/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11312733
Physics research is now largely government funded and therefore very bureaucratic and inefficient.

>>11312733
imo the reason is because accelerator physics slowed down in the 90s. they cancelled the SSC because of US politics drama, and SSC would have been way more powerful than the LHC. so we unfortunately ended up with the LHC which is relatively a puny and stunted version of where experimental physics should have been.

i guess the reason is that the SSC was cancelled in light of the end of the cold war—the US won already so they didn’t need to keep caring about staying ahead of the soviets. if the cold war had continued we would be way way beyond where we are in experimental physics

>>11312742
Progress seems to have really slowed in the post WWII era, after the brain drain of the Manhattan Project and NASA. Obviously the war itself also disrupted science for a time, particularly in Europe. The first half of the 20th century saw more advances than all of preceding history. After the war there was still some progress, but it really slowed to a trickle as the decades progressed.

>>11312762
>After the war there was still some progress, but it really slowed to a trickle as the decades progressed.
remember that there was lots of great experiment and plenty of good theory until the W and Z bosons got discovered. even the tevatron’s great results sparked a good amount of new theories. things only really slowed down once the physics side of the cold war ended when the soviet union collapsed

>>11312733
There has been a delineation between the two styles of science that we use to do this.
Real world applied physics, maths and engineering.
And abstract, vectored, imaginary, theoretical maths.

An example of real world would be the internal combustion engine.
An example of theoretical is a warp drive.

One exists, one doesn't exist.
Physics exists.
Quantum physics doesn't.
It is the study of the untestable.
You cannot write an equation on a blackboard that says "what if we had 11 dimensions instead of 3(or 4 with time),
And turn it into a working machine.
This is the ultimate persuit of futility.
There will never be a result of quantum mechanics that we can use.
There are no working quantum machines now.
There never have been.
It's called popsci, stop worshipping it.
As an added bonus you all know how easily people end up in cults.
See it can happen to anyone.
Quantum cult lol, good name for a band.

>>11312786
sigh. when will you go back to /x/?

>>11312786
>There will never be a result of quantum mechanics that we can use
The MOSFET has been pretty useful.

>>11312733
>We had almost nonstop progress from Newton to the Standard Model

>>11312786
>Quantum physics doesn't.
Nigga what

>>11312786
>Quantum physics doesn't.
>There will never be a result of quantum mechanics that we can use.
Retard. Try learning something before running off your mouth, thinking the whole world deserves to hear your nonsense. It's embarrassing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Electronics

>>11312786
>"quantum physics doesn't exist"
>anon typed down on his computer that's smaller than a truck

>>11312733
most major physics research post-WW2 were from the Germans but they lost so the credit was stolen.
The modern germans have been mentally castrated and we lost the golden goose of physics research.

>>11312791
Just because you are in a big group it doesn't make you correct.
Look at medical history, the shit is so insane they don't even teach it if you study medicine.
Remember when doctors said smoking was good for the baby? Or when heroin was marketed as a safe painkiller for children to replace morphine.

How can you know that this has happened and still worship related sciences as infallible.
This research was done around the same time we found out we were supposed to wash our hands before surgery.

You have too much faith to ever be a real scientist.
I'm sorry but how can we ever work out what is happening when most of this forum is "0.000999.=1!" And other insanity.

You are right those about going to /X/, Schizos fucking love quantum mechanics.
It lets them believe and say anything they want with no fear of ever being proven wrong.
And that's every autists wildest dream.

>>11312811
This. Science is not a gradual and steady evolution of our understanding of the world. It comes in scientific REVolutions. I.e. in fits and starts. It has always been this way. Your whining amounts to childish impatience. So there likely won't be any more earth-shattering advances in your lifetime. Too bad.

>>11312827
I have no problem with questioning dogma in science, including quantum mechanics. The problem is it's apparent to everyone you don't even know what quantum mechanics is. You have to learn science before you're in a position to question it.

>>11312733
>What has caused this? Is it excessive dogma in science? Is it too much funding and influence from institutions like the NSF keeping physics from progressing? Have we simply reached the boundaries of what we can understand and/or prove experimentally?
I personally think it's faggots asking endless retard questions instead of doing the god damn fucking work

>>11312806
How was quantum mechanics involved in the creation or transistors?
And to save you some time "quantum tunneling" isn't quantum, and neither are "quantum diodes" the inventor just gave them a cool name,

>>11312816
I'm not trolling bro, ask me some questions. I can answer them.

