doesn't happen instantly. The perturbation travels at precisely c. Furthermore, you can demonstrate the the light itself generates its field. What is it youre really trying to say exactly?

[Anonymous No.9416886]

>>9411805
fossilized tree sap

[Anonymous No.9417362]

>>9416753
>Your claim is nonsense. You can consider light as a perturbation of em fields, but it doesn't happen instantly. The perturbation travels at precisely c.

Transverse waves have a limit, longitudinal "waves" do not. Therefore you have one component of light that does not abide by postulates or theories.

>Furthermore, you can demonstrate the the light itself generates its field. What is it youre really trying to say exactly?

What is it that YOU'RE trying to say? "Light" cannot generate anything because it is the result of something else that "generated" it. When I turn on the lights, what makes the fucking lights run are two copper wires hooked up to spinning magnet and said wires are hooked up to a vacuum sealed tube with a filament that will respond a certain way when said perturbations from spinning magnet vibrate down the copper line and hit it. If you think "light" is something that is generated, something that moves (as in travels, waves are transverse motions and do not "move" anywhere) , or even something that is a thing in itself and by itself then you are pants on head retarded.

[Anonymous No.9417597]

>>9417362
If youre talking about group vs phase velocity, then fine. But generally group velocity is the only relevant property.

The electricity doesn't generate light in a bulb, it's the emission of electrons due to atomic interaction, or emission of light from em perturbation in the atom. Do you really think the em field from any star varies so little that its perturbation is seen here on earth? Good luck explaining that with your absent minded concepts.

[Anonymous No.9417624]

>>9417597
>The electricity doesn't generate light in a bulb, it's the emission of electrons due to atomic interaction, or emission of light from em perturbation in the atom.

No if you "emit" something you lose it. There is nothing "lost" in such a perturbation, it is simply a change in the medium already present. You can call the change "electrons" or "light" or "waves" it doesn't really matter because they're all POSTERIOR ATTRIBUTES of what is occurring.

>Do you really think the em field from any star varies so little that its perturbation is seen here on earth? Good luck explaining that with your absent minded concepts.

The only difference between a laser and a light bulb is field coherency. I never said it "varies so little".If a massive object such as a sun has the ability to induced intense coherent EM then the perturbations will of course be large and have a larger magnitude that will decay as it travels.

[Anonymous No.9417627]

>>9411805
quirks

[Anonymous No.9417959]

>>9417624
Gimme more sources on your theory.

[Anonymous No.9417972]

>>9411975
If electrons dont exist, explain to me how a diode works.

[Anonymous No.9418254]

>>9417959
What the fuck do you mean sources? This is how light works. What part of this is illogical to you?

The lightbulb is a vacuum, what do you think is being exchanged? Do you think that photons are magically snowing down from the light bulb and hitting things below? It's all a perturbation of what's already there. Why the fuck do you think the double slit experiment produced the results it does? Because you're shooting something in a medium that is comparable to water, it makes waves, hyperbolas, toroids and all sorts of distorting shapes.

Again if you stand in the middle of a pond and flap your arms around and make "waves" you're not emitting anything. You're not moving anything either (in the perfect wave) as the waves just go up and down and they won't move anything else floating on top of it like a buoy or something. You're DISPLACING the water present and the same is the case with light.

That's why a 5 watt laser can burn you and a 5 watt light bulb is barely enough to read by, they both DISPLACE the MEDIUM different because one has more COHERENCY in it's waves.

This is also why light slows down on glass and them magically speeds up again. Glass is a dielectric capacitor because its structure is coherent and straight and as such it "stores" the light and discharges it in scattered colors because each color of light has a different wavelength. Red has larger wavelengths and blue is smaller, the smaller the space the higher capacitance which is why blue/purple light gets "diffracted" the most, it has more wavelengths that have to pass through the dielectric material.
>>9417972
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode

>it has low (ideally zero) resistance in one direction, and high (ideally infinite) resistance in the other.

So in short it allows things to flow better in one direction. Don't know why you think that relies on "electrons" as you can do that with any medium in existence.

[Anonymous No.9418282]

>>9418254
The point is what you're claiming is not the currently accepted explanation of how light is created and propagated. You should present a formal presentation on your ideas so we can tell you more about how you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.9418299]

>>9412144
>Not a single /sci/ fag can answer this guy
Holy moly this dude is exposing the fuck out of y'all

[Anonymous No.9418306]

>>9418299
I already answered you. Stop samefagging.

