/sci/ - Science & Math

Economics is an unsolvable problem using math.

Based Jeff Bezos - edition

previous >>16840782

Previous thread: >>16759536

>what is /sqt/ for?
Basic questions regarding maths and science. Also homework.
>where do I go for advice?
>>>/sci/scg or >>>/adv/
>where do I go for other questions and requests?
>>>/wsr/ >>>/g/sqt >>>/diy/sqt etc.
>how do I post math symbols (Latex)?
rentry.org/sci-latex-v1
>a plain google search didn't return anything, is there anything else I should try before asking the question here?
scholar.google.com
>where can I search for proofs?
proofwiki.org
>where can I look up if the question has already been asked here?
warosu.org/sci
eientei.xyz/sci
>how do I optimize an image losslessly?
trimage.org
pnggauntlet.com
>how do I find the source of an image?
images.google.com
tineye.com
saucenao.com
iqdb.org

>where can I get:
>books?
libgen.rs
annas-archive.org
stitz-zeager.com
openstax.org
activecalculus.org
>articles?
sci-hub.st
>book recs?
4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist.html
>online courses and lectures?
khanacademy.org
>charts?
imgur.com/a/pHfMGwE
imgur.com/a/ZZDVNk1
>tables, properties and material selection?
www.engineeringtoolbox.com
www.matweb.com
www.chemspider.com

Tips for asking questions here:
>avoid replying to yourself
>ask anonymously
>recheck the Latex before posting
>ignore shitpost replies
>avoid getting into arguments
>do not tell us where is it you came from
>do not mention how [other place] didn't answer your question so you're reposting it here
>if you need to ask for clarification fifteen times in a row, try to make the sequence easy to read through
>I'm not reading your handwriting
>I'm not flipping that sideways picture
>I'm not google translating your spanish
>don't ask to ask
>don't ask for a hint if you want a solution
>xyproblem.info

Why is anthropogenic climate change happening or not happening and why is it good or bad?
>b-but some liberal activist said the human race will go extinct in 20 years. That is so absurd therefore climate change is not happening
I don't care that's not science and they aren't scientists.
>b-but some conservative activist said that climate change isn't happening/isn't cause by humans/is good
I don't care that's not science and they aren't scientists.
>b-but liberals use climate change to push for certain policies and to get votes
irrelevant to whether or not it is happening
>b-but here are all the problems with an inconvenient truth
A popular science documentary by a liberal activist and politician is not and should not be considered an authoritative source by anyone regardless of what they believe about climate change. In the same if I showed a documentary on evolution by an atheist activist and discovered it made errors it wouldn't be evidence against evolution. How about you poke some holes in pic rel instead?

33 years ago scientists produced this half hour documentary extolling the many virtues of enhancing the atmosphere is additional CO2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep5ptrPN6ns

Sometime between 1992 and now they then changed the narrative from "Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will make plants grow faster and healthier and improve the environment substantially" to "We're all going to die in *two weeks* from global warming"

When did the narrative shift happen and why did it happen?

Genuinely how do people that don't believe in evolution explain this? I'm asking this in good faith, I'm not trolling here.

How could time have more than 1 dimension?

I am getting into photography as a discipline and want to understand the way light behaves from a scientific point of view. This thread is for discussion of light and/or electromagnetic waves.
>Rayleigh scattering is the scattering or deflection of light, or other electromagnetic radiation, by particles with a size much smaller than the wavelength of the radiation.
>Snell's law (also known as the Snell–Descartes law, and the law of refraction) is a formula used to describe the relationship between the angles of incidence and refraction, when referring to light or other waves passing through a boundary between two different isotropic media, such as water, glass, or air. In optics, the law is used in ray tracing to compute the angles of transmission or refraction, and in experimental optics to find the refractive index of a material.
>Quantum imaging is a new sub-field of quantum optics that exploits quantum correlations such as quantum entanglement of the electromagnetic field in order to image objects with a resolution or other imaging criteria that is beyond what is possible in classical optics.
>In physics, ray tracing is a method for calculating the path of waves or particles through a system with regions of varying propagation velocity, absorption characteristics, and reflecting surfaces. Under these circumstances, wavefronts may bend, change direction, or reflect off surfaces, complicating analysis.

