/sci/ - Science & Math

It would require to stop wanking for a minute.

>>3379031
The plural of phenomenon is phenomena. Looking forward to people's attempts.

>>3379042
A matter of life or death, I know.

OP, if you want to understand something, go read yourself. We're not going to summarize for you, and you can either...

a) assume that we won't summarize for you because we in fact don't know what the fuck you're talking about

-- or --

b) assume we won't summarize for you because we're fat, lazy, assholes, dickheads, potheads, or some other pejorative or combination of such

Because of the way that particles can behave either like waves or particles, based on whether or not we are observing them, the cat would be dead and alive at the same time suck my balls i want to elaborate but you won't let me.

I dont know. But then again. I am an economics major.

>Schrödinger's equation
Diffusion of the wave function
>Maxwell's equations
Dynamics of electromagnetism
>Uncertainty principle
Noncommutative observables are fuzzy

I can't explain the first two without reading wiki, but the uncertainty principle basically states that there is a trade-off in the precision with which we can determine certain properties (eg, time and energy; position and momentum) of quantum scale particles.

It's funny how questions about the scientific literacy of /sci/ always seem to revolve around physics though. There are knowledgeable people on here that just happen to not know that much about physics but know more about their respective field. For me that would be neuroscience.

>>3379049
You got lazy lol

>>3379055
I am a layman and those are officially not my terms.

>>3379076
Well then I guess I failed, proving that I REALLY don't understand much of science.

>>3379079
or just don't understand se, me, up, etc.

who knows...

>>3379055

not a layman, but i do like how you managed to summarize it accurately in about 4 words

>>3379079
You try way too hard dude.

Since I work in medical research I have no need for any of that abstract or theoretical math.

Multiple regressions and similar level statistics is all I need to get published and advance the human state of knowledge.

>>3379031

Why don't you do your homework yourself?

Nice try though.

> Uncertainty principle (this one should be easy)

lol

Maxwell's equation? Which question would that be?

OP is faggot.

>>3379189
*equation
I am faggot.

>>3379174

If i studied medicine and went into research, i would try to enhance proton therapy, just sayjan.

Schrödinger's equation,

let

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\Psi(\vec{r},t)} = \psi(\vec{r}) e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar} Et} }[/spoiler]

satisfy

<span class="math">\left(V(\vec{r}) - \frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 \right)\Psi(\vec{r},t) = i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi(\vec{r},t)[/spoiler]

psi is the wave function, the time dependent schrodinger equation describes the behavior and evolution of a particle through time within a quantum system.

Maxwell's equation,

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\nabla . D = \rho} [/spoiler]

is gauss' law for electrostatic and describes the electric flux through a surface in terms of the total charge of the particle contained within the same gaussian surface

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\nabla . B = 0} [/spoiler]

is gauss' law for magnetostatics and describes the total magnetic flux through a gaussian surface to be zero or in other words there are no magnetic monopoles, that is, all magnetic field lines are finite

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\nabla \times E = -\frac{\partial B}{\partial t} } [/spoiler]

faraday's law describes the relationship between an electric field [created by] and a varying magnetic field

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\nabla \times H = J + \frac{\partial D}{\partial t}} [/spoiler]

ampère's law describes the relationship between an electric current and varying electric field and a magnetic field or in other words, a varying electric field or moving charge creates a magnetic field

and the Uncertainty principle,

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\Delta x \Delta p_x = \frac{\hbar}{2}} [/spoiler]

this one is pretty straight forward, it describes the limitation of information within quantum levels when it comes to the position and energy (or momentum) of a particle

>>3379031
>>3379031
>Schrödinger's equation
Everything has a certain amount of energy. Schrödinger's equation attempts to solve for that energy. Everything can also be expressed by an equation unique to that object. This equation is called the wave function. There is a certain action called a Hamiltonian, that operates on math equations. If you apply the Hamiltonian to the wave function of an object, you can use Schrödinger's equation to solve for the energy of that object.

>Maxwell's equation (assuming macro)
this is the hardest, i wont even try. well. i did try. but i just cant. too much electromag that needs explaining to keep it in a paragraph. sorry, OP.

>Uncertainty principle
The closer you get to something, the more able to accurately guess its location you become. Similarly, the farther away from that object you move, the more able to accurately guess its speed you become.

Schrödinger's equation,

let

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\Psi(\vec{r},t) = \psi(\vec{r}) e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar} Et} }[/spoiler]

satisfy

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\left(V(\vec{r}) - \frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 \right)\Psi(\vec{r},t) = i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi(\vec{r},t)}[/spoiler]

psi is the wave function, the time dependent schrodinger equation describes the behavior and evolution of a particle through time within a quantum system.

Maxwell's equation,

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\nabla . D = \rho} [/spoiler]

is gauss' law for electrostatic and describes the electric flux through a surface in terms of the total charge of the particle contained within the same gaussian surface

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\nabla . B = 0} [/spoiler]

is gauss' law for magnetostatics and describes the total magnetic flux through a gaussian surface to be zero or in other words there are no magnetic monopoles, that is, all magnetic field lines are finite

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\nabla \times E = -\frac{\partial B}{\partial t} } [/spoiler]

faraday's law describes the relationship between an electric field [created by] and a varying magnetic field

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\nabla \times H = J + \frac{\partial D}{\partial t}} [/spoiler]

ampère's law describes the relationship between an electric current and varying electric field and a magnetic field or in other words, a varying electric field or moving charge creates a magnetic field

and the Uncertainty principle,

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\Delta x \Delta p_x = \frac{\hbar}{2}} [/spoiler]

this one is pretty straight forward, it describes the limitation of information within quantum levels when it comes to the position and energy (or momentum) of a particle, actually it is a generalization to all matter although from a certain point onward (increasing in magnitude) it's error becomes insignificant but from the same point and inward (decreasing in magnitude) such as quantum systems it's effects become quite considerable

Schroedinger explains how the wave function evolves over time. I have fuck all clue about the specifics, will be some differential equation or other. I understand it to be a probability distribution which evolves deterministically. When you observe it it collapses to a single event with whatever the probability at that point was.

Maxwell's equations describe electromag. I've studied these, can't really be arsed to explain all four of them in words, but I could. divE = rho/e0 means the electric field has sources at charges, for instance.

Uncertainty principle I believe puts uncertainty on the maximum you can know about the momentum of a particle. Depends on mass I think?

Anyway, since when does science = 67% quantum physics and 100% mathematical physics?

>>3379210
>too much electromag that needs explaining to keep it in a paragraph. sorry, OP.

>without going over a paragraph in length (unless absolutely needed)
>(unless absolutely needed)

>>3379212
this was far too long, and the equations require far more than layman's knowledge to even read.

Schrödinger's equation,

let

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\Psi(\vec{r},t) = \psi(\vec{r}) e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar} Et} }[/spoiler]

satisfy

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\left(V(\vec{r}) - \frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 \right)\Psi(\vec{r},t) = i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi(\vec{r},t)}[/spoiler]

psi is the wave function, the time dependent schrodinger equation describes the behavior and evolution of a particle through time within a quantum system.

Maxwell's equation,

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\nabla \cdot D = \rho} [/spoiler]

is gauss' law for electrostatic and describes the electric flux through a surface in terms of the total charge of the particle contained within the same gaussian surface

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\nabla \cdot B = 0} [/spoiler]

is gauss' law for magnetostatics and describes the total magnetic flux through a gaussian surface to be zero or in other words there are no magnetic monopoles, that is, all magnetic field lines are finite

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\nabla \times E = -\frac{\partial B}{\partial t} } [/spoiler]

faraday's law describes the relationship between an electric field [created by] and a varying magnetic field

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\nabla \times H = J + \frac{\partial D}{\partial t}} [/spoiler]

ampère's law describes the relationship between an electric current and varying electric field and a magnetic field or in other words, a varying electric field or moving charge creates a magnetic field

and the Uncertainty principle,

<span class="math">\displaystyle{\Delta x \Delta p_x = \frac{\hbar}{2}} [/spoiler]

this one is pretty straight forward, it describes the limitation of information within quantum levels when it comes to the position and energy (or momentum) of a particle, actually it is a generalization to all matter although from a certain point onward (increasing in magnitude) it's error becomes insignificant but from the same point and inward (decreasing in magnitude) such as quantum systems it's effects become quite considerable

>/sci/, prove yourself to me
hahaha no

>Maxwell's equation
>implying there's just one
Retard detected

>>3379196
Well, I don't know much about cancer, maybe it is interesting. What we do need is more and better imaging methods for brain imaging.

So if you could invent better, faster pet-scans and fmri-machines with higher resolution... Please do.

>>3379227
the equations are simply put in order for you to know what they look like, you don't have to understand it mathematically, it's already resumed in the text

Schrödinger's equation is a model for slow (non-relativistic) quantum-mechanical particles.
Particles are represented by a state, which is a function that contains information about the probability to find that particle at a certain location and the probability to measure a certain momentum, although other observables like angular momentum can be included as well.
The Schrodinger equation describes how these states develop with time, and makes it possible to determine these states.

Maxwell's equations describe the link between electric and magnetic fields and how they behave under certain circumstances, which also includes time variant fields and their consequences. They also work for fields in matter.
Maxwell's equation also include the description of light as an electromagnetic wave that permanently propagates at the speed of light.

The uncertainty principle arises due to imposing old concepts like waves and localised particles onto quantum mechanics. These concepts are not compatible, which leads to observables not being compatible, as it is for example the case regarding location and momentum of a particle. The principle in this case states that one cannot accurately measure both these quantities to infinite precision. The Copenhagen interpretation explains this behaviour by saying that a measurement of one of the observables changes the other in an incontrollable way.

ok?

>>3379210

I didn't understand a single thing.

>>3379243
I don't want to derail the thread here, but the low temporal resolution of BOLD-MRI is due to the slow hemodynamic response, not the scanner itself. We would need a new type of measure altogether.

>>3379243

I'm seriously considering going into med research, majoring physicist here.#

I'll keep my eyes open about that.

I assume OP means explain the modern interperetation, rather than the historical development of the individual sets of equations.


Schrodinger equation: Wick rotated diffusion equation with a source term equivalent to the potential energy. No wonder that the Free Particle solution is the same solution as the Green's Function of the Diffusion Equation (Gaussian distribution). The Schrodinger equation is the result of a canonical quantization procedure on the classical Hamiltonian, which basically means that you turn derivatives of functions/vectors into differential operators acting on a Hilbert Space of functions, along with additional constants/Wick Rotation.

Maxwell's equations: A set of classical equations describing the dynamics and properties of electromagnetic fields in general (not just in free space, but also in conductors or dielectrics). The majority of Maxwell's equations result from the application of mathematical Laws from elementary PDE/functional analysis theory to very basic phenomenological observations.


The uncertainty principle is simply a statement that 2 operators that do not commute cannot be simultaneously spectrally decomposed

>>3379031
>implying we don't specialize
>implying there exists some monolithic "science" that we all must understand

>>3379055
>explain in terms of layman

>Diffusion of the wave function
implying he knows what diffusion is, implying he knows the partial differential equation which describes it, implying he knows what is the wavefunction

>Dynamics of electromagnetism
yeah i think that is ok

>Noncommutative observables are fuzzy
implying he knows what commutative operators are

you were quite provocative in your "layman" explanations

>>3379271

> layman
> Wick rotated diffusion equation with a source term equivalent to the potential energy.

>nope.avi

>>3379269
Neuroscientist here. Be sure to remember we need something which measures spiking activity non-invasively and in vivo. Most human research is to post-synaptic computation oriented. Thanks in advance.

>>3379281

I'd almost say i hate invasive methods with a passion, but yeah, i'll do my best if i ever get to it and am not distracted by finding the theory of everything.

>>3379221
fine, fuck you.
>pic
these are the Maxwell Equations. dunno why it's a gif. fuck yourself.

>First equation
This states the field of energy caused by an electric particle diverges from electric charge, which is an expression of Coulombic force.
A field of energy is any amount of energy applied across an area of space. In the equation, that looks like [squiggly with a circle], E, dA and Coulombic force looks like the charge of the object, q, divided by what for you can be considered an arbitrary constant.

>Second equation
This basically says that electric forces act from in between the poles of a magnet, and therefore you cannot ever have a mono-pole. If you break that red and black horseshoe in two pieces, you will have two magnets, not a north and south pole separated. This makes sense, and is obviously more intuitive.

>Third equation
Our field friend again, sort of, this time with a twist. This basically says you can make an electric field if you move a magnet in space. (I've really stooped to new lows with that description.)

>Fourth equation
If you move an electric field, you can produce a cyclic magnetic field. We can apply this principle to light, which you might have heard as "electromagnetic" waves, and propagates via "radiation," that stuff you use sunscreen for.

>>3379255

This is actually quite good.

I'd just add somehow that Maxwells equations are local equations and what the sources of the fields are (electric charges and flux).

Good job.

>>3379260
then you are sub-layman, and a complete retard. I explained it in simple terms.

I hope everyone ITT realizes that the burden of learning is on the learner, not the teacher. Public education seems to have created the impression that it's the teacher's fault if the student doesn't learn anything.

Bullshit.

>>3379305
>>3379210

> Schrödinger's equation attempts to solve for that energy

solve what?

> This equation is called the wave function

equation != function

> There is a certain action called a Hamiltonian
­> layman

wtf?

> that operates on math equations

oh my god.

> If you apply the Hamiltonian to the wave function of an object, you can use Schrödinger's equation to solve for the energy of that object.

How? What?

> The closer you get to something, the more able to accurately guess its location you become.

The closer i get to something? Really?

> Similarly, the farther away from that object you move, the more able to accurately guess its speed you become.

No, not necessarily.


Any questions?

>schrodinger equation
>in layman terms
>wick rotation

i loled

>>3379255

i announce this winrar

favourite explanation so far

>>3379303

Agree. Also maybe the time-energy-uncertainty.

ITT: OP trolls you into wasting time with this shit and laughs his ass off while not reading a single post.

>>3379316
haha lol

>>3379332
>>3379332
>>3379332
>>3379332

what we all feared the most what shall we do now

>>3379263
>>3379263
>>3379243
>>3379243


LOL NO.


MRI temporal resolution is limited by the fact that the time frame for Spin dynamics is MICROSECONDS at the maximum.

some spin states decay after SECONDS.


this is inherent to the NUCLEUS of the atom in question, and it cannot be changed by any strength of field, or tricky pulse sequencing.
god damn you guys are casuals.

>>3379318
>>3379274


>layman

looks up wick rotation

>replacing inverse temperature 1/(k_B T), with imaginary time it/hbar,

>looks up Boltzmann distribution from Stat Mech

>looks up time translation operator


if you dont see the similarities and understand, at least qualitatively, the deep implications of this....


then you are a LAME man.

>>3379351
...
The BOLD response lasts a full 14 seconds. Most MRI scanners have a temporal resolution of two seconds. Sampling any higher won't do jack-shit because of the sluggish bold response. That is the real constraint.

>>3379255
Be my friend please.

>>3379337

It's not funny, it's sad how you spout bullshit and blame others.

>>3379364

You are fucking retarded if you think an explanation involving those concepts are ok to explain to a layman.

Please do something productive, aspie.

>>3379405
son, i think you just got trolled.

>>3379410

well, on a second look, that was rather obvious actually.

dayum

I have read every single post in here. All that is left to say is

>>3379255
>>3379255
>>3379255
>>3379255

/thread

>>3379373
>>3379373


correct. and there is no way to change this without inherently changing the entire basis of the technology.

why? because ultimately all NMR/MRI depends on spin precession and excited spin state populations.

it has not bearing on the magnetic field strength, or the number of FIDs.


if the spin state of your nucleus of interest precesses on the order of SECONDS, you will NEVER EVER get better time resolution that SECONDS.

BY the way OP, /b/ is the board with the most amount of intelligent people.

/sci/ contains the most trolls per total users.