[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Use with [math] tags for inline and [eqn] tags for block equations.
  • Right-click equations to view the source.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]

RIP Stephen Hawking 1942-2018 🙏

Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!

[Catalog] [Archive]

File: 084.png (102 KB, 300x256)
102 KB
102 KB PNG
k = Aexp(-Ea/RT)

How do I log both sides of this equation.
It says in my notes that the answer should be of the form log y = mlog x + log c.
File: 20180322_081708.jpg (2.88 MB, 3024x4032)
2.88 MB
2.88 MB JPG
Here's what you're looking for.
Read up on log operations.
File: rules-of-exponents.gif (11 KB, 466x428)
11 KB
Real precalc hours

File: brainlet.png (606 KB, 1416x1600)
606 KB
606 KB PNG
Which of these soft sciences can be turned into hard sciences? Which are unsalvageable?

>computer science
4 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>computer science

That's the joke
soft sciences are actually the exclusive domain of non-brainlets because that's where genuinely new ideas are needed. almost everything in the "hard" sciences is cleanly codified, that's why there's so much math. when you already understand the underlying principles, you're basically just doing engineering.
Why the homophobia?
Computer science is already a hard science.
I think linguistics can be thrown in too as well as climatology.
Economics MAYBE but not really.
Psychology can be if it's rigorously based in the neurosciences.
Sociology is too soft to make the switch.

File: 149107835756234.png (216 KB, 400x382)
216 KB
216 KB PNG
[math]\eta_{\mu\nu}\eta^{\mu\nu} = 4 [/math]

File: 1520941962685.jpg (17 KB, 460x276)
17 KB
So recently this guy named Jordan(pic related) started to appear on my youtube reccomendations and I watched a few videos where he talks about IQ, how much it indicates success and achievements, financial stability, crime rates, etc. Nothing new so far, but in a certain moment he talked about high IQ manifestations and I thought about it later during the day.

Not trying to make this a personal blog post or anything, I'm just giving my example because it's something I'm familiar with.
So I happen to have a high IQ, the result was 160, done with a psychologist, the most remarkable area being my creativity. I should be top 0.1%, I believe, in the bell curve or something like that. The thing is, I don't know if I'm really able to do what I'm told I can.

Everywhere I read it says an individual with this score can do things like being a math phd before 25, solving extremely complex problems in seconds or learning a really hard engineering subject in one day or two, which I have tried and failed(kek). Don't get me wrong, the test result isn't incorrect, I've done some other unofficial IQ tests who gave me the same results and I happen to be smarter than possibly anyone I personally know, I just don't feel like the superhero the IQ test describes me.

Are there people here with a smiliar line of thinking? Perhaps someone with a really high IQ of 180+?

Also, IQ general, this topic is always interesting
47 replies and 8 images omitted. Click here to view.
I got 125 at 12.
Is there still hope
You are just dumb OP.

You don't seem to understand what "indicator for" means. There isn't a direct causation between success and IQ. IQ is just correlated with success. Statistics will never tell you causal links that you seem to think.

IQ is a test of your spacial reasoning. I doesn't directly measure intelligence like idiots here will tell you. It is however correlated and a component in "g" which IS ment as a general measurement of intelligence. But this again is not evidence for a direct causal link between the two. It could be many reasons for why they are correlated.

There is however a well established causal connection between watching JP's stuff and being an idiot, which explains why you are such a failure OP. Go clean your room.
>sci disregards online iq tests, claims only valid ones are the psychology guided
>guy comes with a psychology assisted result
>faggots say they don't believe

talk about being jealous
I woud have believed if he said something like 141, but 160?
Posting on /sci/?
This is a bait thread.
>modern society
>grunt work
Go back 50 years and you would be more correct.

File: g7wyBOXLAN0.jpg (58 KB, 604x444)
58 KB
Why dont papers of failed experiments or experiments confirming others get published?

You can learn a lot from them too
2 replies omitted. Click here to view.
Failed experiments SHOULD be published.
In fact, several journals now won't consider any article if the protocol wasn't announced BEFORE the work began.

