He's not a scientist

[Anonymous No.10195014]

He needs to stop acting like he's a scientist. He's an engineer.

Also, physics is a lot more difficult than engineering. It's an insult for some brainlet engineer to act like he's a physicist.

[Anonymous No.10195209]

He needs to stop acting like he's a scientist. He's an engineer.

Also, physics is a lot more difficult than engineering. It's an insult for some brainlet engineer to act like he's a physicist.

[Anonymous No.10195252]

>>10195209
Elon Musk is legit. He got his physics undergrad degree from UPenn and was a Ph.D candidate in energy physics over at Stanford.

[Anonymous No.10195255]

Physicists are inferior to engineers in every way imaginable.

[Anonymous No.10195257]

>>10195255
t. brainlet engineer

[Anonymous No.10195295]

There was a special on Netflix where the cast of Stranger Things talked with Bill Nye about advanced physics concepts like wormholes and multiverses.

I thought it was funny that they invited a mechanical engineer to talk about that stuff as if he was qualified.

[Anonymous No.10195318]

>>10195252
>and was a Ph.D candidate in energy physics over at Stanford
That implies he was in the Ph.D program. The best spin Musk's put on it is being in it for like half a day at most. One of the reasons he sued the Tesla founders was over them telling people he lied about the Stanford thing. That said Stanford are happy to claim him as an alumnus so eh.

[Anonymous No.10195345]

>>10195318
Being in a Ph.D physics program for half a day is more impressive than being a brainlet engineer.

[Anonymous No.10195348]

>>10195345
It certainly prepared him for saving those Thai boys from a cave.

[Anonymous No.10195361]

>>10195295
cracks me up every time

[Anonymous No.10195401]

>>10195348
Shut up pedo

[Anonymous No.10195441]

>>10195348

t. pedo

[Anonymous No.10195443]

>>10195361
Reddit is wrong, Bill Nye annihilation theory is the most accurate model.

[Anonymous No.10195484]

>>10195361
Well you see, little Jimmy, in order to understand this concept we're gonna need to take a quick look at the properties of waves.

You see, like a plucked guitar string, an electron bound within an atom is mathematically a vibrating wave composed of different frequencies.

"What? Multiple frequencies? When you pluck an E, don't you just get an E?", you might say...

Not exactly, little Jimmy. That E is actually a bunch of different frequencies added together. The brain picks out the important frequencies and recognizes it as an E, but additional frequencies and their relative volumes, or amplitudes, influence the timbre of the note; allowing you to tell apart a trumpet from a piano.

Here's where you might want to take out your favorite graphing utility. Everything starts with a sine wave, so graph y=sin(x). Better yet, graph y = Asin(Bx + C), so you can play around with A and B. We call A the amplitude, B the frequency, and C the phase shift. Get a feel for the effect these variables have on the sine wave.

Now I ask you, "Where is the sine wave?"
"Where is it? What do you mean where is it? It's a graph," you say. Ahh, but Jimmy, I said earlier that an electron is mathematically a vibrating wave. If that is the case, and this sine wave represents an electron with the x-axis representing position, where is the electron?

I'll tell you. Ontologically this is a tricky question, but as far as the math is concerned, we can view the electron as smeared out across the wave; the higher the y-value at a specific point, the more of the electron is there. Although the sine wave leaves off the complex parts comprising a true quantum-mechanical wavefunction, essentially the electron that we have represented is everywhere.

Yes, that's correct. Everywhere. But how do we represent an electron that is somewhere, localized at one point?

Well, earlier I said that a vibrating guitar string is many different frequencies. In the same way, an electron can be too...

[Anonymous No.10195505]

>>10195484
Try adding a few more oscillators to your graph: y = A1sin(B1x+C1) + A2sin(B2x+C2) + ... Then try fiddling with the parameters. Try to get the graph to form a large "bump" at x = pi/2. (Hint: you probably won't want to touch any of the C parameters right now).

"Did you do it, little Jimmy? Wow that sure is good; great job, little Jimmy... Now, in your graph, where is the electron?" Well, if we look at it, it appeara that the electron is _mostly_ at the bump, but there are other bumps, too, and really its not the sharpest bump possible. In fact it turns out that in order to have a perfect bump, representing an electron at only one point in space, you need infinitely many sine waves at different frequencies added together.

Now its time to dive a little deeper into the physics. In this case when we look at the sine waves making up an electron, we say that an x-value represents a position, and a sine wave's frequency represents a momentum. So a perfectly peaked wave would mean that the electron is at one point in space, but that its momentum simultaneously takes every possible value. On the other hand, a single sine wave represents an electron with one perfectly-defined momentum, but that is everywhere simultaneously.

"Sure, sure", you say, "but what exactly is 'momentum'? Why do we care?"

Well, momentum is related to the speed, or velocity, of the electron. When the momentum is higher, the electron is moving faster, it has a higher velocity.

