/sci/ - Science & Math

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164519]

Answering physics questions!

[Anonymous No.6164524]

If one was to make a magnetic linear coil accelerator, would it be best to start giving power to the next coil in line if:

>projectile is at the beginning of coil
or
>projectile has reached middle of coil

[Anonymous No.6164528]

How does quantum field theory work?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164540]

>>6164524
At the beginning. The energy given to the projectile is equal to the distance through which a force is applied times that force. If you apply the force over a longer distance (i.e. from the beginning to the end of the coil, instead of from the middle to the end), your projectile be given more energy.

[Anonymous No.6164541]

Is it true that physics students have to conduct the Schrodinger cat experiment in their lab courses? How many cats die each year?

[Anonymous No.6164545]

If all forces are the result of gauge bosons, then what force is acting on the gauge bosons to give them momentum?

[Anonymous No.6164548]

>>6164540
Thanks for replying.

So, if the coil is started when the projectile enters, should it be stopped when:

>projectile is at center of coil
or
>projectile is at end of coil

I'm not sure, but I think it should be stopped at the center, otherwise the coil would cause it to decelerate.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164553]

>>6164528
It's a pretty broad and nuanced subject. It is necessary when you begin to consider systems where particle number is not conserved. These systems include ones with very high energies, and/or with certain types of particles like photons or gluons.

To get a little more technical: You treat each possible set of particle numbers as a unique quantum state in the Hilbert space of the space where the particles exist. This additional quantization is called the "second quantization." It turns finding amplitudes of states from simple integrals into functional integrals.

>>6164541
Yes, probably thousands.

[Anonymous No.6164557]

If Higgs Bosons are the reason why everyone of us has mass,so if we take off this particle we become massless? beating the speed of light and travel into the past or the future maybe?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164566]

>>6164545
First thing: momentum is a fundamental property of a particle, you don't need a force acting on you to have momentum. Second: It's not a good idea to think in terms of force when talking about quantum mechanics. Rather than thinking of them as creating force, think of the gauge bosons as exchanging momentum between particles. Since momentum is conserved, if they exchange it without being absorbed or annihilated, they will bounce off with a change in their own momentum (i.e., a classical "force" has been applied).

[Anonymous No.6164571]

Could you explain magnetic flux?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164575]

>>6164548
No, ideally you would never turn off any of the coils. The magnetic force along the axis of a coil is always pointing in the same direction, so the longer it's on, the more energy you give your projectile. The reason the coils are generally switched off when the projectile leaves is for efficiency reasons- the effective force it is applying drops off rapidly outside the coil, so you're not getting very much energy into the projectile for the amount you are putting in.

>>6164557
I guess. This is kind of like asking "if there were no letter "Q", would we not be able to ask questions?"

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164579]

>>6164571
It has units of magnetic field strength * area. It's what you get when you add up all the magnetic field going through some surface.

It's frequently used because some convenient mathematical results show that, for example, the induced current current in a wire loop are proportional to the change in flux through the inside of the loop. This means that rather than having to do complicated calculations involving every little detail of a magnetic field, we can treat it with this simpler, one-number measurement.

[Anonymous No.6164580]

Can you explain what's up with self-energy (in terms of electrostatics) and why the continuous formula for the potential energy contains it?

[Anonymous No.6164583]

>>6164575
>No, ideally you would never turn off any of the coils. The magnetic force along the axis of a coil is always pointing in the same direction, so the longer it's on, the more energy you give your projectile. The reason the coils are generally switched off when the projectile leaves is for efficiency reasons- the effective force it is applying drops off rapidly outside the coil, so you're not getting very much energy into the projectile for the amount you are putting in.

I see, thanks for the explanation.
I was under the impression that if I placed an object at the front of a magnetic coil and started giving power, the object would oscillate until being balanced in the middle, like in this video at about 2 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZo_keUoEs#t=116

[Anonymous No.6164586]

Is it true that a lot of string theories don't have empirical evidence?
If so, why is this theory still so popular among physicists?

[Anonymous No.6164587]

What is the universe expanding into?

inb4 metric expansion
We all know metric expansion is only the mathematical description but the actual mechanism has to be expansion into an ambient medium.

[Anonymous No.6164591]

What is the point of universality?

How does rescaling the physics of your system tell you anything different that the original system? What makes an operator "relevant" or "irrelevant" in the context of renormalization?

[Anonymous No.6164592]

If we cool down a quantum particle, can we observe its wave function collapse in slow motion?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164596]

>>6164580
Self energy is the intrinsic potential energy of a system. Potential is always defined relative to some arbitrary baseline, and when discussing self-energy we usually pick that particles at infinity have energy 0. So the self energy of a configuration of electrically charged particles is the energy required to bring them all from infinity to that configuration- in mathspeak, the integral from infinity to the end location of the force on the particle. Since all the terms in the force on a charged particle will go like <span class="math">1/r^2[/spoiler], the integrals converge for any reasonable configuration. The end result of this integral is a sum of all these terms:

<span class="math"> V = \sum_{i \neq j} \frac{q_i q_j}{|\vec{r}_i - \vec{r}_j|} [/spoiler]

In the continuum limit, this becomes a double integral.

[Anonymous No.6164598]

Did you read Feynman's original publications? Is there a lot of evidence for his low IQ? Like for example did he make a lot of grammatical and spelling errors?

[Anonymous No.6164600]

>>6164519
What's the difference between resistance an impedence?

[Anonymous No.6164604]

What is the minimum IQ for studying theoretical physics?

[Anonymous No.6164608]

Is the universe discrete or continuous?

What sort of evidence do we need to verify our theories of quantum gravity/how soon do you think we'll get it?

[Anonymous No.6164610]

Have you taken an official IQ test? What was your score?

[Anonymous No.6164615]

What do you think of psychophysics? Can things like consciousness be described physically?

[Anonymous No.6164618]

>>6164604
>>6164610

Leave /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6164624]

Is it true that on average physics majors are smarter than everyone else?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164629]

>>6164583
Yes, this is actually true if you have an unpolarized projectile. I was assuming that your projectile was already a permanent magnet. If you're relying on the diamagnetism induced in the projectile, you do indeed need to turn it off halfway through.

>>6164586
There is not much falsifiability to string theory. It's also not very popular amongst physicists. There are only a handful of string theorists around anymore.

>>6164587
Why does it have to be expanding into a medium?

>>6164591
I don't really understand these questions.

>>6164592
You never observe a collapse, so no. But two kind of related interesting facts: by varying the energy of a system extremely slowly, you can cause all the levels of a system to shift slightly while preserving the quantum state instead of just projecting the old state onto the new basis. Also, by continually measuring a system faster than its newly-collapsed wavefunction can spread out again, you can force it to remain in the same state even if when you are changing the system it is in.

[Anonymous No.6164633]

At what speed does the information in quantum entanglement propagate?

[Anonymous No.6164643]

>>6164629
>I don't really understand these questions.

I'm trying to understand why the renormalization group is important and what it's implications are.

I assumed you're a biophysicist because of the pic in the OP.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164645]

>>6164598
I've read stuff he's written but generally things don't get through peer review with grammatical or spelling errors. But really, who gives a shit about IQ?

>>6164600
Impedance is a complex number. It is the ratio of the voltage to the current, just like resistance, but is generalized to AC currents expressed as <span class="math">e^{i(\omega t + \delta)}[/spoiler], which if you remember Euler's formula, is just a fancy way of writing an oscillating function.

>>6164604
>>6164610
Once again, IQ means nothing.

>>6164608
It's discrete in some ways and continuous in others. I'm not a quantum gravity theorist so I really am not up on that stuff, I'm sure there are all kinds of opinions about it.

>>6164615
As a biophysicist, I can confirm that applying physics to biological systems is incredibly effective. It will be pretty crucial when it comes to thoroughly understanding the human brain.

>>6164624
No.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164658]

>>6164633
No information is exchanged between entangled particles.

>>6164643
You know, it has been a long time since taking QFT, and I have never used it once outside the classroom, so I cannot explain this without rereading and preparing some stuff.

[Anonymous No.6164661]

>>6164645
How would you visualize a line integral over both a scalar and a vector field?

[Anonymous No.6164669]

I skipped my last lecture which had something to do with solid materials, metals or semi-conductors and also something about electron band structure iirc

what is the gist of this?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164675]

>>6164661
Scalar field: The scalar is the height of grass. The path is the course you take while pushing a lawn mower. The integral is the amount of grass in the bag at the end. (To really be a complete picture, you need also account for the possibility of NEGATIVE GRASS.)

Vector field: Each point on the path has a tangent vector. Dot this with the vector field's value at that point. The line integral is the sum of all these contributions. This is harder to visualize with physical quantities.

[Anonymous No.6164679]

>>6164629
can you explain what a quantum particle is? and give an example of one that we can see/observe?

[Anonymous No.6164681]

>>6164658
> No information is exchanged between entangled particles.
this doesn't make sense to me.
first what process when happens to one, happens to the other?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164677]

>>6164669
I think wikipedia + syllabus would be your friend here.

[Anonymous No.6164685]

>>6164519
is Higgs Boson still a theory or is it a law?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164700]

>>6164679
Believe it or not, everything is a quantum particle! As it turns out, the "state" of (or what we know about) a particle isn't best described by simple numbers like position and momentum, it's best described by position DISTRIBUTIONS and momentum DISTRIBUTIONS. There are many effects of the way these physical rules work, one of which is that energy is often quantized- that is, it can only take discrete values, instead of existing on a continuum. One example of a quantum particle that you quite literally see is light! Your retina is actually sensitive to individual photons, which are the quanta of light. Your brain only registers the retinal signal when you have seen roughly five in a small period of time, though.

[Anonymous No.6164705]

Where can I learn how to solve this problem?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164707]

>>6164681
The trick is that both particles are one system, and the entire thing collapses. It is impossible to, by measuring the wavefunction at one end, change anything or send any information to the observer at the other end.

>>6164685
Theory, law, whatever. It exists to within 5 sigma!

[Anonymous No.6164708]

Let f be continuous and let B be a ball of radius e centered at the point (a, b, c). Let vol(B) be the volume of B. Prove that the limit, as e approaches zero, of the triple integral of f(x,y,z)dV over the ball B all divided by vol(B) is equal to f(a,b,c).

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164710]

>>6164705
The wikipedia page about the doppler effect.

[Anonymous No.6164714]

What are your thoughts on the Amplituhedron? Do you think its a big breakthrough or just a gimmick?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164719]

>>6164708
<span class="math"> \lim_{e \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{vol(B)} \iiint_B f(x,y,z) dV = \lim_{e \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{vol(B)} \iiint \theta(\sqrt{(x-a)^2 + (y-b)^2 + (z-c)^2} - e) f(x,y,z) dV = \iiint \delta^3(a,b,c) f(x,y,z) dV = f(a,b,c). [/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.6164721]

So force equals mass times velocity squared, right? I'm order of operations-impaired, does that mean mass times (v-squared)? In other words, does adding velocity have a greater impact on force than adding more pass?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164724]

>>6164714
This is so far outside of my field of expertise I cannot comment.

>>6164708
Sorry my previous tex didn't turn out right. Express the integral over the ball as an integral over all space with a step function of radius centered at e multiplied in. Step function divided by volume is a delta function at (a,b,c) as e goes to zero. Integral of delta function times function is value at delta spike.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164726]

>>6164721
You are mixed up. Energy, not force, is mass times velocity squared. But you are right that it is squared in velocity and linear in mass! That means that making something go twice as fast gives it four times as much energy, but making something twice as heavy gives it only twice as much energy.

[Anonymous No.6164729]

How exactly do qbits work? (quantum computer stuff)
How does entanglement give you more storage and how much does it give?

And whats the noise over quantum cryptanalysis?

[Anonymous No.6164734]

>>6164721

You've got it mixed up.

Force = mass * acceleration.

A body moving at a constant speed doesnt really have a force. it will exert a force on collision.

You might be thinking of momentum (momentum = mass * velocity) or kinetic energy (E = 1/2 mass * velocity^2)

[Anonymous No.6164744]

>>6164726
>>6164734

Oh crap, thanks guys! Very edifying and constructive replies.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164745]

>>6164729
The big thing about quantum computing is that it makes integration a trivial computing operation. It doesn't so much make your storage space bigger, as it makes things like searching huge databases a single-step operation. This is, as one might imagine, extremely useful for cryptanalysis as it allows instant determination of, for example, a hash key.

[Anonymous No.6164747]

>>6164519

do physicists deal with transport phenomena very much or is it considered babby shit engineering subject

[Anonymous No.6164754]

OP (and anybody else who chimed in with helpful answers), you should be a teacher or a professor, if you aren't. Threads like this are first-rate!

[Anonymous No.6164755]

>>6164700
So what is this talk about superpositions? that is the thing that confuses me.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164757]

>>6164729
To answer your first question: a normal bit has two states, 1 or 0. A qubit has 1, 0 and any superposition of 1 and 0. One can take advantage of quantum behaviors for computing purposes: projecting states into different spaces (getting different amounts of 1 and 0) by applying fields, obtaining true randomness, being intrinsically related to observation and thus always aware if anyone other than the intended party is observing, etc.

[Anonymous No.6164761]

How would you recommend me learning all the material of a physics undergraduate? (i.e. the physics version of the "Mathematics First Year Undergraduate Education" guide)

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164769]

>>6164747
Transport phenomena? In what sense? Many biophysicists deal extensively with transport in biological systems.

>>6164755
A superposition means that the state of a particle is some amount in one state and some amount in another. The sizes of these components evolve separately with time, and when the particle is observed, it collapses into a state that's purely the one that was observed. The likelihood of a state being chosen is proportional to the amount that it was present in the particle's pre-collapse state.

[Anonymous No.6164773]

>>6164769

like fluid mechanics, heat transfer, mass transfer, stuff typically taught to undergrad engineers.

I don't know if physicists study these in undergrad along with relativity, QM, and etc..

[Anonymous No.6164774]

How do i use Fermi's golden rule in a situation like this?
Every year there's a question like this in the exam but I don't know how to do it and have no solutions to learn from :(

[Anonymous No.6164791]

Can you please help me with this problem?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164789]

>>6164761
Ideally, you'd attend an undergraduate institution and study physics. There's a lot more to learning physics than reading books- research experience, talking to and connecting with other physicists, and being forcibly exposed to things you might not even know you should be learning about are all really essential. But if you are just a hobby learner, here are the books I would recommend:

-Schaum's outlines for calculus, vector calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra. Do every problem.
-Griffiths or Purcell - E&M.
-Griffiths - Quantum Mechanics.
Griffiths has a habit of making problems part of the textbook instruction, but also including completely worthless problems. So it is tricky to know which problems to do or skip. Look at a syllabus for a class at some university to figure it out.
-Kittel - Thermal Physics
-Marion & Thornton - Classical Mechanics

Go from there.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164803]

>>6164773
No, that's more of a pick-it-up-as-necessary thing in research and not something you'd learn in a class.

>>6164774
lambda is dn/dt. Plug in rho = dn/dE and integrate!

[Anonymous No.6164804]

>>6164769
So the things do exist on a continuum, but when we observe them they collapse into one of the discrete positions?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164815]

>>6164791
Come up with your equation of state <span class="math"> P = ? [/spoiler] based on the stated value of <span class="math">\gamma[/spoiler] (I'll leave that up to you). Work is <span class="math"> W = \int_{V_i}^{V_f} P dV.[/spoiler]. Integrate for both possible paths and find the difference.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164823]

>>6164804
Not quite. Things that are discrete have their probability split up between all possible discrete values. The probability is continually distributed between these values. Values that are continuous have their probability split up over the whole continuous space of possible results.

[Anonymous No.6164830]

Can your dumb physics explain this?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164835]

>>6164830
#rekt

[Anonymous No.6164841]

im posting on my phone so its really hard to type

ive been reading about quantum superposition and on the wikipedia page it said something about a qubit or particle 0 or 1 at the same time. how can something be something and nothing?

also does quantum superposition say that a particle is in multiple "states" or just multiple positions? i dont think its possible for something to be one thing and another, this whole idea seems very contradictory

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164850]

>>6164841
0 and 1 in computing doesn't refer to there being something or nothing, they are just the names of two possible states that are used to hold information. It could just as easily be 1 and 2, or blue and red. Superposition doesn't just seem contradictory to classical ideas it is contradictory to classical ideas! But it is right.

The best way to think about it is not that something is in two different states at once, but rather that the thing IS the distribution of states. This distribution is what changes when you measure it and governs how it interacts with other things.

[Anonymous No.6164860]

What would you need to learn as a prerequisite for biophysics? I was thinking of doing that if I don't get a position as a PhD student in particle/high energy physics (I'm currently an undergrad).
I'm guessing you need to learn statistical mechanics and condensed matter physics. Is that right and is there anything else?

[Anonymous No.6164861]

>>6164545
>what force
>to give momentum

momentum = mass * velocity

no mention of force

[Anonymous No.6164864]

How do I get involved in research as an undergrad? How do I approach professors?

I feel like an autist in social interactions.

[Anonymous No.6164867]

bump

[Anonymous No.6164872]

>>6164761
im in my final year now, so i can send you some syllabi and notes and stuff if you want - give me an email.
might take me a week or 2 because im in the middle of exams

[Anonymous No.6164874]

>>6164864
inquire via email

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164883]

>>6164860
On a practical level, knowing programming and electronics are both extremely helpful. Depending on what you are doing, you'll need to pick various chemistry and biology bits. E&M is also useful, once again depending on what you are doing. All the math you can get your hands on.

>>6164861
F = dp/dt. This explicitly states that a force causes a change in momentum. Since there is always an equal and opposite reaction to any force, this means that you effectively get a transfer of momentum as a result of any force.

>>6164864
Read your department's "research" page. Look at the pages of a few professors that seem interesting, and shoot one or two an email. Say something like, "Prof ______, I'm an undergraduate looking to get involved with research. I'm very interested in your work on _______, especially ______. If you are available sometime in the next few weeks, I'd love to meet and discuss your research, and whether there might be any projects that I could help out with. Thanks, ______"

[Anonymous No.6164897]

>>6164789
Thank you very much. Yes, I'm just a hobby learner. I plan on doing this over the summer/other breaks I have from uni.
>>6164872
I would really appreciate that. The syllabi would be more than enough :) [e-mail]

[Anonymous No.6164900]

>>6164519
Got a major physics question here:
>>6164896

[Anonymous No.6164901]

>>6164900
Sorry OP, I can post it in this thread if that makes it easier? It's pretty elementary but it's really got me scratching my head.

[Anonymous No.6164904]

>>6164850
do you mean 2 and 1 literally? or do they just call it that?
so superposition is just the distribution of multiple states in multiple positions? so according to the principle, the back of my head is in multiple states just because im not observing it?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164910]

>>6164900
We know the orbital velocity and radius, so we know the force.

[Anonymous No.6164913]

>>6164910
How do we know the orbital velocity? Kepler's second law?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164917]

>>6164904
The best way to think of a quantum mechanical state is as a vector, an arrow. If you put a vector in (x,y,z) coordinates, it's pointing some amount in the x direction, some amount in y, and some amount in z. If we think of each axis as representing some observable state, then our vector is a superposition of these states, but the vector itself is also a state.

You could just as easily pick a different set of perpendicular axes in the directions x', y' and z', and express the vector as a superposition of an entirely different set of states, but the vector is still the same vector.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164919]

>>6164913
We know how big the star is because of the luminosity/radius relationship. We know for how long the planet blocks the light from the star. So we can figure out how fast it's going.

[Anonymous No.6164926]

>>6164919
Right. So then we have mass of the star using the HR diagram, and we know how long the planet blocks light from the star, giving us orbital period. We already have distance between planet and star. With all that information, what formula/eqn do you use to figure out how fast it's going? I just don't understand that piece.

[Anonymous No.6164929]

>>6164919
Nonetheless, thanks for your wisdom so far. I guess I'm just not getting it and should keep the amount of astronomy/astrophysics I dig into to the level of a light newspaper reader.

[Anonymous No.6164932]

>>6164519
Why is ice slippery?

Why in static mechanics when you aif a force is applied in a joint there is always two answers for their internal forces?

Why light keep moving to eternity is their is resistance in their way?

[Anonymous No.6164940]

>>6164519
Fucking magnets how do they work?

>inb4 miracles

no seriously

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164956]

>>6164929
I went and looked at the paper wikipedia cites re: the mass of Kepler 62f, and apparently it was too small to actually directly measure orbital velocity based on transit. So instead they used a pretty complicated procedure called BLENDER where they simulate a bunch of data and try and match up the results. It's fairly involved and I don't have time to read up at the moment, but you might want to check it out.

>>6164932
Wet ice is slippery because it is smooth and wet. The mystery is ice that should be completely frozen. There are two effects at play, but the dominant one is generally accepted as friction creating a layer of melt. This is actually a fairly complex problem, though, and there might be some more interesting phase transition effects at play.

I'd need to see the problem.

This last question does not make sense.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6164965]

>>6164940
Magnetism is what you get from moving electric fields. Most particles also have intrinsic magnetic fields, similarly to the way they have intrinsic electric fields (charge). These intrinsic magnetic fields are called "spin", and when you get a bunch of them lined up, they add up to make a magnet.

[Anonymous No.6164978]

>>6164917
So do you know what the huge hubbub is about quantum computers? what does it mean for computing in the future? (other than faster/cheapter/smaller)

[Anonymous No.6164985]

>>6164519
How can gravity be simultaneously the weakest force and yet somehow hold together entire colossal bodies?

[Anonymous No.6165010]

>>6164956
Thank you based het. My astronomy needs have been satisfied.

[Anonymous No.6165014]

Why is the permittivity of free space not zero? How can nothing but a vacuum offer resistance to an electric field?

[Anonymous No.6165018]

>>6164985
Because all the other forces are short range (strong and weak) or they are long range (electromagnetism) but with opposing charges. A large object will usually have total electrical charge of around zero, so no net electromagnetic force acts on outside matter. But gravity is both long range, and has only one "charge": mass. So large objects will have correspondingly strong gravitational fields, but no long range electromagnetic, strong, or weak fields to speak of. Thus, gravity wins by default.

[Anonymous No.6165020]

>>6165014
Because it's a spacial field. If the permitivity was zero, all electric attraction would be infinite as would the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.6165039]

I'm interested in selecting physics as my major. I'm taking Calc 2 and AP Physics B. I really enjoy both classes. What's is college physics like?

[Anonymous No.6165179]

OP can you explain the Oberth effect to me? I've been playing Kerbal Space Program a while, and I just cant wrap my head around it.

I understand the idea of a non-powered flyby, where the planet's gravity 'drags' the spacecraft and adds some of its velocity, but I dont get how firing your rocket at high speed gets you more delta-v.

[Anonymous No.6165213]

>>6165039
Hope you like masses bouncing on springs and RLC circuits

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6165260]

>>6164978
I talked a bit about this in this post:
>>6164757

>>6164985
Because there's a whole lot of mass!

>>6165014
Because creating an electric field even in vacuum does take energy. The EM field has an energy density, and that requirement is reflected in the permittivity of free space.

>>6165039
That's a good start. College physics is a lot of work but very rewarding. Advice: learn how to teach things to yourself, get involved with research ASAP, and get to know your professors.

>>6165179
The Oberth effect is pretty fun. Since rockets accelerate by gaining momentum, throwing stuff out their back, momentum has to be conserved. Energy goes as <span class="math">mv^2[/spoiler], momentum as <span class="math">mv[/spoiler]. The change in momentum is the same no matter how fast you are already going, so you are increasing your velocity linearly. If your velocity is already big, <span class="math">\Delta v^2[/spoiler] will be bigger than if your velocity was small. It doesn't mean your rocket's propulsion makes it go objectively faster the faster it's already going, it means that the propulsion gives it more energy in the frame of the planet you are orbiting, meaning it's easier to break orbit.

[Anonymous No.6165264]

>>6164985

The question is not "why is gravity so weak" but "why is the mass of quarks so small?"

[Anonymous No.6165270]

>>6165260

>Because there's a whole lot of mass!

also because gravity is always attractive. In most large-scale bodies the electromagnetic forces dont exert much pull because the bodies are composed of many EM fields that cancel each other out.

Imagine if every body was like a magnet, with all its EM fields in alignment. Gravity does that automatically.

Oh, and it also has unlimited range, unlike the strong and weak nuclear forces.

[Anonymous No.6165274]

>>6165260
Thanks man. I'm taking Calc 2 without have taken Calc 1 so I've gotten used to self teaching.
My one question is what is the job market like for physics degrees?
I'm currently learning Russian and planning to maybe minor in it and I've been pursuing my pilots license so that I may be an astronaut.

[Anonymous No.6165280]

>>6165274

>astronaut

I hope you make it, man. Good luck.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6165282]

>>6165274
There is an excellent market for physics majors. A lot of people with BS's go on to work as technicians in industry, work on engineering teams that do things like sonar or optics or materials science, work in software engineering, doing quantitative analysis for businesses, or teaching. If you wind up really loving research you can go for a PhD, which opens up the possibility of working as a professional scientist in industry, government, or academia, and qualifies you for more research-oriented software and quantitative analysis/consulting kinds of jobs.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6165290]

>>6165282
>>6165274
Realistically: I've never met anybody who was unemployed with a physics BS who wasn't also a total wastoid that needed to get their lives together. If you work in the US in academia right out of undergrad as a technician or similar, you can expect to make 25k-40k/year starting out. If you work in industry you can expect roughly 40k-75k, but less opportunity to publish or advance your own scientific career and a less flexible work environment. With a PhD, a post doc position in academia will typically earn 35k-70k, and in industry will generally pay 100k+ depending on what you do.

[Anonymous No.6165294]

>>6165290
I've read those with Physics degrees can also work in the financial sector. Could I do some engineering work as a pure physics major? I'm really interested in both EE and Physics, I'm thinking about pursuing a dual degree program at Rens.

[Anonymous No.6165298]

Could you try and explain what the phenomenon of flux freezing is?

It's a bit more astrophysical, but I'm hopeful.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6165318]

>>6165294
Many engineering firms hire physics majors. A dual degree sounds like the perfect solution, those programs are usually pretty legit.

>>6165298
A plasma is a gas of charged particles. When you apply a magnetic field to a plasma, the moving charged particles feel a force and the plasma deforms. Flux freezing is the funny result that if you imagine this deformation of the plasma as also deforming some imaginary surface in the same way as the particles around it, this surface will always have a constant amount of magnetic flux through it.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6165321]

>>6165318
Actually, I think it's not just for deformation caused by the applied field. For any fluid deformation of some surface, the total field through it doesn't change. This is because the divergence of the magnetic field is zero.

[Anonymous No.6165334]

>>6164645
>IQ means nothing.

Are you fucking retarded? Are you seriously telling me that a person with an IQ of 50 who dropped out of elementary school without being able to learn the alphabet or to count to 10 can become a physics genius and outperform Stephen Hawking? You're full of shit. Please keep your anti-scientific idiocy on /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6165344]

>>6164803
Physicists don't deal in thermodynamics?

I wanted to ask what entropy is used for in physics.

>>6164932
>Why in static mechanics when you aif a force is applied in a joint there is always two answers for their internal forces?
My guess is that it has to do with whether you look at the inner or outer angle.

[Anonymous No.6165341]

Hey OP, do you work for McDonalds or Subway? Also, do they cover medical & dental? Thanks man.

[Anonymous No.6165342]

>>6164645
>Once again, Intelligence means nothing.

[Anonymous No.6165380]

>>6164645
>intelligence denialism
>on a science board

I honestly can't tell what's going on in the mind of people posting such idiotic misinformation. What are you gonna deny next? Global warming? Maybe evolution? Seriously, is this some kind of failed autistic humor? Literally hundreds of studies have verified the predictive power of IQ tests.

[Anonymous No.6165392]

>>6164645
Denying IQ means denying evolution. Cognitive differences between different people do exist and do influence their ability to succeed in the hard sciences. This is a simple empirical fact.

[Anonymous No.6165407]

>>6164604

[Anonymous No.6165427]

>>6164553
>Yes, probably thousands.

lol, 9001/10

[Anonymous No.6165429]

>>6164685
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Theories_and_laws

[Anonymous No.6165431]

>>6165334
Its funny to see you completely miss OP's rather obvious point about IQ, proving to everybody else (quite loudly) that you yourself are semi-retarded.

IQ means nothing if your are at the level where you are intelligent enough to do the work. An IQ of 134 vs and IQ of 156 does not mean the smarter man always wins. The man who works harder, is more determined and disciplined, and who has picked up the necessary tricks of the trade as well as having a good network, will be the more productive of the two.

themoreyouknow.jpg

[Anonymous No.6165439]

can you recommend a reference where the asymptotic form of Friedel oscillations is calculated?

[Anonymous No.6165459]

>mfw IQ trolls

Just for the slow-witted ones: IQ is not a measure of ability in math-heavy fields, nor a measure of "intelligence"; nor can there exist a measure of human-level-intelligence by definition. I study AI and maths, and I scored in the 99.97th percentile on the official mensa test. Yet I don't believe I am smarter than Feynmann, who aced the entry exams for maths and physics at Princeton (I even think he was the first to archieve this), but only scored 120 on the IQ test.

I've heard no mathematician or anyone else in STEM ever talk about IQ. The world is full with "high-IQ" people, it doesn't mean a thing.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6165823]

>>6165341
No, I work for the University of Washington. Benefits are great.

>>6165344
We use thermodynamics all the time, just at a bit more of a fundamental level. Thermodynamics is fundamentally connnected to statistics and information theory, and entropy is a measure of the amount of disorder, or information we don't know in a system. It determines how much energy of the energy in a system is actually useable to do work.

>>6165439
I can't remember if any of the solid state books I've read went over the derivation of far field Friedel. I'd check the tables of contents of a few solid state textbooks, and if you don't have any luck, do a lit search on google scholar.

>>6165392
>>6165380
>>6165342
>>6165334
To the IQ brigade: when I say that IQ means nothing, I don't mean that intelligence doesn't matter. I also don't mean that IQ has no diagnostic use when it comes to certain mental disorders - it certainly does. But there are a huge variety of intelligences that are useful and that make you what most people would call "smart."

My point is this: no physicist has ever taken an IQ test as part of a job interview. No physicist has ever had to take an IQ test to be admitted to graduate school. No physicist has ever had to take an IQ test to pass a class.

IQ might be correlated with some of the skills that physicists use, but not with all of them, and not terribly strongly. I think it would be best if people on this board stopped calling IQ score "intelligence," and started calling it what it is: a score on an IQ test.

[Anonymous No.6165953]

Hey OP, which QM interpretation do you think is correct?

[Anonymous No.6165980]

>>6165459
I scored >140 on IQ but I am SHIT @ math. My forte is writing apparently.

[Anonymous No.6165993]

Can you explain to an undergraduate mathfag how Hilbert spaces are used in QM and how do they relate to the geometry of space?
I know basic functional analysis and basic measure theory.

[Anonymous No.6166006]

>>6164519
Are laws in physics based on theories and not in practice?

[Anonymous No.6166019]

>>6164519
What physics topic will have the highest development in the future decades in your opinion? Condensed matter / particle / astrophysics...

Just wondering

[Anonymous No.6166197]

>>6165459
>>6165823
In cognitive science and clinical psychiatry the term "intelligence" is scientifically defined, measured and quantified by IQ. If you score too low, you are being diagnosed with an impairment of intelligence. The validity of this definition has been shown in hundreds of studies. All the cognitive skills tested in an IQ test are of highest relevance to physics and math. Someone who cannot complete the sequence "1,1,1,1,_" won't get a degree in physics. Your childish emotion based denialism is anti-scientific and an insult to the rationality of this board.

[Anonymous No.6166730]

>>6166006
Theories are made to make sense of the data (ie, the practice) or made to predict something based off old data

"laws" back then are basically the same thing as theories, people in the old days were more smug than they are now. We still call some old theories "laws" just as a convention

[Anonymous No.6166960]

>>6165823
for all that "marts", you're a fucking idiot for denying IQ. I'm gonna have to discount everything else you've said in this thread.

[Anonymous No.6167083]

>>6164645
>Once again, IQ means nothing.

topkek!

You've just invalidated your whole thread.

[Anonymous No.6167393]

>>6166960
What are "marts"?

[Anonymous No.6167413]

What's the deal with parallel universes/existences?

[Anonymous No.6167420]

>>6166197
Intellect is subjective, it only serves you at an individual level in your own goals. Which makes it subjective.

COGNITIVE ABILITY can be linked with INTELLIGENCE if you want them to be but they are in no way the same thing.

Intelligence remains subjective.

[Anonymous No.6167433]

This is a serious question, not a troll. Though it might be stupid.

force equals mass over acceleration, f = m/a. So if an object is falling at terminal velocity (as fast as that object possibly can go), it is not accelerating any more, so does f = m / 0 ?

[Anonymous No.6167440]

>>6166197
"1, 1, 1, 1, _"

It's obviously the sequence defined as f(n) = 1 for n<5 and f(n) = 37859875 for n >=5, so the answer is 37859875

why do IQ idiots think pattern recognition is the end of all intelligence?

[Anonymous No.6167448]

>>6167433
NET force is zero because the drag equivalent to the force of gravity, but obviously in the opposite direction

[Anonymous No.6167487]

>>6167448
What? Okay, I don't understand this concept of "Net force" then.

If I hit the ground at terminal velocity, I hit it with quite a bit of force, not none.

[Miltonfriedmanbasedgod !!NuYoysvDEXT No.6167490]

Why is gravity?

[Anonymous No.6167495]

>>6167487
Say you've got a box on frictionless ice. If I push it to the left, the net force is to the left, and the box accelerates to the left. If my friend pushes it to the right with the exact same force, the box doesn't move. There are two forces acting on it, but the net force is zero.

Also, F = m * a, not m/a.

[Anonymous No.6167502]

>>6167495
Okay, so what I failed to understand is what "force" means. I was thinking in terms of how much force is output, not input. How can I calculate how much force one object would transfer to another one upon collision?

or... since when an object is being pushed against, it is pushing back with the same amount of force, is the force output the same as the force input? How could I calculate how hard just one of the hands is pushing the box?

[Anonymous No.6167567]

>>6167490
It's magic, like magnets. It's all in the bible dude.

[Anonymous No.6167595]

Does the speed of light being a constant (in vaccuum) still apply even when the light is coming from a galaxy so distant that it's expanding (not moving) away from us at a rate greater than c?
i.e. Will Earth ever receive light from galaxies expanding away from us faster than light?

[Anonymous No.6167630]

Why is quantum entanglement impossible on a macroscopic scale?

[Miltonfriedmanbasedgod proxyfa(...) No.6167661]

>>6167490
*Why is gravity so gay?
fix'd what I said earlier.

[Anonymous No.6167719]

>>6164519
If you have a nonlinear wave partial differential equation which is homogenous, what does it mean to add to the "right hand side" of equation a function that depends on the solution?
Intuition tells me it must, physically, be an "external force" though i don't know how to argumentate this notion.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6167794]

>>6165953
They are all just different ways of thinking about the same empirical results. So all of them are valid. Copenhagen is the way I think about it because that's what I was taught, and that's true of most physicists.

>>6165993
Hilbert spaces aren't really related to the geometry of space. They are the complex spaces that state vectors describing particles live in. For a particle that can have two states (e.g., spin up and down), you have a two dimensional complex Hilbert space. Any vector in this space of unity norm represents a quantum state. The inner product with a state gives the probability that that state will be measured when the system is observed.

>>6166006
No, for anything to be considered true in science, it needs to be tested and verified.

>>6166197
I don't really understand what I'm denying. I'm sure IQ is important for whatever reasons you said. I'm not a psychologist and can't argue the validity of the number in psychological evaluation. I'm saying that neither I, nor anybody else in science, cares about IQ. We care about whether you have published important research, whether you have invented something useful, and whether you are generally pleasant and helpful to be around.

>>6167433
F = ma, not m/a. When the acceleration is zero, the net force on the object is zero. This is because the force from wind resistance exactly cancels the force from gravity.

>>6167502
When a force is applied, an equal force is applied in the opposite direction.

>>6167490
Nobody knows!

>>6167630
The same reason quantum effects aren't generally seen at a macroscopic scale. There are too many overlapping quantum states, which wind up looking like classical behavior in the large limit.

>>6167661
Because it likes to have sex with other gravity.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6167803]

>>6167719
>>6167719
Can you write out what you mean? In general, it sounds like you are talking about adding a "forcing function" f(t) to some differential equation. This can be interpreted as an applied force when it is a second order differential equation of position, because the second time derivative of position is proportional to the force. To write out explicitly what I mean, your linear wave equation is

<span class="math">\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial t^2} = c^2 \nabla^2 \phi [/spoiler]

If <span class="math">\phi[/spoiler] is a position, for example the displacement <span class="math">y[/spoiler] of a bead at position <span class="math">x[/spoiler] on a string being wobbled, we can interpret the first term as an acceleration, or F/m. This gives us

<span class="math"> F = m c^2 \nabla \frac{\partial^2 y}{\partial x^2}. [/spoiler]

So you can see that adding a term <span class="math">f(t)[/spoiler] to the right side is the same as applying a force to the bead.

[Anonymous No.6167844]

>>6164519

end my pain
do it all

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6167861]

>>6167844
'snot that bad! Get that shit done!

[Anonymous No.6167883]

Will there be a point at which all possibility of life existing in the universe is nil?

[Anonymous No.6167953]

>>6167794
>I don't really understand what I'm denying

You said "IQ means nothing". That's like saying "gravity means nothing" or "evolution means nothing". Just because you dislike a scientific concept for whatever emotional reason, that doesn't invalidate it. Go be an anti-science fucktard on /pol/. We don't need and we don't want your ignorant shitposting on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6167977]

What's the biggest hurdle you had to overcome in learning physics?

>>6167953
Don't take this guy's bait OP. He's getting desperate now.

[Anonymous No.6167982]

>>6167977
I am not OP and as you can see I already too the bait. I just can't refrain from replying when someone posts something as incredibly anti-scientific as denying the importance of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6167986]

>>6167982
>and as you can see I already too the bait

[Anonymous No.6167989]

>>6167986
*took

I replied to him. Maybe that was a mistake, but his bait truly enraged me.

[Anonymous No.6167996]

>>6167989
If you're referring to OP as denying the importance of intelligence, that isn't what he's doing. Please present me with a clear, logical argument as to why you think he is undermining the importance of intelligence - the burden of proof's on you. If you're unable to do that then I'm afraid it is /you/ who is anti-scientific.

[Anonymous No.6168145]

If an unstoppable object collies with an immovable object what happens?

[Anonymous No.6168404]

>>6164708
This I think is almost trivial because of the assumption that f is continuous. Taking the limit as the radius approaches 0 is the same as asking what the average value of f(x,y,z) at f(a,b,c).

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6168405]

>>6167953
I don't think you're understanding my point. I'm sure IQ may be a valid scientific concept, but means nothing in the context of physics. It is as important to me as entanglement is to a psychologist.

>>6167883
That seems to be the way of things, but cosmology is still kind of poorly understood and some key details need to be worked out.

>>6167977
Great question. You know, I don't think learning physics is a matter of overcoming great hurdles. It's all little steps that add up over time. I guess one place I had a deficit was that I'm among the first in my family to earn a PhD, and the first in my family to study science, so I never really had mentorship or help from my parents, which many people do.

>>6168145
idk, black hole? lol

[Anonymous No.6168406]

if i move a conductor through a magnetic field, why is there an induced voltage

don't explain in layman terms

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6168413]

>>6168406
Conductors have free charges floating around. When charges move through a magnetic field, they feel a force perpendicular to both their velocity and the field (see the Lorentz Force Law). This creates a current in the conductor.

Why do charges feel a force when moving through a magnetic field? Since magnetic fields are created by changing electric fields and vice versa, how much of an electric and magnetic field you have depends on your frame of reference. In some instantaneous rest frame of the moving particle, the Lorentz transformation of the fields yields an electric field, and the entire force on the particle is due to this electric field. Something people sometimes say is that "There is no magnetic field, just the electric field and relativity."

[Anonymous No.6168425]

can i post some physics maths? i need to solve this as part of my physics homework. ive tried 'u' substitution, partial fractions and the formula but i dont even come close to what wolfram alpha has listed as the answer.

[Anonymous No.6168432]

>>6168413
Not a physics question per se, but do you believe in a 'free will' of some sorts?

I'm asking this because of the relation determinism (usually) has with physics. Are you a determinist and do you think that has the consequence that we don't have free will?

[Anonymous No.6168434]

>>6164566
in layman terms, does that mean that a gauge boson has its momentum from the renormalization that brought it into existence?

[Anonymous No.6168435]

what was before the big bang?

[Anonymous No.6168439]

>>6168405
>but means nothing in the context of physics

IQ is very important in physics. Only the most intelligent people can understand and research physics. Retards with a low IQ will fail the math requirements.

[Anonymous No.6168448]

>>6168445
it depends on what standard you're using.

[Anonymous No.6168445]

>>6168439
ill start studying physics next year. my IQ is 121. how fucked am I?

[Anonymous No.6168447]

>>6168439
Why do you feel the need to repeat yourself over and over again?

Do you have down syndrome?

[Anonymous No.6168449]

>>6168445
If you work hard, you might pass the first year, but it's really not worth it. In the higher courses you cannot compete with those smarter than yourself anymore. Better go for a major that suits your lower intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6168452]

>>6168447
If the person I'm replying to wasn't mentally challenged, I wouldn't need to repeat myself.

[Anonymous No.6168456]

>>6168439
>IQ is very important in physics
I think you mean 'IQ is very important for a physicist'. A high IQ seems to be a measure of intelligence, but with an emphasis on 'seems'. We don't fucking know, and you especially don't.
IQ doesn't really have anything to do with physics, and you can discuss whatever you want when it comes to if IQ is a good measure of intelligence, but it has no meaning for a physicist and it's irrelevant. This is exactly what het said. Fuck off.

>>6168445
Work had and you'll see how it goes. Working hard is needed wether you have an IQ of 180 or an IQ of 110.

[Anonymous No.6168457]

>>6168449
Feynman's IQ was 126 (bio)
Watson's IQ was 124 (bio)
William Shockley's was 129, then 125 when tested a year later (his 2007 bio)
Luis Alvarez's was below 135 (he failed to qualify for Terman study)

also the average is 100. You don't need a mensa-tier IQ to get a physics degree.

[Anonymous No.6168462]

What physically does a wavelength measure? Are particles actually oscillating "up" and "down" perpendicular to the vector along which they're travelling? Wouldn't this mean a light particle moving "forward" at C would have an instantaneous velocity above C?

[Anonymous No.6168466]

>>6168456
>IQ doesn't really have anything to do with physics

Except for the manual work in a lab all of physics boils down to pattern recognition, associative thinking, correct verbalization of observations and hypotheses, spatial reasoning and logical inference. Those are exactly the skills an IQ test quantifies, you dumbfuck. I don't care whether you're trolling or retarded, but please stop spreading ignorant falsehoods on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6168475]

>>6168449
should I go for feminism studies instead?

[Anonymous No.6168480]

>>6168466
citation or just be quiet. IQ tests focus on pattern recognition, the rest you just claimed is in no way a key focal point in them.

[Anonymous No.6168485]

>>6168466
You need to be intelligent to do science. Big fucking surprise. That's not my point, the problem is that it's unclear if an IQ test quantifies 'intelligence' properly. When I refer to IQ, i'm talking about the test and the score you get. I'm not saying a dumfuck can do physics, I'm saying IQ doesn't say a lot about intelligence.

Besides, why do you ask this to a physicist? He doesn't know shit about IQ, has he said himself.

[Philosofag !qR5tCRBUDg No.6168502]

>>6164519

What <i> is </i> causality?

[Anonymous No.6168504]

>>6168480
>IQ tests focus on pattern recognition,
Only the shitty online tests you failed.

>the rest you just claimed is in no way a key focal point in them.
A professional IQ test covers all the cognitive skills I mentioned.

>>6168485
>it's unclear if an IQ test quantifies 'intelligence' properly
IQ defines intelligence. It's how the word "intelligence" is being given a meaning in the scientific context. We don't care about your colloquial misuse of the word.

[Anonymous No.6168507]

>>6168502
Cause -> effect.

For example, you are a tripfag. Tripfags are dumb, so you attempted to use HTML tags to italicise something in your post. Cause and effect.

[Anonymous No.6168508]

>>6168504
Dolton only had an IQ of 103
check and mate atheists

[Anonymous No.6168510]

>>6168504
And I don't care about your faith in an arbitrary measure of intelligence. No respectable person takes IQ test seriously except you fuckers.

[Anonymous No.6168511]

>>6164904
I'd suggest reading an actual textbook on the subject... just, like, for context so you can understand where these ideas come from, otherwise I don't know that there's much hope in actual understanding...
Not OP mnd, maybe ∃ a decent succinct short answer, but I am suspious.

[Philosofag !qR5tCRBUDg No.6168512]

>>6168507

The implication being I didn't <i> intend </i> for them to be visible.

Causality <i> is </i> "Cause -> effect" or is it the "->" ? If it is the former, then what is the "->" ?

[Anonymous No.6168515]

>>6168504
>no actual rebuttal

nice

[Anonymous No.6168522]

>>6168510
Not an argument. Try again or take your "muh feelings" bullshittery to /pol/. If you want to dismiss an accepted scientific unit of measurement, you should present something more convincing than "bawwww I don't like it".

>>6168515
Rebuttal to what? There was no argument.

[Anonymous No.6168521]

Hey, I'm a ChemEng freshman and I have issues with introduction text that interprets e=mc^2 in (what I believe) in an incorrect way. It basically says that energy stored (or released) in a molecule changes it's mass. Isn't it vastly more precise to explain that existing matter still has the same mass, it's just that the added energy stored in ionic or covalent bonds has mass. It makes no sense to translate it from my language, but they are directly implying that atoms miraculously become more massive and they are completely missing the idea of rest mass.

[Anonymous No.6168530]

>>6168522
>If you want to dismiss an accepted scientific unit of measurement
That's the point, it's not accepted as being scientific and it's not accepted as being objective. Scores give an indication, obviously, but that's it. It's not the perfect measure of intelligence you claim it to be.

[Philosofag !qR5tCRBUDg No.6168533]

>>6168507
i'm new to /sci/. do people usually make personal attacks when people ask questions, then don't actually address the questions? thanks

[Anonymous No.6168534]

>>6168522
>claims that IQ measures multiple aspects outside sequence labeling
>no citation
>gets called out
>but you're not making a point!

just stop it. you're making a fool of yourself.

[Anonymous No.6168536]

>>6168533
That's this board in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.6168537]

>>6168533
It's because you declared yourself a philosopher which makes you an easy target for shitflinging. Have fun.

Also, what do you think about >>6168432 ?

[Anonymous No.6168543]

>>6168522
>an accepted scientific unit of measurement

Just fucking stop there man, nothing in fucking

psychology is a scientific unit of measurement.

THE TRAITS ARE UNOBSERVABLE.

You cannot empirically validate unobservable traits.

Its not a matter of not liking the concept of IQ Its a determining what is scientific and what isnt.

[Anonymous No.6168553]

>physics thread
>derails into muh IQ

oh /sci/ how you fell

[Anonymous No.6168559]

>>6168553
Thats due to those fucking retarded trolls who are obviously flooding in from /pol/

They wont fuck off.

[Anonymous No.6168574]

>>6168559

uh-oh, anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.

[Anonymous No.6168587]

>>6168574
You can believe in IQ all the fuck you want to, but psychometrics is not a field of science, which means any discussion relating to it does not belong on /SCI/. All it will ever have are theories and arguments, when you get some actual observable empirical PROOF that shows me UNDOUBTEDLY that IQ means something then i will be more inclined to listen to you sling your retarded opinions around.

[Anonymous No.6168598]

>>6168587
99% of the people believe in IQ just like they believe in height and color of the skin and gender. Why some crazy nutjobs like yourself are trying to deny that fact is beyond me. Are you wasting your time on here because you have a low IQ and are trying to convince us that IQ is therefore nonexistent?

