/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11564444 (checked)
>>11564543
lmao this
fucking CS/ML niggers, they're like pic related but 10 times more obnoxious.

>>10699806

.

You don't, just shut the fuck up about fields you know nothing about.

You can be a successful scientist without knowing what science is about, just like a cyclist can be successful and win lots of trophies without knowing the quadratic equations that describe how to balance a bicycle.

Of course, knowing philosophy will also make you a better scientist. BUT, just like the man in your picture, you can be ignorant about philosophy and still be a famous scientist and make cool discoveries. Just shut the fuck up about other fields you never studied.

>>9179191
Unironically physicists

>>8780345

>>8508493
But that's physics

>>8202536

>>7677785
geophysicist here,

I understand every word individually, but I don't understand what you're trying to do.

I think that what you want to do is create what we call a "dynamic geocellular model".

This is a discretized 3D model of the laterally varying rock properties where each voxel contains a value for things like: mineralogy, permeability, porosity, water chemistry, elastic moduli, pore pressure, lithostatic pressure, temperature,etc. Then you can simulate the injection of fluid at some source point and proceed to solve a system of relevant linearized partial differential equations at each voxel boundary to see how the perturbation moves through your model. Anyway, this is commonly done in petroleum geoscience/engineering and probably in hydrology.

However, modeling chemical interactions like dissolution or cement precipitation is much more difficult as you'll need to know up front not only the chemical composition of the rocks (i.e. mineralogy) but you also need to know how much of each minerals' surfaces are exposed to the pore water chemistry to know what's gonna react and how. Also, all the reactions depend on pressure, temperature, and the local water chemistry, but they also change the temperature, pressure, and local water chemistry, so the equations are highly nonlinear. Not to mention that the majority of these reactions are not fully understood so any error will propagate massively through your system.

Basically, it's tough.

>>7153472
Well that is a nice recap of what people have told me. But you left off the version were we go crunch, bang, crunch, bang...

I just made up my own version, not based on observations but on resolving as many questions and political matters as neatly as possible. That is to say it has no basis on how the system works, but how we would like it to work in a half believable fashion given our very limited knowledge.

Of course my other idea was that all these movements are just galaxies bobbing on huge gravity waves so big we can't detect them.

Oh, I am so adding that to my other idea.

But then there is that issues of dark matter and energy which are really just mathematics place holders to make things nice. As to if they are real, well? Who knows?
I think I will just call it higher dimensional interference and leave for the time being.

>>7059980
>Lots of pictures, no equations

Anything more mathematical?

>>6999541
>implying complexity of soccer=dog peeing=physics
>just because a concept works for once principle it must work for another
>do you even lift

pic related

>>6958473
hahahahahaha

>>6494931
>Tegmark

jesus, that dude's such a doofus. He's so damn annoying and silly.

>>6290374
physicists are the absolute worst at shitting up other sciences. they always look like idiots, too, when they do it.

>>6152918

Hey /sci/, I'm a physics grad student, to be precise I work with mathematical physics, specifically axiomatic QFT, but this is not why I'm here.

I've become kinda interested in psychology, and I don't mean cheap "help me be less socially inept" bullshit. I'm actually interested in learning a little bit by myself in my free time to satisfy my curiosity, so I'm asking you to point me out to sites, classes and specially books about human behavior and interaction.

Thanks.

>>5791426

physicists misunderstand biology and think they're beating biologists at it.

>cartoonphysicistsoversimplifyanything.jpg

ITT: Ask a chemist.

That feel

Some optics masters?

somebody could me explain what Mie scattering is, and how to understand this theory.

Second: Mie scattering apply to all size of radius of dielectric sphere?

If i have 30 um ( micrometers) spheres, can i use Mie?

Isn't this just basic quantum mechanics?