|
So now that the higgs boson is confirmed we don't know much more of what we knew before except the theories of super symmetry and string theory are still kinda up in the air. Although a lot of people are seriously adopting the simulation hypothesis now yikes! I would post some videos and sources but I'm phon posting and it's a bit of a pain. Anyway what do you guys think about the foundation of the universe and the fact that humans have spent billions upon billions to smash tiny things into each other for no good reason other than to see what happens
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
I want to make a joke about the double slit experiment but it's probably too racy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
we totally live in a simulation
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
It's kind of bittersweet that the most significant advancement in experimental particle physics from the last..30 years-ish is a confirmation of something pretty much everyone agreed existed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
...and the pitch! posted:I want to make a joke about the double slit experiment but it's probably too racy. I'm not a theoretical physicisist but I always wondered the extremely obvious question of why we are so shocked that photons only display a spin after being observed when the actual act of observing something means bombarding it with protons edit: photons and protons sound the same sorry g0lbez fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Sep 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:we totally live in a simulation It's definitely digital. I don't know about "simulation"  though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
I've learnt from the best. Engineer Bill Nye and Dr. Sheldon Cooper. It all started with a big bang.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
theoretical penis megathread in ops case
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Manchild King posted:I've learnt from the best. Engineer Bill Nye and Dr. Sheldon Cooper. It all started with a big bang. It's cool cuz we're close (or basically already there idk this is a complicated field) to recreating the exact big bang scenario to figure out how all this poo poo came about. I'm gonna effortpost a really neat theory about chaotic multiverse that Nima arkani proposed whenever I stop phone posting
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
let it mellow posted:theoretical penis megathread in ops case a five out of ten burn at best
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
g0lbez posted:It's cool cuz we're close (or basically already there idk this is a complicated field) to recreating the exact big bang scenario to figure out how all this poo poo came about. I'm gonna effortpost a really neat theory about chaotic multiverse that Nima arkani proposed whenever I stop phone posting Ha bullshit the galaxies or parallel manifestations are all arranged in a north/south stack configuration and causally bonded by a north/south digital magnetic time axis that forms a full electrical arc around the entire universe. Starlight is just a seeping green east/west corona around a dark circle of insurmountable distance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
fuckin higgs field makin poo poo slow down n poo poo gently caress
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
ClamdestineBoyster posted:Ha bullshit the galaxies or parallel manifestations are all arranged in a north/south stack configuration and causally bonded by a digital magnetic time axis that forms a full electrical arc around the entire universe. Starlight is just a seeping green cornona around a dark circle of insurmountable distance. Well gently caress it I'll just post the theory now; the comsological constant if found to be a precise number will infer that we live in a multiverse where this constant is the only one that managed to sustain life, whereas all other universes with a slightly different numeric constant have poo poo ripping apart before forming anything structural cuz gravity is too weak or strong or strong or whatever
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
g0lbez posted:Well gently caress it I'll just post the theory now; the comsological constant if found to be a precise number will infer that we live in a multiverse where this constant is the only one that managed to sustain life, whereas all other universes with a slightly different numeric constant have poo poo ripping apart before forming anything structural cuz gravity is too weak or strong or strong or whatever That sounds fuckin stupid I can't believe kept retards get money to pretend to understand that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily fromNarodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. joy And yes by the way, I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
ClamdestineBoyster posted:That sounds fuckin stupid I can't believe kept retards get money to pretend to understand that poo poo. Why is it so stupid? If a certain constant on our universe can be fine tuned to an absurd degree then what happens if you turn that dial just a smidge in another direction?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
flerp posted:To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily fromNarodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. joy And yes by the way, I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Is this from reddit
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
g0lbez posted:I'm not a theoretical physicisist but I always wondered the extremely obvious question of why we are so shocked that photons only display a spin after being observed when the actual act of observing something means bombarding it with protons Are you under the impression that spin is some kind of temporary after-effect of a particle collision?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
FaradayCage posted:Are you under theimpression that spin is some kind of temporary after-effect of a particle collision? Yes? How could a bombardment of photons not effect the behaviour of tiny rear end particles?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
lovin' this theoretical physics thread by somebody who thinks spin is dependent on contact with other particles
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Koyaanisgoatse posted:lovin' this theoretical physics thread by somebody who thinks spin is dependent on contact with other particles If you think differently then clearly this is a subject that interests you if you know enough to disagree so post some cool poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
g0lbez posted:Why is it so stupid? If a certain constant on our universe can be fine tuned to an absurd degree then what happens if you turn that dial just a smidge in another direction? Well alright you don't need a universal constant if you accept that the speed of light is variable in a gravitational/Hawking radiation field. Also those dumbass scientists are mistaking the angular momentum of the proton once it exposed to some level of heat as an inertial body. Protons are bare cold. A loving vibrator and a spinning bike wheel both have inertia. The dildo is 1d the bike wheel is 2D. You collapse the dimensional inertia of a proton in heat and you get what appears to be inertia at the point in time the electrical arc naturally tunes itself to the gravitational jitter. Not a subatomic particle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
g0lbez posted:Yes? How could a bombardment of photons not effect the behaviour of tiny rear end particles? Yes, it will do that. But the particle always had spin prior to the bombardment. Maybe not a definite spin direction, but it had spin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
FaradayCage posted:Yes, it will do that. I'm not informed enough to have any legit argument against this. Are you saying that particles always spin or are geared towards spinning in a certain direction and that a photon bombardment doesn't necessarily change the direction but just makes it more pronounced?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
ClamdestineBoyster posted:Well alright you don't need a universal constant if you accept that the speed of light is variable in a gravitational/Hawking radiation field. Also those dumbass scientists are mistaking the angular momentum of the proton once it exposed to some level of heat as an inertial body. Protons are bare cold. A loving vibrator and a spinning bike wheel both have inertia. The dildo is 1d the bike wheel is 2D. You collapse the dimensional inertia of a proton in heat and you get what appears to be inertia at the point in time the electrical arc naturally tunes itself to the gravitational jitter. Not a subatomic particle. You seem like you might have a passing interest in this weird subject but you need to word your posts better because this makes no sense
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
g0lbez posted:I'm not informed enough to have any legit argument against this. Are you saying that particles always spin or are geared towards spinning in a certain direction and that a photon bombardment doesn't necessarily change the direction but just makes it more pronounced? Spin is a property of particles and does not necessarily indicate that it "spins" in the way a top or a ball might, if I am remembering my Netflix documentaries and dumbed down magazine articles correctly
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
g0lbez posted:I'm not informed enough to have any legit argument against this. Are you saying that particles always spin Mostly: Yes, but this is not "spin" in the conventional sense. How could a point particle spin anyway? It's more like a voucher that is good for one or two or whatever units of "conventional spin". g0lbez posted:or are geared towards spinning in a certain direction No, just that the direction thing gets important in quantum physics. g0lbez posted:and that a photon bombardment doesn't necessarily change the direction but just makes it more pronounced? The photon bombardment will affect the direction. It will not make it more pronounced (although you'd have to be more specific in your usage of "pronounced" to be sure).
