Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:59:09 UTC No. 16470702

>>16470679
>fake vacuum
A local minimum that is not the global minimum, ie there are minima below it.
>inflaton
It doesn’t imply it. Inflaton is a hypothetical field needed to drive inflation. Inflation was initially thought up as a second-order phase transition akin to what happens in superconductors and superfluids. Solid state people like Landau, Ginzburg, Bardeen and Cooper showed that such phase transitions are explained by scalar fields. This was applied to cosmology.

An important thing to note is that we still have no evidence of an inflaton. The original paper by Guth proposed that the inflaton is the scalar field that spontaneously breaks the Georgi-Glashow SU(5), which we haven’t observed. Strictly speaking, inflation theory is speculative. Don’t tell this to astrophysicists though, it makes them seethe and throw “it le matches with observations” cope.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:04:25 UTC No. 16470705

>>16470702
you know you sound like a schizo right now?
>local minimum?
>second order phase transition?
>Georgi-Glashow SU(5)?
you're just saying words that sound cool but have no meaning

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:05:37 UTC No. 16470707

>>16470705
I understand you not knowing physics jargon, but local minimum? Blud didn’t pass Calc I fr :skull: :skull:.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:05:54 UTC No. 16470708

>>16470705
>you're just saying words that sound cool but have no meaning
No meaning to you, because you're retarded.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:40:39 UTC No. 16470733

>>16470707
>>16470708
ok guys if you're so smart then explain what those words mean without word salad this time?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:50:01 UTC No. 16470741

>>16470733
>local minimum
first derivative is zero, second derivative negative
>second-order phase transition
a phase transition that isn’t “sudden”. Liquid-to-solid is sudden for instance.
>Georgi-Glashow
the simplest possible model that unifies electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces into one single force

If that’s not basic enough for you, then I’m really sorry, anon.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:56:36 UTC No. 16470748

>>16470741
*second derivative positive
always confuse the sign, but it’s not important for the explanation

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:06:15 UTC No. 16470757

Why was the theory for higgs needed?

Why did they think mass could not be an inherent quality?

Why they assume in the beggining was the big bang and the big bang was with the big bang and the big bang big banged and saw that it was good, but it was all massless because ______________


When you bring a N pole of magnet towards N pole of another magnet, you feel a repulsion, is the repulsion you are feeling, photons?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:17:26 UTC No. 16470766

>>16470748
lmao calling me a pseud when you don't have the concepts clear yourself

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:54:14 UTC No. 16470808

>>16470766
You ever seen a graph, anon?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:55:14 UTC No. 16470809

>>16470757
>Why did they think mass could not be an inherent quality?
Because the weak force only affects left-handed particles. Those have to be massless. Higgs is a workaround for that.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 19:11:31 UTC No. 16471150

>>16470702
>showed that such phase transitions are explained by scalar fields.
Please do go on ...

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:08:25 UTC No. 16471255

>>16470809
>Because the weak force only affects left-handed particles. Those have to be massless.
Explain I don't get it, how does it follow that there is no inherent mass of some particles(because?), but it is given by higgs

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:22:18 UTC No. 16471266

>>16471255
>how does it follow that there is no inherent mass of some particles
because those particles participate in the weak interaction (eg beta decay) and the weak interaction only interacts with particles of definite helicity (circular polarization). Massive states are a mix of helicities, so they cannot participate in the weak interaction by definition.
>inb4 but why
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_classification
>but it is given by higgs
The Higgs is a workaround. The Higgs interacts with particles via the so-called Yukawa interaction, which in certain cases (eg superconductivity) can simulate mass.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:30:03 UTC No. 16471277

>>16471266
The fact that particles can turn into others is psychotic, if true, and if not. Call an electron fundamental, and then say in a location where no electrons are present, one can appear and we are certain it came from that location where none were.

