/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12076808

96KiB, 800x800, 1582051469037.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 02 Sep 14:09:27 2020 No.12076808 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12076816 >>12076819 >>12077837 >>12077858 >>12079093 >>12079118 >>12079147 >>12079186 >>12081339 >>12081927

My intuition tells me that given that quarks have differing properties from each other, they must have some kind of internal structure and are therefore not fundamental particles
Discuss

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Sep 2020 14:11:04 No.12076814 Report

Quoted By: >>12081954

maybe

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Sep 2020 14:12:11 No.12076816 Report

Quoted By:

>>12076808
Inside their hard outer shell, they have a soft and yielding interior.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Sep 2020 14:13:19 No.12076819 Report

Quoted By: >>12076849 >>12079239 >>12081379

>>12076808
I guess the problem with this is you could go on forever. Everything kind of has to be made out of something else doesnt it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Sep 2020 14:15:49 No.12076825 Report

Quoted By: >>12076849

>my intuition tells m

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Sep 2020 14:19:07 No.12076833 Report

Quoted By: >>12076860 >>12079093

inb4 string theory

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Sep 2020 14:27:34 No.12076849 Report

Quoted By: >>12077853

>>12076819
I honestly think there is no fundamental unit, and that we've pigeonholed ourselves into thinking there is.

>>12076825
I mean, yeah, that's not a scientific way of thinking, I'm just trying to create discussion

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Sep 2020 14:31:49 No.12076860 Report

Quoted By:

>>12076833
>I honestly think there is no fundamental unit, and that we've pigeonholed ourselves into thinking there is.
Starting to think so too, actually. A constant dive into more and more smaller ”building blocks”, if you will, seems like a stretch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Sep 2020 19:20:29 No.12077837 Report

Quoted By: >>12077878

>>12076808
the number 1 and the number 2 have different properties, does that mean they have internal structure?
how about the operation of addition and the operation of subtraction? they're different - do they therefore have internal structure?
just because something is different to something else does not necessarily mean it has internal structure. why would that be the case?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Sep 2020 19:23:56 No.12077853 Report

Quoted By: >>12077871 >>12079260

>>12076849
>I honestly think there is no fundamental unit, and that we've pigeonholed ourselves into thinking there is.
Yeah but then you remember energy levels are quantified

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Sep 2020 19:25:24 No.12077858 Report

Quoted By: >>12079121

>>12076808
electrons and positrons have differing properties, so are they not fundamental?
electron and muon neutrinos have different properties, so do they have an internal structure?

is your condition that there is only one type of thing with one type of property and everything else is constructed from this one thing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Sep 2020 19:28:01 No.12077871 Report

Quoted By: >>12079093

>>12077853
Only if you take quantum as gospel, and we know empirically that it breaks down.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Sep 2020 19:30:20 No.12077878 Report

Quoted By:

>>12077837
I think they're trying to say that there is other information stored that defines the differentiation.

It depends on the definition of "internal structure."

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:01:25 No.12079093 Report

Quoted By: >>12079103

>>12076808
the problem with this idea is that there is no evidence. there have been extensive searches by serious experimentalists to find “excited states” of quarks and they have turned up nothing.

>>12076833
but string theory gives an explanation for how quarks could all be fundamental and could be unified in one consistent description where they are all part of the same string framework

>>12077871
how do? i think you have a misconception anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:06:23 No.12079103 Report

Quoted By: >>12079134

>>12079093
>how do? i think you have a misconception anon
Gravity

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:16:32 No.12079118 Report

Quoted By:

>>12076808
Don't know what you have so many people poo-pooing your suggestion. Maybe they are getting hung up on "particles", implying matter or mass, and the fact that anything smaller than a quark might not have matter in the way we are used to thinking of it... semantics.

I think it's actually obvious that quarks are not fundamental partic--uh, THINGS. It's laughable that humans could ever really detect the universe's most fundamental thing, whatever it is..

Also, we have all these people in here claiming there is no internal structure in quarks, despite all the researchers around the world trying to elucidate the internal structure of quarks..

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:20:34 No.12079121 Report

Quoted By:

>>12077858
I really like this idea. Is it possible to have different types of one thing, or by virtue of having even the slightest variance are they now two different things?

