/sci/ - Science & Math

Niggerdick

Google this: exp((-(((x-4)^2+(y-4)^2)^2))/1000)+exp((-(((x+4)^2+(y+4)^2)^2))/1000)+0.15*exp(-(((x+4)^2+(y+4)^2)^2))+0.15*exp(-(((x-4)^2+(y-4)^2)^2))

>>3611854
And then new ideas came up and the smart one's moved along and the dumbfucks stayed right where they were

>>3611803
It's mentioned when you click a specific board from the homepage. And why the fuck did you go to the homepage?

>>3611790
I jumped to the first conclusion I came across, and so far there aren't any others

>>3611769
Better 'n your shit

>>3611735
Baww
Pic related, it's me

>>3611720
Except string theory IS testable, and we know what we're looking for, we just don't have the technology yet.

(we would be looking for predicted particles once we have the equations for string theory more precuse)

>>3611691
I haven't read about those yet, and I haven't read too much about M theory, which I'm going to do first

>>3611697
I never said I fully understood them, there were some parts that were too abstract for me to grasp. I'm not the MOST intelligent fellow, I just found the subjects interesting

>>3611665
String theory was able to incorporate general relativity and quantum mechanics, point particle physics would never be able to be combined with it because general relativity required that space was smooth, and the quantum fluctuations that occured within the standard model of particle physics grew ever larger the more you zoomed in.

And string theory is just a possible explanation for the math behind everything (but we don't even know all the math anyways)

>>3611665
I read "the elegant universe", and "string theory and the illusion of intelligent design" or something like that

>>3611659
Quiet, you.

>>3611635
I was, but then people started criticizing the theory, so I now I'm able to get some discussion outta this

>>3611624
>implying the rest of them aren't shitty

>>3611611
I'm on my fagPod so I can only reply to one post at a time

>>3611582
>implying that the standard model will be able to incorporate the graviton

>>3611581
...Then what the fuck are you bashing string theory for? I mean, you got standard model and string theory...

>>3611574
I asked a question regarding calibi-yau shapes and how the number of holes they have effects the number of particle families...

>>3611565
>thinks particles are 0 dimensional

Areyoukiddingme.bmp

>>3611547
Sounds butthurt. How's the standard model working out for you? Tell gravity I said he- oh wait.

>>3611535
It's the best we got right now

>>3611511
Lol u tk him 2 da bar? ;]

>>3611505
Or you could refrain from posting