So weak force holds quarks together, no that's gluons, strong force holds protons to neutrons, weak force.... ohhh I just looked it up, higgs is a made up thing to explain a made up thing

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:42:11 UTC No. 16471287

>>16471277
>The fact that particles can turn into others is psychotic
If the Sun shining is psychotic to you, anon, then you should consult your doctor.
>Call an electron fundamental, and then say in a location where no electrons are present, one can appear
The electron field is present everywhere. Electrons are local excitations of the electron field, so there's no problem with them appearing. The electron field doesn't exist on its own, but interacts with other fields, so these interactions produce excitations.
>So weak force holds quarks together, no that's gluons, strong force holds protons to neutrons, weak force...
Sorry for your retardation, anon. They're two completely different forces.
>higgs is a made up thing to explain a made up thing
and somehow it exists in nature. Pretty neat, don't you think?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:50:10 UTC No. 16471294

>>16471150
Landau-Lifschitz Volumes 5 and 9

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 22:20:57 UTC No. 16471320

>>16471287
>The electron field is present everywhere. Electrons are local excitations of the electron field, so there's no problem with them appearing. The electron field doesn't exist on its own, but interacts with other fields, so these interactions produce excitations.
You can't say every field is present everywhere, there's not enough everywhere for that.

A)an electron is a fundamental particle composed of no parts
B)take non-electron X, Y, and Z and interact them where there is no electron and you will make an electron appear.

Circling back to the first sentence up there.
The Universe as a volume is 100% itself
100% of the universe is electron field
100% of the universe is up quark field
100% of the universe is down quark field
100% of the universe is the other quark fields
100% of the universe is EM field
100% of the universe is gravity field
100% of the universe is the higgs field
100% of the universe is the neutrino field
100% of the universe is the gluon field
100% of the universe is the w and z boson field
100% of the universe is the dark matter field
100% of the universe is the dark energy field
Probably some more too

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 22:39:57 UTC No. 16471342

>>16471320
>You can't say every field is present everywhere, there's not enough everywhere for that.
I can, it's a consequence of translation invariance.
>A)an electron is a fundamental particle composed of no parts
>B)take non-electron X, Y, and Z and interact them where there is no electron and you will make an electron appear.
The electron field is always there, it just gets locally excited, which we observe as a particle. It's really simple. Just open a book once in your life.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 23:31:04 UTC No. 16471391

>>16471342
>I can, it's a consequence of translation invariance.
Reality exists, you can describe it closer and further to accurately.

You believe you are accurately describing reality by saying: multiple real identity quantity and quality things, many types of multiple things, exist at every point of every space in the universe?

Take a cubic planck volume, how many real fields exist in the space and why do you believe you certainly know?
Or a cubic cm volume too.
You think 27 real, seperate, distinct, quantitative qualitative items are packed into every cubic mm of universe space?

Like pixels or chess board squares, all containing the ability to represent any particle, depending on what things pass by?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 02:00:53 UTC No. 16471520

>>16470679
>fake vacuum
A fake and gay universe, like this one.
>trve vacuum
The real and based universe. We must reach the trve vacuum.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 13:08:58 UTC No. 16471911

>>16471520
I agree. The way laws of physics work now is obscene. The Creator meant the universe to work in a specific way, and yet we have different laws of physics because we had the bad luck to land in a local minimum

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:09:59 UTC No. 16472092

>>16471391
>You believe you are accurately describing reality by saying: multiple real identity quantity and quality things, many types of multiple things, exist at every point of every space in the universe?
Yes. You can define multiple functions on a set. The set doesn't care.
>Take a cubic planck volume
Nigga, please, you're not qualified to talk about these things when you don't even known what local extrema are. You didn't pass Calc I, nigga.
>like pixels
definitely didn't pass Calc I

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 22:26:27 UTC No. 16472473

>>16470741
>first derivative is zero, second derivative negative
then speak in terms of derivatives
>phase transition that isn’t “sudden"
then call it non-sudden phase transition, fool
>>16470741
>the simplest possible model that unifies electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces into one single force
then call it nuclear electromagnetism, you silly boy

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 22:35:09 UTC No. 16472482

>>16471342
>The electron field is always there
You do not have proof. You guys just say God willed it, except that you do not want to involve God so you use the term Postulate instead.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 22:38:58 UTC No. 16472489

>>16472482
I do have proof. There's plenty of evidence of Lorentz invariance from atomic clocks to gamma ray burst observations.
>>16472473
never got the point of acting retarded

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:38:54 UTC No. 16472892

>>16472092
According to your feelings how many angels fit on the head of a pin?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:43:31 UTC No. 16472901

>>16472489
>There's plenty of evidence of Lorentz invariance from atomic clocks to gamma ray burst observations.
Explain the relation of that to:
>The electron field is always there

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 09:34:12 UTC No. 16473171

>>16472901
Translation invariance as I had already stated