🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 00:23:37 UTC No. 16452984

>nature.com
>pbs.org
fake news political propaganda websites

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 02:06:36 UTC No. 16453102

>>16452883
Things get tricky with trying to define what exactly mass is what exactly matter is what exactly energy is what exactly mass energy equivalence is, what exactly the EM field is, what exactly charge is, how exactly charge works, how exactly local confinement works

So because some people think mass and energy is physically equivalent, or they think it is equationally, and because the bizarre nature of charge, or the possibility of attractive force at all, and gluons, there is the thought that because there is so much wild bouncing energy in such a confined space, somehow it is confined in say a sphere, and the parts in the sphere are maybe partly attracted to one another and partly repulsed, but they are slamming into the inner sphere wall, (imagine a large metal sphere in the vacuum of space very tightly sealed with vacuum inside and also an explosive device that goes off and the energy can't escape) so many times and so often with such energy, its as if it is the particles massness as well

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 06:18:56 UTC No. 16453260

site is behaving strangely, getting fake post successful messages for this only in this thread

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 06:19:59 UTC No. 16453263

>so, within a proton all kinds of quarks pop in and out of existence
That's how it's explained to the public but if you go look at the textbooks it's all modeled as correlations of fields that happen to be calculable with this nice diagrammatic method due to Feynman where sometimes the diagrams look like particles popping in and out of existence. But those diagrams don't even really work for modeling a proton. They sort of work to describe how the individual quarks, gluons, and antiquarks (collectively called partons) within a proton collide with sufficiently high energy particles, but even in that case you have to use something called a parton distribution function that you generally have to find experimentally which tells you what sort of partons you're likely to collide with. Some people have apparently had some success calculating parton distribution functions using lattice QCD, which is an entirely different technique from the diagrams and models everything as fields.

The short version is that in QCD it's often very hard to check that the theory really predicts what's been found experimentally, and 50%+ of any article for the public involving quantum physics consists of lies for children.

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 07:26:17 UTC No. 16453308

>>16452883
>Here we provide evidence for intrinsic charm by exploiting a high-precision determination of the quark–gluon content of the nucleon3 based on machine learning and a large experimental dataset
>evidence
>machine learning
aaaand this is why I left academia. This is what counts as research these days. Feeding data to an arbitrary non-linear regression calculator and taking whatever it spits out as the truth.

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 23:35:50 UTC No. 16454151

I must ask the smartest physics student on the board this question:

When the smallest single unit of light is emitted from a single source, describe the form of that light as it travels away from the source?

-------------
wvwvwvwvwv

))))))))

**********

>>>>>>>>

••••••••••••••

Or concentric circle like pond ripple

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 04:07:52 UTC No. 16455585

>>16454151
When walking at night and approaching traffic lights and car head lights, there are beams you see in your eyes, but only like 12 or so, what are these you are seeing and why so few?

Well all the other beams are registering as pure visualization, the localized green light, these register as beams.

A single beam comes from a single electron? A small circular area of space moving forward, called light?

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 07:56:33 UTC No. 16455678

>>16454151
depends on the shape of a source. If it's a point, then a spherical wave.

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 08:56:48 UTC No. 16455693

>>16452883
It gets worse than that. Protons have charm quark PDFs, implying if you accelerated protons to high speeds they now magically have charm quarks in them.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 18:06:34 UTC No. 16457244

>>16452883
quarktaart

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:58:24 UTC No. 16457457

>>16452883
If you scatter a photon off of positronium (an electron antielectron atom) hard enough you can produce a muon-antimuon pair. Positronium has a mass slightly less than that of two electrons and a muon has a mass of around 200 electrons. So how is this possible?

Well we don't say that positronium is composed of muons and antimuons even though we can formally define a muon parton distribution function for positronium (for experts see chapter 18.5 of Peskin and make the necessary replacements). A better way to think of it is that the muon field is excited by the natural electromagnetic field of positronium. Something similar is happening with the gluon fields of the proton exciting the charm field. In the positronium case the effect of the muon field has negligible effect on the positronium wavefunction, but in the strongly interacting case of the proton the effect due to the charm field is more significant.

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 04:22:26 UTC No. 16457774

>>16457457
op here, just ordered Michael E. Peskins
Concepts of Elementary Particle Physics, thanks for the hint, seems like a very interessting read!

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 14:52:17 UTC No. 16458246

>>16457774
Glad you're interested. I was referring to Peskin and Schroeder's introduction to quantum field theory textbook, but the particle physics book looks like a book a would have liked to read as an undergraduate.

raphael at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 02:48:44 UTC No. 16459222

>>16452883
string theory is an infinite regress fallacy