>>11312822
What was the result that we use? Can you copy and paste it?

>>11312823
Small transistors aren't quantum mechanics. I think you are talking about engineering.

>>11312836
Let's debate it then.
What do you think is the most important contribution quantum mechanics has made? Like a real thing, where if Einstein died as a child and we never discovered QM, what would be missing from our world?

>>11312839
>Small transistors aren't quantum mechanics. I think you are talking about engineering.
But the engineering that brought out small transistors and microchips came from quantum mechanics.

>>11312811
>>11312834
It might be generous to say from the time of Newton to the Standard model was nonstop progress, but it's certainly true that the entirety of the 19th century through the first half of the 20th century was nearly nonstop progress, one revolution in our understanding after another.

>>11312839
>"quantum tunneling" isn't quantum
Nigga what? That's as quantum as it gets. There's no way to explain that shit with classical physics.

>>11312847
I can't debate the utility of quantum mechanics with someone who doesn't know what quantum mechanics is.

>>11312827
>still worship related sciences as infallible.
Not him, but...
That's some serious strawman bullshit right there.
No wonder nobody likes you.

>>11312857
god damnit nigger you are here to perform and entertain NOW START EXPLAINING THE UTILITY OF QUANTUM MUHFAGGOTS

>>11312878
Ok I'll bite. Most modern electronics work by exploiting quantum mechanical properties of electrons in atoms of semiconducting materials. Our understanding of how electrons behave in atoms is described by quantum mechanics and quantum field theory (atomic orbitals, Pauli exclusion principle, etc.). Without our understanding of how electrons behave in atoms we would have never developed field effect transistors which are found in all modern electronics.

>>11312849
Why do you think that?
Transistors came from observing how crystal radios and thermionic valves work.
Thermionic valves were massive though,
We had working computers with thermionic valves, then the smaller transistors which worked exactly the same except didn't generate much heat,
Also batteries were massive and heavy.
Smaller batteries, smaller more efficient transistors= smaller computers.
Quantum? Why?

>>11312855
You know how you perceive a star as a point of light, even though it's light years away, and is so dim it's almost non existent? You are viewing the concentrated wavefront energy as it hits directly, I think it's refered to as "phonon" vibration.
So in quantum tunneling, electrons without enough energy to jump an energy barrier doing it anyway, is the same mechanism behind you being able to see a star.
How do you guys describe it as quantum, is it the "it's wavefront collapsed and it travels faster than light before rematerialising" thing?

>>11312857
This is my theory.
There is no such thing as a "photon",
Light is always a wave as demonstrated by Thomas Young's twin slit experiment,
Light is perturbations (ripples) in the background cosmic electromagnetic radiation that permeates the observable universe.
And the photoelectric effect is wholly explained with non quantum Maxwell equations.

>>11312858
It's just an example of the same thing I am saying is happening now, happening before.....
So a massive load of PhD scientists and a massive load of people with medical doctorates, and the nurses, and the patients,
They were allllll wrong. About a field they had studied for decades.

And this can't happen in the field of quantum mechanics because......?
So physicists can't be wrong?
PhD or not they are still human.

>>11312927
Thank you.

>>11312927
Transistors were developed with trial and error by looking at "cats whiskers", the science behind it was quite simple, it was done at Bell labs by that "schockley" guy (what a cool name for a scientist)
They were trying to make smaller thermionic valves, which are simple amplifiers, and we had amplifiers a long time ago. It had nothing to do with quantum, it was just advanced radio stuff from studying radar during the war.

>>11312948
Shockley didn't invent the FET. He invented the BJT.

>>11312970
lol he invented the bj i bet he figured it out with his mouth

>>11312733
>what has caused this?
Verifying almost all modern theories requires energy levels that are far out of our reach as for now, and probably it will be so for a long time (eg. obtaining Planck temperature or Planck density).

>>11312762
lol, you know nothing about physics. There has been far more done in physics after say the Schrodinger equation (which is very basic and pretty much only used by chemists nowadays) than before.

At least if you said it slowed down in the 80s or something you might have a point worth arguing against

If you guys think stabbing at a wierd rock with a screwdriver is quantum mechanics than I admit defeat.
You are all quantum phycisists.
All quantum mechanics is correct even if it's in direct contradiction with existing theories and this incompatible.
We have working quantum computers.
Scientists can't make mistakes.
Mobile phones are proof of Einstein's theories.
I see big bright things coming from this timeline.
"We can't get the machines to work! Even though we keep studying the ancient texts!"
Have fun winning arguments with people telling you there are problems with the ancient texts, it's the closest to success you will ever get.

