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

Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Additional supported file types are: PDF
  • Use with [math] tags for inline and [eqn] tags for block equations.
  • Right-click equations to view the source.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]

[Catalog] [Archive]

Chinese astronauts aboard the Tiangong space station have achieved an unprecedented milestone: artificial photosynthesis in space. As part of the Shenzhou-19 mission, they have managed to transform carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and rocket fuel components, using only solar energy.

https://www.drivingeco.com/en/China-revolutionizes-space-exploration-artificial-photosynthesis-rocket-fuel/

https://www.livescience.com/space/space-exploration/chinese-astronauts-make-rocket-fuel-and-oxygen-in-space-using-1st-of-its-kind-artificial-photosynthesis
1 reply omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>16585622
Is the ability to do this in space remarkable or something that could be done but no one bothered with doing because doing it in space doesn't offer many advantages at this time?
>>
>>16585626
It's not very remarkable since it's largely pointless. You can do this in your garage with a chemistry set and a solar panel I guess. The reason why it doesn't make sense is because you still have to haul up what ever you plan to make the fuel out off so you may as well haul up the fuel. Besides it's not like electrolysis in space or what ever is a new thing.

It's scientifically interesting but OP is unfortunately a spambot so best ignored.
>>
>>16585663
It's photosynthesis not electrolysis.
CO2 -> O2
not
H2O -> O2

But please tell me how you can achieve photosynthesis in your garage with a chemistry set and a solar panel.
>>
>>16585739
It's not photosynthesis, it's electrolysis because it's using electricity from the panels to break up water and combine it with carbon dioxide, not using plants that use sunlight (which has been done as well). Also electrolysis by itself already makes rocket fuel.

>But please tell me how you can achieve photosynthesis in your garage with a chemistry set and a solar panel.
The same way they do it in space, hook up some water and co2 with electricity and catalyst and out comes hydrocarbons and oxygen.
>>
>>16585621
Not as amazing as they make it sound. It's a long way from actually being used in practical application. We did it on Earth decades ago and it's still not economical.

that we see with naked eye are in our own galaxy? If true, why is this never taught in our normie science classes?
23 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
File: Everyone_On_Moon.webm (2.73 MB, 720x900)
2.73 MB
2.73 MB WEBM
>>16584871

They left it there.
If you go to the moon and find it... is it yours?
Can USA demand it back?
>>
>>16585318
The point is it easily weighs over 1000 lbs and yet we are supposed to believe it was considered 'essential' part of the project.... the same project where every OUNCE of weight had to be accounted / calculated for in order for it be a success. Of all the glaring red flags it was a hoax, this is the biggest one.
>>
>>16585847
The lunar rover weighed 450 lbs
>>
>>16585851
and? do you have an actual retort ?
Weight margins were extremely tight: The Apollo spacecraft had a limited payload capacity, and EVERY OUNCE counted. Engineers had to carefully balance the weight of the spacecraft, crew, fuel, and cargo.
DETAILED WEIGHT BUDGETS were created: NASA engineers developed detailed weight budgets for each component of the spacecraft, including the structure, propulsion, life support, and communication systems.
EVERY item was carefully weighed and accounted for: From the astronauts' spacesuits to the food they ate, EVERY item was weighed and accounted for to ensure that the spacecraft remained within its weight limits.
>and yet that ridiculously NOT ESSENTIAL heavy af 450lbs jeep chassis went along for the ride because... 'reasons'
>>
>>16579024
>If true, why is this never taught in our normie science classes?
It is, you just weren't paying attention.

File: IMG_20250111_174134.jpg (65 KB, 594x518)
65 KB
65 KB JPG
So Bell's inequalities disprove the hidden variables interpretations of quantum mechanics?
How many interpretations are possible now? Is Many Worlds still unproven to be false?
19 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>16585098
I said random variables not hidden variables. You are the one misunderstanding. You never stated why a hidden variable theory must contain those random variables.

>>16585102
Wrong. Bell's theorem is about hidden variable theories, not quantum mechanics.

