/sci/ - Science & Math

"...in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes."
- Max Planck's physics professor.

>>5378275

>noooo but on reddit dey sed it wuz bad!!

>>5217118

The Munich physics professor Philipp von Jolly advised Planck against going into physics, saying:

"In this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes."

What's that, Einstein? The guy who stole my work? Oh I'll leave all the glory to you.

>>5180198

"The Munich physics professor Philipp von Jolly advised Planck against going into physics, saying, 'in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes.'"

yo

hello, /sci/fags.
I have a perplexing dilemma.
I am currently studying Electrical Engineering, almost finished 2nd year. I studied engineering after I did away with the idea of doing a science degree (majoring in Physics) as I wasn't certain I wanted to go on to honours and post grad just to get anywhere in life (science degrees are worthless on their own, right?)
My problem now is that I have discovered a double degree in the capital city two hours from me which is combined engineering/science, with whatever majors you like (ie. electronics engineering and astronomy/astrophysics).
The new degree would be electronics rather than electrical engineering (doesn't seem to have many, if any, power engineering subjects).
The whole extra degree would only add one extra year to my study.
I'd have to move from my city to the capital city, find a job and a place to live, get adjusted yadda yadda.
What would you guys do, and why?
I'm after education/job opportunities of electrical v electronics and whether my astronomy/astrophysics degree would be of benefit to me besides obviously being cool as shit (astronomical instrumentation design? maybe shoot for NASA/JAXA one day? fuck knows.)
I am in Australia, too, in case anyone has any tailored local advice.
Cheers.

>>3777868
>80-90% efficiency

Son...

I LOVE LINUS PAULING

HE DOES THERMODYNAMIX LIKE A BOSS

ALSO

NEWTON WAS A JEWZZZZ

ALSO

THIS IS MY FRIEND LINUS

“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”

-Max Planck

"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

"the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols."

-Max Planck (Protestant) Nobel Prize winner in Physics, inventor of quantum theory.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-create-dry-wat

>mfw it's an actual thing.

O hello sirs, what's the topic of discussion?

The Planck time is supposedly the shortest discrete unit of time, while the Planck length is supposedly the shortest unit of length.
Why isn't it possible to measure (well, hypothesize) a distance half Planck length? Is there literally a physical threshold past which nothing can become smaller, or it is just the length where scientists said "fuck it" and stopped labeling their units (because let's face it, there is no purpose in going smaller really).
Same applies to time, why can't I divide Placnk time by two? Does this imply it's infinitely small?

>>1400282
What the fuck you just say?

Ok /sci/, I've been kicking a weird idea around, and I think it's time to bounce it off a few other people. I think I've been able to conclude that infinitely doesn't exist. This idea is based on the concept of the Planck Scale (length, time, and energy) and the 11 dimensions M theory.

So, starting at the first dimension, it is possible to perceive all possible permutations of the planck scale. In the second, it's still possible to perceive all possible planck lengths by simply taking a 2d slice of our 3d space, and defining the planck length from every point to ever other point. The reason I feel that this 2d (or 3d for that matter) plane isn't infinite is because lower dimensions are expressible as line one dim. up, and as points two dims. up. So by the 11th dim. all possible points to all other possible points would be defined. If I'm missing sometime, let's talk about it.