[Anonymous No.9418336]

>>9418282
>You should present a formal presentation on your ideas so we can tell you more about how you're wrong.

>we

Go right ahead. Throw "virtual photons" in there too for shits and giggles.

[Anonymous No.9418341]

>>9418336
Burden of proof is on the claimant. I.e. you. Your understanding of em and qm are flawed at best. Your statements are contradictory. Please say something unambiguous so I can evaluate its worth.

[Anonymous No.9418352]

Light is literally a physical thing and we have recorded it moving you fucking retard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtsXgODHMWk
You're just pissed off that physics shows that your intuitive understanding of logic isn't relevant to the universe.

[Anonymous No.9418438]

>>9418352
Sorry man but i call bullshit on that.

[Anonymous No.9418442]

>>9418438
The video is right there from MIT.

[Anonymous No.9418443]

>>9418254
>So in short it allows things to flow better in one direction
You are so close! What does it allow to flow in one direction? Through what mechanism? Im fully aware of the currently accepted theory as to how diodes work. Tell me how one works when electrons dont exist.

[Anonymous No.9418450]

>>9418442
I know, saw it but i doubt what we are seeings is light slowed down.

[Anonymous No.9418473]

>>9418352
>I aim my laserpointer at my wall
>I take a picutre of it
>I shift the laserpointer by 1 mm
>Take another Shot
>I combine the shots in moviemaker

Look the light moves lmao I Love science please gib me grants

[Anonymous No.9418686]

>>9418341
The only one claiming that light moves is you right now. Tell me why the speed of light is "constant" when we have clearly proven otherwise. It is nothing other than EM and EM DOESN'T MOVE GODDAMMIT, IT PERPETUATES. It is exactly like a buoy in (perfect) water waves, it bobs up and down but it doesn't go anwhere. It vibrates so to speak but it's position is the same. And that is where your retarded misconception of the "wave particle duality" comes from. "Wow this perturbation of magnetism and electricity met in the same space, lets give it physicality and call it a "photon" and then also call it a "wave" even though the waving is what it is doing and isn't a fucking noun.
>>9418352
>Light is literally a physical thing

You are (-literally) retarded. You are a deluded materialist that believes things have "physicality" to them when in the end it is nothing more than inertia and the loss of inertia in change. I do not shoot "photons" out of my flashlight when I illuminate something with it. Cameras do not capture little magical little unicorn particles in the lense when they take a picture.
So if light is a physical thing then logically a AAA battery sure has a lot of "light" stored in it. All you need is a copper coil and a tungsten rod and you can "extract the light" out of the battery. You are an idiot.

>"You're just pissed off that physics shows that your intuitive understanding of logic isn't relevant to the universe"

Actually I think it's fucking hilarious how stupid some of these people are. Like you who thinks that this video proves that light is a thing. Are you retarded or something? All they did was once again take trillions of images of an event occurring AFTER it occurred and then assembled the after effects of a PERTURBATION of INERTIA in the form of visible light that humans can see.

[Anonymous No.9418703]

>>9418686

Why don't you just point to a book so people can read what you are talking about. The buoy is a very poor analogy and indicates you are making shit up as you go along.

[Anonymous No.9418745]

>>9418686
>its another mentally deranged dumbass who forgot to take his pills and thinks that he has the world figured out by himself and every other scientist is a retarded brainlet
Nigga, go back to high school, as other people have stated you have a very flawed understanding of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and relativity.
I actually believe that you're not just baiting and that you actually think you're onto something, you're a prime example for the Dunning-Kruger effect my friend.

[Anonymous No.9418752]

>>9418703
every single book written on magnetism and electricity you dumb ass.

[Anonymous No.9418849]

>>9418686
Hey man, just want to thank you for posting.

[Anonymous No.9418871]

>>9418254
>What the fuck do you mean sources?
I meant what I said. Give me sources, preferably with math that models your description of electrons (and light) and testable consequences of this theory.

>This is how light works.
So you say. I want evidence, not words.

[Anonymous No.9418887]

>>9418254
>Why the fuck do you think the double slit experiment produced the results it does? Because you're shooting something in a medium that is comparable to water, it makes waves, hyperbolas, toroids and all sorts of distorting shapes.
So why does it stop making waves, hyperbolas, toroids and all sorts of distorting shapes when you measure through which slate the photon passes?

[Anonymous No.9418906]

>>9418887
>through which slate
slit*

[Anonymous No.9418912]

>>9418752
You mean... the ones that talk about electrons being physically real?

[Anonymous No.9418980]

>>9411862
oh man

[Anonymous No.9419035]

>>9418686
Hey, you. Im still waiting on an answer to this...
>>9418443

[Anonymous No.9419053]

>>9411805

>falling for the electron meme

just a trick because retarded physicists still don't understand gravity properly

[Anonymous No.9419059]

>>9418887

Because you are measuring it. Literally.

Try to measure anything without it affecting your results, see if it's possible. I literally mean the photons are "interacting" with whatever instrument you are using, doesn't matter what it is.

[Anonymous No.9419086]

Tiny ducks that go quack, and there are different colors and types of quacks

[Anonymous No.9419107]

>>9419059
But you said photons don't exist. How are they interacting with the measuring instrument?

[Anonymous No.9419111]

>>9419107

Should have written in my post, I'm not the guy you were arguing with.

[Anonymous No.9419113]

>>9419111
Why would you reply to my post then? Can you not follow a conversation or something? Your intervention is not just unnecessary; it's retarded.

[Anonymous No.9419123]

>>9411805
twisted up space

[Anonymous No.9419199]

>>9411805
quantum fluctuation

[Anonymous No.9419280]

>>9418686
Light doesn't use a medium the same way you're thinking. There is no equivalent to water in your light analogy.

You seem to think that fields exist independent of matter, which is false by definition.

A more correct analogy would be a car driving down the highway. The car is the photon packet and the air around it is the em field from the photon.

Whatever "theory" you propose has to be consistent with both the particle AND wave model, as they are consistent with each other.

Your idea of waving through a medium from a source is easily falsifiable.

Em varies as 1/r distance from the source. In order for a standing wave to be created, the wavelength would have to vary by r, which is obviously not the case. So the only conclusion is that the wave itself travels.

Although it is possible for the phase velocity of the individual waves in this moving packet to vary, the packet itself travels at precisely c in a vacuum.

[Overlord No.9419283]

The only correct answer is unicorn cum.

[Anonymous No.9419321]

>>9411805

Electrons are actually a measurement artifact.

[Anonymous No.9419422]

>>9412144
Hello Ken, when's the latest version of your book out?

[Anonymous No.9419515]

senpai

[Anonymous No.9419620]

>>9416320
>>9412108
Wouldn't the "particle-antiparticle sea" be a concept more akin to the luminiferous aether??

[Anonymous No.9419916]

>>9415051
You dumb nigger, they're both models, abstractions. When you get to the depths of reality, there is no such thing as true "real".

[Anonymous No.9420079]

>>9419280
>A more correct analogy would be a car driving down the highway.
Car is a physical particle. In order to launch a car you first need to take one car from the pile of cars. Which is reduced the size of that pile. Which implies that at some time there will be no more cars to launch.
That's not how light works. Light emission does not reduce the weight of matter. Which implies that light is the result of interaction with some medium and light is the wave in that medium.

[Anonymous No.9420098]

>>9418887
>So why does it stop making waves
It doesn't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment

[Anonymous No.9420126]

Not that guy
>>9420079
> Which implies that light is the result of interaction with some medium and light is the wave in that medium
...Or that it is a massless particle

[Anonymous No.9420524]

>>9418443
Light travels through the vacuum fractal unhindered because it has no mass which has to be converted while traveling through the probabilty space of the vacuum fractal.

Because mass is information rich it takes longer for it to travel through the vacuum fractal with the same amount of energy as light would.

The electron will therefore be seen as information. As the fractal can be seen as Diode we see that the information flows perfectly fine in one direction but is met with resistance when flowing in the other direction except it is stored and released again at a different angle.

So what is energy? Is it the pressure that information puts on the vacuum ?

And if the vacuum contains energy but no mass what kind of pressure does it represent?

[Anonymous No.9420528]

>>9411862
oh you clever fuck

[Anonymous No.9420539]

>>9411805
Fossilized tree resin.

[Anonymous No.9421964]

Polarisation of the vacuum, which would otherwise have a net negative charge, manifesting itself in electric current as it tries to regain equilibrium.

[Anonymous No.9421968]

>>9421964
*net neutral charge, I should have typed.

[Anonymous No.9422018]

>>9412144

>this guy trying

Son, I know your kind. You're going to the rabbit hole of "what REALLY are things tho?" of epistemology and philosophy. If I gave you an explanation of what electrons ARE, you'd graps on the most conceptualized semantics part of the explanation and keep saying "but that's just a concept hurr durr" to try and prove we don't know what electrons are. Just don't.

Electrons are a definition. They exist as a definition. So long they can be dintinguished from something else by the human brain, they're something that exist as a configuration of information, in this case, of neurons firing. The moment you associate this configuration to a particular convention between two concious beings, or substance, you can say that actually exists outside of the realm of concepts and can be called knowledge about reality.

That's all that is. Saying "an arbitrary concept with no empirical evidence or basis in reality" is in fact objectively wrong because it has empirical evidence and "basis in reality", whatever that is to you.

[Anonymous No.9422036]

>>9416465

So how come you don't have a nobel? Seriously.

[Anonymous No.9422041]

>>9411805
poop

[Anonymous No.9422042]

>>9417362
>>9417624

>light is not a thing

Then how come you see things?

>No if you "emit" something you lose it.

But energy is lost. The lightbulb heats up and emits light.

[Anonymous No.9422044]

>>9411805
magic

[Anonymous No.9422047]

>>9418254

>Do you think that photons are magically snowing down from the light bulb and hitting things below? It's all a perturbation of what's already there.

Exactly. And we call that particles. The one regarding this phonomena are photons. Congratulations on learning something.

[Anonymous No.9422057]

>>9411805
two smaller electrons

source: my five phds in theoretical gender studies

[Anonymous No.9422065]

>>9418686

>"Wow this perturbation of magnetism and electricity met in the same space, lets give it physicality and call it a "photon" and then also call it a "wave" even though the waving is what it is doing and isn't a fucking noun

>noun

Anon, you're disregarding the grammar there.

The human body is a process. Life itself is just proton-energy gradients through a membrane. But if you name a process, it's a noun just fine.

[Anonymous No.9422068]

So this thread is like one troll and one guy buying his b8 arguing semantics over something that neither of them understand. Meanwhile
>electrons are made of electrolytes
The only correct answer


Seriously though, not one of these posts about field theory and particles is even close to accurate.

[Anonymous No.9422074]

>>9418686

I'm interested in what you think are physical things.

What do you mean by "materialist". Actually, what do you think is matter?

I mean, surely things exist and are made of something. How is describing and naming how they work different from stating what it is? How's that not a semantics problems only?

Everything is energy, even in physics. We physicist KNOW the universe is just one thing in MOTION. Physics is the study of motion after all.

Anon, there's this thing called The Great Unifying Theory. Its goal is to unify every physical mechanism behind how our universe works. It's essencialy naming processes.

You're stating the obvious in the most stupid possible way, man.

[Anonymous No.9422078]

>>9422068
Be nice anon. Let the brainlets at least pretend to be smart for a few more minutes

[Anonymous No.9422079]

>>9420079

>Light emission does not reduce the weight of matter.

Anon...

[Anonymous No.9422081]

>>9418686
>>9418752
>>9418336
>>9418254
>>9416465
>>9416344
>>9412144
>>9411975
So far, no one has been able to contest any of this guy's points.

STEMfags are actually braindead.

[Anonymous No.9422084]

>>9422068

>The only correct answer

Nice try.

[Anonymous No.9422085]

>>9422081

Here
>>9422065
>>9422074

This thread is a waste of everyon's time after this.

[Anonymous No.9422093]

>>9422081

>this guy's
>implying it's not samefagging

There's tons of actual books and knowledges contradicting his stuff. He hasn't been able to write a coherent explanation of his thoughts, and each posts adds more nonsense over another anon's lack of knowledge. It's a mess.

[Anonymous No.9422101]

>>9418686
Just FYI, in classical electrodynamics, waves like in your picture is the asymptotic (far away) state of a simple charge oscillation. Furthermore, this is valid only when the oscillation frequency is fairly low. Charges don't just produce coherent gamma rays over long periods of time, since this causes them to lose energy quickly and slow down, thus changing the spectrum of the radiation they emit.

When you add up may waves of different frequencies like one might produce in the abrupt acceleration of an electron, you end up with a confined wave packet. The wave packet (what some might call the photon) still satisfies the wave equation and Helmholtz equations and whatnot, but it is not what your picture looks like.

In quantum electrodynamics, we have a similar distinction between high and low energy electromagnetic waves. Because the photon field is massless in a theory with Lorentz symmetry, production of low energy (infrared) photons is easy and all physical processes (like the scattering of an electron off a nucleus) are accompanied by a distribution of these infrared photons. That distribution, when calculated using the tools of asymptotic quantum field theory, is actually the same as what one expects from a classical theory.

The interesting story is with "hard" photons - really we mean x-rays and gamma rays, but generally speaking these are the photons with energy that isn't small compared to the mass of the electron. When these are produced, it is only a few for each event. Really that's just because the total energy is conserved and you do't have that much to begin with. In the language of quantum field theory, these are plane wave states with high momentum that will go off and end up Compton scattering off some second electron in your detector. Soft, low energy photons don't Compton scatter off single target electrons, and so the signal one might pick up from the low energy emission from some electromagnetic event is typically non-localized.

[Anonymous No.9422116]

>>9422101
continued:

Since the low frequency/momentum photons don't scatter as well off of individual electrons, they are much harder to observe as quanta. Whenever you hear about detection of individual photons, they're likely xrays or gammas.


If you actualy want to understand any of this, I recommend the following approach in your studies:

Classical Electrodynamics by Jackson, at least up to chapter 14.
Introduction to Quantum Field Theory by Peskin and Schroeder - chapters 1-6

[Anonymous No.9422120]

>>9422116
Oh and if you haven't done or can't do at least 40% of the problems in Jackson and P&S, then you don't understand the content of electrodynamics at all and should refrain from posting about it on /sci/.

Cheers.

[Anonymous No.9422128]

>>9419422
Haha, not Ken but I love him and his work. Trying to replicate his programmed bismuth right now.

>>9419280
>There is no equivalent to water in your light analogy.

Correct, even the water analogy is too stupid to use when trying to explain how inertia does something. In order for the water to move it needs the "lack of water" so to speak.

>>9419620
The "aether" is nothing. More specifically it is the absence of something for their to be room for continuous change. Never 1 nor 0 (principal and nothing).

>>9422018
see:
>>9419059

and look up "incommensurable". Also I will accept your statement "Electrons are a definition" and "they exist as a definition" as admission that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Epistemology and philosophy? Not even.

>>9422036
Because I didn't start 7 wars.

>>9422042

>Then how come you see things?

How do blind people "See things" with their ears alone?

>But energy is lost. The lightbulb heats up and emits light.

So when something heats up it vibrates faster, and those vibrations dissipate more and more and more. "Lost" where exactly?

>>9422074

>What do you mean by "materialist". Actually, what do you think is matter?

>Everything is energy, even in physics. We physicist KNOW the universe is just one thing in MOTION.

You just answered your own question. Congrats, you are a holographic self-similar, point-non-specific blip of inertia and loss of inertia.

[Anonymous No.9422135]

>>9422128
/sci/ ABSOLUTELY BTFO

[Anonymous No.9422137]

>>9411805
Strings?

[Anonymous No.9422146]

>>9411975
If I remember correctly (FIXME) this is similar to what Feynman believed, electron being a theoretical concept we use.

[Anonymous No.9422150]

>>9422128
Holy shit this guy just BLEW THE FUCK out of /sci/, absolutely incredible

[Anonymous No.9422153]

>>9422128
/sci/ can't even answer this guy
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.9422188]

>>9411805
White male tears

[Anonymous No.9422220]

>>9422135
>>9422150
>>9422153
>>9422128
samefagging hard

[Anonymous No.9422309]

>>9422079
When you listening to music your speakers does not consume and shoot "soundons" particles. Light is the same.

