/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1077928
Ok then byebye maybe I'll catch you later in a magnets thread.

>>1077785
I don't know enough about the Incompleteness Theorem to weigh in on that. Does it have implications that affect theoretical physics? I was unaware that it had a lot of significance outside of maths, and I am not a mathematician.

>>1077741
>>1077743

Looks like most people so far have agreed that maths can't perfectly explain the universe. In that case, I perhaps should have opened by asking "How do you know that maths CAN'T perfectly explain the universe?"

I don't see how you can assert that either side is true at this stage, and I'd invite you to try and justify your assertion.

>>1077748
I looked up the "Platonic third world" and nothing much came up. Why is it obvious? My physics professors sure seem to think we'll eventually have a perfect theory.

Let me just check that we're not talking across purposes. I am not talking about things like the fact that we might model a CD as being a circle when in fact it is not a true, perfect circle. Modelling things as simpler versions is obviously only an approximation and is not what I am talking about.

Physicists often assume that the universe is written in the language of maths. Indeed, with the success we've had so far by using maths, and with waves from the Schrödinger equation, which appear to not actually be physical objects but simply differential equations, it starts to look very much like the universe may, at its heart, be completely knowable with just maths. We talk about finding the perfect theory that will elegantly describe the whole picture, perfectly replicating and predicting all interactions in the universe.

But what if we're wrong? There's no evidence I know of so far which suggests that our maths is anything more than a good approximation of the way the world works. It seems to me equally plausible that we will reach a point where we have to simply give up on finding a perfect theory, and accept that good approximations are the limit of all we can ever know about the universe.

What do you guys think?

It came out again. ¬.¬

Social evolutionary advantages yadda yadda

FINALLY they got it in.

WTF is that thing floating up and down?

I don't see how the OP's pic is a joke. What's potential energy got to do with girls?

>>1074035
We don't have to blame anyone for overpopulation because we aren't likely to have overpopulation problems (see below). I was talking in the hypothetical case for why "self-correction" is not good.

>The end of world population growth
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/full/412543a0.html

As for overpopulation in Africa, which is indisputable, the problem really is lack of information and abundance of misinformation (IMO: no source). Blaming the people themselves and phrasing it as "letting them have 10 kids" is simply missing the point of what's going on there.

>>1074018
Um. Okay. I'll take that as a comment since it isn't anything to do with the discussion...

>>1073962
If a woman has 10 kids and they starve, none of the kids who are suffering are to blame. Even if this blame game made sense, the victims don't deserve any blame.

And what about the missionaries who go to Africa and tell them lies that condoms don't work? It's their fault the Africans get pregnant, yet they never suffer from the overpopulation.

>>1073942
Not in the slightest, if you're a decent person.

Yes, it decays into something stable. The decay into something stable is what gives off the radiation. If you got a single unstable particle, it wouldn't give off any radiation until the decay occurred.

>>1073911
Never have.

>>1073915
Self-correcting means mass starvation and suffering. YEAH THAT SOUNDS OK.

>>1073905
You're posting on it.

>>1073889
Where're the brakes?

>>1073840
Doesn't explain why I can ride with no hands if I have enough speed. The bike is auto-correcting a bit.

>>1073766
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/192/6/470.pdf
Read summary.

>>1073754
I'm not anon and I'm not saying. =)

>>1073738
I just wanted to make it clear that studying first year QM is perfectly normal and the other guy should not have doubted the person who had two days to learn it.

I didn't mean to call Americans retarded. ;_;

>>1073727
BTW here's the real conclusion:
>Both levels of THC cigarettes significantly affected the subjects in a dose-dependent manner. The moderate dose of alcohol and the low THC dose were equally detrimental to some of the driving abilities, with some differences between the two drugs. THC primarily caused elevation in physical effort and physical discomfort during the drive while alcohol tended to affect sleepiness level. After THC administration, subjects drove significantly slower than in the control condition, while after alcohol ingestion, subjects drove significantly faster than in the control condition. No THC effects were observed after 24 h on any of the measures.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460360 Here's the actual study for anyone who cares about the truth of the matter.

Science journalism is almost always shoddy. Find the study and skip the article you found it in entirely.

Yes.