u/Pure_Option_1733

If I’m not mistaken no known interactions fit such a description, as while the weak interaction is mediated by massive bosons of different masses the W and Z bosons are also different in the sense that the W boson is electrically charged while the Z boson is electrically neutral. I know that while there don’t seem to be any gauge bosons that only differ in mass there are particles that seem to differ only in mass. For instance the only difference between electrons and muons is their mass and what follows from differences in their mass, and similarly the only difference between the up quark and the charm quark is that the charm quark has a greater rest mass than the up quark.

So I was wondering if QFT would allow for an interaction mediated by different gauge bosons that differ only in their rest masses that differ by multiple orders of magnitude even if there are no known interactions to fit such a description.

https://preview.redd.it/3r7vmdnljp1h1.jpg?width=975&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ff5a42375ea27e6eea48efae0d0c7611bf22764f

I notice it seems like oftentimes when someone says something along the lines, “Why would you think that?” it’s often not a genuine question to help understand the person, or at least it doesn’t come off as a genuine question. It also seems like oftentimes explaining why someone thinks something is seen as trying to argue in favor of the persons position. This isn’t just something that I’m getting from my own interactions, but it seems like this is the case with interactions I’ve observed in general.

To me both of what I mentioned above makes me think that people tend to outright consider it wrong to try to relate to someone if what the person thinks is considered wrong or bad, or at least consider trying to relate bad except in some special circumstances. If that’s the case the most likely explanation I can think of is that most people think trying to understand where the person is coming from would mean agreeing with them or trying to argue that their position is right or that it would be perceived as such. I can see how fear of being perceived as agreeing with someone would be a factor as I think I’m more likely to avoid trying to relate to someone, at least openly, if I think it‘s likely to get misinterpreted as agreeing with them.

When I think more about it however I know that I could be confusing cause and effect. For instance I can see how when someone thinks something that is wrong or bad that it’s hard to understand where they’re coming from. I can also imagine that if people have trouble relating to where someone comes from they might tend to assume that someone who relates to the person must agree with the person whether than the belief that trying to relate to the person implies agreeing with the person causing people to consider relating to said person to be wrong.

Both options seem a bit hard to relate to understand though for me. I mean I think oftentimes even the most hard to relate to beliefs have a seed of relatability. For instance even if a belief can be proven wrong with the right information, I think it‘s possible to still see how it might have face validity to someone without access to that information. I also tend to think that understanding where someone is coming from can help with getting them to change their opinion more than considering where they’re coming from to be irrelevant.

When someone makes a post that could indicate what they think in a way that could lead to actions with real world consequences, it’s difficult if not impossible to tell if they are in a position, for which they could take actions that affect the world based on what they think. I think knowing whether someone is in a position, in which they could take actions with real world consequences would help in determining whether it’s worth it to try to change their mind.

I think there should be tags automatically attached to a persons post that indicate what role they have in society, in a way that indicates if trying to change their position is worth it. For instance if a person promotes spanking the tags could indicate whether they have children, or are planning to have children as a measure of if trying to change their mind is worth it. If someone promotes expecting years of experience when getting hired there could be a tag that attached to their post indicating whether or not they are an employer. There could also be similar tags indicating what kind of roles the viewers of someone’s post would have, which could be achieved through magically predicting the future. For instance with the spanking example the tags could indicate whether the viewers of a persons post are mostly parents or people who plan to be parents.

You just had unprotected sex with someone, which could be someone you hooked up with as a one night stand, a friend with benefits, romantic partner etc. This person tells you that they have AIDS, and before having sex they either didn’t tell you that they have AIDS, or straight up lied that they don’t have AIDS.

How do you react in this situation?

It seems like in English it can sometimes get a little confusing when talking about liking someone as in some contexts liking someone means liking someone as a friend, or liking someone just as a person, and in other contexts it means having a romantic interest in someone. Similarly loving someone could mean in the romantic sense, but it could also mean loving someone as a friend, or loving someone as a relative, or maybe sometimes just admiring someone, such as loving someone as an actor or actress. Well oftentimes it could be easy to tell based on the context what kind of like or love people mean, but in some cases it could be a bit ambiguous.

So I was wondering if there are languages, in which people might use one type of “like” or ”love” when talking about romantic interest, and a different type when talking about other kinds of like or love?

I suspect that I have CPTSD, but don’t have neither an official diagnosis for CPTSD nor PTSD. I was wondering if most other people here have an official diagnosis or are suspecting that they have CPTSD or self diagnosed.

It seems like when it comes to ask culture vs guess culture, one of the main arguments in favor of guess culture is that guess culture is more polite, and I don’t think that’s really the case when really thinking about it. For instance if person A makes a negative assumption about what person B is implying, that isn’t based on the literal meaning of what B said, and then goes off on B for that, then I think that would be more in line with guess culture, at least in terms of As receptive communication, and it would also be very rude for A to make those negative assumptions about B and go off on B.