It's like you're either pregnant or you're not pregnant. Being pregnant is distinct and different from not being pregnant, despite the fact that the difference between the two states is molecular (dad's DNA molecules now in the same phospholipid sack as mom's DNA molecules)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:29:13 No.12079134 Report

Quoted By: >>12079135 >>12079499

>>12079103
no anon, just because gravity theory and quantum theories of particle physics don’t play well together doesn’t indicate that quantum theory breaks down. it indicates that something needs to be changed in one or the other of them. and in general the belief is that gravity theory (general relativity) needs to change while quantum theory stays strong. for instance this is the case in string theory. and asymptotic safety and causal dynamical triangulation. in other words, all theories worth worrying about say that GR is the approximation and quantum principles are a truth that won’t change (at least for now)

there are some alternative views, like penrose’s argument for gravitational collapse, but it’s slipshod and nobody really believes it since making it work isn’t working out. so even the smartest proponents for “GR is more correct” are losing their uphill battle

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:29:46 No.12079135 Report

Quoted By: >>12079168

>>12079134
Or both

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:34:10 No.12079147 Report

Quoted By: >>12079173 >>12082630

>>12076808
my intuition tells me that if that down quark was really neutral it wouldn't bond to anything and that this model is terrible and should be laughed at.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:39:12 No.12079168 Report

Quoted By:

>>12079135
unlikely. i say this because in the history of physics, every improvement has been able to stand on its own. even through GR and true QM came at the same time in history, their success came independently. same thing with electrodynamics and thermodynamics. they were around the same time but they stood on their own without relying on one another for a while before a unification was realized. so i argue that any idea that improves on the current state of physics should be able to stand on its own and not need to make multiple modifications to disparate areas of physics. just one good one

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:40:34 No.12079173 Report

Quoted By:

>>12079147
Maybe I am dumb, but I will let you tell me that...
As I understand it, quarks COULD be the same internally in the same way that your body, despite not changing in composition, can take on different conformations, from sitting down to hailing a cab (I just really wanted to say "hailing a cab", I never get to say that).... but then one could argue that on a chemical level, the body sitting down is distinctly different from the one standing up (ATP here, NADPH there) so the difference IS internal structure...

Following that analogy, OP's intuition definitely makes sense...

El Arcón

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO TIMESAND___OffTopicWarning.png, 96KiB, 1436x940

El Arcón Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:42:01 No.12079178 Report

Quoted By: >>12079196

Due to infinite complexity, every fundamental particle is a whole universe on another level of aleph.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:44:15 No.12079186 Report

Quoted By:

>>12076808
You are correct. And it's because the universe is infinite in both breadth and scope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:46:21 No.12079196 Report

Quoted By: >>12079201

>>12079178
jon, please stop detailing every thread. there was a decent thread a few days ago that you completely ruined and turned into an EH thread for no good reason. just make your own containment threads and stay there and let the people who actually graduated field the undergrads’ questions

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:47:00 No.12079201 Report

Quoted By: >>12079210

>>12079196
Dude, just ignore him/her!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:49:46 No.12079210 Report

Quoted By: >>12079213

>>12079201
>him/her
the dude has posted gifs of his erect penis on this very board

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:50:57 No.12079213 Report

Quoted By:

>>12079210
She posted her penis? That's very off-topic. :I Hope you sent her to the right board.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 01:58:42 No.12079239 Report

Quoted By: >>12081824

>>12076819
>I guess the problem with this is you could go on forever
People keep saying this, and they keep on not saying why that's a problem

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 02:04:25 No.12079260 Report

Quoted By:

>>12077853
I think the problem is we assume that the quantifiable aspect of reality is fundamental

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 04:20:42 No.12079499 Report

Quoted By: >>12079629

>>12079134
It looks increasingly likely that macro-scale theories are the ones that will give way to QM, not the other way around. QM will literally upend our conception of macroscopic reality. Just give it time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 05:29:57 No.12079629 Report

Quoted By:

>>12079499
i think what you are saying is in agreement with what i said.

just as an example, string theory says that spacetime and gravity are emergent properties and also by the holographic principle that our 4D space time is more efficiently described in terms of a nongravitational quantum field theory defined on some “boundary” of space time. and this is mainstream high-level physics. clearly there is a major paradigm shift right here for us slightly under the hood but we are still waiting to crack it open

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 17:57:36 No.12081339 Report

