Nah, it just means that electrons are made up of even smaller parts.

>>7967289
nah you mom spreading her legs is what indicates that reality might be simulated.

Not it means all electrons are actually just the same electron.

>>7967289
What does that have to do with anything? Are all identical things necessarily simulated? Where's the justification for this pattern?

>>7967298
It proves that the building blocks of reality are infact quantified just like 1s and 0s.

>>7967303
more like object-oriented

>>7967297
This

>>7967305
Thats reductionism. Objects are made of various particles and not identical, these things are. This is a particle that is indivisible, not made up of smaller entites and all of them have the exact same properties no matter where you are in the universe.

>>7967309
no i meant related to computer programming

in a language you can have multiple instances of [exactly the same data] - these are called objects

>>7967289
Why should they be different?

>>7967328
Who said they should be ? We're discussing the implications of them being identical.

>>7967297
So, what then? Electron is a time traveler that shows up in multiple locations at the same time?

>>7967329
Particles (electrons, quarks, protons) all being the same is evidence for one thing, implies that being different would be evidence for something else.

If being the same is evidence of a simulation, why would being different be evidence of a non-simulation?

>>7967289
To add to that, the Planck scale - that is, an idea of "shortest possible time" or "smallest possible movement" - implies the same precision problem as in computers.

>>7967334
Welcome to the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics.

>>7967342
Expand on this plox

I know basic quantum (griffiths level)

>>7967334
not necessarily. We have no way of knowing if more than one electron exists at any particular time. What we do know is the probability of finding an electron at a given space or time. There aren't electrons, there isn't "one electron traveling through time", it's all just an electron wave-function.

>>7967341
That isn't what the Planck scale is; it is a system of units defined from various fundamental constants. People posit that it may represent some inherent resolution of quantum theory based upon commutators, but this is very far from a strict quantization of space or time.

>>7967334
There is only one EM quantum field, electrons are simply excitations in this field. It's all energy senpai.

>>7967341
Planck scale is a ridiculous theory and doesn't exist. Please don't mention it again.

>>7967341
Nope.
The Planck length is just the length at which QFT breaks down and needs to be replaced by quantum gravity - it isn't the "shortest length". Even in theories which have a discrete length scale you still don't necessarily have a shortest length. It's like angular momentum - it takes discrete values when measured, but you can vary the angular momentum of a physical system continuously.

>>7968103
You're on a website where the majority of users think they're in The Matrix. Planck scale is among the least ridiculous things they believe in.

>>7967342
There can be multiple electrons in path integrals. In fact, there generally will be. The reason that all electrons look the same is because there is just one electron field, and all electrons are excitations of this field. It's the same reason that magnets react the same to a magnetic field no matter where you are, because there is only one magnetic field that varies from point to point. When you quantise the EM field you get photons, which can come in discrete packets (though there are plenty of situations with an indefinite number of photons, like the coherent field around an electron), and when you quantise the classical electron field, which has no particles and varies continuously like the EM field, you get electrons. This does not mean there is just one electron. That was a suggestion of Wheeler to his then student Feynman, and it doesn't mesh well with what we know from experiment. This idea is not required to define or compute any kind of path integral, and path integrals are much more general than that.

>>7967289
nothing (but human bias) can indicate that reality is simulated

>>7967452

>electrons are simply excitations in this field

Stop spreading misinformation please. The photon is the quanta of the EM field (an 'interaction' field). Electrons are excitations in the electron field, a fermionic ('matter') field.

>>7967334
A wave/particle/sphere moving in all directions on(and as) '..[a,b,c,d[a,b,c,d[...]]]..' coords/axis/dimension/space.
Each being both a particle and a wave with different frequencies yet still all one of the whole same.

>>7967334
Also theres no such thing as "time".
Time is a figurative term for observing differences between movements of processes.
Space it self is 'time-less'(just as it is actually 'dimension-less' too).

>>7967334
welcome to yourself :)

>>7968219
there is no electron field, it's just a subfield of the EM field. The only difference between an electron and a photon is that the electron has a different mass and charge and spin. They are both different forms of the same excitation in the EM field.

>>7968312
Correct. Also not many know of the following but, proton fusing INTO a proton become wave of an electron, electron fusing into an electron come a proton, proton fusing into an electron becomes a neutron(stable 'filled' space, form), neutron fusing into a neutron becomes space(stable not 'filled' space, no form).

>>7968312
No, there is an electron field, which is the quantised version of a Grassmann valued field, and the photon field is the quantisation of the classical EM field, which is a vector field.

>>7967314

Computer programming reduces to 0s and 1s as well. Object-oriented programming hasn't always been a thing.

>>7968340
i know but m8 if you want to pretend its all pixels youre gonna lose ok
just say its all computer code and electrons are objects and reality is the language

that way humans get to be like, really complex programs, how cool is that, duuude

>>7968338
7968312 has meant something else, I got what he meant and what he meant is very correct.

>>7968161
Thread

>>7968337
Your "fusions" violate lepton and hadron conservation.

>>7968351
Not attach kind of fuse but go through each other lit.
When they manage to go through each other by the right condition(pattern) they switch places with their opposite stable coord.(by method of taking away from the 0) as in,
(-) point space changes place with a stable (0) space on its opposite point making it (+).
(+) point space changes place with a stable (0) space on its opposite point making it (-).
Space itself always stays 'stable' and 'synchronized'.
Creating an effect of electron(-) being everywhere where its needed due to it being a negative charge to a stable too.