How long until all jobs are replaced by robots including art and manual labor?

Is it true that we're going to achieve immortality soon?

Now that the dust has settled, this was rather anti-climactic.

it's over everything is fucked edition

Previous Thread: >>>16792899

This thread exists to ask questions regarding careers associated to STEM.
>Discussion on academia-based career progression
>Discussion on penetrating industry from academia
>Or anything in relation to STEM employment or development within STEM academia!
>If you have a question, before posting, read some of the older posts and ,if you can, try to answer their questions on your post. That way the thread isn't an endless log of unanswered questions.

Resources for protecting yourself from academic marxists:
>https://www.thefire.org/ (US)
>https://www.jccf.ca/ (Canada)

Information resource:
>https://sciencecareergeneral.neocities.org/
>*The Chad author is seeking additional input to diversify the content into containing all STEM fields. Said author regularly views these /scg/ threads.

No anons have answered your question? Perhaps try posting it here:
>https://academia.stackexchange.com/

An archive of some of the previous editions of /scg/:
http://warosu.org/sci/thread/15740454

heads up. my brother who works for a major electricity company was working this month on anti-EMP measures for a carrington event.
Solar flare hits tomorrow at 4PM. Rumor has it it is going to be a big one-
Nasa experts are declaring the aurora will likely be visible in Arkansas and Nevada. >https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/news/view/593/20251111-x5-1-solar-flare-g4-geomagnetic-storm-watch.html

Be aware.

What can you do?

Well, its an inductive event, so antennas = voltage. Like a huge static charge everywhere. The grid will be okay, as will hospitals. Anything hardened will be fine. Credit cards, laptops, cell phones etc may suffer damage.

During this time i suggest being stockpiled on water, comfy snacks and things to eat, and have a few books to read on hand.in the event that your phone stops working,

How in fuck is economics considered a science when one of their core axioms they stake basically their entire field on (supply and demand) is complete and total mathematical nonsense?
(2 known variables (P and Q), and 4 unknown variables (a, b, e, g).)
I mean, this shit is basically the same math as geocentrism lmao.

lets say hypothetically you had a graph that represented the effective yield of a nuclear bomb with respect to the number of stages or the amount of fissile material required. how would you go about optimizing the selection so that you don't incur diminishing returns? would it be like finding the critical value on some function? what happens if it's logarithmic?

is there even an optimal yield/mass ratio that's design-independent?

It's all falling up. I think I get it now. Up is literally down. Up is the direction of greater coherence and down is the direction of greater uniformity. Gravity and Entropy are Up and Down.

How does the sperm and the egg handle consent?

was he really that smart?

What killed Christianity among modern scientists?

Roger Bacon
William of Ockham
Francis Bacon
Blaise Pascal
John Napier
Leonard Euhler
A.L. Cauchy
Michael Faraday
J.C. Maxwell

The above were all vanilla believing Christians of various kinds, they were all exposed to Atheism but didn't buy it, Euler and Pascal even debated atheists.

I'd mention Newton as well, he was technically also a theologian as we wrote interpretations and commentaries on some Bible sections, but he was a heterodox neo-Arian Christian

Europa

Is this economically viable?

Is even compatible the idea of the holy spirit of christians, the Dao of taoists and our current understanding of biology?

My point is that I've been thinking that the holy spirit and the dao are symbolism of a natural force, similar to the ether that can spawn as an emergent property the first biological molecules and grant them the divine spark of being alive.

So the Dao and the Holy spirit would be closer to the spark that grants the biological beings their status of being alive, and spark biological life in planets, as emergent property of carbon molecules.

