/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4688790
Isn't it cool how evolution is all about moving from point A to point B? It's all about locomotion, man. And pretty much all of human technology is also about moving resources from one place to another. Isn't it interesting how in a universe that at its elemental cores is trying to slow down and lose energy, life seems to want to fuck shit up?

sooooomedaaaaay my priiiiince will coooooome

Currently looking into QM and antimatter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineutron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_number

I have a vague understanding of antimatter, but only enough to embarrass myself. I'm curious about the difference between Neutrons and Anti-Neutrons, so I'm hoping Baryon Numbers will help give me a better idea of what makes them different.

>>4688816
>Isn't it interesting how in a universe that at its elemental cores is trying to slow down and lose energy, life seems to want to fuck shit up?

>at its elemental cores is trying to slow down and lose energy
Sauce.

>>4688851
Entropy dumbass.

>>4688816

>blueshift
or troll

>>4688888
>dem quints

>>4688888

quints

Currently learning about spacetime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintessence_(physics)

A particularly interesting quote I found from Robert B. Laughlin:
>The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

Sometimes, I don't get it. The concept of the "Atom" was coined by democritus over 2,000 years ago, and yet we don't regard it as taboo. It was completely unscientific, and many of the ideas he suggested were horribly off.

So why is using the word "ether" considered a big no-no?

>>4688888
Wait, seriously?

Entropy? You're using a concept applied to isolated systems to describe the Universe? And you're calling ME a dumbass?

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but damn, you're stupid.

>>4688910
>>4688908
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintessence_(physics)
This thread is now about Quintessense.

I hope you kids plan to expand your research beyond Wikipedia... Nothing wrong with self education, but Wikipedia does not constitute education.

>>4688888

nice quints

furthermore: energy never gets lost. and entropy yust means that matter and energy will konstantly change in one (time)direction. in an cold universe the densety of matter and energy will be so low that the universe "freezes"

>>4688924
>Entropy
>only applied to isolated systems
>you genuinely believe this

>>4688935
Not all of us are looking for a certified education.

Some of us just like learning because it's fun, and it's interesting to try and understand how the Universe works. If no one takes me seriously, I'm fine with that. I have no intention of selling my thoughts or ideas. This is just something I do in my spare time.

Honestly, that's the biggest reason I dropped out to begin with. It's because I'm a lot happier doing manual labor. Fixing and restoring isn't that hard, so it lets me lose myself in my thoughts while I work.

I just do research so I have a constant supply of new things to think about.

>>4688924

>implying the universe isn't an isolated system

>>4688973

>philosopher

>>4688962
Okay.

Then be clear and concise so that you don't make an ass of yourself this time around.

Define "Entropy" for me.

>>4688988
Sorry, I'm unable to fulfill your request as I never made an ass out of myself in the first place.

Enjoy being a dumbass.

>>4688989
Yeah, so? What's wrong with that?

There's a reason I don't call myself a scientist.
It doesn't mean I don't enjoy learning.
It just means I'm horrible at focusing on specific areas of interest.
I'm may not be in school anymore, and I don't expect to get paid for my thoughts and ideas.

So why should I stop learning when it's what I love to do?

>>4688988

matter always falls down to the most favorable energetic level. (Much energy in unstablemolecules, released by breaking the atomic bonds) most favorable energetic level would be: lowest possible density of matter (energy)

>>4689007

>pothead

>>4689001
No, you definitely made an ass out of yourself.

It's where you thought the term "Entropy" was informative enough to describe what you were saying in >>4688816, only to admit seconds later that it's meaning changes depending on the context.

>>4688990
There's a difference between the "Universe" and the "Observable Universe".

We don't know the limits of the Universe, only the limits of our vision. "The Universe" makes for a really shitty isolated system.

>>4689019
You seem to be under the erroneous impression that everyone on /sci/ who isn't you is the same person.

>>4688973
>Some of us just like learning because it's fun
You misunderstand... I'm not talking about certificates, I'm talking about learning. Wikipedia doesn't offer it in any real capacity. There're plenty of online resources that do, I'm mere suggesting that you guys consider going to them so that you might learn and have fun.

>>4689009
But that's not how the universe actually works.

>>4689056
No, I'm under the impression you made an ass of yourself. Which you did, in >>4689001. And then again in >>4688962.

Currently researching Octopuses.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617102853.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617102853.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0907_octoarm.html

Somewhat relates to what the OP is talking about.
But I'm trying to understand what drove mollusks into becoming such intelligent creatures. Along with how their thoughts function. The part with the "arm brain" is one I find extremely interesting. I'm wondering exactly how this would cause it to process information differently.

>>4689097
Geez, you're a pompous prick.
And no, I'm not the anon you've been talking to.

>>4689145
Sorry, but he assumed that I wasn't familiar with entropy, and then attempted to treat me like moron because of it.

If calling people out on their bullshit makes me "pompous", I'm totally fine with that.

>>4688851
I wrote the post you're replying to, and I didn't write the quints entropy reply. Every level of particles I've dealt with in Physics and Chemistry wants to be more stable, which most of the time involves losing energy. (But I've only done undergrad phys. and chem. classes, I was just making a general observation not meant to be upheld to the scrutiny of a theory)
And I'm sure you could find holes in the locomotion idea, but for the most part, it's all about locomotion.
Hell if I know WHY the first biological cells started moving, their motivation (or nature's inherent causation/reason) for their moving, but the system of evolution has since developed based on locomotion. Static creatures like plants use wind, water currents, or simply gravity to spread spores (also use other biological entities like birds etc). Not only is locomotion a key part of evolution in reproduction and predatory situations (or herbivore food finding), but even down the fundamental chemistry, Life is about using sunlight (or hot gases, or predators eating prey who use sunlight) to move raw materials into a biological form.

>>4689278
But if you'd really studied physics surely you'd know what energy is conserved?

>>4689373
Sure, it's conserved, but that doesn't mean each system isn't trying to lose energy and become more stable. Energy is trying to disperse itself while life tries to gather it and move stuff around using it.

>>4688973
i have wanted that life for the past 3 years.....

>>4689278
>>4689381
Guy from >>4688851 here.

I couldn't tell if you were trolling at first or not, but you've actually got a really good point. I've never really thought about life in terms of locomotion before. At least not in that particular way.

Currently researching Information Sciences

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/information-sciences/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science

I'm not exactly sure what I want from it yet, and I'm not really good with computers. But I really like trying new and different ways of categorizing ideas and concepts. So I figure that if I ever find a system of thinking that works out for me, I at least have some sort of an idea of where I should go with it and attempt to introduce it to other people.

If anything, maybe it will help me figure out how I should organize my own thoughts to begin with. God knows that's why I dropped out to begin with.

>>4689114
>Octopuses
God yes, those things are awesome.

It's especially fascinating, considering that the vision capability is similar to that of a human's, and yet they are both evolutionarily and environmentally different from us.

Here, check out this link if you've not seen it already. Maybe it will give you some insight.

http://cephalove.blogspot.com/2010/05/octopus-visual-system.html

It's a blog, so it's not professional. But it's interesting, nonetheless.

Been getting really into Astronomy Lately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy


Really fucking wish if I could see a galaxy for once.

>>4689415
If it makes you feel better, a lot of people want that.

In the end, it all comes down to how much you care about money vs. learning. College is great if you're looking for a specific career in science. But if you don't know what you're going to do with that information, it's not something you can really commit yourself to.

I've seen a lot of smart people either drop out of or avoid going to college for various reasons. And a lot of these kids were straight A students who never had to study. The kids who would be reading other books in the middle of class and still get good grades.

Part of me wants to call them lazy. But the other part of me realizes that when you've got a bright kid with a broad variety of interests, it's not easy to have them suddenly switch gears after highschool and go straight into college.

In the end, I feel like we're pushing everyone to go to college, but we're not helping people figure out what they want to do with their lives first.

It's not good. It's not bad. It's just that college isn't for everyone right out of highschool, especially people who don't know what they want from the experience.

>>4688973

How much do you earn doing whatever it is you do? It sounds like a pretty sweet life to be honest.

I'm studying modeling
God I'm so fucking talented

12 credits left to graduate
all are core curriculum courses
about to drop out to dedicate full time to my start-up

>>4689839

Just finish man you might as well

You came so far

>>4689839

Just finish it.

Not really /sci/ related, but I'm kinda looking into the history of American expansion right now.

The 1800s are particularly fascinating, just because the timing for Texas, California, and Alaska were just about perfect. And the Panama Canal was the perfect opportunity to split Latin America from South America.

I know it might not seem like a big deal, but a trend I've noticed in history is that the strongest cultures tend to show up where 2 of the 4 sides of land are covered in water (especially regions where 2 rivers meet). And Panama was a region with lush forests and virtually impossible to surround.

That region would have become very important in the future, and not just because it was preventing ships from crossing the Atlantic to the Pacific. It's because it was the ultimate choke point, and whoever managed to tame that region was destined for greatness.

Intentional or not, I have to say I'm impressed. The American Government made a lot of smart moves. I'm definitely going to be looking more into this Panama "thing".

lol y'all aint shit main you nerds I dont need no skool husstle DEM STACKKS bi-atch taklin bout that streetsmarts ya dig? gotta have that eye open, causse niggers always wanna get yo cash and shit but i dontp play liek that know what im saying

Dear dropouts/lone studier,
If you are going to study on yourself do it good and don't just read random wikipedia articles. Atleast buy books from beginner level and alot of maths books.