Quoted By:

>>12076808
One problem with that hypothesis is that if quarks are composed of smaller particles, then those particles will be confined to a extremely small area. By the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, this creates a large uncertainty in momentum that would make quarks unstable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 18:07:04 No.12081379 Report

Quoted By: >>12081824

>>12076819
it's turtles all the way down. the most fundamental aspect of things is the quality of it being perceivable by the consciousness

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 19:50:50 No.12081824 Report

Quoted By: >>12081861

>>12081379
>>12079239
So what do we think about this? The whole ”particle made up of particle made up of particle” meme cant really be true since infinity doesnt work. But how do we determin what the smallest building blocks are

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 20:03:58 No.12081861 Report

Quoted By: >>12081882 >>12081920

>>12081824
>since infinity doesnt work
How do you know that?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screen-Shot-2018-10-19-at-3.27.1 (...).png, 160KiB, 710x357

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 20:11:46 No.12081882 Report

Quoted By: >>12081892

>>12081861
It just doesn't, okay?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 20:14:28 No.12081892 Report

Quoted By:

>>12081882
okay dad

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 20:26:53 No.12081920 Report

Quoted By: >>12081942

>>12081861
I dont know, but for all intents and purposes in theory, it doesnt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 20:28:28 No.12081927 Report

Quoted By:

>>12076808
You're correct, they are made of Love.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 20:33:30 No.12081942 Report

Quoted By: >>12081957

>>12081920
>but for all intents and purposes in theory, it doesnt.
What theories? All the main ones seem to be extremely open to the concept of infinity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 20:40:46 No.12081954 Report

Quoted By:

>>12076814
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 20:41:52 No.12081957 Report

Quoted By: >>12081968

>>12081942
In theory, as in hypothetically in regards to the discussion.
>All the main ones seem to be extremely open to the concept of infinity.
Which ones? ( Genuine question, im not educated) The idea that infinity is real is pretty dumb imo

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 20:51:18 No.12081968 Report

Quoted By: >>12082021

>>12081957
In classical mechanics, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc, we use the reals or complex as support and assume continuity by default.
None of the main physic theories I learned (granted I'm far from a specialist) presuppose axioms stating that the universe is finite.
In fact all formulas I'm aware of work without such assumptions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 20:59:44 No.12081998 Report

Quoted By: >>12083171 >>12083351

Why wouldn’t they have more structure? Because we can’t see it? We couldn’t see atoms for a long time either. Just wait for the tech

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Sep 2020 21:07:32 No.12082021 Report

Quoted By: >>12083196

>>12081968
Thanks
>In fact all formulas I'm aware of work without such assumptions.
Well surely im the dummy here, but infinity doesnt sit right with me, atleast the idea that the universe is. It just seems like such a forced and over-simplification of problems we cant solve. ”Oh we cant see an end or even imagine how it would present itself so there is no such thing”
Again, im fully aware im brainlet tier and hold no candle to actual scientists but its just my two cents

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Sep 2020 00:22:56 No.12082630 Report

Quoted By:

>>12079147
I'm assuming by neutral you mean electrically neutral and not color neutral. Either way, this is false, the down quark has both an electric and color charge.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Sep 2020 03:58:34 No.12083171 Report

Quoted By:

>>12081998
Because getting smaller means getting more uncertain to its momentum which means more unstable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Sep 2020 04:07:49 No.12083196 Report

Quoted By:

>>12082021
The idea that the world and all its workings are somehow “self-contained” makes even less sense to me. Our brains are wired to see order in everything. But our brains are a product of an ordered world. There is no saying, however, that everything about our world is “ordered”. Order as we see it all around us could be just a tiny pocket of stability in a vast sea of chaos. Wanting to see order as being the totality of everything is what I see as being the “wishful thinking”, not the other possibility. Not to mention that there is nothing about the world that tells us it MUST be ordered, and no other way for it to be is permissible. This is a gross assumption on our part, that too many take for granted, and too few point out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Sep 2020 05:31:34 No.12083351 Report

Quoted By:

>>12081998
there probably are things smaller than quarks. Maybe even smaller than planck length. But they probably wouldn't be a unit of anything. It won't be a neat little package like a quark. There are things that are smaller, perhaps, but they aren't building blocks anymore, if that makes sense

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches