I'm a drunk physicist, ask me stuff

[TC No.9725625]

[Anonymous No.9725630]

>>9725625
whats your job, where are you, whats ur salary, do you like it. how long you been doing it, how long you planning to continue.

[TC No.9725634]

>>9725630
Europe, finishing my PhD, funding ran out, currently living off of savings. Should be finished in a few weeks, looking for ways to stay active in research while being independent of academia.

[Anonymous No.9725650]

>>9725625
what research area are you in? also how shitty is acadeem culture in europe

[Anonymous No.9725660]

>>9725634
im from europe too so saying

[Anonymous No.9725663]

>>9725634
im from europe too. so saying "europe" sounds retarded to me. im not an american scumbag.

also, that is impossible. its no shame. most phds dont go into academia. but u wont be able to independently. maybe you should just make it your hobby.

[TC No.9725669]

>>9725650
Officially computational material science, but I've ended up as a bit of a jack-of-all-trades. Academic culture depends heavily on which research group you're a part of. Can't even generalize to country or even institution. Some groups genuinely value their scientists as people who do creative work. Others see you only as an underperforming h-index that should publish more.

I've seen a dude get held up as the prime example of the ideal scientists because he was shitting papers left and right. But everyone knew his results were so great because he fudged the numbers.

But most researchers I know are honest to the bone. They will abstain from publishing or even voluntarily retract their papers when they realize a result they found was a fluke. But it's the narcissistic opportunists who get the leading positions, sadly. The grunts tend to deliver honest and reliable work.

[Anonymous No.9725709]

>>9725669
thats life. put urself out there. desu. the guys you criticise contribute to science more than you do because they are putting ideas out there. honest people who retract ideas are retracting debate. since we dont pubish failed studies. it puts science back infact. they retract their studies to not hurt their egos. so youre contradicting yourself. stop being a pussy.

[Anonymous No.9725716]

>>9725669
>a jack-of-all-trades
Tutor detected

>But everyone knew his results were so great because he fudged the numbers
So you're saying papers published by physicists have no reproducibility, and this some how passes peer review? You're effectively saying that these papers have all the academic credibility of the social sciences?

>when they realize a result they found was a fluke
There is no peer review the Physicist community, great. Why do we value your opinions on the creation of the universe again?

>But it's the narcissistic opportunists
>The grunts tend to deliver honest and reliable work
So you are admitting that you are all hack academics, sucking up tax payers money for nothing more than peddling pseudoscience and bolstering your egos?

No wonder you're drunk on /sci/, justifying your life choices.

[Anonymous No.9725726]

>>9725625
hey could you write the poisson equation for electrostatics in variational form? I'm dumb.

[Anonymous No.9725727]

>>9725625
redpill me on the covariant form of maxwell’s equations

[Anonymous No.9725729]

>>9725716
>>9725709
>implying someone shouldn't review fluke results

why would you publish something you know is wrong?

with that you could justify sensationalist research simply because not publishing it would "retract debate"

fuck off about egos this is common sense

[Anonymous No.9725747]

can I be a physicist too if I work hard

[TC No.9725753]

>>9725729
Exactly. This is not about honest research coming to wrong conclusions, which has its genuine place in the realm of science. This is about "I claimed that X input leads to Y output, but I mistyped X, so I retract my results to not lead anyone else astray."

[TC No.9725755]

>>9725747
Anyone who wants to get a bachelor's degree in physics can get a bachelor's degree in physics. It might take a while but if you're motivated enough it's definitely doable.

[Anonymous No.9725757]

>>9725729
>implying you know when you have a fluke result.
>implying fluke results have never been published because weve always been able to know when we get fluke results

its a problem with science. no one knows if something is wrong for sure. the fact of science is people try experiments alot and they often fail and theyll retry them. what we see published does not fully reflect science and if we knew everything about what scientists tried and failed at and why and how, then we would have a fuller story and more efficient one. working in a lab ive seen so much bullshit about failed studies and shit like that.
in my view, if sensationalist research was out there then unless it was true, would it not be outbalanced by the failed findings and opposition?

retard.
publication bias.

[Anonymous No.9725765]

>>9725753
no it doesnt because those studies dont get pulished.

[Anonymous No.9725772]

>>9725729
>when they realize a result they found was a fluke.

how do they know its wrong.

"when they realize a result they found was a fluke."

if youre not sure about the outcome of ur experiment how do you know its a fluke. why do the experiment if you know whats gonna happen. your viewpoint doesnt make sense. go fuck youself. people get results they dont expect. doesnt mean its not science worthy. unless you intentionally edit your research (which wasnt implied in the original post) then youre wrong.

[Anonymous No.9725777]

>>9725757
and if you know you did somin wrong, then people should know about it one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.9725790]

>>9725753
>This is not about honest research coming to wrong conclusions
Wrong. There are many famous documented incidences of scientists purposely using invalid methodology to get the results they want, like you admitted about fudging the numbers. The question is, does this get caught in the peer-review?
Here is a list of papers that have close to a 1000 citations before they were retracted on the grounds of poor methodology, bias or unreproducibility.
https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/

>>9725765
Wrong. Go ahead and read the link I posted. If you have access, each paper you'll see a giant banner saying RETRACTED on the web-view, and on the PDF format; they do get published.

>>9725772
>how do they know its wrong.
It's called PEER-REVIEW. The question is however, does that committee suffer from publication bias, incompetence, or both?

[Anonymous No.9725795]

>>9725716
>No wonder you're drunk on /sci/, justifying your life choices.

either armchair physicist and NEET

or faggy undergrad engineer who knows a handful of equations therefore understand the universe.

