/sci/ - Science & Math

Pic related. It's 433Eros. It's a N.E.O. that contains a mineral worth on par with the the global economy's GDP.

Many of you wish NASA, and humanity in general, need to make greater progress for the sake of the continued existence of humanity. You wish it despite gaining nothing from it as you will already be dead, in fact increased funding to NASA will only make your life harder due to greater taxes. Thus these wishes are for all intents and purposes selfless. However, though humanity WILL persist in space long after we die, said colonization will be done for purely selfish reasons:

1) Even if we could recycle 100% of the substances we use today there will always be a growing demand for more, so we mine.

2) Earth has a finite supply of minerals, some of which will be all but depleted within a generation or two.

3) When supplies of a given substance run out, prices skyrocket, allowing for previously cost-ineffective sources of said mineral to become viable.

4) Even if humanity began tapping the mineral deposits within currently unprospected regions such as in Antarctica or the ocean floor, those deposits will one day run out too.

5) Humanity can theoretically delve deeper and deeper into the Earth's mantle to harvest minerals, but the deeper one goes the greater the cost.

6) One day the cost of mining some given mineral on Earth will be greater than mining a much richer deposit in space.

7) As space mining methods develop, mining will become cheaper, and human industry in space will spread.

8) Even if mining operations are carried out autonomously there will always be odd jobs for humans to carry out for truly massive mining operations; and because humans cannot function without other humans around they will exist in space as groups, ie small colonies.

9) When the space infrastructure exists to mine the substance required for, build, and fuel more machines human expansion in space will cease to be geometric and instead become exponential.

QED

>>1980519
I don't want to get into a discussion of the definition of atheism as the neutral theological position. I'm just hammering out my own "clock with no parts" argument against the concept of God.

>>1980271
>I like your argument, but wonder if saying "there is no reason to think A," couldn't be changed to,"A is impossible in our causal universe."
I'm not so audacious to claim that it is impossible for an intelligence to exist without parts and physical dictation, if only because I don't have the knowledge base to argue with any angsty philosophy major that comes around wanting to poke holes in my argument. I'm sticking with simply pointing out there is no example of intelligence without parts because to argue against it one must give evidence, something I would both want and be more able to argue against. Saying something is IMPOSSIBLE leaves one open to all sorts of philosophical pot shots.

I suppose that I could intensify my claim by saying the idea of God is nonsensical much the same way a clock without parts or physical dictation is nonsensical. That would in effect claim God is impossible without actually using the word impossible.

>>1980291
One can detect electrons passing through a slit. When one detects the electrons moving through one slit the entire wave function collapses, see link.

My question is - What method and apparatus is typically used to detect the electrons (or whatever particles one choses to use) passing through the slit?

>>1980213
>If you have multiple slits, and you just wait for the result and don't look where the particle went - then you can't tell. The particle is not a particle while propagating but "a wave". It didn't take a specific slit.
The double slit experiment is so prominent in early quantum mechanics education because: (1) it gives students a tangible example of a wave function and (2) it shows students that a wave function collapses when observed. You already said you aren't much of an experimentalist so maybe you just forgot about this lab.

This link that explains the double slit experiment very generally. It might jog your memory as to what I am talking about.
http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~yalabik/applets/collapse.html

>>1980052
>I'm not really good with experiments ect. but your question is kind of confusing actually (unless its a joke). The point is that you don't observe the path. There is no path.
Troll, or did you mean something else?

In the double slit experiment, particles display their own wave function beyond the two slits in the form of a series of bright lines on the surface they are impacting. However, if one "watches" which slit the particles take the wave function collapses and the particles go through in straight lines, creating two intensity peaks instead of many.

I did the experiment in Physics for Scientists and Engineers III, Sophmore year. Surely you must have done the experiment yourself in class.

I never really asked my professor HOW one goes about telling which slit particles enter, and my preliminary searches online didn't turn up much. I was hoping you might know what I am talking about.

In my physics classes I am always half afraid my questions are stupid (a problem I don't have in any other classes besides mathematics). I hope that isn't the case now. :(

>>1980020
Well hell, I can do that.

