/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11967654]

thread topic =
>female theoretical physicists

if(TL;DR){
thoughts/tips on dating/marrying/children with female theoretical physicists?
}

else{
I'm a neuro/comp/cogneuro working on a particular AI problem, its my lifes work and in the late stage requires advanced knowledge of particle physics.

I have a 50% probability of project completion by 2050, with a standard deviation of 20 years or so.

Already my projects give me a probability of 50% for current functional non death.

This is still a huge risk of death before project completion, and thus project failure,

I currently am working on start and middle stages of the project, though it is essential that the final stage is completed too... This final stage requires phd + level theoretical physics and at least 130 iq, then some kind of heavy motivation.

My background is specialised in theoretical cognitive neuroscience and my understanding of even middle level physics is quite limited, and particle physics would be really taxing.

As a contingency plan to reduce some of that 50% remaining project failure, I could have a child, and train this child and mould them (contingent trust fund too) to have them train in theoretical physics and complete the project.

To do this I should find a woman with a background in theoretical physics, marry and have children with her,

so far I have met at least one woman during grad school, and a lecturer whom were theoretical physicists. I'm searching dating sites** now too for more options.

tl;dr: thoughts/tips on dating/marrying/children with female theoretical physicists?

I'm also concerned that I might accidentally create some kind of super villain autist who won't complete my mission
***a bunch of steps in this process are necessary for reasons not disclosed in this OP
**I'm a 28 year old giga chad, ripped, handsome, 6ft, 8inch penis, charismatic, 130+iq, work and teach at a university etc
}

[Anonymous No.11967706]

>>11967654
fucking cringe post, unironically kys anon

[Anonymous No.11967734]

>>11967706
Agreed

[Anonymous No.11967735]

>>11967654
>I could have a child, and train this child and mould them (contingent trust fund too) to have them train in theoretical physics and complete the project
I see no ways in which this could possibly backfire whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.11967739]

>>11967735
ideally I will complete the project myself without dying,

the child is a contingency... a somewhat small investment since I philander anyway with hopefully a small positive addition to my chances of global success

[Anonymous No.11967742]

>>11967706
/thread

[Anonymous No.11968440]

>>11967654
holy shit I want to fuck her

[Anonymous No.11968445]

>>11967654
>I have a 50% probability of project completion by 2050, with a standard deviation of 20 years or so.
dude what the actual fuck. No one talks like this, please be more normal- we get it you took a python course and an intro to stats

[Anonymous No.11968472]

>>11967654
Post physique right now faggot

[Anonymous No.11968476]

>>11967654
>whom were theoretical physicists

[Anonymous No.11968477]

>>11967739
>the child is a contingency
>child
I think you need to focus on redundancy issues in the event they die or are not gifted mathematicians.

[Anonymous No.11968481]

>>11967654
You should have been bullied more in school you noodlearmed fuck

[Anonymous No.11968482]

>>11968477
realistically how many children would one need to have in order to improve the odds?

How many kids did Einstein have? did they go on to achieve anything noteworthy?

[Anonymous No.11968513]

>>11968482
Most pro athletes kids don't become as great or better than thier parents at thier discipline. But it's way more likely than a rando doing it.

[Anonymous No.11968522]

>>11968513
that's obvious
what about increased consanguinity?

[Anonymous No.11968532]

To be fair, you don't need a theoretical woman physicist to spawn a theoretical physicist. Where do you think the first theoretical physicist came from?

[Anonymous No.11968536]

>>11967654
If I ever see you in the street I'll beat the shit out of you.

[Anonymous No.11968541]

education is highly dysgenic for women, the smartest end up penalised for not putting their time and effort into raising more offspring.

[Anonymous No.11968811]

>>11968477
the hope is for a 5% improvement in project success from the child,

for 6 generations we have been >nuclear engineer, computer scientist, now theoretical cognitive neuroscientist etc

this kind of psychological profile is almost entirely genetic, with two parents with this kind of profile it should stand a decent chance of producing a child at least capable of studying the material.

>>11968482
it is a specific sub section of a project that will have taken a lifetime to build out, there will be very detailed instructions and a good ten years of mentorship from 10-23 from myself and ideally this female theoretical physicist

>>11968541
Yes, the halls of academia in the top tier sciences are filled with barren women, this should actually increase my chances.

>>11968513
in terms of professions and academic fields, the children are orders of magnitude more likely to end up following similar career paths/interests as their parents, even when adopted.

>>11968445
>please be more normal
>normal

also
>python
>curly brackets

also
>not probabilistically modelling project outcomes

[El Arcón No.11968820]

My MCM is quite similar the Randall's Randall-Sundrum models.

[le acorn no1 fan No.11968822]

>>11968532

[Anonymous No.11968830]

>>11968811
>this should actually increase my chances.
Do it bro, save a nerd girl from the cat woman fate.

[El Arcón No.11968833]

>>11968820
Maybe if one or both of them was a mega-genius...

I characterize my model in terms of the AdS/CFT duality. Usually in AdS/CFT, they try to put one boundary on the outside of a bulk, either at a flat surface at rectangular infinity or on the surface of a sphere enclosing a ball. My key insight was to put a boundary between two bulks instead of on the outside of just one bulk. They say AdS/CFT is such that "holographic" encoding allows the physics of a bulk to be encoded on a dimensionally reduced surface but I said let the dimensionally reduced surface be the interface at the intersection of two bulks. It's pretty obvious and normal, and not radical at all. Everyone who couldn't immediately see that my idea was a good idea doesn't know physics very well and anyone at all would be a complete asshole to believe someone like that if they tell you they're a subject matter expert in physics. The thing that's not obvious is why no one thought it up before me. It's so simple, you'd think they would have... but they didn't. History was such that no one came up with it until I did. That's a fact. My opinion is that no one ever would have come up with it either, if not for me.

[El Arcón No.11968846]

>>11968440
I would like to interrogate her forcefully.
>Who hurt you, Lisa?
>Tell me!
>Tell me now or it's about to get weird in here.

[Anonymous No.11968848]

>>11967654
>I could have a child, and train this child and mould them (contingent trust fund too) to have them train in theoretical physics and complete the project

such idealistic faggot bullshit. makes me angry desu. get over yourself sewer nigger

[Anonymous No.11968872]

>>11968833
someone thought it up before you Jon, look up Horava-Witten theory or even just learn the first thing about D branes

[El Arcón No.11968899]

>>11968872
The first thing about "Dirichet" branes is that they support a Dirichlet boundary condition on the continuity of a function and its first derivative. I didn't invent branes, I invented the configuration in my picture. My model is a simple picture. That theory you mentioned is some over-complicated bullshit which has never proven useful for anything except padding a CV. On other hand, I used this simple picture to solve the fundamental problem of quantum field theory: why do we have the particles that we have? The reason we have to introduce the standard model on top of QFT is because QFT by itself does not say which particles we ought to have. The Standard Model is like an engineering handbook for doing QFT but I showed how you can do QFT the physics way without a phenomenological "standard model." The fundamental particles are the automata of the MCM unit cell.

[Anonymous No.11969698]

>>11968848
I am at stage two in the project already and my projects still hold.

If I had a child, they would be receiving heavy instruction in science/math anyway... its not uncommon for children to take on the parents business.

Goertzels kid is doing a phd in automated theorem proving

[Anonymous No.11969817]

>>11967654
only photo she looks that good.