/sci/ - Science & Math

I've decided to dedicate my life to solving climate change. Is physics a good major if I'm torn between climate research and solar power?

>>5100386
>because it doesn't

The notion is "relativitic mass" is outdated by 60 years. It is not taught or used by the vast majority of the physics community.

It was discontined because faggots like you made the ridiculous conclusions you make, and got totally confused.

When we talk about mass now, we only talk about rest mass. This is the mass the object see's of itself.

Chemfag here,
I guess I'd care if money was the end goal for me, but it's not. I know how to make money quickly, I just can't sleep at night if I do it.

Seriously? Are you trying to argue statistical methods with a /pol/etariat?

>All my Costanza.

Hello /sci/. I've always held the following as true, but now I'm quite confused.

Myquestion is: does conservation of momentum hold in situations in which energy is lost?

Take the case of a collision between two bodies. I wondered the following: could the magnitude of total momentum (i.e. the sum of the momenta of both bodies) after the collision be smaller than the magnitude of the total momentum before the collision if some energy is lost (dissipated as sound, heat, etc.) in the crash?

That is, does some momentum get lost (obviously, going somewhere else) in the collision, not appearing afterwards? And if so so, is there such thing as the "momentum equivalent" of lost energy?

One of lines of reasoning I came up with goes like the following:

1. Since energy is lost in the collision, some work is performed upon other elements of the system in order to generate the heat, sound, etc. corresponding to dissipated energy. Simply put, if energy is lost, work is done somewhere else.
2. Since work is done, forces act, even if for a vanishingly small time duration. (In the limit as this time interval goes to zero, the forces are impulsive and instantaneous, but still imply in transference of momentum, otherwise no energy would be lost.)
3. Since there are such forces acting over other elements, some momentum is transferred from the initial bodies and thus is lost.

Can anyone enlighten me?

What is the best math?

Not necessarily the most useful, but the kind that when people see you doing it, they will go straight to the conclusion that you are winrar at math.

bamp for lazy fag

So I could finally be bothered to read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". Amidst my mind being thoroughly blown, I've come across the concept of "antiparticles", and am confused. Can someone please explain this idea in a very simplistic way?

>>2641496
Whats wrong with nuclear energy?

>>2634445

Physics, Chemistry, or Biology?

I'm a writer, photographer, and artist on the side, so getting pussy isn't a problem. Those also make decent amount of cash so money isn't INCREDIBLY important. I just seek security, flexibility, and some variety.

Help me out here?

Just got back from /g/ --- Its all Dragon dicks and furry dicks. What happened to them?

The couldnt focus on tech shit they went straight to the weird/depraved?

>Did you guys know if you're right-handed you're actually left-brained??? I know, I'm so smart when it comes to brains, I'm going to be a psych major.
>I'm so social and good at figuring people out and telling if they're lying, I must be some kind of born psychologist or something

ITT: Things you hate about the people in your major.

shameless self bump

>>1717838

hey /sci/,
don't know if this qualifies as a homework question or not but i need a bit of help with uncertainty calculations.
i'm supposed to be finding the density of ice and i have the mass +/-.05g and the volume +/-1ml of 5samples of ice.
how should i go about finding the uncertainty for the average of each?

>/r9k/ pseudoscience

/sci/-related short stories.

I'll start with a classic.

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

Electronic repulsion.
Go look at a lennard-jones potential.