For example; if you're assigned to study possible links between smoking and cancer, your employer (Liggett-Myers) is going to suppress any results which show there IS a connection. They only want studies which support their position published.
The modern equivalent would be "Drug X does not significantly improve the survival rate for patients with disease Y".
So you get biased results.

As this has become more widely-known, steps are being taken in an attempt to combat this.
Have you ever written or read a paper? The introduction is there to describe the motivation that led to the current experiments the reader is about to go through along with a quick review of what has already been done so that the reader also knows why they should care and see the significance of this work.

If another group reports good results and the authors here are reporting better results, they will cite the first group's work to give the reader some background. However, if people published previous versions of these experiments not working the authors have no motivation to cite those failed works since they are the first ones to succeed in these experiments.

You could say well why don't they cite the failed experiments to show what has been done before just like they would cite the less successful ones?

There is no reason to unless they provide something worth mentioning, in which case they are not failed.

Failed does not mean "didn't do what we intended it to do" it means it doesn't work and we have no idea why it doesn't work. There's nothing of value there. If any part of the experiment provides knowledge about the topic of study, it isn't failed.
>>9610913 >>9610920

Fail is embarrassing.

Fail and Repeating are seen by investors as waste of money and time.

Replication is important in science though.
Bad incentives. It's not about advancing humanity's knowledge, it's about individual researchers and journals trying to look good. Publishing a failed experiment would help others learn but it would make the people in charge look bad, so they don't do it.
They do in particle physics. Other fields can learn a lot from us.

File: notags.png (1.68 MB, 1754x1240)
1.68 MB
1.68 MB PNG
Trying to guess the height of the tower but a can't into the math. This thing must be higher than 27 meters.. pls help brainlet
13 replies and 5 images omitted. Click here to view.
Each cell in column B is a constant, K, times the number above it. In my case, K was 0.95958
Each number in column C is also K times the number above it.
By reducing the width and height proportionally, the aspect-ratio of the car remains unchanged.
Sorry, thought I'd made that clear.
Then D3 = C3 + D2
This estimate still does not account for the depth distance between the car and the tower. It assumes the tallest point on the tower is in the same plane as the car. Which it's not. The estimate is very low.
Using this strategy you would guess that a mountain in the background is about 2 car heights tall.
The car is somewhat closer but the camera is very low to the ground and that wipes out any clue we have as to relative distances.
Best solution I can think of is to compare the spacings of the perimeter fence posts on the far side of the tower with those on the near side and assume the tower is centered within the circle..
That would be tricky.
Stacked on top of the unfortunate distortion of the fisheye lens, I don't see how to improve on the perspective technique.
Certainly, it's better than the OP's original "we're looking at everything face on" guesstimate.

Anyone have a better idea?
File: anonstower.jpg (270 KB, 1578x888)
270 KB
270 KB JPG
Not sure how this turned out.
I did some photoshop magic to try and remove the lens distortion, and i'm sure this causes a poor estimate, but whatever.
Also, i worked with a 2-point perspective (i.e. we're looking straight at the horizon) which again probably gives a bad result. If only the photo was better. Oh well.

I got around 96.5 meters. It's probably shorter considering the camera was pointed upwards. With the inaccuracy and everything about this technique, i think i can at least say that it's shorter than 100 meters.

File: 1521615581559.jpg (353 KB, 1280x1920)
353 KB
353 KB JPG
What is the evolutionary advantage of oral responses to pain? It's at least not exclusively a social response, as a lot of non-herd animals elicit the same response
who is this seaman demon
Pack animal yells in pain to alert pack members to duress and/or potential danger to themselves. Pack animal evolves into lone predator, still retains some of its original pack-like qualities simply because they weren't bred out, may even benefit from said qualities in more subtle ways (providing some level of emotional relief from pain, helping to scare whatever is attacking it, etc).
I thought about that just few hours ago, are you reading my mind?
Btw i've come to the conclusion that screaming while being under pain is useful to yourself because someone of your same specie can come in help, and it's also useful for others as an alarm, if there's no possibilities left for you at least others can escape.
Obviously there are many examples in which this oral response seems useless, but that's how evolution works, it's all about casuality, contingency and then natual selection. Evolution doesn't mean perfection or improvement

File: introit.png (37 KB, 586x578)
37 KB
I failed the first test of my Calculus 2 class, should I just drop it while I still have some dignity left?
Total percentage dropped to 46%
I'm trying to study for this second test to really pass it, but realistically, is there any way I can recover?
I got a 70% on the first exam in calc 2 and still finished with an A. I aced everything else, though...

You could probably pull a C or B.

File: radon.jpg (33 KB, 594x263)
33 KB
Are explosives from noble gas the weakest because the latter require more energy to be iontized and therefore it won't be easy for them to "break" their stable structure and therefore won't release as much energy?

File: unnamed.jpg (73 KB, 1800x1075)
73 KB
Is pursuing a career in Physics worth it? How hard does one have to work in order to become a college professor, and is it smarter to just choose engineering?
11 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
Modern physics is a meme. Theoretical cucks are turning it back into a philosophy branch.
File: 1520814566538.jpg (15 KB, 407x407)
15 KB
>Or do you want to educate people on physics, a la Neil Degrasse Tyson or Bill Nye?
>Bill Nye

bruh, even bill nye got a degree in engineering lmaoooooo
File: 6-scientistsch.jpg (562 KB, 720x546)
562 KB
562 KB JPG
How many physicists have you met? The first thing I notice about physicists is their shocking abundance of knowledge. They know a lot. About all the areas of physics, areas of chem, bio, philosophy and more. They had to study A LOT to gain this knowledge. So if you want to be a physicist, you need to spend the time to learn a lot. Like 60 hours per week.

Another thing youll notice is their ability to understand and engage with material quickly. When they dont know something, they will pick up a few books and be experts in a very short time frame. They can apply their methods across a long range of fields. And that comes with practice. So be prepared to engage with a lot of material.

Another thing is that they really are researchers. As in they do in depth research all the time, consulting dozens of resources for a single project. They will take on multiple projects at the same time.

I think what helps them be able to do all this is a genuine fascination with the physical universe. If you dont have a fascination that can drive you to work relentlessly, Id suggest engineering.

>joe rogan
comment discarded
rogan is a pseudo intellectual pothead who cant put 2 and 2 together. this fucking idiot think plants feel pain. hes a fucking conman leading a cult of retards who want to be seen as smart without doing the actual work to be smart

your comment doesnt say what carroll actually said. did he explain why? some people leave physics for money, lack of interest, etc. did he explain if he was referring to academia only? acadenia and industry? what?
If you're worrying about pursueing work for physics don't pursue physics. Go for engineering.

Physics is hard and people do it not because they want to make big bucks like medical doctors but because they really enjoy physics, academic rigor, and/or challenging their mind. Some undergrads start off with the elitism (which all physicists have a bit of) but just wanting to be better than others does not cut it for actually fully pursuing physics. Sure you can and likely will get solid and great jobs with a physics degree, but any of those jobs could be done with engineering degree in which you're actually specialized.

If you actually want to pursue physics to it's fullest, jobs should largely be seen as a period of relaxation either before or between serious research. Don't get a physics degree because you want a job . Get a physics degree because physics draws you in.

Physics is an academic field, Engineering is a professional one.
Just study physics as an undergrad and apply for masters for engineering. At least then you can the best of both worlds (study physics and keeping your career options open)

File: 1521668093751.jpg (119 KB, 500x750)
119 KB
119 KB JPG
How long until A.I. starts spewing fake content like magma? You could even do an entire fake speech with a president, to control part of the gullible population
1 reply and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
Why would you need AI to produce fake content?
Humans are doing an excellent job already.
it is happening this very moment.
seems like you are from the gullible part of population
what the fuck is this bulge
Just because the content is indistinguishable to the human eye doesn't make it perfect. Perhaps we'll have to train a NN to identify discrepancies in fabricated videos. Fight fire with fire.
Look at all of the discrepancies in our potentially Sim lives... We're in a time space pool and the ladders have been removed.

File: 1520944339210.jpg (17 KB, 148x288)
17 KB
Redpill me on space travel. We can't do FTL(right?) so how do we colonize the galaxy and have a space adventure and when?
pic unrelated
89 replies and 12 images omitted. Click here to view.
Get fucking destroyed. Can't even reify space let alone time. Still waiting for a refutation.
>We're at the pinnacle oh technology, it's the job of science to prove that we are!
Delusional indeed.
>pretending to be retarded for (You)s
absolute state of /sci/ shitposters
More resources, more security against extinction, more probability of finding something interesting out there and generally more life and especially more intelligent life is always a good thing
>>9608625 >>9604988
Carbon Nano tubes are things we made in lab. A material with amazing properties. We just don't know how to produce it in large scale, in a cheap enough way for the consumer market.
Only reason lasers don't work is the limited range before the beam defocuses.
You could build giant fusion powered lasers on each planet (and giant mirrors or solasers powered by excited particles in chromosphere) and have them push a ship inwards, around the sun and out again.
With sufficiently large lasers and mirrors you could probably get a sorta big-ish probe to other systems. And use magsails to decelerate.
But of course a max few ton probe isnt going to be any good for colonisation unless you have some fancy self replicating tech or AI.

If you want real interstellar travel you should use Bussard ramjets.
They require a working fusion reactor but nothing more
You need to accelerate them to a respectable speed in the beggining, especially considering the low density of our local bubble
But as stated you can do that with a "sling manouver" around the sun during which you are constantly pushing it with giant lasers and near the sun the ship would have plenty of fuel to accelerate


if you have viable fusion, you have the tech for relativistic interstellar travel

File: 1511655664518.jpg (68 KB, 645x773)
68 KB
>on track to get an A in ODE, Linear, and thermo
>on track to get a C in mechanical dynamics despite getting an A in statics

why is this shit so difficult? why can't I properly imagine acceleration?
2 replies omitted. Click here to view.
What assumptions? Do you mean like approximations?

Do you mean the jumps from seeing a system and then describing it mathematically?

Give an example
I guess there could also be assumptions made at that level to keep things simple. You could be given systems that you actually can't fully describe with the physics you've been taught since the math is above where you're at. It is thought to be important to expose you to systems even if you can't fully mathematically understand it at the time.

I know way back when I was first introduce to string motion and waves I was completely lost. It wasn't until I actually encountered and learned pdes that it all clicked together.
File: problem.jpg (234 KB, 917x1203)
234 KB
234 KB JPG
okay, for example, I had to assume angular momentum was conserved to solve this problem without any way of demonstrating it mathematically, since the reactions are unknown.
...that's not an assumption... Angular momentum is conserved. Always. It is a physical fact or axiom if you like your math. Momentum is a conserved quantity. As is Energy.

Why they are conserved is because of physical symmetry and Noethers theorem (which is about every symmetry being controlled by an underlying conserved quantity).

Symmetries and conserved numbers are the backbones of physics. You need to get comfortable with them.
I'm aware of the angular momentum principle. When I say "conserved" I mean, the initial angular momentum is equal to the final angular momentum for the system, meaning there is no angular impulse.

File: them.jpg (26 KB, 600x600)
26 KB
If consciousness is a process generated by a living brain, isn't unconsciousness as well?
what you don't see and what you don't hear still happens that's the unconscious aspect of it
unconsciousness is generally a negative object. it refers to the lack of something.

that said what is "conscious" and "unconscious" in the brain is difficult to determine.
No, unconsciousness is the lack of consciousness
File: giphy (92).gif (1.35 MB, 340x240)
1.35 MB
1.35 MB GIF

File: CompleteGraphs_801.gif (11 KB, 411x316)
11 KB
Who wants to talk about graphs?
>take a graph theory paper
>it just becomes lmao Ramsey and combinatorics
Dunno what I was expecting.
whats the best programming language for graphs
are things like flow/cuts and topological sort a part of graph theory? or is that computer science and graph theory is mostly combinatorics and abstract stuff?
File: Network_Flow_SVG.svg.png (32 KB, 800x408)
32 KB
yes those things are included. graph theory is basically just any arrangement of nodes and edges, any values that can be attached to them, and all the algorithms that can be applied.

if there were some kind of realistic simulation, though, it wouldn't be graph theory anymore.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.