I think part of why guess culture could seem more polite is because rudeness could be more in implied communication in guess culture. I think that can make it easier to mistaken things that are said or done with good intentions as being intentionally rude within guess culture, because one has to detect rudeness through implied communication instead of through what someone literally means in guess culture.

I think rudeness could also be a lot harder to address in guess culture than in ask culture. I mean in guess culture one might need to interpret what someone means to figure out that someone is being rude. I think in ask culture it can also be easier to get someone to talk about any justifications they might use for rude behavior, so that those justifications can be addressed, while in guess culture one needs to guess as to what justifications another person might use for rude behavior, and it’s possible to guess wrong.

It seems like the general idea people have about the difference between an excuse and an explanation, is that when someone makes an excuse they’re actively trying to avoid improving or changing their behavior, or other things about themselves, or trying to justify their actions, while when someone gives an explanation they’re not trying to avoid changing or justify anything. I think using this distinction however it can be a lot harder to distinguish between an excuse from an explanation than it might seem, and here’s why.

Oftentimes when person A assumes that person B is using something as an excuse it comes from making inferences about implied communication whether than from what someone directly said. For instance if person B says, “I have a learning disability,” in relation to something like difficulty with spelling or difficulty with learning a subject, then person A might assume that person B is making excuses, even though person B hasn’t said anything about trying to justify anything or avoid trying to improve. I know one might say, “Well someone can imply something without directly saying it,” while that’s true interpreting implied communication is more susceptible to miscommunication and misinterpretation. This is especially the case when it comes to differences in how people communicate, and I think oftentimes the differences in communication that can cause an explanation to come off as an excuse can coincide with the need to give an explanation. For instance being autistic and being from a different culture can both cause differences in communication, but they can also cause more of a need for giving explanations.

To illustrate how Autism could make an explanation sound like an excuse, I think to me as an autistic person the concept that saying something like, “I have autism,” “I forgot,” or something similar would come off as meaning, “I’m not going to try to improve, or I’m trying to justify something,” is not intuitively obvious. I think this can mean that even if I notice patterns in when people say another person is making excuses, it’s not immediately obvious how to give an explanation that doesn’t come off as an excuse, because I can’t use my own intuition for when something comes off as an excuse, but instead need to rely on noticing patterns in how others react to things, or people explaining how to tell the difference between an explanation and an excuse. I think even when I have an intuitive idea of how to make an explanation not sound like an excuse it can be very different from how to actually make an explanation not sound like an excuse to others. I think to me oftentimes the simplest way of giving an explanation can be the most obvious, and similarly if I get accused of making an excuse saying, “It’s not an excuse it’s an explanation,” can be the most obvious way of trying to make an explanation not sound like an excuse, but the simplest way of giving an explanation can be the most likely to get interpreted as an excuse, and simply saying, “It’s not an excuse, it’s an explanation,” I found doesn’t seem to work in practice. More recently I’ve heard, that if someone says “I’ll do this to work around my challenges,” it’s a sign that something is an explanation, but for most of my life saying something along those lines to make an explanation not sound like an excuse has not been obvious, and I haven’t really had the opportunity to try it in practice. I think there’s also a chance that I might sometimes misjudge when people want or need an explanation for something and so give one when people don’t expect an explanation.

I think the other factor that can make an explanation sound like an excuse is that person B may not have the same struggles as person A, and so may not know when something is the result of person A genuinely struggling, and if person B assumes the worse about person A they may be more likely to mistaken a difficulty person A faces with a refusal to improve. I think this can especially be the case when A is able to do something, but it takes longer for A to do it, as some people may think that if A can do something they don’t need to adjust their expectations. For instance if A can learn to improve their spelling, but it takes longer for them to do so than B expects then B may assume that A is refusing to improve their spelling. If A improves very gradually then B may not notice the improvement.

I know this might initially seem like something minor, but the thing is it can affect pretty any area of my life, in which I might need to do things like advocate for myself, or ask for accommodations, including more important ones.

I understand that in Newtonian Physics, while it’s not possible in general to find analytical solutions to equations of motion for when there are more than two electric charges, given the positions of the electric charges, as well as their electric charges, it is possible to calculate the force vectors for the electric forces. Based on this I might think that in special relativity, if there are multiple electric charges, for which their positions are known, and their four velocities, and charges are known, and any magnetic fields are entirely from their motion, then it would be possible to calculate the four forces even if it wouldn’t be possible to find analytical solutions for equations of motion.

I find that it seems like the more I learn about the math of more advanced physics, the more I learn that some problems, who’s analogs can be solved analytically in newtonian physics, must be solved numerically in more advanced physics. For instance if I’m not mistaken in general relativity, if there are just two masses that both contribute significantly to spacetime curvature it is not possible to even find analytical solutions to the metric tensor, at least in the general case, while in Newtonian gravity it’s possible to calculate the initial gravitational forces acting on more than two masses analytically even if it is not possible to calculate equations of motion analytical solutions to equations of motion.

I found that it seems like in special relativity the electromagnetic four force depends on the electromagnetic tensor, which makes it a bit more complex than I initially was thinking, and is part of why I’m wondering if in special relativity, given multiple electric charges, it would be possible to find analytical solutions to the four forces on the electric charges, or if the four forces would also need to be calculated numerically.