So our little electron is in a bit of a conundrum. It can be in one place but move around completely unpredictably, move at a perfectly certain speed but be everywhere at once, or somewhere in between, having a sort-of well-defined momentum and a sort-of well-defined position. It can't be in one spot and moving at one speed simultaneously.

In essence, these two values are in a constant tug-of-war. Finally, we can get a basic understanding of why the electrons in an atom don't collapse towards the protons.

[Anonymous No.10195525]

>>10195505
In the case of an electron in an atom, the sine wave representing the electron is "bent around" the protons so that it encircles them. If you can imagine it, little Jimmy, the wave is actually more like a cloud, with different amplitudes (the y-values from the earlier wave) at different positions around the atom.

The electric force pulling the electrons inward towards the protons gives the electrons momentum, or speed. All the protons are yelling "Come here, come here! Point your momentum towards the center and fly towards it!" at the electrons, and the electrons try to do this, but they are faced with their old conundrum.

As soon as the electron tries to point its momentum towards the center, it finds that in order to more accurately fix its momentum, it has to spread out more in space, in the same way that having your wave consist of fewer and fewer frequencies causes it to spread out over the x-axis more and more.

In the same way, as the electron tries to narrow down its position and shrink down towards the center, its momentum spreads out across momentum space (the set of all possible momenta), and it goes flying wildly away from the center.

You may ask, "Now, it sounds like the electron really can't get close to the center. But what if we squish it in there? Just put it in some sort of vice and just push the electron towards the center with all our might?"

Little Jimmy, you should become a physicist; you're asking all the right questions. Imagine we do manage to squish down the electron into the nucleus of the atom, or at least really close to it. What happens to the momentum then? Well, its going all over the place, and its got (almost) every single possible speed simultaneously... "WHAM!" that electron just flew out of your vice, it was going so fast that its at the moon now.

[Anonymous No.10195576]

>>10195401
>>10195441
>Elon Musk: It is of vital importance that you put these young Thai boys trapped in a cave into this specially designed rocket component.

>Also Elon Musk: It is of vital importance to humanity that I fly some people to be alone with me on Mars, and in preparation for that I'm taking an Asian male in a rocket.

Hmmm....

[Anonymous No.10195579]

>>10195525
There are electrons at orbitals inside the nucleus of an atom.

[Anonymous No.10195631]

He's not really even an engineer. He does have a Masters degree in an engineering discipline but worked as an engineer for a very short period of time before becoming a sketch comedian. The Science Guy was just one of his characters on Almost Live. It gained traction and he rode it to fame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4Fa7B3a0Hs

[Anonymous No.10195687]

>>10195631
>He does have a Masters degree in an engineering discipline
yes and that makes him qualified to maybe talk about some possible diy projects but certainly not modern physics.

[Anonymous No.10195819]

>>10195014
>saying Trump is bad, cancels all of your credentials and diplomas

[Anonymous No.10196124]

>>10195443
His "answer" just restated the question instead of giving any new information.

[Anonymous No.10196137]

He is a science spokesman for kids. Why do we care?

[Anonymous No.10196237]

>>10195014
News flash to underage /sci/ : an undergrad degree doesn’t make you anything.

[Anonymous No.10196250]

>>10195209
he is legally not an engineer and would be in trouble legally if he called himself a engineer.

[Anonymous No.10196252]

>>10196237
If you take the fe and pe, you are an engineer with an undergraduate abet degree

[Anonymous No.10196256]

>>10196252
>if

[Anonymous No.10196258]

>>10196252
>if my aunt had balls she’d still be my aunt because it’s current year

[Anonymous No.10196273]

>>10195014
>Dude, just cut your penis off, it's science

[Anonymous No.10196762]

>>10195209
He has a physics Ph.D

[Anonymous No.10196766]

>>10195361
Cringe at those responses. He obviously wasn't talking particle annihilation. He was using it in the laymen sense of "destroyed".

[Anonymous No.10196770]

>>10195525
Your answer makes it seem like electron capture by a nucleus is impossible. It isn't.

[Anonymous No.10196778]

>>10195361
Correct answer: Electrons are sometimes captured by the nucleus. But the reason atoms are relatively stable is because electrons dont behaveike classical particles. Instead, an atomic system with a fixed energy has the electron behaving like a wave which is spread out over a comparatively large distance. Because the nucleus is so small compared to the spread of the wave, it is unlikely that a measurement will find the electron at the nucleus exactly.

[Anonymous No.10197126]

>>10195255
Engineers are almost at the bottom of the STEM totem pole

[Anonymous No.10197579]

>>10197126
Any moron can get an engineering degree. I'm an EE/physics double major and I can tell you I get almost straight A's in my EE classes while my physics classes are dropping my GPA big time. :-(

[Anonymous No.10197630]

>>10195252

> Ph.D candidate in energy physics over at Stanford.

yeah for 1 day