[Anonymous No.6168607]

>>6164708
http://en dot wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_differentiation_theorem

[Anonymous No.6168610]

>>6164519
Which pure maths courses will help me to physics more?
Linear (Functional) Analysis?
Topology? (Algebraic topology?)
Measure theory?
Anything you'd recommend?

[Anonymous No.6168621]

>>6164519

What is time?

[Anonymous No.6168644]

>>6168621

Time is what a clock measures.

[Anonymous No.6168648]

>>6168610
differential geometry. by a lot.

[Anonymous No.6168928]

>>6168530
>it's not accepted as being scientific and it's not accepted as being objective.
It is well accepted in cognitive science and clinical psychiatry. The test itself is objective, each question has a right answer and wrong answers. The evaluation of the test can be done by computers and does not involve any subjectivity.

>It's not the perfect measure of intelligence you claim it to be.
It is the most reliable operational definition of intelligence we have in cognitive science. Its predictive power has been validated in hundreds of studies.

[Anonymous No.6168932]

>>6168534
Just take a professional test and see for yourself. Or do you fear the low score?

>>6168543
>muh dualism
Intelligence is a well defined concept and all the cognitive skills in an IQ test are objectively measurable. Either you can complete the sequences and find the logical inferences or you can't. If you can't, then you're less intelligent than someone who can. Easy, isn't it? Objectively observable and no dualism magic involved.

[Anonymous No.6168940]

>>6168587
Cognitive differences between individuals are an empirical fact. IQ allows us to quantify these differences scientifically and objectively. Denying the concept of intelligence is akin to denying evolution. Please keep your trolling on /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6169054]

how did we find out that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames? or
why did we have a need to come up with the special theory of relativity?

[Anonymous No.6169062]

>>6168940

Evolution is a poor example to use for your argument, as it is (also) not scientifically quantifiable.

[Anonymous No.6169085]

>>6168940
>IQ allows us to quantify these differences scientifically and objectively.
no

[Anonymous No.6169108]

>>6169085
It does.

[Anonymous No.6169180]

>>6168940
No one here is trolling you're just a feeble minded moron who doesnt understand the difference between a pre-paradigm science and an actual science.

It doesnt matter if cognitive differences are documented if cognitive testing itself has no scientific empirical evidence to suggest its validity. Learn what the words scientifically and objective mean before you come to a science board.

Something can only be empirical if it is directly observed, what do you not understand about this? You cant look at something that is unobservable and call it empirical.

Since it is unobservable, there is no scientific reason to believe ANYTHING about the unobservable trait.

[Anonymous No.6169196]

>>6169180
Cognitive differences are directly observable. If I can solve pattern recognition problems and you can't, then I am more intelligent than you.

[Anonymous No.6169205]

>>6169196
True, but we should be cautious how we test for such a thing. Isolating the problem-solving capacities is not a simple task given how relatively complex our brains are. You might have superior motivation, focus, memory, or be more observant, or better able to think on your feet, or just be a superior test taker and more aware of your skills and still score better, even when problem solving capacities are otherwise equal.

[Anonymous No.6169281]

>>6169196

Im pretty sure I just explained this, the differences do matter if the testing itself is proven to be empiricaly valid. As far as we know it can't be validated due to the fact cognitive functions are not directly observable.

[Anonymous No.6169283]

>>6169281
I meant unless the testing is proven can't type on my phone

[Anonymous No.6169339]

>>6169281
What do you think cognitive functions are? Cognitive functions are defined by their observable effects, e.g. the ability of solving pattern recognition problems. Keep your dualism philosophy "cannot know nuthin" bullshittery on /x/ where it belongs. You are too impaired to understand how science works.

[Anonymous No.6169361]

>>6169339
I know exactly how it works, its not philosophy you cannot prove cognitive tests prove anything they claim to. Its not falsifiable. Its not hard to understand.

[Anonymous No.6169363]

>>6169361
>you cannot prove cognitive tests prove anything they claim to

Excuse me, i mean to say test anything they claim to.

[Anonymous No.6169369]

>>6169361
>cannot know nuffin

This is a science board, not a philosophy board. The scientific method works. We make objective observations. Cognitive tests are objective observations and their predictive power has been verified in hundreds of studies. Go back to /x/ or /pol/ with your ignorant garbage.

[Anonymous No.6169373]

>>6169369
>their predictive power has been verified in hundreds of studies

hahahaha

[Anonymous No.6169379]

>>6169373
I don't care whether you're trying to be funny or whether you're actually that deficient, but please stop shitting up this board with childish and ignorance anti-science propaganda.

[Anonymous No.6169398]

>>6169369
Where did i say we cannot know about cognitive testing? I said there is no empirical proof to suggest their validity.

Again you misuse the word 'objective'. The only objective conclusions that can be made are differences in IQ. Not the validity of the tests

Which is the reason that they hold NO predictive power. That is because pure randomness yields the same effect, so unless you mean 'predicts aspects of unproven problem solving ability that are indistinguishable from random noise' then perhaps. But that's not what people mean by prediction.

'The random outcome predicts the random outcome' is indeed true -- and useless.

[Anonymous No.6169400]

>>6168405
>idk, black hole? lol
Damn Peruvian shitposters should go back to >>>/int/

[Anonymous No.6169404]

>>6169379
Psychology is not science it is a paradigm. The quicker you realize the quicker the conversation can be over.

[Anonymous No.6169405]

>>6169379
>shitting up the board with anti-science propaganda
>disagreeing with a soft science (pseudo-science) with weak correlations and flawed studies
pick one

[Anonymous No.6169409]

>>6169398
High correlation of IQ with academic achievements and better socio-economic status has been demonstrated repeatedly. It isn't my fault that you can't into statistics.

[Anonymous No.6169416]

>>6169405
>if it hurts muh feelings, it can't be science and must be flawed

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6169432]

>>6169409
>correlation is causation

[Anonymous No.6169435]

>>6169409
Apparently you didnt read my post, if the basis is not scientifically valid then the conclusions drawn from them aren't either. Cognitive traits ARE NOT OBSERVABLE. You can claim that the tests test what they claim to but there is no PROOF.

Thats not to say that its not all a good start but that is all it is, a paradigm. Claiming anything further is nonsensical. You can continue to plug your ears but the truth is the truth.

You having faith in the concept does not make the concept empirical.

[Anonymous No.6169444]

>>6169432
Correlation always implies causation. Or are you denying that global warming is man made?

[Anonymous No.6169448]

>>6169416
>if i make an arbitrary and unjustified test and show that it works by banging my head into a keyboard then publish the results into some bullshit not credible journal, it must be science!!!!

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.6169454]

>>6169435
>Cognitive traits ARE NOT OBSERVABLE.

Fuck off, dualism retard. Cognitive skills are not metaphysical magic. Cognitive skills are DEFINED by their observable effects. Spatial reasoning, logical inference etc etc are defined by the ability to solve problems in these areas as they are asked in IQ tests.

[Anonymous No.6169462]

>>6169448
>backed up by hundreds of statistics
>arbitary and unjustified

Choose exactly one, moron.

[Anonymous No.6169476]

>>6169462
None of them are of statistical significance, fool. Also basically every "experiment" they do is uncontrolled, completely methodologically flawed, and based on their preconceived ideas. Not science.

[Anonymous No.6169477]

What makes people think that the speed of light is the maximum speed and nothing can go faster than light?

I mean it's just speed. What makes the speed of light so special other than nothing else goes faster than it?

[Anonymous No.6169478]

>>6169454
It doesnt matter what cognition is defined by if there is no proof that the tests test what they claim. I keep posting this and you continue to ignore my reasoning.


You're taking other traits that are equally unobservable and claiming that those traits prove an unobservable trait, ALL WITHOUT PROOF.

GET OUT OF /SCI/.

[Anonymous No.6169486]

>>6169476
Empirical testing of explanatory hypothesis is the epitome of the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.6169494]

>>6169478
Cognitive science works, irregardless of whether it clashes with your /x/tard fantasy world.

[Anonymous No.6169496]

>>6169494
>irregardless

[Anonymous No.6169497]

>>6169486
YES BUT YOU HAVE BE ABLE TO DIRECTLY OBSERVE WHATEVER PHENOMENON YOU ARE MAKING A HYPOTHESIS FOR IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE EMPIRICAL.

CONCEPTS OF THE MIND ARE NOT OBSERVABLE.

[Anonymous No.6169501]

>>6169486
Psychology, psychometrics etc doesn't do anything empirical or anything testing. Social sciences aren't real science.

[Anonymous No.6169504]

>>6169444
>>6169444
>Correlation always implies causation
top kek
>Or are you denying that global warming is man made
Not at all, but by the "correlation is causation" argument you could imply that people are made by global warming.

[Anonymous No.6169511]

>>6169501
They collect empirical statistical data in order to test hypotheses. Are you denying the mathematical tools of statistics?

[Anonymous No.6169521]

>>6169497
We do directly observe cognitive skills. Give a person a cognitive problem and see whether he can solve it.

[Anonymous No.6169528]

>>6169511
>They collect empirical statistical data
No they don't.
>to test hypotheses
From the start they believe their ideas are already correct and not hypotheses. Absolutely nothing is tested.

[Anonymous No.6169532]

>>6169521
When i say directly observe i mean something physical that you can see directly or indirectly.

A concept is not physical.

[Anonymous No.6169541]

Does plasma have purely electric particles? Is there anything magnetic in plasma? What cool facts do you know about plasma? Alas, tell me about a few science phenomenon's that have not yet been understood.

Appreciate it sir

[Anonymous No.6169553]

>>6169528
>No they don't.
Yes, they do.