Let’s say that any magnetic fields are entirely from the motion of the electric charges mentioned, and not from any permanent magnets.

The reason I say this is because if someone is being manipulated into saying or doing something, then it’s likely that they’re also going to be manipulated into saying that they are doing so under their own free will as well, or at least fill like they need to say that they are doing so under their own free will in order to appease their manipulator. I mean if someone was to manipulate me into doing something I wasn’t comfortable with then I think it’s unlikely that I would still feel comfortable saying I’m being manipulated. If someone says they’re being manipulated then they probably are but I really don’t think it can be assumed that someone who is being manipulated won’t just say that they are doing or saying something under their own free will in order to appease their manipulator.

As one example if someone was manipulated into donating an organ to a family member then it’s likely that they would also feel like they need to say that they are freely choosing to donate in order to stay on their manipulators good side, meaning that if someone says they’re donating of their own free will it says nothing about whether they are really freely making the decision as opposed to being manipulated.

I think trying to conform that someone isn’t being manipulated by simply saying they’re saying they’re not being manipulated is barely better than nothing and is more of a way of saying that they made sure someone did or said something under their own free will than of actually making sure it was. I think this is especially the case if there’s no attempt to test for trust issues, or to make certain that the person being asked if they’re choosing something of their own free will trusts the one asking.

I think sometimes will give answers to questions based on what kind of answer is going to be socially accepted. This can especially be the case if I think the answer could be stigmatized. It’s not always giving the answer that I think makes me look better either, but sometimes could be giving the answer that I think is more likely to be believed, less likely to be questioned, or less likely to start an argument. I think it’s related to how in the past sometimes when I gave answers that I thought were reasonable I would find that others would treat such answers as invalid. I mean I generally won’t out of the blue say something that I think is wrong, but sometimes if I think what I really think is the correct answer I’ll be stigmatized for it then I will give the answer I think others want me to give whether than what I think is the correct answer.

I was wondering if other autistic people here sometimes do the same. Do you think this would be a form of masking? I feel like maybe this would partly be influenced by my social environment and is something there should be more awareness for if this is common in autistic people in a social environment that involves pressure to give certain answers to questions.

I think what helps more is to think more in terms of the reasons behind behaviors, such as the experiences and challenges of autistic people.

As one example to illustrate my point, autistic people are more likely to face things like bullying and abuse, which can both affect behavior, and I think if one thinks of autism as a set of behaviors that can overshadow effects that bullying and abuse has on behavior. I think this was the case with me, as I was bullied and I think it did affect my behavior.

As another example I think sometimes I’ve been obsessed with things because I had trouble understanding them, or because I thought certain information was useful or important. I think thinking of being more interested in something as an inherent part of autism can again overshadow other factors like the one I mentioned.

As another example I think part of what made me interact less with people overtime is because people would sometimes react worse than I would expect to stuff. I think if people think that not interacting as much with people is just from being autistic and inherently having a lower desire for social interactions that can make things like social anxiety or difficulty getting along with others more likely to be overlooked.

I think thinking of autism as a set of behaviors can also lead to a less accurate idea of what it would mean to be more accommodating to autistic people. For instance if one thinks of a meltdown as being the inherent feature of autism as opposed to things like being more sensitive to some sensations then that could make it seem like the way to be accommodating is to just do nothing about meltdowns as opposed to using sensory accommodations to help prevent sensory overload. I think this could make the idea of being more accommodating seem more extreme than it is.

Now this isn’t to say that autism doesn’t affect behavior, but I think even when autism is a factor in behavior if there are other possible factors possibly contributing to a behavior they should not be dismissed just because someone is autistic. I also think in general it can be easier for people to relate to experiences and challenges than behaviors. For instance I think it could be easier for people to relate to something like taking something literally than to an action that comes from taking something too literally, or sensory overload may be easier for people to relate to than a meltdown.

If you choose the former the money would not come from the person who chopped off your arm, but it would instead be given to you by the government. The person who chopped off your arm would face no punishment for their crime if you choose the first option as they would serve no prison time and would have the same amount of money as they otherwise would.

If you choose the second option the person who chopped off your arm would be sentenced to 15 years in prison, but you wouldn’t receive any more money than you would have without the person chopping off your arm.

Reporting the judge for trying to bribe you into accepting letting the arm remover go isn’t an option in this scenario as the court gave you a drug that makes you unable to report the judge.

Which option do you choose in this scenario?

As far as I know there is no interaction that is known to be mediated by both a spin 0 gauge boson and a spin 1 gauge boson, as for each known interaction all of its gauge bosons have the same spin number, which for electromagnetism, the strong interaction, and the weak interaction would be 1, and if gravity is mediated by a gauge boson then it would be spin 2.

I was wondering though if an interaction mediated by both a spin 0 gauge boson and by a spin 1 gauge boson would be allowed in QFT, even if there are no known interactions that fit such a description.