/sci/ - Science & Math

>Thats what self assembly is all about, we want 'shake n bake' methods where we can dump ingredients in in bulk, and the align themselves under the proper conditions.

for anyone interested in what this guy's talking about

http://www.cs.duke.edu/courses/cps296.5/spring06/papers/WMS91.pdf

this will be difficult to read without knowledge of chemistry

great paper that describes the challenge in designing nanostructures that self-assemble (technically we would call it an "entropically driven" process)\

In order to determine heat capacity you must be able to quantify the amount of heat that has been imparted to the material/system.

Heat capacity is the amount of energy needed to change a material's temperature by one degree.

Fundamentally, heat capacity is a consequence of the internal energy of atoms/molecules. The more internal degrees of freedom a molecule has to vibrate, rotate, et cetera, the more energy it can possess in modes other than translational (which determine's temperature), so the higher its heat capacity will be. The internal and translational energy of molecules in a system interact though, so a translational interaction between two molecules (they bump together) will result in an exchange of both internal and translational energy. As you heat the material up, you "fill up" the translational and internal energy of the molecules, but the more capacity the molecules have for internal energy, the more energy you need to change the temperature. Theoretically this could be calculated from the bottom up using group theory and quantum mechanics but I'm not sure if this has actually been done.

There are no physical laws that preclude maintaining biological systems in perpetuity

The only question is: Will we figure out how to do it?

More important than recognizing the trend itself, which people have been doing for decades, is recognizing that this is inevitable, a good thing and figuring out a way to transition in to an economy in which robots do most of the production and services.

It's inevitable because people ultimately are not interested in doing these jobs unless they have no choice, businesses will always choose a robot to do a job over a human, and because governments will soon realize that the only way to grow they economy as their population shrinks is to grow the workforce with robots. That pretty much covers everyone.

It's a good thing for the same reason that citizens passively in favor of it - it's not fulfilling to a human being to be relegated to lifelong toil in a job that isn't intellectually or creatively stimulating. It's also good for obvious economic reasons.

But how do you make the transition? It's a really tough question, but for starters the obvious solution is to begin an incremental process of reducing the work-week so more people can stay employed and socializing economic sectors as the automated labor makes them efficient enough. As people earn less from smaller work weeks you would need to simultaneously produce all of the basic needs at a lower cost (which robots do, of course) so too many people don't fall below the poverty line. If an economic sector becomes efficient enough that either you can't fake the scarcity anymore or socializing it would be relatively cheap, you do it and slowly relieve the populace of economic burden in lock-step with their decreasing earning potential (so that their earning decreases but buying power stays the same or gets better).

Ideally you end up with an automation socialist economy in which large sectors of the economy are both automated and socialized, providing basic needs for everyone plus the possibility for other goods and services. Human labor is optional and exclusively creative.

>If you cut any of the sigma bonds, you'll just be breaking the molecule apart

Not the OP but I'm curious why you would mention cutting sigma bonds when talking about resonance

cern didn't discover new dimensions

but they did get results that put constraints on what arrangement of dimensions the universe can have (they narrowed it down)

don't ask me to explain it though

>>5589350

transition metal electron configurations are wrong on this wallpaper

bugs me every time I see it

>Is there life outside of Earth?
It is inconceivable that there would not be.
>How can humans effectively travel through space?
Theoretical ways exist and seem possible but what proves to be practical, meaning it isn't the last thing you do, remains to be seen.
>Will our future world differ significantly from human history as we know?
Of course it will. We'll still be human with human emotions, needs and desires, just living differently in different environments and with different outlooks.
>Also, is there a chance for lifeforms to be beyond carbon based? Can alternate atoms with the same valence like silicon, but similar structures to biology exist? Would a silicon-based lifeform appear like a rockman?
The question becomes much more interesting the more you learn about chemistry and what makes our own biological systems work. It would suffice to say, in my own experience, that ignorant people think there is an obvious chance, educated people think there is no chance and experts, coming full circle, again conclude that it is possible. Of course, you could just use the same argument that I used for life existing elsewhere but that's too simplistic as we already have evidence to believe that at least one biology, our own, works. The only data we can use to suggest that any other biology would work is the data we find in pure chemistry while carefully learning lessons from our own biology that might be applied to others.

