/sci/ - Science & Math

Nothing...really?

>physics
>science
>guessing in sensory information with a bit of help from invented mathematics
>getting laid with a physics degree
>2011

>>3878919


>3
>a
>9
>sigjsfigj
>jobs
>not steve
>8

I know how you feel OP, I swear quantum and theoretical physics are the most unstructured pieces of shit I have seen come out of the hard sciences. half the fucking shit they talk about is hypothetical yet half of them treat it like fact.

not surprising though considering it is the favourite science of the autistic.

>dark matter
>luminiferous aether
>totally different

>>3878934
Yeah this is my opinion of it until I see some sort of observation of it.

I like the theory that our portion of the universe is expanding at a different rate due to locally less/more dense matter, giving an optical illusion of faster expansion.

It's about as good as "random bullshit material we made up"

>>3878934

>>3878937
I love making that comparison, because out of all the physicists trying to wrap their minds around life and the universe, apparently none of them have any sense of history at all.

>>3878940
>oil drop experiment

>>3878695
>Discuss
>How about no...

wat

>>3878951
oh no, you're misunderstanding them. They realise fully what they're working with. But that's what it takes to be able to work with work with models. if we didnt create models based on our limited understanding we wouldn't progress. until they came up with the aether we wouldn't understand much about chemistry as we do now.


you cannot into science.

>>3878966
That's not the problem. The problem is that it's exactly the same shit as before with different packaging. Physics has become art at the limits of scale.

Unless you all happen to be grounded in graduate level quantum physics, quantum field theory, particle physics, relativity, and astrophysics then this conversation is completely meaningless.

Notice how I don't have to actually PROVE any of you aren't educated. That's apparent given the 96% bullshit index of all the posts leading up to this one.

Did I answer your question, you cunt of an OP?

>>3878979
http://davidsd.org/2010/09/the-arxiv-according-to-arxiv-vs-snarxiv/

>>3878979
You mean like those metaphysical tales about the speed of light being the limit of velocity in this universe, on which most other "theoretical" behaviours are based?

Hahahha, sure, let's get all educated in alchemy.

>>3878997
>his house is actually full of gold, you just can't see it because he sucked all the luminiferous aether out of the air.

>>3878990

All this proves is the scientific illiteracy of the public.

I don't think you, or:
>>3878997
Should ever frequent science boards...

>>3879008

because god forbid anybody question anything; let's all just stop thinking and live in ignorant bliss in our geocentric world lovingly created by our almighty god.

>>3879008
You must have missed the part about expert players still getting it wrong. Since you can't into reading comprehension at all, maybe you should be the one to take your leave.

Nobody is impressed by your defense of current theories. In fact, your dogmatic attitude is exactly the opposite of what a modern high energy or theoretical physicist needs to be able to make any sense of anything. If you haven't figured out by now that whatever the current theory is, it's wrong, you're never going to.

enjoy your
>defender of the faith

>>3879017

The scientific community is always open to debate; you have no idea what you're talking about / are full of yourself.

For instance, I believe Dirac came up with a theory by which electrons were simply a hole, and the rest of space was filled with electrons occupying lower ground-states, and he used this as the theoretical basis of his ideas relating to ground states and such.

Scientists come up with crazy theories all the time. The point is that as long as everyone uses a consistent mathematical framework, and that mathematical framework itself is built from experiment/reasonable generalizations, then there's no harm nor foul.

It's just like how mathematicians don't have to worry about which variables they use.

Scientific investigation has always been an inductive field. That's just now reality works.

You betray your ignorance when you try to make fun of a mathematicians' notation which you don't understand at all.

That's all.

>>3879017
He's just got a personality disorder, don't get riled up over it.

>>3879017
>>3879028

Ugh. I don't even agree with him and I still hate you two for those comments. People stick with current theories because they are our best explanations at this time. Everyone KNOWS most of these theories are not completely correct. This is not in doubt. However, to suggest that these theories are wrong because names of papers can be randomly generated and sound vaguely legit is beyond retarded. Of fucking course people can't tell that. When you say "experts" couldn't tell the difference, what does that mean, exactly? Does it simply mean physicists of all specialties? Because they're not going to be significantly better at understanding the new research in a different specialty of the field than a randomly selected mathematician or chemist. Further, have you ever tried to publish a paper before? The name tries to sell the paper as interesting. It helps get it published. This study in no way points to a problem with the actual validity of scientific theories, it operates on the misconception that all physicists should be experts on all topics in physics. Which is ridiculous. It's just not possible for one person to know that much anymore.

>>3879054
oh take a chill pill. You have never come close to publishing a scientific paper either...

>>3879072

I don't mean to be as much of a dick as I sound...for the record.

>>3879039
Actually, this is just you betraying your lack of understanding about the limits of formalism. Things aren't nearly as neat as you'd like to believe. Everything is everything, ideas are colliding and dividing at all times and no one of them holds the key to anything. Science is just as piece-meal as any other pursuit. It's predicated entirely on the inchoate, inarticulable hunches and desires of a bunch of apes.

Here's the fundamental problem here: at some point you either were introduced to thought or discovered it on your own. But instead of realizing, as you should have at the time, the profound depth of the divide you had just stumbled upon, you presumed to know something of it.

That's what makes you the dumb one here. Not what you understand or don't understand about modern physics, but your inability to realize that you don't *know* any of it. Nobody does, and nobody ever will. That's just how it goes. In looking for the truth, we synthesize past error to approximate a truth. That approximation might be a little more narrowed down than the last one, but it's falsity nonetheless, and always will be.

>>3879074

I haven't tried to publish a paper. I'm an undergraduate. However, I've seen the process of the PI of my research group and grad students trying to do it, so I have seen what it's like. My point was that naming is always kind of fucked up. It has to sound interesting or journals won't pay attention. So titles often incorporate attempts to tie your research to some other research which is getting a lot of attention at the time. This is more the case when you end up with longer titles, but it can result in titles that sound nonsensical unless you're completely up to date on the latest research in this very specific niche of a specialty within a field.

>>3879086

>some 18 year old senior giving me a lecture on universal synergism
>Even though I'm the one who just said that knowledge is an inductive feat.

Just shoot me already

>>3879089

My advice to you: Stop worrying about the politics/semantics of science. Just focus on learning science.

If I led you to believe that I have less respect for people who aren't "published" I must have made a mistake or something.

>>3879054
Right, they're the best theories at a given point in history. But what do you think motivates improvement of those best theories?

Humans are an intolerably demanding species. That's what gives us our competitive edge over every other species. When we make a discovery or get better at something, we raise our expectations. That's just part of our biological imperative for whatever reason. Without it, we might as well just reintroduce ourselves to the wild.

Ideas aren't sacred. They're the products of human minds, as imperfect as a thing can be. To invest yourself fully in any one idea or set of ideas is to lose the ability to think on your own.

>>3879105

I wasn't attempting to defend my pride, but rather make my point clear, as your comment that I most likely have not published any papers indicated that you my initial comment as a way of establishing my credentials, which it was not. I therefore clarified my point. I don't really give a rat's ass what some anonymous person on the internet thinks of me, much less what someone on /sci/ thinks of me, since the average poster contributes little more to this board than experimental evidence supporting the existence of the Dunning-Kreuger effect.

>>3879099
You tell the other anon in a post directly below this one to stop worrying about the semantics of science. This is your "advice," which you feel qualified to give.

How's that for a contradiction? You write off my post as trite and sophomoric, affecting an air of superior understanding, then go and demonstrate your inability to put the very concept I was talking about into practice directly afterward. That precisely is what I'm talking about.

>>3879141
Just passing by the thread to point out that your attempt at sounding smart failed.
You don't sound smart, you sound like an idiot trying to sound smart.
That will be all.

yes we can detect it, you ignorant moron

>>3878979
>bullshit index
THEY HAVE THOSE?

>>3878927

>Quantum physics, unstructured piece of shit
>yfw QM is the most accurate scientific theory to date

Why are you even here?

We have a relatively good understanding of *some* dark matter.

Dark energy on the other hand, was awarded a nobel prize more prematurely than Obama's peacefulness.

Every time I hear about dark energy, it reminds me of when they invented a ether for light to use as a medium.

It's just a thing we came up with to patch a temporary hole in our understanding of the universe because nobody is smart enough to comeup with a verifiable alternative.

It will die, and everybody who voted to recognize its hypothesization an outstanding contribution to the field of physics will be kicked off the nobel prize comittee.

I only really know about CDM theory and the WIMP detectors at the Boulby mine in England but one of the ways of detecting CDM is indeed looking for traces of gamma radiation, specifically at the centre of large galaxies due to the part of the theory that says CDM is it's own antimatter. WIMP theory says we can detect by looking for small energy fluctuations in low pollution areas (underground etc) due to WIMPs colliding with regular matter and releasing energy. So yep OP it's detectable, we just haven't really detected anything of enough significance yet - there are experiments in Italy and some in the US that have picked up several readings within a range we would expect for WIMP interaction but again, nothing significant enough.
Dark energy is indeed a bit of a temporary patchwork construct in my opinion, but we'll see what the future holds.

>>3878927
0/10

>>3881148

Oh, and I forgot to say, as much as they've hypothesized the nature of CDM being it's own antimatter, as far as I'm aware up until now they haven't found shit as far as gamma emissions are concerned.

>>3881143