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
FaradayCage posted:Yes, it will do that. yeah isnt spin like an inherent property of the particles, rather than something to be affected by photons?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
FaradayCage posted:Mostly: Yes, but this is not "spin" in the conventional sense. How could a point particle spin anyway? It's more like a voucher that is good for one or two or whatever units of "conventional spin". My definition of pronounced is based off the conventional definition of spin (which apparently is incorrect) in which a proton may spin a little bit in some direction and the photon bombarbment makes it like... spin faster. From what I'm reading though particles don't spin in the conventional sense which is part of why I love physics so much because scientists always have to use dumbed down incorrect terms in a vein attempt to convey the ridiculous sounding information they're trying to communicate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
ya spin doesnt mean it literally spins, which is honestly kind of misleading
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
g0lbez posted:You seem like you might have a passing interest in this weird subject but you need to word your posts better because this makes no sense Well like a proton is just an electrical square that has inertia like a spinning bike wheel. When you remove the electron shield it skews into a rhombus around a virtual null symmetry axis an infinite number of times, expending a spiraling arc path toward the recently created electron hole, starting at the wavelength of heat. At the point the rhombus pitch can't collapse anymore, the wavelength of gamma, it becomes digital, and appears to have inertia for a small period of time. And it does, but it's not a particle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
The photon layer of the bicuspid higgs particle is directly inversely correlated to the reticulated splines of my balls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Things I don't understand? Those are stupid
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
g0lbez posted:My definition of pronounced is based off the conventional definition of spin (which apparently is incorrect) in which a proton may spin a little bit in some direction and the photon bombarbment makes it like... spin faster. From what I'm reading though particles don't spin in the conventional sense which is part of why I love physics so much because scientists always have to use dumbed down incorrect terms in a vein attempt to convey the ridiculous sounding information they're trying to communicate. yeah "spin" doesn't mean "how fast a particle is rotating around an axis" when it comes to subatomic particles. spin is something that exists by virtue of relativity and should be understood on its own terms without analogy to classical mechanics
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
It's kinda like how quarks have flavors
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
So no matter how you measure particle collisions, the last measurement before the proton rides a magnetic track to the quasars and emerges as hydrogen, no matter how sensitive your instruments, your last measurement will always show the particle had a bias. Left or right. But it disappears so we know it ultimately didn't have a bias and is now just acid in the deep cosmos. It reached a standing wave superstate and digitally became a proton in the deep cosmos. Just like sparks from the campfire or where your tires go when you drive on them. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Koyaanisgoatse posted:yeah "spin" doesn't mean "how fast a particle is rotating around an axis" when it comes to subatomic particles. spin is something that exists by virtue of relativity and should be understood on its own terms without analogy to classical mechanics Yeah so a single proton spinning at infinite velocity has inertial resistance of one horse power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
I deal in facts, not theories, OP. Now I'll have no more of this nonsense. Go to your room now and don't come out until you're ready to apologize.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
g0lbez posted:My definition of pronounced is based off the conventional definition of spin (which apparently is incorrect) in which a proton may spin a little bit in some direction and the photon bombarbment makes it like... spin faster. From what I'm reading though particles don't spin in the conventional sense which is part of why I love physics so much because scientists always have to use dumbed down incorrect terms in a vein attempt to convey the ridiculous sounding information they're trying to communicate. It's just a name for a degree of freedom and it's called that because some people erroneously described it but the name stuck. quote:Wolfgang Pauli was the first to propose the concept of spin, but he did not name it. In 1925, Ralph Kronig, George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit at Leiden University suggested an erroneous physical interpretation of particles spinning around their own axis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
All that particle physics poo poo is essentially just protons resolving themselves to hexagonal hydrogen at a far scopic depth in the quasars and leaving a spectral track at the event horizon as it seeks its natural ground state.
ClamdestineBoyster fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Sep 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 06:55
|
|