I really wish I understood all this stuff better. I have a high level understanding of what you folks do, but its hard to find any resources that go in more detail that dont require a degree in physics :-D
-
-
Replying to @ejpbruel @Astropartigirl
I agree it can get a bit jargony sometimes.. the main thing is that there are only a few properties that (anti) matter can have.. why? We measure (anti)matter all the time in the LHC.. as far as we can see, there are 3 fundamental forces (and hence 3 measurable properties)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @InertialObservr @Astropartigirl
Wait. Only three? I thought there were four! Electromagnetic, strong, weak, and gravity, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ejpbruel @Astropartigirl
Yes! And gravity but I left it out because it’s not a part of our fundamental particle theory.. but yes! It’s there haha
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @InertialObservr @Astropartigirl
I see what youre saying though. The fundamental forces are exactly those things we can measure to see what makes antimatter different from antimatter. If antimatter has some hidden property weve so far missed, thats akin to saying theres a fundamental force weve so far missed.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Which seems exceedingly unlikely! Im curious though: why exactly did you leave gravity out? Ive been told it doesnt really fit in the standard model, but in what sense?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ejpbruel @Astropartigirl
Well I left it out because I do a lot of particle physics haha.. But it doesn’t fit in the standard model because it is a Quantum Field Theory.. and it happens that when we follow our usual process to quantize a theory the equations become ill defined
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @InertialObservr @Astropartigirl
Ill defined in what way? Im a layman here, but are we talking about something like a division by zero?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ejpbruel @Astropartigirl
You’re fine. Great questions. First, I don’t think I can explain it better than Carlo Rovelli on
@seanmcarroll’s podcast.. but in essence, quantizing gravity means quantizing space and time.. hence the notion of a “point” becomes ill defined, which leads to problems1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Because a point is infinitesimally small, and such infinitesimals dont exist in quantized space?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That’s right.. quantized spacetime is discrete but Einstein’s field equations are defined over a smooth continuous region.. the prize is writing down a “gauge theory” that ultimately shows that in the macroscopic limit we get Einstein’s usual field equations
-
-
This actually makes sense to me! I really dont want to take up any more of your time, but I already learned several new things from our conversation. Thank you so much for talking!
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Sure thing! Look forward to more conversations. Good questions
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.