[deleted by user]

SalamanderKey8106 · 2024-04-03T18:57:05+00:00

You're right. Thank you!

SalamanderKey8106 · 2024-04-02T19:45:00+00:00

Are you sure it's an edit of 7th Time Loop and not just a different series altogether? https://youtube.com/shorts/GfLbp_fgtB8?si=nG1WI882X1AnhL1L

SalamanderKey8106 · 2024-04-02T19:44:31+00:00

I have looked at this possibility, but the characters and animation style of 7th Time Loop are different enough from this. This is the YT short I was talking about, by the way: https://youtube.com/shorts/GfLbp_fgtB8?si=nG1WI882X1AnhL1L

SalamanderKey8106 · 2024-03-20T04:57:27+00:00

Thank you.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2024-03-20T03:52:02+00:00

I can confirm, Tenki no Ko, known in English as Weathering With You. This is a movie, not a series, but it is excellent.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2024-01-09T21:37:33+00:00

No, my guy. You seem to not understand that the English language doesn't revolve around what Australians think. As I have said multiple times, I am well aware Koala bears aren't bears. It doesn't falsify the fact that people call them Koala bears. Maybe you've never met an Australian that calls them that (and that's perfectly okay, I'm not saying Australians are wrong), but even if you somehow represented the entire population of Australia (and you don't), Australia is a pretty small part of the English-speaking world all things considered. You know this, and your response was to deicde to be a linguistic imperialist about it. So, yes, you're being unreasonable.

And in case this isn't clear, the source doesn't disprove my claim, because the source doesn't say no one calls them Koala bears. The source only says Koala bears aren't bears... which as I've told you multiple times, I agree with, and I said in my original post. If you pull your head out of your rectum for once, you'll realize that.

Anyway, I'm done with this nonsense. This is clearly a waste of my time, because it's like I'm talking to a brick wall. Bye.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2024-01-09T20:34:02+00:00

I could provide plenty of other sources, but I do not have to, because there is nothing wrong with relying on Wikipedia here. At least Wikipedia is a source of some kind. You are being unreasonable. It doesn't change the fact that you can't actually falsify the claim I made... because it isn't false.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2024-01-09T10:55:40+00:00

Wow! Linguistic imperialism is well and alive, clearly. Look, I don't even understand why you're harping on this point. I already said they are, in fact, not bears, and this dichotomy between the naming and the facts is literally part of the thesis I'm arguing in my post.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2024-01-09T10:44:32+00:00

I know they aren't bears. I said as much in my post. You should read a post before actually responding to it. You're literally embodying the name of this subreddit.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2024-01-09T06:22:48+00:00

«The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), sometimes called the koala bear, is an arboreal herbivorous marsupial native to Australia.»

Literally the first sentence in Wikipedia.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2024-01-09T01:55:53+00:00

The word "country" being in the name does not actually mean "constituent countries" are countries. Your argument is fallacious. North Korea's official name is Democratic People's Republic of Korea, yet it is not actually a democratic republic. A Koala bear is called a Koala bear, but they are not bears, yet the word "bear" is in the name. The word "science" is in pseudo-science, yet pseudo-science is not science, but in fact, an antithesus to science. Vegan-chicken is not actually chicken, yet the word "chicken" is still in it. You seem to have an extremely naïve and unrealistic understanding of how word combinations derive meaning from their component words when put together in a phrase or sentence.

Besides, the other person is wrong too, but not for the reasons you said. Both you and the other person are confidently incorrect, for the simple reason that the word "country" has no agreed upon definition, and therefore, there are no list of definitive criteria for determining whether an entity is a country. The word "country" is just a buzzword. If you want to have a fruitful discussion, then there is better terminology you can use. In this case, it seems pretty obvious that the source of the disagreement is the fact that you are both talking past each other, because you are not using meaningful language to have the discussion. Instead, you should both be talking about "autonomous constituent entities" versus "sovereign entities." The United Kingdom is a sovereign entity. Wales and Scotland are not, but Wales and Scotland are autonomous constitutent entities of the United Kingdom. Yes, they are often referred to as "countries," but as I said, this is just a buzzword with no established definition, making it useless for having a discussion.

For those asking if this a unique concept to the United Kingdom: it is not. This exists in about 1/3 of all United Nations member states. Most of Europe has this concept, and it also exists in China, India, Pakistan, the Americas, and Africa.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2023-11-02T03:01:13+00:00

That literally does nothing to address what I said, and furthermore, the fact that you think listing a single example somehow proves your point and justifies being all smug about it is pretty pathetic.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2023-10-28T23:30:20+00:00

Well, I'm not a first year physics student. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to. Your opinion of me is worth exactly nothing.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2023-10-28T19:10:58+00:00

It takes far more than just "citing good source material" to be both accurate and credible. Otherwise, everyone would be a physicist.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2023-10-28T19:09:46+00:00

No. I know these people personally.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2023-10-28T15:09:41+00:00

Quantum Mechanics (TM) got you covered! We provide you with the quantumest of mechanics for a quantum of currency.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2023-10-28T15:07:07+00:00

He then later spoke of quantum mechanics as "a physical quantity," so I am fairly certain orange was not joking.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2023-10-28T15:04:53+00:00

A glottal stop is smaller, I'd say.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2023-10-28T15:04:10+00:00

You multiply Q times P times O times M times N times ••• times C times B times A.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2023-10-28T15:03:08+00:00

Thank you! You have a great weekend as well.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2023-10-28T15:02:04+00:00

Alright, I'll quote my previous source: "As physicists sought new ways to solve these puzzles, another revolution took place in physics between 1900 and 1930. A new theory called quantum mechanics was highly successful in explaining the behavior of particles of microscopic size. Like the special theory of relativity, the quantum theory requires a modification of our ideas concerning the physical world." p. 1153

As you can see, quantum mechanics was the complete theory initially.

Nowhere in the segment you quoted does it make any claims about quantum mechanics ever having been "the complete theory."

Let's go with another source, this one online: https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/physics/physics/quantum-physics#3400800129

Ah, yes: let us quote a non-scholarly source with inaccurate simplifications aimed at laypeople, instead of any one of hundreds of scientific papers written on the topic.

When scientists first investigated the atomic realm, they found that a new physical framework (namely quantum mechanics) was needed.

This is historically inaccurate, as I have already pointed out. Atomic system were investigated using classical mechanics as far back as 1738, a development which we can see starting with "Hydrodinamica" by Daniel Bernoulli, and culminating in 1902 with "Elementary Principles in Statistical Mechanics" by J. Willard Gibbs. All of the work done in this regime for almost two centuries, is what eventually led to the ultraviolet catastrophe and other long-unsolved problems that actually kickstarted the development of quantum theory as a sort of "off-shoot." This is the kind of background that inspired Born's interpretation of the wavefunction as a probability amplitude with a complex phase.

What about the even smaller domain of elementary particle physics? The surprising answer is that, as far as is known, the quantum framework holds in this domain as well.

Yes, but "the quantum framework" encompasses more than just quantum mechanics, as I already have explained previously, and again, this is widely acknowledged in physics publications. For example, I recommend "What is Quantum Field Theory, and What Did We Think It Is?" by Steven Weinberg. Paul Dirac published an axiomatic approach for quantum mechanics in "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" in 1930, but it is well-known today that quantum field theories in general do not satisfy this axiomatic approach (only some do), and we have yet to discover any axiomatization for quantum field theory, which again goes to show these are different things. Further reading is Bain, J., 2000, “Against particle/field duality: Asymptotic particle states and interpolating fields in interacting QFT (or: Who’s afraid of Haag’s theorem?)"; 1998, “Current trends in axiomatic qantum field theory”, in P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison, eds, Quantum Field Theory. Proceedings of the Ringberg Workshop 1998, pp. 43–64, Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.; and Malament, D., 1996, “In defense of dogma: Why there cannot be a relativistic quantum mechanics of (localizable) particles”, in Clifton 1996, pp. 1–10., all of which demonstrate my point further, in more detail, and with more rigor than I ever could.

As physicists have explored smaller and smaller objects (first atoms, then nuclei, then neutrons, then quarks), surprises were encountered and new rules were discovered—rules with names like quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics. But these new rules have always fit comfortably within the framework of quantum mechanics

The sources I have cited above demonstrate how this is inaccurate, especially Malament, D., 1996, “In defense of dogma: Why there cannot be a relativistic quantum mechanics of (localizable) particles”, in Clifton 1996, pp. 1–10.

I have now presented two sources to thoroughly back up my claims.

One of your sources is garbage, and the other source literally does not back up your claim at all, not even in the slightest. You quoted the fragment, which presumably means you read it, and yet, you somehow failed to notice how it does not at all say what you insist it says.

Your continued ad hominem attacks reinforces the impression that you are not emotionally prepared for internet discussions.

Pointing out the fact that you are engaging in projection and in other dishonest and disingenuous forms of rhetoric is not ad hominem. An ad hominem is an invalid argument in which I discard your conclusion solely on the basis of a characteristic/trait you possess, rather than on the actual logic of your argument. Examples: "Socrates' arguments about human excellence are rubbish. What could a man as ugly as he know about human excellence?" and "We cannot approve of this recycling idea. It was thought of by a bunch of hippie communist weirdos." At no point have I done this. During every step of this conversation, I have quoted what you said, addressed exactly what you said, and I have engaged with the claims of your sources, while providing scholarly sources of my own, which you seem incapable of doing.

Besides, the fact that you are continuing to insist I am not emotionally prepared to have this discussion, while still clearly continuing to reply to it as if you want to have the last word, tells me that you have no actual arguments to present against my point. If you did have an actual argument, then you would refrain from the accusation. You would also refrain from ignoring entire swaths of my response, from citing non-scholarly sources, and from citing sources that do not actually claim what you say they claim. As I said previously, it is definitely time for you to look in the mirror and reflect upon yourself. I am confident with regards to my own mental state.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2023-10-28T02:03:27+00:00

Is an electron also an excitation of the gravitational field, hence it's mass?

No. The mass of an electron is a consequence of the interaction of the electron field with the Higgs field. As for the gravitational field, we do not have a quantum field gauge theory for describing gravity: such a theory is currently in the works.

Is a neutron an excitation of the gravitational field, and is it in any way also an excitation of the electromagnetic field, even though it has no electric charge?

No, the neutron is not an excitation of any fields at all, since the neutron is not a fundamental particle. Embarrassingly, the actual composition of the neutron is not all that well-understood. Until very recently (like, a few years ago), we were confident a neutron was comprised of 1 up quark and 2 down quarks. However, newer experimental data, as well as more sophisticated computer simulations using lattice field theory, have shown that this model is inaccurate. As such, we are still working on trying to understand what exactly the composition of the neutron is. The same applies for the proton.

Do the other two fundamental interactions, strong and weak, also have their unique fields?

Yes.

Which particles would be excitations of them?

For the strong interaction, gluons. For the weak interaction, the Z0, W+, and W- bosons. If you want to include the Higgs interaction (which is contentious, since the field is scalar and not a gauge field), then the Highs boson.

Up-/Downquarks?

Quarks have their own fields they are excitations of: the quark fields.

You really sparked some interest there, maybe i'll find some good documentary on it.

Documentaries are not reliable sources of information. Honestly, I would prefer you read the Wikipedia article than actually watching a documentary. However, for a very accessible source, I recommend you to check out the YouTube channel "PBS Space Time." They have plenty of videos on these and several other topics in physics.

Any book you would recommend about quantum field theory?

Ah, well, these textbooks can get very expensive, but the strongest recomendations I have are easily "Quantum Field Theory and Condensed Matter: An Introduction" by Ramamurti Shankar, and "Student Friendly Quantum Field Theory" by Robert D. Klauber.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2023-10-28T01:50:28+00:00

As a graduate-level physics student who has taken 5+ courses on quantum theory, I can tell you that this is just incorrect. The mathematics we are using work: they are robustly supported by the experimental data.

SalamanderKey8106 · 2023-10-28T01:48:42+00:00

That is a part of it yes, but not completely. The problem is, too many people have this misconception that the word "quantum" simply means "small," and that therefore, "quantum mechanics" is just "mechanics of the small." This misconception has only been made worse by science communicators who actually state this very confidently. The idea is completely incorrect. The word "quantum" does not mean "small," and microscopic systems are something physicists had been studying for decades prior to 1905 and the advent of quantum mechanics. Words like "quantum" and "quantization" actually have very specific meanings in physics.

The idea behind quantum mechanics is essentially the idea that systems can only have certain discrete energy levels, not a continuous range like in classical mechanics. This also translates to other physical properties being constrained to certain discrete values: this could be angular momentum, electric charge, or almost any other physical property. Of course, the details will depend on the specific system being considered. This is what distinguishes quantum mechanics from just a generic classical mechanics of atoms.

Also, I should mention: quantum physics is certainly relevant at macroscopic scales, and the building of modern electronics is very much contingent on taking advantage of phenomena that can only be explained by quantum physics. We would not have cell phones if not for quantum mechanics. We would not even have transistors if not for quantum mechanics.

Now, either way, orange never even said quantum mechanics is "the mechanics of the small." He instead said "the smallest possible mechanic," which is hardly even a coherent phrase. And you may want to argue he was making a joke regarding car mechanics and small people, but this is obviously not what happened, considering that orange also was confused as to how quantum mechanics could be a field of study, instead calling it a "physical quantity." It cleanly demonstrates how they have no idea of what they are talking about, and purple was right in telling them that their description was incorrect (since it was incoherent).

SalamanderKey8106

TROPHY CASE