>>7968342
holy shit this triggered my autism

>>7968161
On the photon note, it just occurred to me that photons move in a wave form and the wave size changes how it affects the outer world. If light moves forward at a constant speed c, does it move along its wave path at an even faster speed? Or am I just retarded and the photon moves along its wave at speed c?

>>7968401
The photon isn't actually moving along a sinusoid. The word photon was invented to describe the peak (or trough) of the electric wave (or magnetic wave, it doesn't really matter). These peaks are perpendicular to each other and the wave propagates perpendicular to them both at c. The photon doesn't oscillate, it IS the oscillation.

>>7968401
I can't even...

>>7968418
...there were some people here that sounded like they knew something about QFT, but you certainly aren't one of them.

>>7968444
Why do you think that? Is it because you're so retarded that you actually believe what I said is ridiculous even though it's completely accepted as fact in the physics community? You should really learn to shut the fuck up and lurk more or just get the fuck out before you make claims about what I know about QFT.

>>7968454
The problem with your comparison is that photons are excitations of some mode of the EM spectrum and should thus be tied to the amplitude of the waveform, not where peaks or troughs are. You can create such a localized form through the construction of wavepackets, but then you are including a large number of photon modes and the comparison to the classical picture is broken as the photon is no longer associated with a single sinusoidal waveform, but a very large number of such waveforms.

idk why you guys are getting fiesty, waves and particles are both just facets of the same phenomenon (which we can't detect directly)

and you guys call string theorists lost

>>7968480
>photons are excitations of some mode of the EM spectrum and should thus be tied to the amplitude of the waveform, not where peaks or troughs are.

You realize that the amplitude of a wave is the same thing the peak of the wave, right?

>>7968504
I'm pretty sure he meant temporal location of peaks & troughs, i.e. "frequency"

File: news.2010.381[1].jpg (6 KB, 260x325) Image search: [Google]

6 KB, 260x325

Answer me this :

Say you recorded a single particle upclose moving 1 Planck unit. Then you slow down this recording about 400x times. Do you think you'll see the particle simply teleporting from one planck unit to another, or would it slowly move that distance ?

I don't think a concept like a planck length can exist without some kind of really spooky quantified background calculation and it would actually move the distance in a time dependant natural way.

>>7968527
considering particles can teleport from one energy level to another without occupying any energy in between I can conclude that you have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about and should refrain from holding any opinion whatsoever

>>7968549
You don't have to shitpost just because you're not capable of answering it you know.

>>7968551
yeah but I'm bored

>>7968552
How about you answer the question. Would the particle simply teleport from one planck unit to another, or would it slowly move that distance ?

>>7968527
If you were trying to observe particles this way Heisenberg would shit all over your dreams.

It definitely indicates that electrons have identical properties. This doesnt indicate any properties of the nature of the universe.

If 2 identical twins become synchronized swimmers and wear identical outfits, does this indicate that their performances are simulated?

>>7968572
It would mean they are precisely programmed.
Don't forget that they all have the exact same weight to the last digit. Not one more or one less.
And we're talking about every single electron in the universe, not two of them.

>>7968527
A planck length is a minimum length something can be, its the smallest unit of distance something can occupy. Contrary to popsci belief, a planck length is not a pixel and the object would move through it.

Total distance must be 1 planck length, but there is no grid objects flicker through.

>>7968578
> A planck length is a minimum length something can be
I know this completely different. I thought planck legth was the minimum distance anything can travel which lead to questions about quantized universe and shit

>>7968578
>>7968584

Where are you people getting this from? The Planck scale was literally made by combining fundamental constants to get units. Aside from that, the best you can say is that within quantum mechanics, events occuring below the Planck scale are always obscured by confinement effects and so the quantum mechanical description breaks down.

>>7968555
Well what a retarded question. Wouldn't it moving there slowly imply the planks length isnt them smallest distance??

>>7968653
Old physics professor. Said the smallest radius an object can have is a planck length. We were talking about strings. But strings vibrate, which means they can move within one cubic planck length.

>>7968779
Stupid string theorists; fucking shit up for the rest of us. Within the confines of string theory, the statement has some validity, but how valid the conclusions of string theory are for reality are increasingly suspect.

>>7967289
>all electrons in the universe are identical

They are not identical. Just because the techniques and devices used to differentiate electrons from each other say they are all the same, doesn't mean they are all the same. There can be two reasons for this,

1: Electrons are different in ways we have not thought of or that we can ever measure.

2: The devices used to differentiate electrons from each other are not sensitive enough to detect differences (like trying to play a record with a hot dog instead of a needle in a dark room; all records seem the same when using the hotdog).

>>7968653
Its turtles all the way man.

Humanity is insane chasing an ever out of our grasp answer.

>>7968880
Shooting for quads

>>7968881
Oh im gettn deez quads

>>7968887
Fuck

File: 1457675279469.jpg (48 KB, 499x499) Image search: [Google]

48 KB, 499x499

>>7967290

I don't think you really know what eletrons are

File: britney-spears-shaved-head[1].jpg (50 KB, 800x879) Image search: [Google]

50 KB, 800x879

If clones are identical, does that mean they are simulated?

>>7967289
The fact that you can only perceive the reflection of reality that your brain can process indicates that reality as you know it is a simulation.

>>7968133
You means since we are all trapped in an individual matrix of neurons with electrically simulated sensory experience as far as science can tell?