/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11293255
Hydrogen

>>10198605
No shit, I'm very disappointed in /sci/

>>10197229
>muhh i dont understand physics questions that were solved over 200 years ago

why dont you just kill yourself bro?

>>10197016
You're really fucking dumb or a troll.

>muhh simulation
Fuck you. you actually need to do the experiment you fucking faggot. your simulation is worth less than dogshit

>>10198570
Piss poor logic is still piss poor
Corollary: "Infinity A exists"
Proving B!=A also exists, doesn't disprove A
Fight me FAGGOT

>>10198565
Why?

>>10198554
Of course get get drunk. Fuck off with your dumbshit. Kys faggot.

inb4 dumbshit or maymays

>>6919710
>Any plans to improve the LHC since China is making a bigger one?

Yes, we have plans to improve. They will be done regardless of what China does.
see >>6919476

>>6919630
>just keep reflecting and refracting all over the place for all of time

No, not in way you are trying to talk about it. Your "scope" is zoomed out. "reflected" and "refracted" are ultimately emergent statical properties. You need to zoom in to the actual "particle interaction" level. Aka Quantum field theory. These are written out in diagrams called "Feynman diagram".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram

So, "fundamentally, how does a photon interact with the other particles?"

Well, photon interactions contain 3 particles (including the photon); Photon, Particle A, and Particle B. Also, A and B cannot be a photon. Note: There are many other constraints on A and B, but we can ignore those for now. So with basic combinatorics we get all possible interactions classes:

1) Photon + A - > B
2) Photon + B - > A
3) Photon -> A + B
4) A + B - > Photon
5) A -> B + Photon
6) B -> A + Photon

So you can see a photon is not "immortal" in the sense you mean, because there is never an interaction with a photon on both ends. If there was, "perhaps" we could try to say it is the "same" photon on either end. However, we can't even make it to that case.

So, how the fuck does the photon traveling look?: Photon1 -> A1 + B1 -> Photon2

And reflection/refraction: Photon1 + B1 -> A2 -> B3 + Photon3

Those are the "fundamental" things the photon is doing. However, this matter is complicated even further, since we are dealing with quantum particles. Meaning the photon doesn't just take one "path". It takes the averages of all possible allowed paths over all possible space-time simultaneously. From there we get statical values, which directly correspond to our observations and these properties you call "refraction" and "reflection".

>>6919598
I thank you for your sentiment Anon. However, like the overwhelming majority of physicists I am an "agnostic atheist". And this "blessed" thing is kind of offensive and disrespectful. Why you ask?

I got to where I am in my life and have my relationships I have, because I made a conscious effort to work for the shit I want. I got off my fucking ass an tried to build the life I wanted. It wasn't just sheer fucking chance and I wasn't the super-natural. It was me. My actions. My life. And to attribute my hard work to the supernatural, is kinda fucking offensive. If anyone has blessed me, it was me.

That being said, I really don't give a flying fuck what religion or magics most people believe in. Do whatever the makes you happy.

>>6919460
Also, a photon doesn't have an inertial frame

If we tried to construct a "photon frame", we find out that time doesn't exist to the photon and everything happens to it at once.

This is a consequence of photons being light, aka they travel at the speed of light.

>>6919460
You are kind of misunderstanding it. see >>6919527

In GR, if I straight up wanted to use the quantity we usually call "energy" it wouldn't be helpful at all. It is not conserved and gives no meaningful insight into anything.

However, we can find other quantities that are useful. We could get this "energy-analog" thing (sometimes just called energy). However, even the "energy-analog" is not necessarily conserved either. It is decreasing in a expanding universe, increasing in a contacting universe, and constant (conserved) in a static universe.

Why? Because in a expanding/contacting universe, the global time symmetry is all fucked up. The universe is "changing size" as a function of "time", which destroys the symmetry.

>>6919496
>>6919506
I actually have a couple of gfs. I don't like the idea of being "settled down". Fuck that shit.

Maybe when I get older. Right now I'm still "sowing my oats". And I'm having a damm good time.

>>6919496
>I get the feeling your are afraid of your feels

Nope. I think my feels are fucking fantastic Anon. Emotions are a vital part the human experience. I actually love dramas and shit like that.

The only problem I have is when people use "feels" as a replacement for objective coherent rational arguments. When people cannot differentiate better subjective and objective arguments. It is annoying as fuck and has no place in science or mathematics. It is retarded.

>>6919447
>Any layman understanding article

Probably, but I couldn't find anything. The closest thing I got was: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/noetherth.htm

Let me digress though: Ask yourself, why give a shit about energy, momentum, etc in the first place? Why did we decide those were "useful quantities"? ....Because those quantities are usually "conserved". A conserved quantity is extremely helpful, because we can actually get quantitative truths about the universe. We get "anchors" of truth. And if your are clever enough you can tie other concepts and measurements to those anchors. In that way you can use your current measurements and some anchors of truth, to predict the future or past or whatever.

