/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5864823
I once had a great idea for a project and then saw it published literally the next day by another group.
It was a Wittig style olefination catalytic in phosphorus so it was by no means a profound idea or technological advance.
IIRC this was how I got scooped
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.200902525/abstract
but since I had the idea one day before, it's not like I had put any work into it

Very nice, you described how that other group had your idea just like a friend of mine. While researching he kept seeing these ideas he thought were so original pop up constantly. He came to the conclusion that he was being spied on him or dream extraction lol. I think what it comes down to is that people with opened eyes tend to have a shared view of the world.

>>5864823
During undergrad (i.e. back when I didn't do much around-reading for my lecture courses) I always thought that the interpretation of QM we were taught was bullshit, i.e. nondeterministic in principle.

So I thought about particles existing in addition to wave-functions and realised that relating particle velocity to the phase of Psi provided an empirically-correct and intuitive picture for simple 1-particle systems.

Only then did someone I know tell me about de Broglie's pilot wave idea, and the later work by Bohm and Hiley. And so began my journey on 'Mr Bohm's Wild Ride'.

>mfw quantum heresy

>>5864823
An overly simplistic M-Theroy. People were bragging at the time about string theory and how everything was made of 2 dimension strings. I thought about it and said that was silly, some kind of higher dimension bubble, at minimum a sphere, would be much more sensible as it can do everything the strings can and accommodate other things, as at the time I saw no way to accommodate all 4 dimensions we typically say we occupy, unless you take the holographic argument which while interesting is not as accepted. They looked at me and rhetorically asked if I was a physics major like them, which I was not. Then told me to shut up as someone studying business knows nothing (although I started as an engineer). 2 years later I hear about this new M-theroy that going to be the next big thing. I ask what made it so special and am informed that by using spherical Membranes (bubble) it can accommodate higher dimensional statements simplifying the system and solving new things that they were having problems with. My list is much bigger and more interesting then I could put here, everything from negative numbers to Exoskeletal engines. Bottom line is people should take some time to listen to people who don't have the "required" background, because anyone with good reasoning skills can craft a reasoning argument that could be the next big thing. Also their is something to be said for the uneducated not being limited by prior teachings. Pentagonal crystals are a great example, which I also thought of 5 years before I heard about it and 4 years before it was called a Nobel Prize prize worthy breakthrough, which should have been given about 40 years earlier if the science community did not keep dismissing it as madness.

Yes. When a physics teacher said, "rotation is not a vector", I started doing all sorts of original work with matrices, spherical coordinates, etc. to express rotations as operations about axes and convert to proper coordinates. The work was pretty rough but I was proud of the innovation.

I turns out I was just coming up with some basic work with Euler angles. Now I don't try in school...

>>5865185
>Bottom line is people should take some time to listen to people who don't have the "required" background
The problem with this is that you get more nutjobs spouting their BS "theories" than good ideas coming in and the garbage 99% is what makes it difficult for the 1% that actually have a good idea to be heard.

>>5864823
I figured out how to find the sum of natural numbers before I knew what a natural number or a series was. Otherwise, not so much.

In school I thought of the idea that dark matter was just particles travelling backwards in time so they are present, they just can't interact with matter as they are never in the same point in time long enough.

>>5864823
That feel when you discover a famous constant all by yourself, and find out later it's famous.

I worked out a way to define the chiral de than complex on certai. varieties with singularities given by the quotient of an action by an algebraic group in the derived set up according to crepant resolutions and the McKay correspondence and fucking borisov basically did it for the same types of singularities already for toric varieties and he did it in the same way I did =\ worst lel, back to phd drawing board

>>5865228
>particles travelling backwards in time
>brilliant scientist

>>5864823
>think I found out some interesting idea
>some chineses did it first
>also their papers are fucking horrible
Every
fucking
day

>>5865294
>their papers are so horribly written it takes decades for anyone to realise what they've researched
>search engines utterly fail to list their papers

>>5864823

I thought of a sort of super spacetime to deal with dark matter/energy, but in the end it just boiled down to regular spacetime, and therefore einstein beat me to it.

i achieved nothing.

>>5865224
Yes, listening to every idea would be very impractical, that is why I said some time not all the time. Like just listening during a lunch break or something, the nutjobs stories could be entertaining and the few that would eventually be found would be worth the small sacrifice. As it stands the computer science people won't give me any time to seriously consider my optical computer idea. The few that even listen to the first part just stop me and say it would be too much work to make a computer that directly computes in base 400 instead of the normal base 2, even if the ideas are simple and proven. Supposedly programmers would hunt me down and kill me for it or so they say. As a business person I cry inside when I hear people ask who would want to invest millions of dollars into an computer that while slightly bigger would have permutations more processing power, insane resistance to EMP as it does not use electrical systems directly and use at least half the energy, all based on existing technology. The answer is supposedly no one, as all the investors are set on quantum computing, which I still don't understand. They tell me once it is finished it can somehow process everything at once, but would that not mean infinite computational power? "RAGE"

>>5865296
>references in:
>Journal of Soviet Physics
NGGGGHHHH

>>5865307
FUCKING THIS
There were papers I wished I could find for my Masters' project that were in shit like this. Fuck's sake.

