Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 01:00:22 UTC No. 16587427

you sound just as retarded as sabine.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 01:10:08 UTC No. 16587435

>>16587419
>If something's here and something's there, they’re two different things.
If you see two trees, do you sperg out and go "we cannot call these two things trees, because they're clearly different things!" There's the electron field, which is everywhere at any time due to translation invariance being the fundamental symmetry of Nature. You are free to disprove this by empirically showing conservation of linear momentum and/or energy is violated. The same translation invariance ensures that all excitations of the electron field, what we call electrons, are of the same mass (mass is the quadratic Casimir invariant of the translation group). The same symmetry arguments guarantee that all electrons have the same spin and charge. Lastly, quantum mechanics claims that all particles are indistinguishable and produces verifiable predictions to confirm this. One of these predictions is that you exist and don't collapse into a neutron star, ie the Fermi degeneracy pressure. All of this is easily accessible online.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 01:26:56 UTC No. 16587445

hide all youtuber threads

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 01:34:31 UTC No. 16587453

>>16587435
>Lastly, quantum mechanics claims that all particles are indistinguishable and produces verifiable predictions to confirm this

not the one you're replying to.

I mean. this might just be a deranged philosophical musing. but. how can something that produces identical particles give rise to complexity that is unique at higher levels? For example: at macro levels. organisms are each unique. Even twins. Even as we sit still, with each passing moment of time,our skin cells divide, our internal and external microbiomes technically produce a unique pattern that constitutes a very specific configuration of "you". which could theoretically could be transcribed/mapped, though it is beyond our current technology. But like. Theoretically. doesn't that mean we're "flagged" in spacetime? it's like a timestamp. our momentary configuration.
But that implies stuff exists as potential as well as actuality?

uh.
my brain hurts

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 01:34:59 UTC No. 16587454

>how can a photon be a wave and particle at the same time?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 01:51:28 UTC No. 16587465

>>16587453
>how can something that produces identical particles give rise to complexity that is unique at higher levels?
There's a plethora of books on statistical mechanics. The standard undergrad textbook is by Schroeder. To answer your question. Consider a mechanical watch. All of its parts are just springs and various other very simple thing. Does this imply a mechanical watch is simple?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 02:07:36 UTC No. 16587475

>>16587454
>having wave-like properties
>is a wave

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 02:44:13 UTC No. 16587509

>>16587419
While retards like you keep sniffing your own farts someone is going to make it work big time, and Elon will become the first trillionaire because all other billionaires chicken out at the first adversity.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 03:18:18 UTC No. 16587537

>>16587419
Quantum physics is dubious. I ignore any sentence with the word "quantum" in it

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 03:19:17 UTC No. 16587538

>>16587465
I asked about identity though? how do identical particles form unique complex patterns if they're themselves indistinguishable? And where's all the information about higher levels of complexity stored? is it just baked into spacetime even at vacuum? but how would we even test this?
Does information still exist when nobody is around to perceive it?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 09:36:40 UTC No. 16587700

>>16587537
>can't understand shit
>so not real

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 12:30:52 UTC No. 16587820

>>16587475
yes having wave properties is indeed the definition of being a wave

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:16:26 UTC No. 16588019

>>16587419
>If something's here and something's there, they’re two different things.
no
a wave is in more than only one place
which is another reason why particles need to be junked
>an electron can be in two places at once
exactly
think of electron waves
and the photoelectric effect

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:33:56 UTC No. 16588034

>>16587820
Except these properties aren't wave properties at all. There is nothing that you can point to that is a wave that has self interference. It is all interferences between little things.
Thus, all the quantum mumbo jumbo is just a misunderstanding of terms.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:37:46 UTC No. 16588040

>>16588034
>There is nothing that you can point to that is a wave that has self interference.
I'm pretty sure you can just do the same double slit experiment but with a wave on the surface of some water and you get the same self-interference

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:49:14 UTC No. 16588054

>>16587419
>Can anyone actually explain how an object can be in two places at once without playing word games?
Position is inherently a relational concept. It's not an intrinsic property. If "two" objects don't differ in any intrinsic properties, in what sense are they different objects?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:22:27 UTC No. 16588090

>>16587538
Dude what complexity? The only consequence is the exclusion principle, fermions cant occupy the same space while bosons can. Thats why you can just focus light while common matter resists being compressed. Yes, thats going to matter at the level of an atoms so all the electrons are going to be somewhat spaced and not bunched at the same point

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:25:08 UTC No. 16588196

>>16587419
The entire universe is one thing at every place at once.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 21:31:08 UTC No. 16588466

>>16587538
I asked you to think about the watch and that flew over your head…. Who cares if they’re identical or not? Things being distinguishable or not is not related to the complexity of ensembles at all. What makes an ensemble complex or not is the degree of interaction between these constituents, not the nature of the constituents themselves.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:08:07 UTC No. 16589489

>>16587538
>how do identical particles form unique complex patterns if they're themselves indistinguishable? And where's all the information about higher levels of complexity stored?
I think I see what you're getting it: if the particles are identical, it means that they, in and of themselves, don't encapsulate information about where they are located in a greater structure (otherwise this would be part of their identity, allowing you to distinguish between them); but if everything is matter, yet no bit of this matter encapsulates the information about structure, what does encapsulate it? Space itself? Personally, I have no idea, but you are asking a legitimate and interesting question. Don't let midwit autists gaslight you.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:15:41 UTC No. 16589499

>>16587538
>>16589489
You know what your suggestion about it being "baked into spacetime" makes me think of? Some kind of origami structure made of a reflective surface inside an enormous dark room, with a single point of light being reflected countless times by the surfaces, producing the appearance of a sculpture made from many dots of light.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:40:27 UTC No. 16589521

Everything common of two split phenomen? All particles have electromagnetic field! Even suspoaedly neutral stomsa in't so neutral when looking things up and close. Photons? EM wave IS an electromagnetic field