The new /sci/ wikihttps://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki(More resources in replies)
To use MathJaX, put your TeX code between [ math ] ... [ /math ] tags for inline equations or [ eqn ] ... [ /eqn ] tags for block equations.[eqn]\zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^s} = \frac{1}{\Gamma(s)}\int_0^{\infty} \frac{x^{s - 1}}{e^x - 1} \mathrm dx[/eqn]Note: You may preview the output by clicking the TeX button at the top left corner in the quick reply window.Additional supported file type on /sci/ is PDF.Reminder: /sci/ is for discussing topics pertaining to science and mathematics, not for helping you with your homework or helping you figure out your career path.If you want advice regarding college/university or your career path, go to >>>/adv/ - Advice.If you want help with your homework, go to >>>/wsr/ - Worksafe Requests.
We are entirely made of waves.I find this fascinating.
>>16784964You really shouldn't take your "thoughts" so seriously if you're incapable of basic reading comprehension and fly off on irrelevant tangents like some spastic.
>>16783598Pure energy
>>16783307Waves energy mass and particles are the same thing observed differently
>>16783497>what are we made of though?Mass, space, and time.How do you convert those to waves?
>>16785055Energy isn't pure, it is like a fifth derivative made of one part mass and two parts space divided by two parts of time.
every photon of light you see is only an by you. if 2 people look at the same thing then the light produced by that thing is shared between them. what if a billion people look at something? would the light start to dim as a result of spreading the distribution of wave collapses? could we all drain the light from the sun by looking at it?
>>16785245
>>16785701>water as an analogy for quantum physics
peripatetic your butts
>>16785707chatgpt (and established theories) agrees with my position. now what?
>>16785708i hope some of you retards didn't actually study this shit because your tutors failed you
E=MC^2Beat that
>>16785082D^3 = energy.
>>16785085Dimensions are what fills space, such as the dimension filling our space is black. Depth, length, width, height, volume, etc are space fillers i.e. dimensions. A cube is not a dimension, it's a shape, though a dimension cubed would be the abstract of a cube. It would be similar to a cube unfolded accept it would be through space fill.
>>16783132Perfection.If I say nothing loudly enough I am completely correct: The formula.Well done, Anon. You should have been OP.
>>16785573>Zeta[4] = Integrate[1/(1 – a b c d), {a, 0, 1}, {b, 0, 1}, {c, 0, 1}, {d, 0, 1}]
>>16783081NO!
Technically moonlight and light pollution at night means that there's a lot of light for solar panels to absorb even at night. Can't solar panels absorb moonlight and lights from new york skyscrapers etc?Moonlight is reflected solar light.
>>16780417But solar panels would cover a lot of space in space
>>16781777No planning regulations (so far).
>>16780390Lux is some bastardized corrected for human eye perception by wavelength bullshit. Your numbers are vaguely correct for human eyes but for panels turning light into watts, panels typically produce about 0.1 to 0.2 percent of daytime power in moonlight. Maybe the stars or cloud reflections contribute. Anyway yeah you can get fucked up if you touch solar panel wiring at night. You still need to lock out tag out panels not just wait for sunset. Trust me you will get fucked up if you try crimping connectors at night thinking you won't get shocked. It's not a lot of power I suppose if you'd get vaporized during the day for the same panels....
>>16778948I generate 28kwh a day, typically use about 5, and get paid 60% of retail for what I don't use. Why is this a scam?
>>16785660Sounds like it works good for you but it relies on others not using solar so your excess can be provided to them through the grid and then you can pull non-solar power from the grid at night. If everyone goes solar, your system no longer works for you nor their systems for them.
there are waves circling places in this plane where there are no atoms. how do scientists explain that?
>>16785057Diffraction
>>16785057But the atoms ARE there, just less so.
The dots are carbon monoxide molecules on a copper substrate. Plenty of atoms around.
>>16785057electron cloudthere's non-zero probability that you find electrons away from the atoms, and crests of those waves are where the probability reaches a local maximumeverything is wavy, so there are interference effects too influencing the pattern you see
>>16785057>>16785060>>16785300Correct, the atoms interfere with each other like waves, and their position is uncertain so with a measuring device with high space and time resolution they show up as wave patterns of high intensity (higher counts of detection) and vice versa
Earlier this month, a huge team of stem cell researchers dropped a very significant paper identifying Glutathione S Transferase Alpha 4 induction as the primary mechanism by which OSK reprogramming rejuvenates cells... >Reprogramming Factors Activate a Non-Canonical Oxidative Resilience Pathway That Can Rejuvenate RPEs and Restore Vision>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.08.30.673239v1.abstract>GSTA4 overexpression alone enhances mitochondrial resilience, rejuvenates the aged RPE transcriptome, and reverses visual decline. GSTA4 is consistently upregulated across diverse lifespan-extending interventions suggesting a broader pro-longevity role. These findings uncover a previously unrecognized protective axis driven by Yamanaka factors that circumvents reprogramming, providing therapeutic insights for age-related diseases.Soooo... is DWS's protocol fully deprecated at this point? Just cycle various GSTA4 inducers? Are there some other chemoresistance enzymes out there too that you should just cyclically jack the fuck up, unless you're a cancer patient on chemo?>CAPTCHA:40W0WW
why dont women select for intelligence?
>>16785363if the metric is ability to deceive or convince other humans, that's not actually intelligence you fucking retard>b-but theoretically a superintelligence could use its superior intelligence to manipulate a human!shut the fuck up
because throughout human history the people who has the most children were the strongest and so women who capitulated to strong chad rapists had the most children and their sexual preferences were passed on. not that complicated
>>16785354Hard to select for something that is not readily recognizable.And there are hordes of fakers just trying to fit the "seems smart" fashion.The truth is most people want a partner with a similar IQ to themself. They are selecting for smart enough but not too smart.
Counterpoint, are women selecting for actual retardation?
>women>selectinghuman females didn't have rights until a hundred years ago lmao. millions of years of evolution tell them that they're supposed to cuddle up towards the aggressive invader angry raper man so he doesn't kill them. cancel modern humanity lmao
Do any other /tards understand what I'm getting at?
>>16784938>>16784950She critiques both Feynman and the bros and she's right about it all.Obnoxiously self-important, multiple-autobiography-writing, chauvinist people can be good at physics, there's no conflict. Growing up also means not romanticising and idolizing smart assholes.
Be warned friends.Over the years I have learned to recognize a certain type of woman who is irrationally malicious. Among other characteristics they all have the same sort of smile.She has this smile.They are to avoided at all costs. Any unavoidable interaction with them must be kept to an absolute minimum. The best strategy is to feign being a pleb, as these creatures prefer to target anyone who sticks out from the crowd. If you get on the wrong side of them they will devote insane amounts of time and energy towards making your life Hell. What might seem trivial or inconsequential to you they will make the focus of their daily existence. They will plot and plan and then ambush you over something you entirely forgot about days ago. Be very careful if they appear to be friendly. They are just looking for rope with which to hang you.They are the intellectual equivalent of She-boons who have learned to get their way simply by screaming the loudest and longest, winning by simply being so persistently obnoxious that no rational person wants to engage with their antics.
>>16784956But the thing is, Feynman never wrote an autobiography.
>>16782858>would probably still be the most attractive female coworker at your industrial engineering type jobWorker hot vs Bar hot.I have seen some women get tons of attention at work sites that would be totally ignored in a bar.Beauty is relative.
She's cute and smart and I like watching her videos and imagining having a workplace affair with her.>That one video where she let her Biggs Bosons out a lil' bithnnnnng science mommy please teach me things and let me respectfully pine after you in the workplace aaaaaa
Does the atheistic multiverse explanation of fine tuning commit the inverse gamblers fallacy?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l6tZm2iJSJMhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_C2GVsBvOwQ&pp=ygUcTXVsdGl2ZXJzZSBpbnZlcnNlIGdhbWJsZXJzINIHCQmyCQGHKiGM7w%3D%3D
>>16785474Greeks thought time could be infinitely divided bruvProve them wrong>>16785496>It only needs to be fine tuned to the point of...Who cares what it needs. The point is infinity does not guarantee any particular need will be met. >>16785582>and there's some reason to believe other universes could spawn. . . Such as?>For anything on a scale smaller than the universe, we already know there are countless galaxies (let alone stars and planets) out there, so there's no difficulty in positing that we represent one lucky roll among a billion trillion or whatever.That's a different argument about abiogenesis or whatever, and it's very copey since any odds given to this "lucky roll" are entirely made up. You say billion trillion but I could say billion trillion billion trillion etc.
>>16785462this argument only works if you assume space-time isn't quantized. If so you can only describe time (or space for that matter) as small as 1 planck length unit, so the number of universes where you post a comment in that second would be finite. Its still unconfirmed whether space or time is quantized so we can't know for sure.
>>16785669greeks also thought pi was rational and everything was made up of 4 elements. quit being a fag
>>16785442I think "fine-tuning" falls apart once you start looking into proteomics; there are all sorts of redundant, useless, and even harmful proteins expressed by all different organisms. If some "creator" really designed all that unnecessary complexity, he was a major schizo sperg who couldn't really into "fine-tuning" very efficiently.
>>16785680He could create lots of universes Maybe our universe was just one of the "good enough" universes
Is having problems with trivial probability problems indicative of low IQ? or is probability abstract enough that it is something that is learnt, rather than intuited?
Here is a better filter question.You and your opponent each draw a decimal number between 0 and 1 without revealing it. You each have the option to redraw and keep that value instead, and the other person doesn't know which choice they made. The person with the higher number wins. Find the optimal strategy.
>>16785571I'm too lazy to calculate the exact threshold for redrawing, but it's probably significantly lower than 0.5 because the opponent is going to redraw low numbers too.
>>16785577>significantly lower than 0.5significantly higher, fuck me
>>16785365>33% right? bayes ruleyes. if you picked a gold ball first, there was a 2/3rds chance that it came from the box with two gold balls. the next ball picked from that box must be gold. The other 1/3rd of the time, you picked from the box of mixed balls, so you'd end up getting the silver ball.
>>16785513You're selecting for a gold ball, it's not 2/3, dipshit.
-Calculus: Stewart, Apostol. -Linear Algebra: Lay, Friedberg.-Vectorial calculus: Marsden-Tromba.-Differential equations: Zill, Tenenbaum.-Complex variable: Ahlfors.-Probability and Statistics: Evans.-Topology: Munkres.-Analysis: Sherbert, Apostol.-Physics: Sears.-Thermodynamics: Callen.-Programming Language: C, by Ivor Horton and Herbert Schildt.-Mechanics: Landau-Lifshitz.-Abstract Algebra: Fraleigh. -Differential geometry: Do Carmo.-Galois theory: Rotman.-Electromagnetism: Reitz.-Optics: Hecht.-Quantum Physics: Eisberg.-Electric circuits: Nilsson.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Classical Mechanics:
>>16777385Pretty much. All of the major textbook sites are based in countries with no retarded copyright laws so even if one goes down, 20 more will spring up in its place. Only a solar mass coronal ejection can destroy piracy forever and that's not likely to happen in and of itself (at least one MCE event that powerful).
>>16775406>Jay Cummings He's got a pretty cool small channel: https://youtu.be/0xGRpVYy1Rg
>>16777385Fake libgen. Very shady. Down a lot too. >>16783123He was late. If he started during covid with the popularity of his books on amazon, he's probably would be pretty big now.
>>16778322Have one for QED?
Something is fishy about the CK assassination. I'm wondering if /sci/ can help me do some basic trig math (which I unfortunately suck at from lack of use) to determine the real point of origin for the subsonic bullet that was fired and captured from two separate angles on camera.
>>16785534nta but it is interesting because out of everyone here you were the first to begin with the posturing. you started off with an ad hom attack, and your rebuttal was nothing more than "trust the experts"your first sentence was>if you seriously think your question has merit to any degree, you are an anti government schizo.if you were as smart as you feign, you wouldnt have responded to this thread to begin with. you'd simply hide it or sage in all fields, but no you spent your own time engaging with it, bumping it, and at the same time neither elaborated your opinion or stance, nor deconstructed or refuted the OP's line of thinking either. all you did was attack him, call him names, and talk about a generalized group of people who are "1000x smarter" you are the biggest retard here and where others are willing to say they dont know for certain you will feign knowing better than any but being to smart to elaborate.. you are fraudulent.
>>16785485meds, nowlack of basic quantitative reasoning skills should be a red alarm for you that your qualitative reasoning probably sucks too (hint, it does)
>>16785494>you are an anti government >schizo.northwoods, mockingbird, ruby ridge, sep11, etc, etc
>>16785502>guess why the most intelligent people on sci dont post on pol.Because whenever they try, they get btfo by legitimately +1 std dev of IQ compared to here
>>16785485Not every bit of fluff in the frame is a bullet, anon.
If I have a high iq does that mean my opinions aren't retarded?
>>16784785woah thats a lot of 7s
he just memorised all the different patterns they use in IQ testing because asian parents
>>16784816the last rigorous IQ test I took had 2 or 4 questions that were culturally sensitive and linguistically involved, even if they were simple onesStuff involving conversion factors between units, and.. maybe a qualitative comparison between two people in an example scenario with incomplete information? so uhh testing something like implied transitive propertiessure, most reasoning we do is ""just"" using logical operators, induction, [Bayesian] inferencing, paired up with rote memorization and an ability to adapt old concepts to new scenarioson the other hand, people tend to call Large Language Models "intelligent", A.I., when it is ""just"" an optimized, [directed] weighted graph that is combined with Linear Algebra using Matrices to make predictionssmart, intelligent; these are not well-defined
>>16785015Or just faked it outright like TOEFL tests
>>16776605Being smart doesn't mean you always get the right answer it just means you can rationalize things deeper than other people.
What is the hardcap for female IQ?
>>16785452>>16785478>>16785492How many times do you retards need to have it hammered in? IQ test issuers literally state "buyer beware, not valid for measuring groups, only individuals, and preferably individuals close to IQ 100"
>>16785657
>>16785657Then, how come there are millions of IQ studies on groups? Are the tens of thousands of researchers all incorrect, but you're right?
>>16785025how's the weather in tel aviv?
>>16784503>designed the algorithmSynthetic aperture has been a thing for a while (1951)What part of the algorithm was new? The use case was new, I guess. Synchronizing observations across the globe was the hardest part. Maybe atmospheric noise/distortion was a new ingredient. The AI shit that tagged along was strange.If nothing was really new computationally and it was just an implementation feat, shouldn't the implementors get more credit?They got their woman in STEM and a black hole "picture" for the woke news so who cares.
