>>12458635I like when things are relative to something else.
Like an Up quark was given the arbitrary charge value of 2/3+ because they wanted to call a proton 1+ so it adds up that two ups and a down are 1+ because a down is 1/3-. Now, this makes sense because an up quark is 2/3rd of the charge of a proton, relatively speaking... but something still feels off because assume you want to call a proton a charge of 1.5 and then an up quark would be a charge of 1.
But where does the 1 come from?
I am looking for some fundamental equivalence that makes the values of a quark make sense.
Like how Pi is a lot more sensible as a value and less random, seemingly.
I know a quark's values are just the values of a quark but, the ratio of a quark's energy to the entire energy content of the universe is probably something completely random, so where is the prettiness?
>>12458641But does Bell's inequality really prove there can't be a hidden variable? I don't even understand logically how it can ever reach a determined value when it collapses...
Because if it has no mechanism or variable determining what value it will be when it collapses... how can it actually settle on a value upon collapse? What tells it which value it is going to collapse to? If the argument is that there is nothing to tell it which particular value it chooses, then it doesn't choose one, logically speaking. Didn't Einstein agree with me here?