>From the start they believe their ideas are already correct and not hypotheses. Absolutely nothing is tested.
They test their hypotheses. That's how science works. Hypotheses can be dismissed when they turn out to be incompatible with the empirical results. Please learn the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.6169555]

>>6169532
The answers on an IQ test are very physical and objectively observable. You can see which of the multiple choice options the participant marked.

[Anonymous No.6169560]

>>6169555
Im not talking about the answers you write on a test im talking about the concepts that the test actually tests.

But im sure you know that, elaborate trolling faggot.

[Anonymous No.6169568]

>>6169560
It tests cognitive skills. Cognitive skills are observable behaviour.

[Anonymous No.6169572]

>>6169553
>Yes, they do.
Nope not one.

>They test their hypotheses
They don't form any hypotheses.

[Anonymous No.6169576]

>>6169572
You have no idea what you're talking about. Stop wasting your time and educate yourself.

[Anonymous No.6169583]

>>6169576
>denies without evidence

Fuck off to /x/

[Anonymous No.6169594]

>>6169568
It claims to test cognitive skills without proof, I think im going to go ahead and stop replying now.

Confirmed troll pls go back to whatever board you slithered from.

[Anonymous No.6169596]

>>6169583
I think you meant to quote >>6169572

[Anonymous No.6169599]

>>6169594
Cognitive skills are easily observable.

[Anonymous No.6169618]

>>6169596
No, I meant to quote the contrarian groundlessly claiming social pseudosciences publish studies that are statistically significant, controlled, free of confounding variables, methodologically sound and have reliable empirical tests and data with no preconceived results.

[Anonymous No.6169651]

(Fig. 14.50 of 3rd ed., Knight, Physics for Scientists and Engineers). It has recently become possible to "weigh" DNA molecules by measuring the influence of their mass on a nano-oscillator. Fig. 14.50 shows a thin rectangular cantilever etched out of silicon (density 2300 kg/m3) with a small gold dot at the end. If pulled down and released, the end of the cantilever vibrates with simple harmonic motion, moving up and down like a diving board after a jump. When bathed with DNA molecules whose ends have been modified to bind with gold, one or more molecules may attach to the gold dot. The addition of their mass causes a very slight--but measurable--decrease in the oscillation frequency. A vibrating cantilever of mass M can be modeled as a block of mass 1/3 M attached to a spring. (The factor of 1/3 arises from the moment of inertia of a bar pivoted at one end.) Neither the mass nor the spring constant can be determined very accurately--perhaps to only two significant figures--but the oscillation frequency can be measured with very high precision simply by counting the oscillations. In one experiment, the cantilever was initially vibrating at exactly 18 MHz. Attachment of a DNA molecule caused the frequency to decrease by 75 Hz. What was the mass of the DNA? (Express your answer in units of kg as a pure number in scientific notation (e.g. 5.0E-11)

[Anonymous No.6169675]

OP stopped responding guys.

[Anonymous No.6169687]

>>6169675
mebbe hes slepin

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6169792]

>>6168462
Wavelength is the distance that an entire period of oscillation covers. Light is oscillating electric and magnetic fields, so the wavelength is the distance from one peak to the next of the electric field.

>>6168502
Causality is the required time-ordering of events that we've observed to be the case universally in the natural world. In other words, nothing you do now can affect things in the past.

>>6168521
The rest mass of those molecules does increase. Changing your frame of reference would not change their new, larger mass. The vast majority of mass in a proton comes from the binding energy of quarks; quarks themselves have very tiny masses.

>>6168610
Honestly, I'm of the school of thought that you should learn math as necessary. The core, important stuff is differential equations, linear algebra, vector analysis and complex analysis. Beyond that it really depends what you are interested in.

>>6168621
One of the dimensions of the space we exist in.

>>6169477
The way light works, and the way magnetic and electric fields interact, is only consistent if in all reference frames the speed of light is the same. If this weren't the case, you could tell how fast you were going relative to some universal rest frame by looking at how fast light was traveling, which is clearly not true.

>>6169541
Plasma is a gas of charged particles. This is usually found when you make something so hot that the electrons get ripped off the atoms, so you have electrons and charged ions zipping around at high energy. Moving electric charges create magnetic fields, so there are lots of interesting magnetic effects in plasmas. One neat fact is that since electrons are lighter than protons, they move faster in a gas of a given temperature. This means that if you introduce a conducting wall, more electrons than ions are hitting the wall at once, which charges the surface purely as a result of being present in an overall-neutral plasma.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6169849]

I will humor you all (or possibly the one angry guy?) with a statement about the IQ discussion, which has apparently, for reasons entirely beyond me, overtaken the thread.

I'm not really sure what you are so angry about. I am not denying anything about IQ. I'm speaking from a position of experience as a scientist, not as an expert on IQ, so all I can say is its importance in science. If IQ was the most important thing for physicists, no physics position would require education, or prior publications, or letters of reference. They would just ask you to take an IQ test, and hire the people with the highest IQ. This would not be productive, because there is much more than IQ that goes into being an effective scientist. These skills include:

-knowledge of physics
-knowledge of interdisciplinary fields
-discipline and work ethic
-morality and commitment to scientific ethics
-organization
-interpersonal skills and likability
-ability to communicate clearly
-ambition
-creativity and innovation
-life wisdom, e.g. knowing when to take a break

I would always hire someone with a lower IQ and all of these skills over a high IQ missing any more than two or three. The best metric for gauging how good a physicist is remains their publications, recommendations, and work experience.

Q might help obtain those things. So does growing up in an affluent family, but that doesn't mean that I have any interest in how much your parents make when I am deciding whether to hire you or believe your research.

I hope my position on the matter is clear. You'd think IQ was your dead mother by the way you're so viciously defending it, but let it be known that I seek to take none of this psychological metric's glory from it. It remains the only intelligence quotient I am aware of, and so it remains top dog in my book. This doesn't change the fact that I don't care about it.

[Anonymous No.6169870]

what's the answer to spooky action at a distance if bell's inequalities disprove hidden local variables

[Anonymous No.6169895]

>>6169849
>I would always hire someone with a lower IQ and all of these skills over a high IQ missing any more than two or three. The best metric for gauging how good a physicist is remains their publications, recommendations, and work experience.

You really are a fool. You can teach someone with high IQ these skills and they will then be able to APPLY them and INVENT and DISCOVER new things with them. Someone with average or low IQ might be able to learn these things by rote but they will not be able to apply them as someone with high IQ and will not create new things.

There isn't a single great discovery made in physics by someone with IQ of 100. Look at the list of Nobel prize winners… none of them are average.

tl;dr: you can teach a smart person anything and they'll kick ass but you can't increase an IQ of an average person no matter how much you teach them.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6169908]

>>6169895
Cool, you should get a bunch of unmotivated, unlikeable people with high IQs who and start the most successful research operation on the planet.

>>6169870
Quantum mechanics is fundamentally nonlocal.

[Anonymous No.6169914]

>>6169908
>Cool, you should get a bunch of unmotivated, unlikeable people with high IQs who and start the most successful research operation on the planet.

you cherry picked that skill. say they're motivated but don't have a complete knowledge of physics but want to learn.

[Anonymous No.6169927]

>>6169849
>-knowledge of physics
>-knowledge of interdisciplinary fields
>-discipline and work ethic
>-morality and commitment to scientific ethics
>-organization
>-interpersonal skills and likability
>-ability to communicate clearly
>-ambition
>-creativity and innovation
>-life wisdom, e.g. knowing when to take a break

The odds of an average I.Q. person of having all these skills is practically ZERO.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6169928]

>>6169914
Yeah man, go for it. There are lots of unemployed or underemployed people with extremely high IQs out there. Go round them up and tell them that they are going to be incredibly successful scientists. You should have no problem getting investors because the plan is so solid.

[Anonymous No.6169930]

>>6169908
then what facilitates (mediates? I don't know the proper word) the interactions between entangled states separated by a distance?

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6169949]

>>6169927
I agree, it's unlikely that someone with a low IQ score would have those traits. It's also not always true that someone with a high IQ score would have them. Either way, I still don't care what someone's IQ is. Once again: publications, work experience, likability, recommendations. These are what I look at.

When you are reviewing papers or hiring post docs, you are more than welcome to require an IQ test. Don't be surprised if nobody wants to come work for you because they think you're a jerk, though.

[Anonymous No.6169961]

>>6169949
>Once again: publications, work experience, likability, recommendations. These are what I look at.

Right. And I bet if you tested those people's I.Q., you'd find them to be pretty high. That's all I'm saying. Yes, there's plenty of high I.Q. people around doing shit jobs because of a huge number of factors… mostly because the school system failed them.

Anyway, I agree with you on major points.

[het !6.hhI.UC6Y No.6169963]

>>6169930
The entangled particles are actually one wavefunction- a single state. You can measure two observables of this state, the spin of particle one and the spin of particle two. For an entangled system, these actually are not independent observables and actually just correspond to a single observable that has values +- and -+.

It's a tough thing to grasp, but the important thing to remember is that no information is being sent and no effect is had upon particle two when particle one is measured. When the measurers of each state come back together at the middle and compare results, they see the expected statistical correlation between the spins they each measured, but a correlation between nonlocal observations does not imply nonlocal interaction.

[Anonymous No.6170146]

>>6164519
Why don't electrons collapse into the nucleus

[Anonymous No.6170303]

>>6164519
What would be the strongest evidence for the atomic theory today? What observation historically lead to the atomic theory?

[Anonymous No.6170466]

>>6170303
Well they *did* take a picture of atoms and even hydrogen bond. Also every piece of modern technology assumes atomic nature of things, so even though it isn't a very strong proof, it's highly unlikely that it all works if atomic theory wasn't true.

[Anonymous No.6170470]

>>6169961
>mostly because the school system failed them
Is this what people who aren't profoundly gifted tell themselves to feel better?