>Science can't explain this but it supposedly knows about what was going on a fraction of a second after the Big Bang

Lmao, you actually believe that?

RIP king, they did you dirty

Caturday space cat edition.

Why have Harvard students gotten so much smarter over the past 50 years?

What went wrong with American college students?

you were saying?

Don't give out advice, don't reply to the schizofag... unless you're bored.

I'm a cyclist. I got a new bottle for the winter (on the right). It has a strange U shaped pipe attached to it from inside. But my old bottle (on the left) doesn't have any pipes! Explain me what this pipe is needed for.

I think I now understand how to design a game to be basically unsolvable by computers.

Basically imagine the game is two players competing to sell more T-shirts.
One player goal is to sell more red T-shirts and the other is blue T-shirts.

But the game has 3 systems that interact using probabilistic gameplay loops like gathering the raw materials, then crafting the materials, then paying taxes and then like selling the T-shirts to npcs.

But at the same time, both players have to like exchange items in these loops to get materials and items you need but also exchange them for items and materials you have.

Eventually all items and materials are important for a clear strategy in the rules, but that strategy has a clear counter strategy, like RPS layers of counter strategies arranged in a graph of triangular relationships.

Is the fundamental definition of "mental illness" no more complicated as "anything the government wants to define as an illegal belief"?

I mean 400 million years is a long fucking time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21EYKqUsPfg [Embed]

Indian podcaster Dwarkesh Patel debates the 'father of reinforcement learning' Prof. Richard Sutton on whether LLMs are a dead-end.
Sutton believes so, while Dwarkesh Patel proclaims LLMs are the foundation on which experiential learning can happen, citing recent LLM models' success at high-school math problems. Patel claims humans all learn by imitation too.

The following exchange summarizes the debate:
>Patel: But there are phases of learning where there's the programming in your biology early on, you're not that useful. And then kind of why you exist is to understand the world and learn how to interact with it. It seems like a training phase [in LLMs].
>Sutton: There's NOTHING where you have training of what you should do; there's nothing. You see things that happen, you're not told what to do. Don't be difficult, I mean, this is obvious.
>Patel: I-I mean you're literally taught what to do, this is where the word training comes from, from humans.
>Sutton: I don't think learning is really about training, I think learning is about learning, an active process. The child tries things and sees what happens. We don't think about training when we think of an infant growing up

What's /sci/'s verdict? Who won?
Is Dwarkesh Patel right in saying humans are literally taught what to do the moment they're born? Is all learning just imitation?

African invention

Is there scientific proof that aphantasia exists?

niggas will tell you it’s a 4D manifold, a metric, a vectorfield or whatever... basically just descriptive abstract math shit. or That it's “nothing” but also “expands.” That it has no substance but can bend, ripple, and carry waves. That light redshifts not because it loses energy, but because “space itself stretches.” Don’t ask what stretches. Don’t ask what it stretches into. dont ask how space is connected.

what a load of barnicles...
Modern physics has no clue what space is. maybe space has mass, maybe space is just baseline potential for mass. the jews dont really know even if they claim they do. yet all of their gay theories are built on shit like spaces and fields which they do not really understand.

Explain to me what is the maxwell demon.

Does it means we live like in a digital reality?

>a machine will never do arithmetic faster than a human
>a machine will never be able to solve algebraic equations
>AI will never recognize speech
>AI will never play a full game of chess
>AI will never be able to see or recognize objects.
>AI will never be able to play chess competently
>AI will never be able to understand stories or context
>AI will never translate between languages
>AI will never be creative
>AI will never be able to beat a grandmaster at chess
>AI will never be able to beat the world’s best chess player
>AI will never be able to beat a grandmaster at Go
>AI will never be able to beat the world’s best Go player
>AI will never be able to hold a natural conversation
>AI will never recognize faces accurately
>AI will never be able to pass a high school aptitude test
>AI will never be able to pass the Turing test
>AI will never drive a car safely
>AI will never be able to pass a college aptitude test
>AI will never be able to win international math competitions
>AI will never be able to write publishable academic papers
>AI will never be able to do research as well as a first year PhD student
you are here
>AI will never be able to do research capable of a PhD graduate
>AI will never be able to autonomously discover and test new materials or drugs.
>AI will never be able to produce Nobel worthy research
>AI will never be able to invent new scientific paradigms
>AI will never be able to master common human sense
>AI will never be able to create original art that moves people
>AI will never be able to direct an award winning film
>AI will never be able to run a company successfully
>AI will never achieve super human intelligence
>AI will never be able to govern responsibly
>AI will never be able to achieve consciousness
>AI will never be able to surpass human intelligence in every domain
>AI will never be able to redefine what it means to be human

it do be like that

You know, I am somewhat of a mathematician myself.

Hey, guys, read this xD

https://x.com/i/grok/share/SEqTxRmj5Yia0UMg6iYGWrfnK

why is science so boring now?

lol ok gravity works because of your big titties

A function maps one input to one output... but why don't we make this bi-directional? A function must map an output to exactly one input.

[math]f(X) = f(Y) \iff X = Y[/math]

This seems like it would make it much easier to reason about things if outputs are unique.

>>>/b/942166092

theoretical basis of electrogravitic propulsion just dropped

>our equations for gravity do not work
>perhaps our equations are wrong?
>nah they cant be, it must be le spooky dark matter!!

defend this bullshit

would it be possible to determine if a skeleton was homosexual? are there any possible tip offs? what about if the body isn't completely decayed? how much remaining intact flesh would be needed? can you find it if you can get a good dna sample?

so tell me: what is the yeild if the bottom one was 2.5 miles away from the cameraman

Alright, let’s tighten the estimate with your new distance: 2.5 miles (≈ 4 km).
Step 1: Fireball size at 2.5 miles

At 4 km, the apparent fireball in the photo looks quite large compared to nearby buildings. If we assume the fireball subtends ~5° of the camera’s field of view (a reasonable guess for how dominant it looks):

Angular size: 5° = 0.087 rad

Physical diameter: D≈d⋅θ=4,000⋅0.087≈348mD \approx d \cdot \theta = 4{,}000 \cdot 0.087 \approx 348 \,\text{m}

Step 2: Yield scaling

Empirical scaling laws (from U.S. test data) suggest fireball radius RR scales with yield YY approximately as:
R∝Y1/3R \propto Y^{1/3}

A ~350 m fireball diameter (≈175 m radius) corresponds to a yield in the tens of kilotons range.

For comparison:

Hiroshima (~15 kt): fireball diameter ~300 m.

20–30 kt tests: fireball diameters ~350–400 m.

Step 3: Ballpark yield

At 2.5 miles distance: The bottom explosion’s fireball size suggests ~15–30 kt.

Midpoint estimate: ≈20 kt.

Answer: If the bottom detonation was 2.5 miles away, the yield is most consistent with ~15–30 kilotons, roughly in the same range as Hiroshima/Nagasaki devices.

Would you like me to show you how this scaling law works with a simple chart, so you can visually see how fireball size grows with yield?

This is probably more like a vent post but its been on my mind for a while. How come so many people seem to look at Sci-Fi/Cool space shit as some super weird niche? I know many personally who look at it like it's boring, and they just perpetually stay in their realm of fantasy novels and such... but as for myself I have this insane wanderlust for space and even just staring at the barren nothingness on Mars or the frozen surface of Europa just fills me with this weird Awe.

Did we lose our Imagination somewhere along the way? Maybe you can blame it on the end of the space race or the global economic troubles down here on Earth or what have you, but I remember a time where a genuine future in space was a feasible idea, but it seems most people just don't care for the final frontier like they used to. Am i alone in this?