Schrödinger came up with the cat in the box thing not to explain anything to his peers, but instead to show to the general public that quantum mechanics as it is and was is fundamentally different from the macroscopic world people are use to. In the macroscopic world, things happen regardless of whether or not something or someone is around to witness it. In the quantum world, nothing happens until there is a "witness". That isn't to say that a conscious observer is needed for something on the quantum scale to happen (a lot of philosophical nut jobs try and argue that). An observer can be anything including another particle. It's as if the collision of two particles is not predetermined, it simply happens if and when it happens. Before the actual collision any number of paths were possible. This indeterminacy still exists with molecules too. Two molecules colliding have the same indeterminacy. However, as you scale up, including more and more particles, the distribution of the possible paths the colliding molecules can take (also known as the wave function) shrinks. Because the macroscopic world involves so many particles there is practically no possibility of a baseball deviating from its predicted course to any great degree.

So, on a quantum scale, the cat is both alive and dead until it is "observed" the same way colliding particles are can be taking any number of paths until they actually collide. Keep in mind though that an actual cat in a box involves a LOT of particles, so there is relatively no indeterminacy, just in case you were under the assumption that the cat in the box experiment was a real experiment. It, as I said, was simply created to show the contrast between the quantum world and the macroscopic world as people see it.

>>1980014
Was that a Feynman reference?!
Please tell me it was!

>>1979920
How does one observe the path of particles in the double slit experiment? What is the method and apparatus used?

I'll give one raven_orgasm.jpg (work-safe) to you if you answer my question.

>>1979832
That is actually pretty damn close to my own "clock with no parts" argument against God as an intelligence without parts and beyond physical dictations.

Clock with no parts argument:
1) God is typically defined as an intelligence beyond physical dictation and without parts (so if our universe was created by a scientist in another universe then that scientist wouldn't be God because the scientist's mind is just a product of the particles that make it up and the laws within the universe the scientist occupies).
2) All evidence suggests that the mind is not fundamental in the same way physical laws are fundamental, intelligence is merely an outcome of those physical laws.
3) The functionality of intelligence being a product of its constituent parts and how those parts interact make it similar to a clock, the functionality of which is also defined by its parts and how the interact.
4) Without its parts and the physical laws that dictate those parts, there is no clock (a clock being defined by its functionality, i.e. telling time).
5) Similarly, without the nervous system, without the different areas of the brain, without neurons, without the molecules that make up those neurons, without the atoms that make up those molecules, without the quarks that make up those molecules, without the needed orientation of all these things and the physical laws that dictate them all there is no human consciousness.
6) There are no examples of intelligence existing without parts or physical dictation.
7) Therefor there is no reason to believe "intelligence" exists without parts or physical dictation.
8) Therefor there is no reason to believe God is a valid proposition.

tl;dr - Intelligence doesn't exist without parts or beyond physical laws and there is no reason to believe it does -> God doesn't exist.

>>1979871
I feel like you have a legitamate reason why my argument is "backwards" but you are being very obtuse.

If you don't care enough to waste your time elaborating then by all means say it and be on your way. If you do want to get your point across then do it already. You'll find I'm pretty receptive.

>>1979822
So what exactly is your problem with my argument?

Keep in mind, this isn't a proof for why religious claims are false, just one argument that bears special significance in my own theological development. I have other reasons for not buying what many religions are selling.

>>1979763
Never heard of it.

*reads about site*

That seems like a great example of someone coming up with a complex, logically consistent model of the world and then taking so much pride in it that they actually believe it is true without any sort of empirical verification.
Moral of the story - Just because something is POSSIBLE doesn't mean it is true.

Thanks for that.

>>1979743
Every religious person uses the same logic to prove they and only they are correct. If the same argument is used to prove many exclusive logical outcomes then there is a good chance said argument is invalid.

That argument against religion had been in the back of my mind since I was a little tike, and though it didn't cause any sort of sudden loss in faith, I think it was the major contributor in my gradual loss of religious belief. After leaving a religious school, and with my family no longer going to church, the beliefs I were taught slowly dissolved away until college. There, while trying trying to think up what to put for my "Religious views:", I realized I didn't believe in God in any way shape of form.

