Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 15:53:59 UTC No. 16454858

>>16454851

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 16:49:47 UTC No. 16454908

>>16454851
"particles" are a concept based on our macroscopic view of a world of solid objects. these concepts start to not make sense when you zoom in on what these objects are made up of.

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 20:06:51 UTC No. 16455166

>>16454858
Interesting, thank you.

>>16454908
Noted, that’s what I had figured/read.

On the other hand, though, are “fields” or “strings” the most fundamental, describable unit of reality that we are currently able to discern, or is there something more basic than them?

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 22:44:54 UTC No. 16455359

>>16455166
Fields and strings aren’t the same. We don’t even have any evidence of the latter.

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 23:19:49 UTC No. 16455374

>>16454858
Fake & Gay

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 23:46:14 UTC No. 16455402

>>16455359
I wasn’t saying that they were, and I am aware that strings have only been described mathematically.

I’m asking if these are considered the ultimate basis for reality in mainstream science, or if there is something more fundamental currently being theorized.

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 23:53:30 UTC No. 16455404

>>16455402
No. If strings do exist there would be nothing more fundamental.

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 00:03:24 UTC No. 16455412

>>16455404
What about for fields?

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 00:27:17 UTC No. 16455426

>>16455412
String theory is not a field theory. QFT is about excitations in a field. ST is about excitations of strings.

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 00:33:07 UTC No. 16455428

>>16455426
Yes I am aware.
I’m not asking that.

I’m asking that in these two different theories, are fields and strings the most fundamental principles of matter?

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 00:34:19 UTC No. 16455429

>>16455428
They are different theories. ST would supersede QFT, fields would not be fundamental.

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 00:39:53 UTC No. 16455431

>>16455429
Yes, I am aware.

Ok, one last time for clarity.

Are fields the most fundamental unit in QFT?

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 00:59:17 UTC No. 16455445

>>16455431
Yes. According to QFT everything in the universe is fields.

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 01:01:30 UTC No. 16455446

>>16455445
Coolies, thank you.

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 05:51:03 UTC No. 16455637

>>16454851
>>16454858
Water waves are made of water particles
Air waves are made of air particles
Light waves are made of light particles
Earth waves are made of earth particles

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 07:57:33 UTC No. 16455679

>>16455166
>On the other hand, though, are “fields” or “strings” the most fundamental, describable unit of reality that we are currently able to discern, or is there something more basic than them?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. Many quantum field theories and string theories turn out to be equivalent to each other through the "double copy" and gauge-gravity duality. By incorporating gravity along with conditions like causality and black holes obeying known principles of thermodynamics, the string lamppost principle implies the only mathematically consistent quantum field theories you can write down are equivalent to string theories. And all string theories, despite looking radically different on the surface level, are equivalent through various other kinds of dualities. Then there is matrix theory, where the primitives are neither fields nor strings, but is equivalent to string theory anyway. There are many perspectives of the coin and it's possible one can't necessarily be singled out as "fundamental".

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 08:50:58 UTC No. 16455691

>>16455679
>quantum field theories and string theories turn out to be equivalent to each other
Sounds like Malding Cena cope
>through the "double copy" and gauge-gravity duality
>gravity
>gauge
Not this horse shit again. Gravity is described geometrically via GR, not a gauge theory.

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 09:09:10 UTC No. 16455700

>>16455691
>cope
>horse shit
>gravity is a classical limit of gravity
impeccable arguments

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 18:52:39 UTC No. 16456118

>>16454858
>How can an object be two irreconcilable things
>Have you tried thinking about it as being these two irreconcilable things at once?

He says literally nothing in all that.

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 20:06:08 UTC No. 16456184

>>16454858
The uncertainty principle isn't even that mysterious.
Try to create a sound signal with a certain frequency.
Make it as short as possible so it becomes a pulse. You will now need an large amount of frequencies to create the signal.
You can only have a single frequency signal that's infinitely long. Frequency and location in time can't be determined at the same time with arbitrary precision.
A narrow function has a wide fourier transform

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 00:31:00 UTC No. 16456437

>>16456184
every pair of complementary observables follows the uncertainty principle, but not every pair is a fourier pair

all the information needed to describe a sound wave in classical physics with infinite precision can be obtained in principle because all commutators vanish, while this isn't true in quantum physics

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 00:49:15 UTC No. 16456457

>light bulb "emits a photon" by sending out this wave made of jshshekuxhrh through a medium of dkdjshskj expanding outwards at the speed of light
>every time the wave passed over matter, it rolls the dice to see if it will interact
>eventually, it will roll for particle to interect with
>waveform will collapse, and the light bulb will instantly transfer its energy to that particle
>actually, I never sent out a wave at all, it was a particle travelling through space the whole time, lmao fooled you
>all this despite the fact that many of these interactions together make it look like a wave form

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 05:53:33 UTC No. 16456686

>>16456437
Hm well it has to do with the natural reverberation of the medium? Frequency is the idea of how frequent something occurs.

So a sound wave of 4 frequency and 7 amplitude might be

7 force sound wave
7 force sound wave
7 force sound wave
7 force sound wave


I think who you're responding to was trying to get at, what if the frequency is 1.
Is that possible with sound, If it were would it make sense.
I geuss so,
7 force sound wave

What's the minimum possible htz, .00000000001hz

And wavelength in there somewhere top

But usually sound vibrates some material and it automatically oscillates into itself and the air, frequently more than once.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 17:57:49 UTC No. 16457236

>>16456437
>all the information needed to describe a sound wave in classical physics with infinite precision can be obtained in principle
Yes but the frequency of a sound pulse still can't be obtained because there's no such thing just like a localized particle can't have a single momentum value