[TC No.9725799]

I love how people who have obviously never published anything are saying how scientists should do their job.

[Anonymous No.9725810]

>>9725625

What do you think of dark matter?

[Anonymous No.9725818]

>>9725790
no. a peer-review isnt what tells you its wrong. many peer-reviewed papers are "wrong" theoretically. are you retarded?

but you dont get what im saying.
how do you know you have a fluke unless you know for a fact what is going to happen in your experiment? the experiment is based on either it confirms or falsifies. but tell me what is the basis for a fluke and how would peer-reviews tell me that.

learn to read.

>>9725799
and no one else is allowed to criticise a scientists paper? scientists arent perfect. many are shit. and if you have a good grasp of literature then you should criticise and if you are wrong then someone will tell you. your attitude is exactly backward to science.

[TC No.9725820]

>>9725810
All evidence points to it being real, but it doesn't seem to explain all observational discrepancies. Perhaps some MoND is necessary as well? I'm not an astronomer.

[Anonymous No.9725828]

>>9725625
Why does no one love me?

[Anonymous No.9725838]

>>9725818
>how do you know you have a fluke unless you know for a fact what is going to happen in your experiment?

you know it's a fluke when you made mistakes or used improper methods to reach your conclusion, knowingly or unknowingly. peer-reviews can pick out where the researcher fucked up, and just because some peer-reviewed papers are wrong doesn't make the whole system incapable of finding fault.

>and no one else is allowed to criticise a scientists paper?

this isn't about criticizing a specific paper jeff, its you telling a researcher that there's no such thing as an unpublishable result

[Anonymous No.9725840]

>>9725818
>how do you know you have a fluke
>reproducibility

[Anonymous No.9725845]

>>9725625
Do you think travel to other universes is possible?

[TC No.9725850]

>>9725845
I doubt they exist. Even exploring a significant fraction of our galaxy is going to be ridiculously difficult.

[Anonymous No.9725853]

>>9725838
lol when did i say there was such thing as an unpublishable result... yeah if you use improper methods fair enough but this the least of the issues of science. wake up.

and in all probability, its more than just some peer-reviewed papers are wrong. also alot of peer-reviews are shit. many times people are selected to review papers when they have no real expertise in the given area. also you have to closely evaluate your mistakes. how much do they realistically affect the study?

also your jeff reply has nothing to do with the post i was replying to. that post isnt about that at all is it. read it

>>9725840
the point is we are talking about single studies so reproducibility doesnt come into it retard.

[Anonymous No.9725882]

>>9725853
>the point is we are talking about single studies so reproducibility doesnt come into it
If I punch you in the face, will you be agitated? I did this 100 times, to find out.
Results:
94 times subject was agitated
5 times subject was unagitated
1 time subject was knocked-out

Conclusion:
Due to control of punching and subject subjugated to said punch, there was a positive correlation to agitation expressed and anon being punched, 94% of the time.

References:
>yfw

Peer-review:
Seems cogent.

Reproducibilty:
Anon was further subjected to another 100 punches to the face, of the same specificities, and results correlated 99% of the time, anon was agitated.

[Anonymous No.9725893]

>>9725625
Please explain the exact position of an electron of (non-hydrogen) an atom at a given time.

[Anonymous No.9725916]

>>9725716
>Why do we value your opinions on the creation of the universe again

Anybody who looks for profound meaning in physics is sadly mistaken. We value physics for electromagnetism and nuclear and muh technologies, maybe some maths too. The rest are just false priests and their parasites putting on a show. I guess it is mildly impressive as mental athletics but again, not the fucking point.

[Anonymous No.9725991]

>>9725916
what do brainlets like you get out of /sci/?

[Anonymous No.9725999]

>>9725818
>what you mean non-scientists aren’t allowed to tell scientists how to do their job??????
basically yeah.

[Anonymous No.9726003]

do you wish you had more chemistry knowledge?

[Anonymous No.9726011]

>>9725882
kys senpai

[Anonymous No.9726020]

>>9725625
What beer does a physicist drink?
Cause and effect?

[Anonymous No.9726049]

Was it worth it?

[Anonymous No.9726063]

>>9725790
>There are many famous documented incidences of scientists purposely
>famously documented incidences
>incidences
Not a word.
There is no plural of incidence.
Re-word your sentence, please.
You can do better.
See me after class.
>t.Queen'sEnglish

[Anonymous No.9726097]

>>9726063
Anon meant incidents you context blind boi

[Anonymous No.9726100]

>>9725790
>all 10 are bio wetwork
This is a physics thread friend

[Anonymous No.9726114]

What am I thinking right now?

[Anonymous No.9726116]

>>9725634
>funding ran out
see you in the newspaper soon m8
shame u couldnt secure funding m8
the absolute st8 of m8s m8

[Anonymous No.9726193]

>>9726116
Come to America we don't have that here. We are the land of opportunity for a reason you know.

[Anonymous No.9726311]

>>9725625
What would happen if the earth suddenly starts self-spinning in the other orientation

[Anonymous No.9726713]

>"drunk physicist"
>turns out to just be a hobo jobless code monkey

[Anonymous No.9726742]

>>9725669
I'm starting my master in that subject, what am I getting into?

[Anonymous No.9726847]

>>9725625
When im riding my bike on a calm road I dont put my hands on the steering handles
If an external force brings the front wheel *slightly* out of balance, it starts to wiggle left and right (increasing in intensity after each oscillation)
Why is this?

[Anonymous No.9726861]

>>9725625
considering the thread is on from yesterday and people are still posting questions, is OP still drunk?