>>5865306
How do you make transistors?

You're talking like optical computing isn't an existing field of research.

When I was studying A-level maths I thought I came up with something brilliant;

a=b
a^2=ab
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2
(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
As a=b let b+b=b
2b=b
2=1

I brought it straight to my maths teacher as my school didn't have internet. They told me I was moronic but never said why.

I later realized I had stumbled upon a really common mathematical fallacy as a-b will always be 0.

>>5865311
So you never had the joy of struggling with soviet gaussian units?

>>5865315
>intricate and complex

>>5865306
>a computer that directly computes in base 400
What's the point?

>>5865306
>>5865185
Anybody can have ideas like "eyh it's 2D? Let's make it 3D!" or "eyh computas work in base 2? Let's make it into base 400!"
If there is one thing in science and technology there is no shortage of, it's ideas.

Proofing, testing, calculating, is what matters.

>>5865314
While not like this to my knowledge, all the optic systems I have seen use LEDs and electro-optic detectors which means it is more accurately a hybrid of electrical and optical technology, admittedly some oddities use chemical-optic systems which are interesting but I do not understand them very well and am worried about wetware developments in general do to future ethical issues.
The biggest difference however is they are all trying to use a binary system. Why limit yourself to mono chromatic light? You can easily adjust for chromatic drift. (see pic), and the gains are very big, 2^64 compared to 400^64 (assuming one output signal).
I do limit myself to visible light as ionizing light will cause physical damage, IR has background noise issues which requires a parroting bit check to deal with, (something I have never like do to the statistical nature, thought nearly everything has them now) and low wavelengths require the transistors to be very larger (though some special application may fine it worth it).
Anyway the advancements in meta-optics materials has allowed us to make purely optic transistors, totally removing the boundary issues of switching back and forth thorough different transit medias, where most of the losses happen. Admittedly those transistors are mono chromatic, but that does not stop one from stacking them into an array that can act as one transistors which can handle direct base 400 signals. (or if you feel crazy splitting onto a lower dynamic base system to optimize for simpler functions) At those data densities the signal can actually contain some of the registry data inside itself, so about 30 registry functions could be removed entirely. In addition the pure optic transistors can spatially support 6 way gates, but I do not know how to use that so I sticking to a standard gate setup. The only real problem is there are physical limits to the volume it occupies, so laptops would be more like portable (super) computers.

>>5865332
One thing at a time, it (>>5865395) could be made 3D, but I do not fully know how to do that and I only work with ideas I have the required knowledge base to understand, that helps me from looking like a loon. And I would love to do proofing and testing. But I do not have the materials I need for that, thought I have done the full calculation on the physics modeling it, which is how end up limiting myself to a base 400 as higher bases presented other problems. As stated here >>5865395. Oh, you meant my first post. If you wanted the rest of the details just ask, do not imply I just a guy spouting ideas without sound and methodical reasoning behind them. Sound and methodical reasoning is the second level of idea development, do not mistake it for the first and I made no such promises it reaches the third. Any idea I speak aloud has to meet at least the second level of scrutiny, more so as a always doubt myself.

>>5865324
see >>5865395
hope that covers it, if not just ask

>>5865395
making a polychromatic processor with 400 frequencies won't give you a base 400 processor. it will give you a binary processor with 400 effective cores cores, like a gpu.

we explored that concept exhaustively, but ended up terminating the project due to lack of funding. also, we used lasers, not leds. with coherent light you can make one optical transistor work for all wavelengths thanks to some sweet QM properties.

>>5865528
When was this exhaustive studying done and where can I read more? Thank you in advance.

I think we may have a time difference here as most of the tech I use in the design is relatively new and has yet to see real commercial application, though has been prove consistently to work in the lab. It did not hit science journals till around 2007 and mainstream media till around 2010 and even then mainstream media called it something like more technical sounding in a footnote then the front page it deserves for such a mind bending breakthrough. Also the part about me harping on the LEDs has more to do with the electrical-optic interface. Whether pump a Laser with an LED or use an LED directly, the point is you are using an electrical-optic interface. I am totally behind coherent light like lasers as the "sweet QM properties" are a necessity to making it work, at least in my system they are.

In full disclosure there is one white pump light that uses electricity at the start of the system, though I picked an electrodeless HEP as they are more energy efficient then an LED or OLED and much harder to fry if something goes wrong.

>>5865185
Physics majors would not be calculating anything in M-theory.
Even babby string theory is a P.h.D topic - M-theory isn't even well defined, so whatever they're spouting isn't actually something they understand in the slightest.
The idea that strings can't replicate reality but membranes can is ridiculous - the reason it's called M-theory and not membrane theory is that Witten was rather skeptical about membranes. M-theory is essentially a theory of dualities more than anything else.
String theory is a mathematical theory and you have made no mathematical discovery - not even a mathematical suggestion!

>>5864823