>>1979557
> you dumb fucker
>mfw
Sorry about that.

>it's laziness
Well then you just need to find something that motivates you. What is your major? If you doesn't interest you then find something else. If it is the most interesting thing you can think of then maybe you should try and think about your field of study in a new light. Try and find what makes your field different than all others. Try and create a sense of identity based on your major. Make fun of other non-[insert field] majors if you need to. Me and my physics major friends make fun of chemistry majors and bio majors all the time for not being "hard enough" and math majors for being abstract to a fault... simply because we can (we don't make fun of business or art majors, it just goes without saying). Do whatever you can to find pride in your area of interest.

Or, make a goal. I have motivation problems too not because I'm not interested in my field of study or lack any pride of said field, I am unmotivated because I don't know what I will do after school. Try coming up with a career choice (beyond simply choosing a major) and go from there. With a destination in mind every assignment you finish will seem like progress, like you have accomplished something or made one more step in a long journey.

Those are just some tips.

>>1979509
I thought it was actually a decent troll. Kind of subtle as if he were a genuine fool, but not subtle enough to sound like a valid position.

I'm giving him a 8.5/10.

>>1979594
God is the driving force for the actions of a lot of people. However calling anything that one obsesses on or builds their entire world view around "God" is nothing but an analogy... and religion is a horrible thing to use as an analogy because it can so easily be misrepresented as an attack.

>>1974199
I'm pretty good at explaining things to others compared to my peers, actually.

The best thing to do is to explain things for yourself. For as long as I can remember, I've taken topic that interest me and pet theories and tried explaining them to "myself" as if I were explaining them to someone else. Sometimes I like to explain the current world to someone from the distant past, like trying to predict what a caveman (who knows English, lol) might ask if introduced to the modern day world and then answering those questions.

But basically, try just explainng things to yourself. You will usually be able to tell what parts of what you are saying make sense and what don't.

Some other options, post shit on 4chan that isn't just for trolling, fapping, or generally dickery. Find a topic that interests you or that you are more knowledgabel than the average person and run with it. Find other forums. Post there. I used to post in the Astronomy & Space section of Yahoo! Answers and later the Religion & Spirituality section... I actually think it was the internet that saved my ass while taking the written poriton of the GRE. I didn't practice at all for that section, my ADD and OCD kept me from finishing either paper, and I still beat all of my friend's written scores (save one girl).

>>1979560
Philosophers try and shanghai everyone of notable importance into their branch. It's the only reason they still get departments within universities.

I want a hard-science girlfriend, so, damn, bad... and with short hair... uuuuggghghfghgh... I am now uninterested in women for the next 15 minutes.

>>1979430
>>1979414
I for one learn more from books then the professors "teaching skills". This was probably a development of my own inability to concentrate in class (I've got the ADD) and my horrible note taking (I can't listen and take notes at the same time). So, I learned how to read...

Some US schools are genuinely tough, varying drastically by what department too. However the OP is correct in his assesment of some universities in the US which are basically assembly lines for the general purpose "educated" citizen who will be pushing papers all their life. Anyone can get through college if they find the "right" university in that regard.

If one can't do even that, then they are either genuinely unintelligent (half the population is *gasp* below a 100 IQ), or, they have a learning disability; sometimes it's a mix of the two. As they say, one can't cure stupid, but if it is a learning disability there are often methods for learning in spite of the handicap or simply medicating one's way around it.

And don't just write off the possibility of you having a learning disability. A learning disability can make a genius appear as an idiot to an untrained eye. I actually have a friend who spent a good portion of his childhood years in special education programs, only to be reassessed later in life and discovered to be very very intelligent. He is now quite the programmer... and sometimes the learning "disability" isn't a disability at all, just a different way of thinking. Mild degrees of autism can actually be turned into a strength given the right career choice. In my case, I believe it was my ADD that gave me my insatiable curiosity of the world, which lead me to physics.