>>4688790
I dropped out of college to join medschool instead.

Why?
Because downgrading is not the way to prosperity.

>>4688790
>I've noticed that there's a distinct relationship between the evolution of the brain and the eye, and I'm hoping to better understand the correlations between the two.

The retina is usually considered a part of the brain, because histologically it is, guess why they go hand in hand.

Anyway, wiki studies gives you a lot of trivia, but to gain real knowledge i'd suggest you find actual subject lists from programs and the related books they use.

>>4692416
Define "Real knowledge".

If I'm not looking for a career in that specific field, does "real knowledge" do me any good?

>>4692448
>If I'm not looking for a career in that specific field, does "real knowledge"
No. But then it's just trivia of single points.

But if you follow the program schedule you'll probably encounter subjects and stuff you probably never heard off before or thought was relevant.

>>4692408
Prosperity=/=Happiness

My objective in life right now is to gain basic knowledge on a wide variety of subjects while earning a simple living.

As I see it, I'm continually looking for a subject I can be passionate about while entertaining myself and working at the same time.

All knowledge is trivia unless you plan to do something with it. What good does focusing my studies do if I have no inclination to stay in that field?

>>4692448
Not him, but I'm sure there are things in the Wikipedia articles you can't make heads or tails of but would like to understand. With "real knowledge," i.e., the in-depth material found in books, you can learn the background needed to understand these things.

>>4692461
>But then it's just trivia of single points.
What's wrong with that?

Trivia is useful for getting people interested in scientific advancement. People are very curious about how the world works. But when people are ignorant, they talk about it amongst themselves rather than looking it up on their own.

I want to put myself into a position where if people are interested in what's going on in the world or science, or they feel like academia is ignoring the common man, they at least have someone with a general understanding of science to talk to.

Unfortunately, I can't really find a degree that would help me train for a topic like that. Science isn't really considered a form of entertainment, despite the fact that people enjoy learning about the world.

Psuedo-science is already ruining people's impression of science. Why am I frowned upon for educating myself just enough to know what science does and doesn't advocate?

>>4692528
>Why am I frowned upon for educating myself just enough to know what science does and doesn't advocate?

I'm not frowning upon it, I just mean to say that fleshing it out a bit along the line of classical studies can greatly improve your understanding of things.

I don't mean you should actually learn everything of the topic, but atleast a cursory introduction from wiki to know that it existis and the general details of it.

As a med student, I was positively suprised by the molecular biology and histology subjects that wasn't even included in my stereotypical view of med studies.

I'm studying tensors and manifolds, with an eye to be able to understand General Relativity at the mathematical level at which it is stated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold

>>4692448
Here's an analogy: You can learn in a book that the USA is a 'free land', that it's in North America, that is has a population of a certain size, that it's government is divided into Republicans and Democrats, etc.

With that knowledge, you're perfectly fine to make shallow arguments when talking about the USA using the things you've learned. This is okay if you're talking to someone and you want to try to debate (given, hypothetically, there's no other way to find the information) if Texas is mostly Republican or mostly Democrat.

However, you're at a disadvantage for certain topics. In a debate about how the two political parties formed, you're grasping at straws. Since you only read that book, you don't know what a 'free land' is. You need the mechanical processes and histories which built up America, and that means you need to study the details.

So wikipedia is fine in some cases. But a question like, "What's the evolutionary connections between the brain and the eye?" has the potential to go very deep. As you keep on reading, you'll realize that the answers lead to more questions, which lead to more questions, which lead to even more questions. If you want to tackle these questions and not fall victim to misusing false information, you'd need a good foundation and background knowledge. That doesn't mean you have to know all the things connected to it in great detail, like organic chemistry or electromagnetism (since you don't need those things to answer your questions... perhaps...), it means you need to know the things which are most pertinent to your inquiries.

>>4692582
>that *its

>>4692582
It depends on what I'm trying to accomplish with that information.

What's more important to understanding how the US is a free land? The history of the United States? Or the various governments around the world?

In that case, I'd find a broad and generalized knowledge on world governments to gives me a far better understanding of the term "Free Land" than learning an in depth history of the US.

I know it seems like a moot point to make. But what's the point of knowing America is a "free land" if I only know about America?

>>4692578
Saved for future reading.

>>4692582
>You can learn in a book[sic]
And at that point, you're more educated than the majority of the US population.

>>4692622
That was only an analogy. A broad and generalized knowledge of world governments is the same as learning the US in depth- both give you details and interactions that you will only partially understand on wikipedia.

Since you're an autodidact and you're not trying to debate with researchers about current issues, you're right, the synopsis knowledge is fine, as I said before. I'm only trying to define what 'real knowledge' is, as someone asked. If you compare the detailed scientific knowledge vs. the wikipedia knowledge, you'd get a sense of how different they are. And the former is actually fun to think about once you understand it.