>>16585106
The energy in each world is given a weight. What is conserved in the mwi is the weighted energy of all the parallel universes.
>>
>>16585162
Everyone is retarded except for you.
What breakthroughs have you been working on in the field?
>>
>>16584776
You know how testing of a hypothesis works, right? It's never proven true.
>>
>>16585802
>Which is why standard model physicists haven't done shit for science since the 70s.
I realize you can't answer this question so personally attacking me is your only option but you're just so boring and predictable it's sad.
>>
>>16585993
I'm not interested in that debate.
I'm interested in what you are doing. What your expertise is, and what your sector of the field is, and what you've been doing in it.
Feel free to be candid.

So, I recently watched a video about converting platinum into chloroplatinic Acid. I was just wondering whether or not this is something that chemists actually do within their work usually? It wasn't semiconductor grade but who would be a willing buyer to this kind of stuff? He was apparently able to sell it for around 6,000 USD so it seemed like a pretty nice deal. (Even if the Platinum itself was around 1,000 USD) Should I do this as a nice side-gig? (I mean, I could do the research myself to figure out if there are any buyers out there, I just want to know if anyone has experience with this sort of practice and how popular it is in the first place).
>>
>>16585861
>sell it for 6000 USD
Sell how much and in what units? Does the price increase 6 fold?
>popsci youtuber
You have been fooled. This title is 99% clickbait.
The prices of today exist because the value of everything is in equilibrium. If what you said was true then I guarantee that some company with better logistics than one person would have done this already and reduced the prices to 1000 USD each. Which probably already happened.

Considering antipsychotics are practically proven to kill a significant amount of neurons, and probably cause cognitive decay, how are they still legal to prescribe for trivial reversible mental issues? Let's not mention the Tardative dyskinesia it frequently causes (irreversible)
>>
Nice, Any proof for that?
>>
File: jp.png (93 KB, 320x311)
93 KB
93 KB PNG
>>16585422
Oi vey, that is antisemitic!
>>
it makes the subject more agreeable to his surroundings improving capital creation, thus it is good
>>
>>16585422
>Why

Because the people who control the industry aren't in the market for cures.. they are in the market for profit, and they make profit by creating dependents.

This is a very simple thing to understand.
>>
Because we are ruled by psychopaths.

File: c18.png (367 KB, 680x593)
367 KB
367 KB PNG
>lmao of course wireless technology is totally safe! it's non-ionizing, that means it's fine! me? i keep my 5g iphone 20 max pro next to my balls 24/7! i need to be wired to the internet 24/7! i live in the 21st century pal!

the non-thermal effects seem more concerning to me, a self described autist who won't be convinced otherwise. the unnatural qualities of how this type of radiation behaves is what i'm more concerned about, since it doesn't replicate any type of natural exposure to other sources of radiation. it's used as a form of communication which is why it's modulated to pulse and change rapidly within fractions of an instance, almost constantly 24/7. a bit like trying to use a light bulb to communicate where you flicker the light up and down in rapid succession.

that type of light exposure would obviously be unnatural and being in that kind of man made environment would probably be sub-optimal and stress the body. even if you were blind and couldn't see the light, there are still photo sensors in the skin. likewise, cells use electrical signaling for function and the constant exposure to the man made pulsating radiation emitted from phones, bluetooth devices, towers, routers, radios, etc can't be good for you in the long term.

i've read about how it can potentially affect things like ion channels and such, personally more concerned about something like this since my own central nervous system has had complications over the last few years and i can see the difference dropping these devices has made just by switching to ethernet. not to mention my balls are now hyper active in a way i've never experienced before in my life.

i expect to get roasted here by a bunch of stem fag coomers with a screen addiction. dont give a fuck desu, stick with your low t internet devices fren.
29 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>16585792
>to do research
NTA but you know full well that controlled experiments are not allowed. Take two cities: leave one as is and in the other city prohibit light and sound pollution from any technology after sunset such that everyone can see the milky way and hear a pin drop at night. Next measure stress levels or any marker of human wellbeing. It's common sense that there will be significant differences but it will never be allowed. So your call for studies is dishonest and you know it.
>>
>>16585810
That is not the type of study being referenced.
I was asking for the evidence that anon looked at regarding conductivity of non-ionizing EHF wavelength radiation in the skull creating dangerous 'hot spots'.
>>
>>16585630
>TRUST THE SCIENCE
You dunning krugers are simply remarkable.
>>
>>16585792
Wireless safety research isn't funded.
The current cellphone safety regulations are based on 1990s research.
>>
>>16585997
Not only not funded. Silenced, because network is what controls media.

File: 1739433399317.jpg (20 KB, 363x334)
20 KB
20 KB JPG
>If P is false then everything is true durr
This is not logic, this is being a gullible retard. How come they don't call this undefined like they do division by zero? At this point I could define X/0 =1 just because I want to.
28 replies and 5 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>16585724
I like that explanation.
>>
>>16584428
because propositional logic and natural language don't mix
>>
>>16584428
Maybe a different perspective from type theory can help.

First, we need to clarify what an assertion is. An assertion is an statement of the form 'p is true', where p is just a formula. In order to be able to state that 'p is true' you need two things: the formula p (obviously), and _a proof_ that p is true. Keep this in mind.

Now, usually formulas are not atomic as in just 'p'. In practice, they are made up of smaller formulas put together through 'conectives': and, or, implies. There are rules that relate these conectives to assertions (read: proofs). Here are the rules.

* **Conjuction (and)**: When is the statement 'p and q' true? If you know your logic tables, you will know that 'p and q is true' holds when 'p is true' and 'q is true'. In terms of proofs, this means that to obtain a proof of 'p and q' you need **two** things: a proof of p _and_ a proof of **q**.

* **Disjunction (or)**: Similarly, in order to assert 'p or q', you need **either** a proof of 'p is true', _or_ a proof of 'q is true'.

* **Implication (implies)**: This is where it gets funky. When is 'p implies q' true? Well, a proof of 'p implies q' usually goes like this: you assume that p is true, then apply some kind of reasoning to conclude that q is true. This means that if 'p implies q is true', you have a procedure to get a proof of q from a proof of p. Do you see that this is _basically_ a function (a computer function, if you prefer) that receives a proof of p to obtain a proof of q? Let me show you some examples.

Consider the proposition 'n is a prime number greater than two implies n is odd'. To prove this, we use the function analogy. As our arguments to our function, we receive an integer 'n', a proof that 'n is prime', and a proof that 'n is greater than two'. We need to return a proof that 'n is odd'.
>>
>>16585921
(continue)
Another example: 'n is either 1 or 2 implies n^2 is either 1 or 4'. To prove this, as arguments we receive 'n', a proof that 'n' is either 1 or 2, and we need to return a proof P that 'n^2' is either 1 or 4. How would you construct this function? I think the easiest way is by cases (a piecewise function) since there are two cases for P: if P is a proof that n is 1, give one proof. If P is a proof that n is 2, give another proof. Easy.

The final example: 'p implies q is true' when we know that p is false. To prove this, we receive as the single argument a proof P that 'p' is true. Just like before, we can construct a piecewise function by cases on P. How many possible cases are there for P? None! Because we already knew that p is false, so we will never get the situation where we would receive a proof of p is true as an argument. So, our piecewise function has zero cases to check, so we are... done? Yes, we are, we have constructed our function.

All in all: you can always obtain a proof of 'p implies q' when p is false. But this should not bother you anymore: saying that 'p implies q' is the same as saying that you have a function that transforms proofs of p intro proofs of q. But you cannot ever use that function anyway, since there are no proofs of p. So no, 'p impiles q' when q is false does not mean that everything is true, because you would need a proof of p, and by that point you would already have that p is both true and false, a contradiction, so nothing makes sense anymore.
>>
>>16584428
"p -> q" is just an abbreviation for "not (p and not q)" and the problem vanish.

Intuition about implication comes from *quantified* logic where (in common language) if A(x) and B(x) are prooperties depending on the variable x, "A implies B" means in fact * forall x, not (A(x) and not B(x))* (example: being human and pregnant implies being a woman: you set A(x):= "x is human and pregnant" and B(x):= "x is a woman").

On a side note, "forall x P(x)" is also an abbreviation, for "not (exists x, not P(x))" ("P has no exceptions"); thus no more incontrollable fears about so-called vacuum truth (the sentence "(forall x, not V(x)) -> (forall x, (V(x) -> W(x)))" (just removes abbreviations as above and see for yourself.)

File: AdG-TED_400x400.jpg (32 KB, 400x400)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
Are we going to need nanobots in order to cure aging?
48 replies and 5 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>16584662
Fart in my mouf
>>
>>16584631
I'm not a Christian. Try again babe.
>>
>>16584693
did you just deny your worship of Christ to win a 4chan argument? that's a no no anon
>>
>>16584603
That is how to get cancer. Better would be to become a single giant cell but with a human intellect, then there can be no rogue cells.
>>
>>16584603
Gotu-Kola

File: 48.png (825 KB, 935x1028)
825 KB
825 KB PNG
/pol/ thinks it's 1
Can't say I am surprised
14 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
6/2(2+1) is
>>16585057
>ambiguous
and BASIC won't accept it
>>
>>16584766
Julia says it's 1
https://glot.io/snippets/h4lklqc9yb
>>
>>16585061
>who [intentionally use] ambiguous notation
yeah
exactly
and now you can go back to doing what you like doing
>>
>>16585092
>The thing is that there is no "standard" order of operations formally defined to the level of granularity I'm describing
There is?
>For example ex+y has the addition take place before the exponent is evaluated despite the distinct lack of parentheses. Why?
Because the addition is within the exponent. Same reason you do addition in parentheses? Or in numerators or denominators? You literally cannot resolve fucking expression otherwise because operators don't have values. Another way of thinking of it would be there are implicit parentheses the same way there is such a thing as implicit multiplication.
>Because the P in PEMDAS really has little to do with parentheses, and everything to do with groupings in the construction of an abstract syntax tree
The order of operations refers to that, OPERATIONS. How the operations are fucking graphically represented is completely fucking immaterial.
>A not insignificant people have learned by example that juxtaposed multiplication is surrounded by a secret invisible set of parentheses
A not insignificant number of people remember Nelson Mandela dying in prison. There is literally no reason to humor bullshit that isn't true. Go ahead and try and find a textbook from this fucking century that doesn't have an appendix dictating an order of operations and notation unique to that book that teaches priority for multiplication by juxtaposition regardless.

>Don't like that math notation is ambiguous?
Math notation isn't ambiguous. There are standard conventions. People ignoring those conventions without indicating so are wrong, and they simply try to use people ignoring those conventions while indicating so in a misguided attempt to justify their being wrong and spreading confusion as equally correct.
>>
>>16584766
It is 1

File: 1728179842352534.jpg (293 KB, 2560x2560)
293 KB
293 KB JPG
Waterpiks have permanent bacterial colonisation despite thorough cleaning.
>Neither using the device exclusively with a mouth-rinse nor any cleaning procedures prevented bacterial colonisation within the device and failed to disinfect the device — especially regarding S. mutans. Further, exchanging the used nozzle to a brand-new one did not prevent the risk of cross-contamination, i.e. bacteria from the device were also transmitted via the water-jet of a brand-new nozzle.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00784-021-04167-1

to this day, mechanical flossing using the c-method is still superior
8 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>>
File: doggo + reikä.jpg (13 KB, 319x393)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
>>16585479
>Waterpiks have permanent bacterial colonisation
Mouths have permanent bacterial colonisation. I you alone use your own waterpick, you risk transmitting your own bacterial strain too yourself (ie. nothing)
>>
>>16585479
I am not surprised, and thank you for the info.
>>
>>16585479
Pik is Dutch for penis.
>>
>>16585550
My oral health has greatly improved over the past few years of water flossing, and I haven't developed any cavities either. I think that I'd rather water floss and spit out some s. mutans water than have rotting food between my teeth (imagine that bacteria). In any case, tradition floss has its own shortcomings: unable to remove smaller particles, often has a toxic coating (https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/dental-floss-harmful-chemicals/), etc.
>>
>>16585550
>Sucrose is the only sugar that bacteria can use to form this sticky polysaccharide.
I'm not a candy obsessed Amerifat so this has no relevance for me.

Hello so first of all, my measured IQ is 127.

I went on an interview today and there was this problem: You have 7 letters, AAABBCD, how many unique codes can you create?

I had combinatorics in HS and I even passed statistics in uni. I also passed calculus I and II in uni. Why do these problems still give me a tough time? This should be easy for me.

Anyone also struggling with something more elementary they should have known a long time ago?
27 replies and 7 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>16585760
To make it more complete
7*6*5*4/2!*3*2*1/3!
D C B B A A A
7*6*10*1
D C B A
>>
>>16585765
Yea. Shits rough out there. 4chan is the only safe space left
>>
>>16585783
Not even 4chan is safe, but there's fight here.
>>
>>16585773
Me gusta
>>
>>16585765
But you do admit that jews are smarter than you?

>be fresh master of psychology
>before finishing my studies managed to get admitted to a prestigious psychoanalysis school
>also got a letter of recommendation from one of the leading psychologists in my country
>can't get a job
I'm an unemployed loser now. Just go to law or medicine or engineering. psychology is a trap
16 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>16585613
>anything that offers working models of the world counts as a science

You can not repeat psychological experiments. They offer insights but not to the degree of pure empiricism or logic.
>>
>>16585613
>anything that offers working models of the world counts as a science. Any areas of psychology that have been tested and match observations are science.
Dumb fuck.
>>
>>16585430
that's psychiatrists not psychologists
>>
>>16585218
True psychology is Catholic. If you forget the effects of sin you're just coping.
>>
>>16585707
I guess I'll have to consider looking for jobs outside of psychology
>>16585752
>You can not repeat psychological experiments.
you have no idea what you are talking about

File: IMG_2017.png (542 KB, 660x660)
542 KB
542 KB PNG
Years ago I had been told about a particle accelerator that was out in the middle of nowhere, either in the USA or somewhere else, and it was a government ran program that started around the early 2000s. The project is likely where billions or trillions of missing tax dollars went. This program however has no connection to the superconducting super collider project, and was created in secrecy. The accelerator is specifically said to be a synchrotron, and runs on its own reactors for power. The synchrotron is said to be under a mountain, likely in Alaska, or Nevada. Why would they build an accelerator in secret, and what particles are they trying to create? How could a synchrotron be used for anything military related when realistically it can’t mass produce anti-matter or be used as a reactor? Do you believe that what I am saying could be true? Also keep a look out for a post I will make regarding strange black tar.
>>
>>16583536
It can mass produce anti-matter.
>>
>>16583536
The glow in the dark coating on my wristwatch can produce anti-matter. It is just small and disappears very quickly.
>>
>>16583536
Positrons
>>
I updated the Sun in June of last year

What makes it so prevalent amongst naturally formed organizational structures?
Is it proof of divine ordering?
>>
>>16585532
white people want the world's population to be 80% white and 20% other and in 1900 they almost succeeded. It was around 70%

File: 10xnci-3895501791.jpg (101 KB, 1024x904)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
Doesn't this theory get rid of singularities? Why do we even need a quantum theory of gravity? Just add torsion to general relativity and everything works right?
Why is nobody shilling for this theory and instead going for the quantum gravity rabbit hole? There isn't a single experiment showing that gravity is quantum
9 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>16583967
>There is
No there isn't. You have a very limited understanding of this.
>>
File: IMG_2976.jpg (9 KB, 284x233)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>16583971
Use arguments like a grown up instead of acting like a nigger and going
>nuh uh u stoopid
>>
>>16583975
I did already. Right now I'm in a situation where you are saying many obviously wrong things, and it takes more effort to respond to you point by point than it is worth.

But here's a hint. Can you write more than one Lagrangian obeying symmetry principles? (Yes) Can you write Lagrangians obeying symmetry principles in classical mechanics too? (Yes) You are completely on the wrong track with this.
>>
>>16583981
Your argument was irrelevant. And then you said that there is no unique Hamiltonian for a given system and I provided a retort. Your “counterargument” was “I know better than you”. Not an argument.
>many obviously wrong
So explain why they’re wrong.
>Can you write more than one Lagrangian obeying symmetry principles?
I already mentioned that it depends on the choice of representations. And there’s a natural way we can “ignore” higher order terms in a perturbative sense. Nice reading comprehension.
>Can you write Lagrangians obeying symmetry principles in classical mechanics too?
The restriction of unitarity is not enforced in classmech, which is why things break down. There are more possibilities and the non-quantum ones produce inconsistencies. Unitarity is yet another severe restriction on the form of the Lagrangian, but class mech ignores it.
>>
>>16583554
>Why is nobody shilling for this theory
Look up Nikodem Poplawski and his work.


[Advertise on 4chan]

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.