What is a "half degree of freedom" in the matter field? (5.5 DOF from the article) Does anyone here know?The article glossed over it very quickly
How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
121–130 of 160 posts
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#122Not being a Physicist, I have to wonder if all these particles are somehow manifestations of a simpler thing. Might there have been a point in time (long ago) where the “wave photon” and the “particle photon” seemed like possibly different things?
You might be interested to look up the Williamson-Van der Mark model. It says that an electron is just light that loops in on itself and shows how properties like mass, charge and spin can emerge from such a geometry. It's fascinating because it opens up the question whether every particle could be described in terms of different ways light can loop in on itself.
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. This is why Physicists will reject the "everything is a wave theory" till the bitter end. They become frustrated when faced with the un-measurable. There is no "quantum wave", there are only waves. Immeasurable, undefinable waves.
> There is no "quantum wave" Earlier you wrote, "Everything is a quantum wave." You also linked to an article titled, "The Everything-Is-a-Quantum-Wave Interpretation of Quantum Physics." You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Yeah, I can see how it looks that way. I did not say everything is the quantum wave. I said everything is a wave, but the research paper i linked to uses the sloppy term Everything is a quantum wave. While I agree with the author I disagree with the title and terminology
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a weird sort of hubris. “I’m not qualified to do this job but I can certainly tell you how it needs to be done.” A quantum state is a mathematical entity that represents a physical system. Since waves are not physical can you see where I can assume that the math needs to start from a different place? If it is even useful at all? > it’s known that these particles exhibit quantum behavior. Many measures are i…
Either you understand this stuff at a level so much deeper than me that I can’t comprehend what you’re getting at or you are way out of your depth because none of this makes any sense to me. Waves aren’t physical but everything is waves? We can’t measure standing waves but have to “guess” with calculus and differential equations?
Let’s take calculating the area of a circle. Since pi is in an irrational number that goes on forever, we can only get a closer approximation to an area circle by extending the decimals of pi. But since pi goes on forever, we can never know the exact area of aLet’s take calculating the area of a circle. Since pi is in a irrational number that goes on forever, we can only get a closer approximation to an area circle by extending the decimals of pi. But since pi goes on forever, we can never know the exact area of a circle.
Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
In QFT every particle type has its own field.
Every particle type has its own field, but the OP article is counting a single particle type multiple times based on properties like spin and polarization. At one point the article reaches the number 118. That corresponds directly to 37 quantum fields once you take the "double counting" into account.
Should the quantum vacuum / zero-point field(s) be counted as well?
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
its only the limit we can probe things. just because we can’t measure something doesnt mean nature cant operate at that scale
actually the idea is that nature cant operate at that scale. the thing about planck units is they are extrapolations that end at single planck length that has some problems just with basic geometry, as well as a supposed instability of a planck space spontaneously collapsing. a planck unit volume must take a form that has dimensions of single planck units and pack together so that no smaller spacings are created. it…
probe something smaller than a planck unit and nature operates by creating a black hole
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
If something cannot be reduced, does it exist as an entity?
something that cant be reduced would be the only entity, all other things are assemblages of that entity, the problem of variability occurs, if you can observe at the scale of absolute fundamental structure, how can difference occur?
Maybe it’s not the thing that is different, maybe it’s our minds that create difference?
And by difference, I mean, establish boundaries between objects.
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#128[flagged]
You really don't seem to understand what a model is. A model is essentially an approximation of reality capable of making predictions. If those predictions get confirmed, the model will be accepted.
Barely anybody with reasonable education in physics would confuse a model built for humans to understand reality with actual reality. Models are not reality, they are a tool used to describe it, nothing more and nothing less.
Let's take Newton's laws as an example. Obviously, there is not a literal force vector manifesting and pushing objects. But it's a good predictor of behavior and allows building of understanding.
The Higgs Particle did exactly what it was expected to do and works just like Higgs predicted. If you look at click-focused press and think their bad explanations properly describe the state of physics, you're simply mistaken.
However, to understand that, you have to actually learn. And, if you intend to revolutionize physics, you also need to be able to make better predictions. Which is ... unlikely, to say the least.
Again: Models in physics approximate reality. They do not actually exactly describe fundamental reality, only how it works within the limits of the model.
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#129Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Either you understand this stuff at a level so much deeper than me that I can’t comprehend what you’re getting at or you are way out of your depth because none of this makes any sense to me. Waves aren’t physical but everything is waves? We can’t measure standing waves but have to “guess” with calculus and differential equations?
Let’s take calculating the area of a circle. Since pi is in an irrational number that goes on forever, we can only get a closer approximation to an area circle by extending the decimals of pi. But since pi goes on forever, we can never know the exact area of aLet’s take calculating the area of a circle. Since pi is in a irrational number that goes on forever, we can only get a closer approximation to an area circle b…
Hard pass. The exact area of a circle is pi*r^2. We can calculate decimals of pi arbitrarily far, certainly further than our ability to measure. “Exact area” means we use symbolic math, not that we quibble about significant digits.