Earlier quoted context omitted.
probe something smaller than a planck unit and nature operates by creating a black hole
there is no smaller than a planck unit.
if you want to ignore general relativity or pretend black holes dont exist, sure.
How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
151–160 of 160 posts
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Energy only exists in quantized steps, it is not continuous. The fact that you think I disagree with this means you do not understand me, nor the idea of the wave function.
> The fact that you think I disagree with this means you do not understand me, nor the idea of the wave function. You said > Yes, energy is quantized because we see it separate from a continuum. Because we SEE it as separate from a continuum does not mean it is separate from any continuum. This is the theory of everything is wave in a nutshell. It's not that I don't understand you, it's that you clearly don't even un…
> you say energy is not quantized
Incorrect.
I say when we see (measure) energy we separate it from a continuum (of probabilities) and it is quantized.
Basic:
https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mathur.16/quantummechanics27-...
E=hf...you do not get that E without measuring f. That is the quantum in quantum physics. And I think that is why we do not have a unifying law of physics yet, because this measurement is the basis for all quantum physics. We are trying to take particles to a place that is only waves.
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where are you getting 37? The standard model has 17 fields. If you pick and choose which properties to select as unique fields, maybe you can get the number 37, but at that point why not 118 fields?
> The standard model has 17 fields. Without qualification, that's false. 17 is a simplified or compressed view of what the Standard Model describes. I gave more detail in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48700610 37 is what you get from counting Dirac matter fields (24) plus gauge fields (12) plus the Higgs. That's post-symmetry-breaking, and doesn't account for chirality. If you count fundamental f…
Thanks. Appreciate the clarification.
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fact that you think I disagree with this means you do not understand me, nor the idea of the wave function. You said > Yes, energy is quantized because we see it separate from a continuum. Because we SEE it as separate from a continuum does not mean it is separate from any continuum. This is the theory of everything is wave in a nutshell. It's not that I don't understand you, it's that you clearly don't even un…
> you say energy is not quantized Incorrect. I say when we see (measure) energy we separate it from a continuum (of probabilities) and it is quantized. Basic: https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mathur.16/quantummechanics27-... E=hf...you do not get that E without measuring f. That is the quantum in quantum physics. And I think that is why we do not have a unifying law of physics yet, because this measurement is the basis…
> I say when we see (measure) energy we separate it from a continuum (of probabilities) and it is quantized.
Read what you wrote. This is not what you said before, and it’s still wrong either way. Energy is not quantized because we measure it, it is quantized because it is quantized. You’re so far out of your depth here that no productive exchange is likely to take place.
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
there is no smaller than a planck unit.
if you want to ignore general relativity or pretend black holes dont exist, sure.
if you want to ignore the maximum energy content of space below schwarzchild radius of one planck length go ahead, there is no curvature that will bend space that tightly, and GR doesnt apply at that level
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
you suggesting that there is a continuity of spacetime rather than a pixelation, which is perfectly valid, the whole problem with planck units is that they are extrapolations, just like the infinity or the point particle, they are mathematical extremes.
the geometric structure of spacetime at planck scale is problematic, considering how you might visualise a planck polyhedron so that no space is defined in less than whole planck units i.e. all dimensions of length are whole numbers.
you have to do some topological trickery to make a discreet planck volume that works.
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#157[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 l…
Nobody said that gravity is a literal force vector pushing objects, and if you did (a la aether) the theory would be discarded, just like the Standard Model will be discarded when people realize the universe is not made of balls.
Everybody knows what is meant by "model" and "theory" - there is no need to be so condescending for no reason.
The Standard Model asserts that the world is made of some number of basic "building blocks" and yet has had considerable trouble proving it thus far.
Insofar that it is a model of real, non-fictional physics, and not a thought experiment but an actual attempt at describing the universe in terms of its parts - it's obviously incorrect.
And Higgs DID NOT live up to providing an explanation of where mass comes from. That was the whole point, it was "the god particle" because it was supposed to complete the Standard Model by providing a mechanism for mass. It didn't do that. We still don't know.
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#158This and not being able to divide by 0 in math always drove me up the wall in school. Encountering a god level difficulty unsolved problem in the first 5 minutes of discussion around the basics of the field and then shrugging and continuing to build castles of complexity atop the seemingly rickety foundation irrationally irked me. Feels good to get that off my Chest. I’ve been holding it in for ~20 years
OK this one still trips me up. Why isn't 5/0 5? If I have 5 apples, and I divide that group by 0, I STILL HAVE 5 APPLES. If I have 5 apples, and I divide that group by 2, I have 2 groups of 2.5 apples.
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#159This and not being able to divide by 0 in math always drove me up the wall in school. Encountering a god level difficulty unsolved problem in the first 5 minutes of discussion around the basics of the field and then shrugging and continuing to build castles of complexity atop the seemingly rickety foundation irrationally irked me. Feels good to get that off my Chest. I’ve been holding it in for ~20 years
OK this one still trips me up. Why isn't 5/0 5? If I have 5 apples, and I divide that group by 0, I STILL HAVE 5 APPLES. If I have 5 apples, and I divide that group by 2, I have 2 groups of 2.5 apples.
Because 0 is not 1.
Consider the equation x = 5/y. Let us assume that the variable x is defined for every value of y. Then x * y = 5 (after multiplying both sides by y).
Let us also assume, as you suggest, that when y = 0, x = 5/0 = 5.
Then x = 5 = x * y. The only solution to this equation is y = 1, a contradiction.
Re: How Many Elementary Particles Are There, Really?
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something like " 17 different values of mass "[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] is a good simple model, if you allow me to put enough footnotes at the end. Different particles have different mass, and we can use the mass to classify them and call it a day and so we get 17. [1] Actually the photons and the gluons have mass=0, but nobody would confuse them. So, let's count them as different particles. (If it exist, the graviton al…
What’s the best introductory book for this sort of thing?
No idea, but [3] is a good starting point. It's weird, but the technical details are not toooooo crazy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation