Can someone explain this quantum physics concepts to me?

  • #26
of course it is probably a matter of semantics,
but looks like OP believed that matter = fermions
why? whats about the gluons? do they play any role? yes or no?
if answer is yes, then photons, responsible for the EM interaction, form mateer as well.
fermions are usually associated with matter

gluons are bosons which are associated with force carriers
 
  • #27
2,471
1
"fermions are usually associated with matter" - I know
My question, is it correct?
Can we say that a house is made of wood, and nails are not part of the house because they are just holding it together?
 
  • #28
4,239
1
There are plenty of examples of bosons which we normally call matter. Half of the atoms on an atomic chart are bosons. Half of the posters here are bosons.
 
  • #29
1,460
1
There are plenty of examples of bosons which we normally call matter. Half of the atoms on an atomic chart are bosons. Half of the posters here are bosons.
Pardon, but that's "Boatswain" in my case. I have the whistle to prove it! Nah... I'm not... :cries:
---

Anyway, if Fermions ALWAYS = Matter, why bother with such distinctions as "Fermionic matter" verusus the general "Baryonic Matter"? I think it's pretty cut and dry, especially, as you say half of what forms our atomic structure is the interaction of bosons... well... that's a constituent of matter. Anything else seems to be a semantic dodge, but maybe not "wrong".
 
  • #30
2,471
1
also, whats about pi-mesons?
They have rest mass, they consist of quarks, and at the same time they are 'force carriers'.
 
  • #31
505
0
ok let's have this as definition of matter:

matter is anything that can contribute to the energy-momentum tensor
 
  • #32
505
0
For example? (pure physical axioms, which can not be expressed in math terms are always interesting)
The axiom that one should try as much as possible to falsify a postulated/derived theory.

Thus physics has also elements which belongs to empirical science.

Math has no such element that it should be consistent with experiments/measurements - thus physics IS not math, but physics CONTAIN math.
 
  • #33
2,471
1
Math has no such element that it should be consistent with experiments/measurements - thus physics IS not math, but physics CONTAIN math.
Perfectly emulated exisence is REAL for the being 'inside' the virtual world, even they make any experimens they want. So experiments per se, self-consistency of physical reality, and agreement between measurements and theories can not in principle, provde that there is something "real", not "emulated"
 
  • #34
505
0
Perfectly emulated exisence is REAL for the being 'inside' the virtual world, even they make any experimens they want. So experiments per se, self-consistency of physical reality, and agreement between measurements and theories can not in principle, provde that there is something "real", not "emulated"
I do not follow you totally now, do you for the first agree upon that physics also has science as one of its building blocks?
 
  • #35
2,471
1
Physics IS science.
What you are saying is Physics is built using science + something more.
That "something more" (called 'word baggage' by Max Tegmark) shrinks to 0 when we move towards more and more fundamental concepts. In TOE it should be 0 (no word baggage, just equations)
 
  • #36
505
0
Physics IS science.
What you are saying is Physics is built using science + something more.
That "something more" (called 'word baggage' by Max Tegmark) shrinks to 0 when we move towards more and more fundamental concepts. In TOE it should be 0 (no word baggage, just equations)
I meant empirical science, math is science but not an empirical science.

You have non mathematical axoims in physics, which is that one should also falsify it by doing experiments and observations. This is the main difference between math and physics.

2 minutes ago, you said that Physics is Math.. now it is science ;)
 
  • #37
2,471
1
Yes, Physics=Math, Physics=Science -> Math=Science :)
 
  • #38
505
0
Yes, Physics=Math, Physics=Science -> Math=Science :)

So physics is only science since MATH is science? ;)

Does math have the falsification axiom so that physics inherit that as well or do we have to add that axiom to physics?

I say we have to add that, since math "only" have to be self consistent.

By the way, are you a working physicists? Myself is doctoral student in theoretical particle physics.
 
  • #39
2,471
1
1 Does math have the falsification axiom so that physics inherit that as well or do we have to add that axiom to physics?

