/sci/ - Science & Math

Awesome.
Can you explain why Snell's law works? Why don't mirrors scatter light uniformly?

Can you explain quantum physics mathematically to me?

do you believe in god? do you believe he is all around us, waiting to be discovered, do you think god is in the integers or a math equation?

>>4392471
snell's law is derived from fermat's principle, it's pretty simple to prove.

>>4392471

>Can you explain why Snell's law works?

Pretty Much everything in physics can be derived from principle of least action.

principle of least action -> Hamilton's principle -> principle of least time -> Snell's law

A rubber band with initial length L has one end tied to a wall. At t = 0, the other
end is pulled away from the wall at speed v (assume that the rubber band stretches
uniformly). At the same time, an ant located at the end not attached to the wall
begins to crawl toward the wall, with speed u relative to the band. Will the ant
reach the wall? If so, how much time will it take?

>>4392483
>god

No. Only children believe in fairytales.

>>4392485
Well I sort of knew that. I guess I was more asking about Fermat's principle. Why does it work?

>>4392489
thanks, finally I get it

>>4392468
>quantum physics

It is too broad a subject. Narrow your question more.

At first I thought "cool, a physics thread", but then I read
>>4392491

OP confirmed for shitposter.

/thread

saged and hidden

>>4392498
>implying you want adults to believe in fairtales

ISHYGDDT

How will a theory of everything explain its own existence?

>>4392502
An adult is mature enough to not derail his own thread into a religion debate.

>>4392502
>fairtales

>>4392490
The length of the rubber band is L+vt.
Let's call x(t) the distance between the ant and the wall at time t. x(0)=L.
Consider <span class="math">r(t)=1 - \frac{x(t)}{L+vt}[/spoiler]. This is the portion of v at which the rubber band under the position of the ant stretches because of uniformity: the speed of the rubber band under the ant is <span class="math">v\cdot r(t)[/spoiler].
Therefore, the speed of the ant in the wall's referential is <span class="math">u-v\cdot \left(1 - \frac{x(t)}{L+vt} \right)[/spoiler]. Thus <span class="math">x'(t) =-u+v\cdot \left(1 - \frac{x(t)}{L+vt} \right)[/spoiler], which is of the form <span class="math">x'(t)=a-b\cdot x(t)[/spoiler].

Why should we ask some undergrad jerkoff questions about physics?

It's like /k/ and it's threads of "Ask an E-3 shitbag about anything and everything related to the US Army Special Forces"

>>4392491
>fairy-tales

I hope you are aware that the word "god" not only refers to an active God like the one in the bible associated with religous rituals, but also to the deist idea of a source of the universe and meaning of life in general, as such being an abstract philosophical concept popular among many famous scientists like for example Einstein and Carl Sagan.

Oh wait, no, you are not aware, because you are just an uneducated American highschooler who never intended do discuss physics, but desperately tries to troll /sci/ into another religion thread.

Nevermind, go on.

Was the initial state after the big bang one of perfect uniformity and if so what caused the first asymmetry

>>4392503
How can you explain what a word is, using words?

>>4392520
you must be retarded, really.

>>4392519
>Was the initial state after the big bang one of perfect uniformity?

Nope

>>4392517
quit shitting this thread up bitch

fucking christfags

>>4392529
I am not christian. I was raised without religion and the only thing I cannot stand is ignorance.

>>4392519
Perfect uniformity is impossible within our understanding of quantum mechanics.

>>4392529
>implying OP didn't shit up his own thread

Way to go, OP.

>>4392531
i guess you fucking hate yourself then you ignorant nigger

>>4392515
You need to state the whole problem. You can't just state the last few sentances.

>>4392517
this is a science board, not a poetry board. physics does not include vague, undefined, poetic words like 'god'

>hurr everybody look at him posting Einstein
>oh wow this guy must know a lot of physics

Fuck off with your freshman arrogance.

>>4392538
god is a pretty well-defined word

>>4392538
A scientist is not supposed to make statements about things he doesn't know anything about. He disqualified himself with his edgy bullshit comment.

>>4392543
Troll? retard? Tretard?

>>4392552
I think OP is more a retard than a troll. But let's see how the thread develops.

When did this board turn to shit?

Are euclidean geometry of space, and a finite boundary-free universe mutually exclusive concepts? It seems that if space is expanding, and if it were flat, that would necessarily imply it has boundaries (assuming it is finite), right?

>>4392536
I can if I'm right and I give clues about why each sentence is valid, though.

ITT:
>hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zHZj8Xp-Ik

>>4392557
Ironically this question is coming from someone who is part of the problem.

>>4392559
>inane pony garbage

>>>/mlp/

>>4392558
>Are euclidean geometry of space, and a finite boundary-free universe mutually exclusive concepts?

Nope

>It seems that if space is expanding, and if it were flat, that would necessarily imply it has boundaries (assuming it is finite), right?

Nope. You do way to much assuming.

>>4392562
ITT:
>hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv6RbEOlqRo

>Are euclidean geometry of space, and a finite boundary-free universe mutually exclusive concepts?

>Nope

Wait wut.
How can a euclidean space be finite but unbounded?

>>4392575
>How can a euclidean space be finite but unbounded?
Well, that's what I'm asking.

>>4392575
Mandlebrot set has a finite area, but is unbounded.

>>4392575
Sphere

>>4392567
>Nope
>Nope
Well, that was a shit way to answer the question.

>>4392583
>sphere
>euclidean

>>4392583
Sphere implies non-euclidean.

>>4392583
Oh, Euclidean. Nevermind that sphere comment.

>>4392584
What do you expect from an underage troll?
Did you really belief he knows physics?

>>4392590
I've seen some person posting with the same name give proper answers to physics questions before. I'm guessing this is some random troll pretending to be him.

>Time for me to answer your physics questions (if they aren't too fucking retarded).

>answers to stupid religion crap
>cannot answer real physics questions

lol XD epic troll

>>4392591
When searching the archive for his posts, I see only shitposting.

>>4392582
>Mandlebrot set has a finite area, but is unbounded.
>is unbounded
>Google mandelbrot set
>wikipedia
>The Mandelbrot set is a particular mathematical set of points whose boundary is a distinctive and easily recognizable two-dimensional fractal shape.
>set of points whose boundary is a distinctive and easily recognizable
am I missing something here?

>>4392594
This was in the early days of /sci/.

>>4392601
When were the early days of /sci/?
I think the archive goes back to 2010, the year I started browsing /sci/.
I have no idea what happened before.

>>4392606
Can't remember exactly. Could be 2009 or early 2010.

>>4392613
Get a few points to plot the post ID as a function of time. Extrapolate the curve to get the date of post ID 1.

>>4392617
>implying constant post rate

>>4392622
If I had implied a constant post rate, I wouldn't have said "a few points", I would have said "two points".

>>4392617
Sounds like a good idea. I don't really care all that much about what the precise date was that /sci/ got added to the list of boards though.

>http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Sci
There we go, January 2010.

>>4392622
>>4392626
Also:
1000000 23 may 2010
2000000 04 nov 2010
3000000 05 may 2011
4000000 05 nov 2011
Post rate seems pretty much constant to me. I'd say it started more or less november 2009, but of course the rate of the very first few months could have been different, so maybe offset that by one month or two in any direction.

>>4392646
>>4392642
Huhu, exactly two months off. Falls within my error range.

>>4392642
Oh shit, this article is so fucking accurate regarding /sci/'s quality.

Alrighty OP;
At what speed does a particles mass equal 10 times its rest mass?
I got 2.989x10^8, but that seems a bit too high.