The "conservation is energy" is derived from a "time symmetry". In this sense, conversation of "Energy" is a sort of "side effect" of certain configurations of time. When energy isn't conserved, we can still use it and measure "energy" , but it isn't an anchor to truth now! So it is just another faggy parameter like position, that ends up being (hopefully) a function of some greater underlying mechanism. The mathematician Emmy Noether was the first person to make the connect between "conversation" and "symmetries". She is a fucking legend.

FYI:
Conservation of momentum comes from "space symmetry", Conversation of electric change comes from "gauge symmetry". All conservation come from symmetries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

>>6919422
CERN and the particle physics/nuclear physics community at large is always planning the "next big machine". There are official meetings (some of which I have attended), inter-national committees, and all sorts of fancy pants official shit being done to prepare for "after the LHC". The LHC it self was planned and officially approved way back in 1994!

I think the current plan is to have a new machine (upgraded LHC) in ~2022. And then another one in ~2032. We are planning for them both already.

Plus we got some other cool experiments in development/planning stages. CERN isn't just the LHC, we have a lot of other shit. I would like to say more, but I think it might be privileged info. Sorry Anon.

>>6919394
>probably 100% misunderstood the arguments
>David Hume

Hume was never mentioned in the class. Neither were any other straight up "philosophers". The class only talked about modern "scientists" and "science". And the arguments weren't complicated. They were just mindless bullshit.

I shit you not, but one class was literally a some faggy phil major yelling about how electron was racist because it can only be "+1/2" and "-1/2" spin! He kept insisting that It should be allowed to spin however the fuck it wants, because of equality and his fucking feels! He argued with the prof for a fucking hour. It was like watching two retarded children grunt at each other. And at the end the teacher conceded that "maybe the electron was racist"!!

I took the class with a couple of buddies (two physics and one math major). And we jointly went the the physics department chair to complain about the class mid-semester. He completely understood and basically told us that the majority of philosophers are fucking morons arguing about nonsense. He jovially said the class would be a lesson on how to deal with idiots without murdering them.

However, I want to make it clear that my other two phil courses were great. Especially my logic course. The proof in that class is one of the smartest men I have ever met, and his ability to understand and explain logic was superb. I wouldn't even consider him a philosopher, he seemed more like a mathematician too me. His arguments were meaningful, because he could back them up mathematically, logically, and rationally. As opposed to the majority of modern philosophers that just rant about their fucking feels and argue about nonsense.

>>6918142
My best advise would be to search the "current literature". There already seems to be "theories of photo-dissociation for diatomics ... " out there. Maybe what you want is already done, or maybe you can just take a similar theory and extrapolate it as needed. Then again, maybe you already looked for this?

I don't think you should try to re-invent the wheel.

Examples:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/79/12/10.1063/1.445788

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijch.199000002/abstract

>>6917910
>Why did you attend philosophy classes?

I've only taken taken 3 philosophy classes. Intro to phil, logic's, and philosophy of science. All were my choice.

I appreciated and understand the importance of the topics and ideas discussed in intro and logics. They were probably some of the best (non physics/maths) course Ive eve taken. And I can honestly say that they have made me a better scientist. I would recommend them.

However, philosophy of science was a complete crock of shit. I was under the impression that it would be a discussion of some of the possible philosophical implications of certain scientific theories and some history. But it wasn't. Instead it was faggy phil majors with no fuck grasp pf science, reason, or math, arguing over semantics with their fucking feels. I felt like I was surrounded by fucking retards with no grip on reality. Worst class ever! It could have been just a shit teacher though.

Thanks for the questions Anons. I got shit I go to go do now.

I might be back later to answer some more questions and/or answer some of the ones I missed. That is, if they aren't too fucking retarded.

>>6917874
>Don't you think that time works better as parameter than a dimension?

No. And those are not mutually exclusive things.

In babies first physics time is just an independent variable.

However, in more advanced physics, it becomes overwhelmingly evident that time should be treated as a dimension.

And in other areas of advanced physics, time is not an independent variable at all. It is just a dimension and it is a function of some other independent variable. Just the the other three dimensions are.

>>6917806
Hi Anon

>>6917746
>>6917756
Listen kids. Science is quantitative, and needs precise definitions for concepts, hypotheses, and theories. So, we actually have to "codify" what we want to call a "dimension" mathematically. It isn't just based on your fucking feels.

We took the properties of our "three dimensions" and used them to form a category called "dimensions". It was then noticed that "time" also fits this category, because it fit the criteria. Hence, time is considered a dimension.

This is really really really old news. It was done over 100 years ago at least. It is very standard physics by now. If you want to throw a fit that it is wrong, your a century to late.

Furthermore, by classifying "time" as a dimension, we have been able to make great leaps in physics and technology. Countless technologies are built which incorporate the notion that "time is dimension", including GPS and your computers (even EM + Basic Reality count time as a dimension). They are testaments to the validity of the idea.