[Anonymous No.6170480]

how does the variational method for solving schrodinger's solution work? what are the common 'intuitive' arguments in finding a trial wavefunction?

[Anonymous No.6170486]

Could one use a neutral ray with magnesium as the charge, if so would the impact be more jarring given the different chemical components to hydrogen

[Anonymous No.6170632]

>>6169895
>There isn't a single great discovery made in physics by someone with IQ of 100. Look at the list of Nobel prize winners… none of them are average.

>Implying discoveries that dont win nobel prizes arent great

Also the IQ circlejerking on this board is so fucking awful. Is this how people justify their failures?

>Its ok I didnt do well because my IQ is low and I cant help that
>Its ok I didnt do well because my IQ is high, I couldve done it but I just didnt feel like it.

I'm no fucking genius but I have still studied, done research and contributed to field of physics

you people are retarded

[Anonymous No.6170645]

>>6169849
>>6169908
>>6169928
>>6169949
You must be very successful with your lab that only hires people with down syndrome. I'm expecting huge discoveries and innovations from your crew of imbeciles, because as you said they are clearly superior to those of above average IQ. My neighbor has a retarded son who repeatedly failed 1st grade of elementary school and cannot learn to spell his own name. If you give me your address, I can ask him to join your team. According to you he is more likely to contribute to physics than a 130 IQ student who graduated at a top tier university with straight A's.

[Anonymous No.6170652]

>>6169849
So you would hire people who don't have a degree in physics? Are you fucking retarded? Graduating with an acceptable degree in physics requires an above average IQ. A person of average or below average intelligence will not pass the higher level courses.

[Anonymous No.6170655]

>>6170632
>Also the IQ circlejerking on this board is so fucking awful
Only someone with a low IQ would say that.

>Is this how people justify their failures?
On the contrary, it is how we scientifically explain the fact that we are very successful academically without putting much effort into it.

[Anonymous No.6170677]

>>6170652
>The best metric for gauging how good a physicist is remains their publications, recommendations, and work experience.
Not sure how you got from this to your point

[Anonymous No.6170688]

>>6170677
His whole point is flawed. In order to apply for such a position you need a degree and research in physics. You don't get that far with a low IQ. Contrary to what he posted, his criteria do not favor low IQ over high IQ people but only serve to discern other qualifications when dealing with applicants of comparable high IQ. His criteria wouldn't even be needed when having to decide between a person of low IQ vs a person of high IQ because the former wouldn't even meet the qualifications required to apply for the position.

The correct formulation of what he (probably) meant to say is that at a certain level of academia you're only dealing with high IQ geniuses and therefore you'll need additional criteria to differentiate between their qualifications. The fact that he was incapable of phrasing this in a coherent and comprehensible manner tells us that he obviously is not in such an academic position and is talking out of his uneducated, verbally impaired ass.

[Anonymous No.6170718]

>>6170655
>Only someone with a low IQ would say that.

I don't even know my IQ, I did a test maybe 20 years ago and don't remember it

But here I am with a degree and publications

>On the contrary, it is how we scientifically explain the fact that we are very successful academically without putting much effort into it.

>I got an A on my HS calc test without studying
>This number says I'm gonna be a professor

[Anonymous No.6170720]

>>6164519
If distance is 12m and time is 7 seconds calculate velocity

[Anonymous No.6170729]

>>6170718
I bet YOU didn't get an A in HS calculus without studying.

[Anonymous No.6170742]

So what iq would be needed for physics?

[Anonymous No.6170788]

>>6170645
You are truly an autist. Can you not comprehend that in order for you to get a decent research position you need people skills? If you are an total asshole, nobody will hire you and enjoy being the only genius undergrad in physics (because, guess what, you need people skills to land a good PhD too!) who works at McDonalds.

[Anonymous No.6170818]

>>6170788
You are truly a retard. Can you not comprehend that in order for you to get a decent research position you need the intelligence to graduate with a good physics degree? If you cannot even understand simple math, you will not get that degree and nobody will hire you as a physicist. Have fun with your "people skills" - in political science or whatever soft degree you're getting.

[Anonymous No.6170821]

>>6170788
There you heard it, guys!

People skills are more important than intelligence. No matter how hard you fail calculus, if you have people skills you can still become a world renowned physics researcher. Nobody in physics cares whether you understand the contents and the calculations, as long as you have people skills. Stephen Hawking himself never solved a derivative and allegedly he doesn't even know how to multiply natural numbers. He only had people skills which are so much more important in physics because physics has totally nothing to do with math and is all about being social.

[Anonymous No.6170822]

>>6170821
>>6170818

If you can graduate in physics you already have ability to do physics, you colossal fucks. It is implied that you can do physics, we are differentiating between people who can behave like normal people and neckbeards.

[Anonymous No.6170827]

>>6170788
pic related, these guys have "people skills"

According to you they must be better physicists than any nerd who wastes his time studying equations and concepts at university. Because math is totally unimportant to physics, amirite?

I can't believe how fucking retarded you are. 10/10 if trolling, you got me mad.

[Anonymous No.6170832]

>>6170822
>If you can graduate in physics
>t is implied that you can do physics

Therefore you are implying a sufficiently high IQ, fucktard. The original question was how high this IQ has to be. Not everyone can graduate with a degree in physics. Not everyone can understand the math. This is a simple fact. Cognitive differences between individuals exist. Denying these differences means denying evolution.

[Anonymous No.6170837]

>>6170827
I'm not sure how are you all misunderstanding my post that hard. We are talking about physicists who have or lack people skills, not retards and ubergeniuses.

[Anonymous No.6170840]

>>6170837
How fucking illiterate are you? We are talking about the IQ requirements for studying physics. Please tell me your elementary school. I wish to know, so I never send my kids to a school where the teachers fail to teach reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.6170844]

>>6170840
>We are talking about the IQ requirements for studying physics.
That's probably because there aren't any.

[Anonymous No.6170847]

>>6170822
This. Plus IQ says very little about developing imaginative solutions. When I studied physics I there were a couple of students with very high IQs (150+), however they lacked the capabilities required to develop solutions ab initio, which from my experience is a mixture of abstraction and holism. That's by no means a representation of all persons with extremely high IQ, it simply illustrates that IQ isn't sufficient criterion on which to employ persons; optimally your criteria implicitly satisfy an 'IQ' requirement.

[Anonymous No.6170852]

>>6170832
Doesn't matter if cognitive differences are documented if the tests used to obtain them are scientifically invalid. The difference between cognition testing and evolution is that the biology has empirical evidence that suggests that evolution actually happens.

[Anonymous No.6170850]

>>6170844
They are implicit. How stupid are you? Of course they won't say "lol we don't let you in if your IQ is lower than this", but studying physics does require intelligence. Understanding and applying the concepts requires cognitive skills. A person who is cognitively impaired will fail the courses. A person who is of average or only slightly above average intelligence will struggle hard in his first year and will barely pass, only to drop out in his second or third year when he can't keep up anymore with people more intelligent than him.

[Anonymous No.6170859]

>>6170852
The test does exactly what we want it to do. It tests cognitive abilities. You cannot complete the sequence "1,1,1,..."? Then you are of lower cognitive ability than someone who can. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.6170872]

>>6170859
>it tests cognitive ability

Empirical evidence. Show me it. Show me how we can accurately measure a trait that can not be directly observed. I'll wait all day.

[Anonymous No.6170896]

This IQ circlejerk is worse than /pol/s happening threads

on topic: I have a vague question about fermions and bosons.

If we have 2 fermions that are coupled in some way, for instance 2 electrons cooper-coupled, we can treat them as a single boson. I'm probably simplifying a lot here.

In the nucleus of an atom, do the protons add up to a boson if there are an even number of them and the neutrons to another boson (even number of neutrons)?

When can we treat systems of particles as single particles?

[Anonymous No.6170909]

>>6170896
I find this interesting too. From what I can see this essentially is an extension of the quantum-classical crossover discussions, at least in part.

[Anonymous No.6170935]

>>6170872
Look at the test. Objective empirical evidence right there.

[Anonymous No.6171099]

>>6170935
Wrong, try again. You can't make theories based on nothing and claim that they are empirical.

[Anonymous No.6171144]

I've been reading how, due to time dilation, a rocket could reach the edge of the visible universe in a human lifetime. I understand this, but the part I can't reconcile in my mind is how the people on the rocket will never have measured their speed as having reached the speed of light, when they'll have travelled billions of light-years in less than a hundred years.
Is it due to length contraction?
Also, why is it then stated so often that we couldn't reach nearby stars in any reasonable amount of time? Because the time that's passed on Earth would still be much longer?
Finally, how much energy would it take to get a massive rocket (say 100 times more massive than anything we've launched) to 0.9999c? Not asking for an exact calculation, just an estimate of an order of magnitude).

[Anonymous No.6171256]

>>6171144

We observers on earth would witness the rocket crew experience time dilation, their actions would seem very slow motion for us.

The rocket crew would experience length contraction, the distance to the end of the observable universe wouldn't seem very far to them.

0.9999c corresponds to a lorentz-factor that is 70.71, which, simplified means that our rocket would have a mass equal to 70.71 times its rest mass. As v goes to c, this lorentz-factor goes to infinity.

If you look at a photon, it does not experience time nor length. Every distance a photon travels is 0 in its own system of reference, and it takes 0 time to get there.

[Anonymous No.6171633]

>>6171256

Thanks! I knew mass tended toward infinity eventually, so 70 times doesn't seem so bad (unless you have to get a lot closer to c then.9999 to bring journey time down to decades).

If at relativistic speed someone on a rocket observes those on Earth having slowed down (I think that's correct), how is it that if they return to Earth they find time here has passed much faster?

[Anonymous No.6172176]

>>6168425
wolfram alpha offers step by step solutions. You can get 3 a day for free.