>>11312733
Theoretical physics has become very advanced after the development of the standard model. Unfortunately particle physics experiment hasn't caught up, but condensed matter experiment has, so that is where most of the interaction between theory and experiment happens nowadays.

On the 'experiment' side, for what its worth, we have discovered since then that the universe is mostly dark matter and dark energy, which is huge change in the way we see the universe

>>11313028
There was definitely progress in the 50s, 60s and 70s, much more than today. But that era pales in comparison with the first half of the 20th century with the development of quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, special relativity, general relativity, atomic physics, observational cosmology, the list goes on.

People thought physics was dead after every Scientific breakthrough.

>>11313037 phycisists invented dark energy and dark matter to make the equations work, not considering that the equations could be wrong. All that proves is that science isnt advancing since they keep trying to fit new contradictary information under the same old models

>>11313061
The current situation is unique. I think it was Max Planck's professor in the late 1800s who encouraged him not to pursue physics because physicists had pretty much already discovered all there was to be discovered at the time, and except for a few loose ends, there was nothing left to do in physics. Today we have countless problems which need solving, a multitude of areas where new physics could be developed. It feels like we should be on the cusp of a new revolution, but no such revolution has been forthcoming for generations now.

>>11312933
Nobody gives a single flying damn about your skewed midwit worthless pseudotheory. Now get off 4chan and get ready to work, wagie

>>11313083
It would seem the limitations imposed by E=mc^2 are overly harsh. Recently in Astrophysics we have incredibly detailed photos of Pluto, a picture of a black hole, observations of gravity waves, quantum computing poses a huge threat to archaic encryption algorithms (a new y2k bug), plus consumer electronics has gone bonkers. I think the breakthroughs are probably recognised in hindsight.

Physics got exponentially harder, all the low and medium hanging fruit have been picked.

>>11312933
>So physicists can't be wrong?
Nobody's saying that.
That's why I called you out for strawmanning.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure people tell you _you_ might not be qualified to tell us physics is wrong, but that's not the same thing.

>>11312733
actually retarded. this is the same defeatist attitude that was common prior to special relativity which boasted the same bitter "truth" that pointed out that all physics research had reached its end and that it was time to pursue other matters in life

Human intellect has met its limit. It is like a fish that cannot see beyond its pond. We need AI, but we may not understand it's explanations

>>11313146
>Human intellect has met its limit
It's also possible we're getting close to the end of the book.
What if we've got 99% of this shit figured out already?
The big questions with QM all basically come down to something like: "what's going on with an electron when it isn't interacting with anything else?"
We're hitting a limit on observational experimentation. And the various interpretations aren't really about finding out anything, they're mostly about finding comfy ways of thinking about the unknowable bits.
Or maybe not, but how can we tell?

>>11312733
>Physics is dead
that's what everybody thought a century ago and then Einstein came up with his ideas

>>11313146
AI is a meme.

>>11313120
some day that will be true, though. everything worth discovering will be discovered, all the low hanging fruit gone and then some, etc. that generation and generations after will be well fucked

If the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle is experimentally proven, it will break all forms of password protection. I don't understand why nobody seems to be worried about this. People act like quantum computers are the only potential new computer paradigm that could fuck up everything, but computers that use time-loop logic are far, far stronger. They can quickly solve NP Complete problems.

>>11313714
>some day that will be true, though. everything worth discovering will be discovered

Doubtful.

>>11313719
Doesn't matter if there are still a few remaining things - they'll be unreachable, at the limit of even the largest groups of highly intelligent agents working collaboratively. It is objectively true that generations before have had an easier time in discovery and innovation: more low hanging fruit is a real phenomenon, and an above average person in the time of the ancient greeks/renaissance/even through the 20th century could make a contribution. new things don't grow to replace the old, the territory remains mapped out and there's less and less for each successive generation to do. i'll quote robin hanson:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/this-is-the-dream-time.html

>Our distant descendants will also likely have hit diminishing returns to discovery; by then most everything worth knowing will be known by many; truly new and important discoveries will be quite rare.

but it's not all bad, there are plenty of people who could thrive and rest easy in such a future world, mostly by wireheading themselves with drugs and video games I would imagine.

>>11312933
>So in quantum tunneling, electrons without enough energy to jump an energy barrier doing it anyway, is the same mechanism behind you being able to see a star.
No it isn't, because the light from the star has enough energy to overcome the energy barrier between it and us. After all, most of that distance between us and the star is empty space, which has no energy barrier at all. All the star has to do is pass through the atmosphere, which is more or less transparent -- the light from the star easily has enough energy to overcome the atmosphere. Quantum tunnelling is more like seeing the star for a second through your roof.
>How do you guys describe it as quantum, is it the "it's wavefront collapsed and it travels faster than light before rematerialising" thing?
No, no physicist says that. Stop reading shitty pop-sci and pick up a QM textbook.

Because most people are interested in Engineering, not Physics.

>>11312850
For sure. It was the greatest golden age for science in the history of... the entire universe. But it does feel like it's running out of steam. And considering just what an enormous anomaly it was, when you juxtapose it against the eons of essentially nothing happening that came before it, it's not at all surprising that it should come to an end at some point. Sadly, it seems that point is now.

>>11313252
>that's what everybody thought a century ago and then Einstein came up with his ideas
If I can be a little pedantic here? (it IS /sci/ after all)
Einstein didn't work alone.
Lorentz, Mach, and others helped, before and during Einstein's development of GR.

>>11313830
>most people
i.e. average people. Most guys tinker around in the garages for fun and are handy around the house in part because they enjoy it. This is what engineering amounts to when you compare it against a study of the fundamentals underlying a hammer striking a nail, which most troglodytes will find "not fun".

>>11312733
OP is dead. There hasn't been a major advancement in his sex life in over 20 years. Gen X and Millennials had almost nonstop progress from grabbing tiddies to full carnal knkowledge, but OP got nothing. We have more sex than ever, more partners than ever, more condoms than ever, but OP hasn't accomplished anything beyond meme theories, a few anticlimactic coom sessions from ever larger and more expensive sex dolls, and some advances in pornography which have raised more questions than answers.

What has caused this? Is it excessive dog sex in roasties? Is it too much funding and influence from institutions like NIH keeping procreation from progressing? Has OP simply reached the boundaries of his charisma?

>>11314273
OP here. I keked.

>>11314202
I got a degree in ME simply for improved tinkering. I don't even work in the field.

>>11314187
I'm not him, but Einstein is short for the whole scene.
For common people is really Einstein alone.

>>11314273
holy shit this anon is fucking on it

You mainstream '''scientists''' need to learn about /x/

>>11316820
>>>/x/

>>11316823
>>>/x/

>>11316827
>>>/x/

>>11316829
>>>/x/

>>11314484
wholesome

Topological QUANTUM computation by braiding Majorana TIME CRYSTALS!
>>11313161
>>11312927
>>11312878
>>11312857
>>11312849
>>11312823
>>11312822
>>11312816
yes im off my meds they make me sleepy

>>11312786
>There will never be a result of quantum mechanics that we can use.
>There are no working quantum machines now.
What about SQUIDs or quantum hall effect?

>>11318206
>Implying that there's anyone on this board still who is familiar with SQUIDs or any of the semiconductor applications of QM

>>11312786

>quantum physics doesn't exist

It's the one theory that is most accurately predicted and tested, you goddamn assfuck.

>>11314202
What if you think physics is more fun? Engineering is still "easier" in general isn't it?

>>11316800
Yhea,
>oh man what a kooky funny guy! E=mc2. Amazing, so simple, much smart!

We're still trying to confirm and test all the parts of current theories, how can we advance further if we haven't finished with what we have? We're not ready for the next jump in science yet.

>>11312733
war = progress

>>11312762
>>>11312742
>Progress seems to have really slowed in the post WWII era, after the brain drain of the Manhattan Project and NASA. Obviously the war itself also disrupted science for a time, particularly in Europe. The first half of the 20th century saw more advances than all of preceding history. After the war there was still some progress, but it really slowed to a trickle as the decades progressed.
LOL
especially in Germany

>>11312786

>>11312834
KUHNIANS GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OFF MY BOARD GET OUT NOW

Here is proof if any of you need it.
*Uses psychic quantum powers on anon so he doesn't click the link*

https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/quantum-computing-as-a-field-is-obvious-bullshit/

>>11318217
Well, I did my PhD on superconducting devices. Also SQUIDs are mentioned in Horowitz and Hill, and even in Johnny Mnemonic if I remember correctly.

>>11312839
>>11312847
>>11312827
>>11312786
>>11312933
>>11313029
>>11321752