All throughout highschool I had terrible grades and didn't care at all.

When I went off to community college, I flunked out in a semester and a half while not attending classes and drinking, partying and playing games all the time.

My problem when I was younger was always motivation. For most subjects, I had no reason to be interested. For example, there was a single class that I scored well in during high-school, web-mastering (html). I liked the idea of making webpages and so I did very well in the class, scoring the only perfect score on the final and ending with an A+. Although web-mastering isn't ultimately what I would end up doing, it was a testament to what I needed (the motivation to succeed).

About three or four years after dropping out of college I found something that inspired me. I was reading random stuff on the internet like I did most nights and stumbled on a blog where a guy was writing about oxidative stress in the electron-transport chain in the mitochondria. The whole idea was a causal basis for all age related pathologies, oxidative stress being one of them, and it completely blew my mind.

Two years later I would enroll in community college while working full time. I scored straight A's. Two years later I was able to leave my full time job and become a full time student. A year later, I have a 3.5 GPA and I'm about to transfer to a four year university as a biochemistry undergraduate.

Hope that inspires you, OP. We all have it in us, some of us just need to be inspired to have the will to do it.

Well, I certainly understand the appearance perspective of this trend.

Women are most attractive when they show the least amount of aging pathology; early on this can usually be seen in skin elasticity, slight wrinkles and skin defects. Think about it, humans are pretty good when it comes to guessing a person's age. Next time you guess (rightly) that a girl is in her late 20's or early 30's, how did you know? Is her skin wrinkly? No. Is she missing her teeth or have significant buildup of melanomas on her skin? Of course not. Then how do you know? You know because we're pretty good at telling the age of someone based on their skin.

Now, what is one of the most important features that figures in to the physical attractiveness of a women? DING DING DING. SOFT, SMOOTH, SKIN.

Younger girls have better skin. It's just a fact of nature. This I understand and, as a man, I understand the significance of great skin when it comes to attracting me. Perfect skin is irresistible and 18 year old girls are sporting it in spades.

You also mentioned men liking "virginal" girls. This is the part that I don't understand. Neither "virginal" or inexperienced, whether in sex or in life, women are attractive to me at all. For the most part this means that you can keep your 18 year olds because they're also sporting naivete in spades, unfortunately. I just stay on the look out for attractive women with more life experience, and there are plenty of those in the 25ish range.

Pic related, a drop dead gorgeous woman not in her teens.

Well, I certainly understand the appearance perspective of this trend.

Women are most attractive when they show the least amount of aging pathology; early on this can usually be seen in skin elasticity, slight wrinkles and skin defects. Think about it, humans are pretty good when it comes to guessing a person's age. Next time you guess (rightly) that a girl is in her late 20's or early 30's, how did you know? Is her skin wrinkly? No. Is she missing her teeth or have significant buildup of melanomas on her skin? Of course not. Then how do you know? You know because we're pretty good at telling the age of someone based on their skin.

Now, what is one of the most important features that figures in to the physical attractiveness of a women? DING DING DING. SOFT, SMOOTH, SKIN.

Younger girls have better skin. It's just a fact of nature. This I understand and, as a man, I understand the significance of great skin when it comes to attracting me. Perfect skin is irresistible and 18 year old girls are sporting it in spades.

You also mentioned men liking "virginal" girls. This is the part that I don't understand. Neither "virginal" or inexperienced, whether in sex or in life, women are attractive to me at all. For the most part this means that you can keep your 18 year olds because their also sporting naivete in spades, unfortunately. I just stay on the look out for attractive women with more life experience, and there are plenty of those in the 25ish range.

Pic related, a drop dead gorgeous woman not in her teens.