2 I say we have to add that, since math "only" have to be self consistent.

3 By the way, are you a working physicists? Myself is doctoral student in theoretical particle physics.
1 Falsifiability had been abandoned by modern physics a long time ago.
People are talking about things going on inside the black holes, beyond the horizon... Cosmology claims that universe is the same even beyond the cosmological horizon (that it is almost flat) etc... Yes, it is abandoned or replaced with some weaker version. But it is not bad.

2 Max Tegmark gets rid of that difficulty claiming that ALL mathematical worlds exist.

3 Yes, and even more: I got a Nobel Prize... but... unfortunately, it all happened in an alternative branch of our MWI-Universe. In this branch I am just CTO of one software company, always re-examining the choice made 20+ years ago (computers/business vs physics) and thinking about gains and losses of both options (I had a chance to see the world, to live in the US an France, to be in control of my own life, vs being very poor (20y ago scientist in Russia were not paid well… now it is better, but don’t know to what extent).
 
  • #40
505
0
I know of Tegmark, but it he is just "one" guy, and even a bad philosopher...
 
  • #41
422
1
Somebody has pushed the "what is matter" question hard enough to land in the philosophy forum. Just don't overdo it as it can potentially cross over into religion.

I don't think we have grown to a level where we have the fundamental knowledge to push our concepts and axioms that far. Even the reality is math theory is a bit of a stretch and speaks more of religion to me(i.e. some ultimate truth about reality), than of physics or philosophy. I don't think philosophy has answers, though it has propositions and a lot of skepticism.

So "what is matter" only makes sense within the framework of a specific theory - QM, GR, ST. We have to first define according to what theory we are stating the definition what matter is.
 
  • #42
422
1
Perfectly emulated exisence is REAL for the being 'inside' the virtual world, even they make any experimens they want. So experiments per se, self-consistency of physical reality, and agreement between measurements and theories can not in principle, provde that there is something "real", not "emulated"


I agree that math is a true description of reality(as far as we know it now), but how come the certainty that matter and space are not made of something else, unaccounted for yet(the underlying reality, as some like to call it), and math be just a true description of that underlying reality?

What if reality is made of 1-D strings?
 
  • #43
2,471
1
In any case at some point the process stops.
And you get some entities which are defined only based on the relationships with the other entities.
 
  • #44
422
1
In any case at some point the process stops.
And you get some entities which are defined only based on the relationships with the other entities.


I am not disagreeing with you, just not sharing the certainty. Otherwise you are certainly correct in doubting the existence of matter and space the way we experience them. I guess it must have been 10 years ago or so, when i first read that a giant black hole with an immense gravity pull could swallow a whole galaxy of 100 million stars and turn its volume to zero, or very close to zero. At that time i knew we had a partial view of space, matter and reality.

At any rate it's hard to see the connection between personal experience and a mathematical reality unless you postulate a matrix style scenario. At the level where you postulate that nothing is real, you have to apply the Occam's razor. And if i apply the occam's razor and get rid of unnecessary assumptions, i have to conclude that it's all about me and everyone else is fake(if reality is fake, why assume people to be real after all?). I guess i am not that egocentrical. Or maybe you like the boltzmann brain theory?
 
  • #45
422
1
Physics IS mathematics (Mathematical Universe Hypotesis by Max Tegmark)

Do you know what Eta prime meson consists of?
Check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mesons



Just thought of something that could strengthen your position. I assume you have heard/seen about fractal mathematics and the endless level of complexity that can arise out of a fairly simple mathematical forumala like the Mandelbrot set:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_GBwuYuOOs&feature=fvst



There is inherent beauty and complexity in the Mandelbrot set(a really short equation) and it seems to me your mathematical TOE must be resembling a Mandelbrot set. Are the mathematical objects in the above video close to what you think of reality?
 
Last edited:
  • #46
2,471
1
Yes, but the formulas which define mandelbrot set are very simple.
 
  • #47
422
1
Yes, but the formulas which define mandelbrot set are very simple.

Sure, but it's still good enough to somewhat resemble traveling through outer space in the above video.
 

Related Threads on Can someone explain this quantum physics concepts to me?

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
71
Views
10K
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top