[Anonymous No.9422486]

>>9411975
>>9415051
>he thinks macro-scale physical intuition is at all relevant at the micro-scale
>he thinks things have to physically exist to be real

[Anonymous No.9422495]

>>9422309

[Anonymous No.9422496]

>>9411805
Strings

[Anonymous No.9422511]

>>9422068
>electrolytes
You're an imbecile.

[Anonymous No.9422513]

>>9422081
He was BTFO thoroughly.

[None !niqjediPCA No.9422621]

>>9413920
>Electrons are made of electrolytes (lighter electrons, basically).

isn't that what plants crave?

[Anonymous No.9422623]

>>9411805
There's only one electron.

[Anonymous No.9422625]

>>9422621

No, they crave Brawndo

[None !niqjediPCA No.9422639]

>>9422625
>No, they crave Brawndo

but, what is brawndo made of?

[Anonymous No.9422659]

>>9422128
Why are you wasting so much time and effort arguing over semantics on an anonymous online imageboard. Im a simple electrical engineer and rather deal with useful facts and applications so please go ahead and create some kind of mathematical model for your theories so i can get a more refined insight into how electricity works and make my calculations more accurate.

Let me make it clear: i dont give a flying fuck if you decide to call something aether or wave or vibration, because i perceive reality in terms of mathematics and the current models enable me to predict all kinds of natural phenomena to a extremely high degree of accuracy. Arguing over semantics serves no purpose other than to muddy the waters, come up with a better mathematical model and im game.

[Anonymous No.9422688]

>>9422659
Not him, but you should read this. It doesn't describe a new model per se, but delves into the idea that the universe actually is mathematics, rather than is described by mathematics. In particular, it's a mathematical object. So in that regard, it's kind of neo-monism.

[Anonymous No.9422719]

>>9422688
>the universe actually is mathematics
how is that different than universe is God. fucking religious brainlets.

[Anonymous No.9422730]

>>9422719
>how is that different than universe is God
Semantics, which nobody cares about. You think bronze-age peasants would have worded it in the way Tegmark did?

[Anonymous No.9423035]

>>9411975
Well said.

[Anonymous No.9423056]

>>9411975
>how to spot a post that speaks the truth
>state something, watch everyone go ape shit
if it was false just a few replies might laugh, but when it's something that changes how we view reality it's as if that part of a person that loves to lie to itself activates and screeches it can't be true. good post

[Anonymous No.9423259]

>>9422486
I don't give a flying fuck about scales, the electron doesn't exist on any fucking scale. You did not see my post here: >>9422128

I seriously suggest you look up "incommensurable"

>he thinks things have to physically exist to be real.
Let me ask you a serious question. When were you real? At what point do you stop changing? Every single day you reproduce new cells, repair damaged tissues and your metabolism keeps you in order. You start off as 7 pounds of fat and water and you consistently grow and change into a 100-1000 pounds and 4-7 feet taller. You are never ever complete, you never end and the universe works the same way. If you think anything in the universe is consisted of anything other than force, motion, inertia and acceleration then you have been severely deluded.

>>9422659
>Why are you wasting so much time and effort arguing over semantics on an anonymous online imageboard. I'm a simple electrical engineer and rather deal with useful facts and applications so please go ahead and create some kind of mathematical model for your theories so i can get a more refined insight into how electricity works and make my calculations more accurate.

OP asked what an electron is made of, and I answered his question. Something your "math" will always fail to do because "math" is based on COUNTABLE THINGS. What OP refers to lies in the realm of the UNCOUNTABLE and you as an electrical engineer should know this.

>Let me make it clear: i dont give a flying fuck if you decide to call something aether or wave or vibration, because i perceive reality in terms of mathematics and the current models enable me to predict all kinds of natural phenomena to a extremely high degree of accuracy.

And let me be clear. The universe does not care about your math. Math is a description, a language, a human contrivance.

[Anonymous No.9423291]

>>9423259
>"math" is based on COUNTABLE THINGS
Come on, now. At least try to make it believable.

[Anonymous No.9423883]

>>9422659
>Why are you wasting so much time and effort arguing over semantics
It's not just semantics, you idiot.
Because relativistic math equations doesn't need ether, it was "expelled" from the science discourse and experimental science. Though later experiments had positive results!
It's like we stop searching the truth because it's more convenient to live without knowing the truth.
This is degenerate idealistic mindset.