/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11655691

7KiB, 400x400, Aleph.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sun 10 May 07:58:13 2020 No.11655691 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11655703 >>11655934 >>11656004 >>11656518 >>11656855 >>11657232 >>11657672

ITT: Generally accepted mathematical/scientific concepts you find stupid with your knowledge set.
Doesn't matter if it is because you genuinely don't understand it, use this as an opportunity to get help in understanding it from others. I'll start.
>There are infinite sets of infinite

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 07:59:04 No.11655692 Report

Quoted By: >>11656162

axiom of choice. it seems obvious until it isn't

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 08:04:34 No.11655700 Report

Quoted By: >>11655911 >>11656429

>There are infinite sets of infinite
yes, here is one version of this:
S1={1;1;1;1;1;1;1;...}
S2={2;2;2;2;2;2;2;...}
S3={3;3;3;3;3;3;3;...}
...
Sn={n;n;n;n;n;n;n;...}
for all n in N

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 08:06:28 No.11655703 Report

Quoted By:

>>11655691
That absolutely fucking RETARDED way you all used Bayes yheorem. The way yhey did the odds you were LESS likely to have a disease if you tested postive for it, which is absolutely fucking retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 10:47:05 No.11655911 Report

Quoted By:

>>11655700
>>11655700
you show
>there are in finite sets infinite
now what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 10:58:35 No.11655934 Report

Quoted By:

>>11655691
>>There are infinite sets of infinite
what did he mean by this ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 11:46:55 No.11656004 Report

Quoted By: >>11656455

>>11655691
>string theory
>dietary science like cholesterol, saturated fats or sugar being bad. All participants lie constantly in long term studies
>neuropharmacology, some people just perform better in taking certain drugs. The disorder classifications are ridiculous
>psychology and sociology
>history
>our current physical understanding of particles is deeply flawed

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 13:10:28 No.11656162 Report

Quoted By:

>>11655692
Reminder that non-measurable sets are a consequence of this as well. Also reminder this means that there is a well-ordering on the reals.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 13:28:49 No.11656184 Report

Quoted By: >>11656244 >>11657188 >>11658159

Using complex numbers to describe current and voltage in alternating current. I get that it's the same with using sines or vectors, but of all the things that could be used they use this. It's completely retarded, I see no need to use them, they don't represent what is actually going on and it gives the impression to brainlets that complex numbers appear in nature.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 13:58:56 No.11656244 Report

Quoted By:

>>11656184
>It's completely retarded
it's probably convenient

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 15:12:21 No.11656429 Report

Quoted By:

>>11655700
Those are all sequences, not sets. Sets have no repetition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 15:20:23 No.11656455 Report

Quoted By: >>11656609

>>11656004
The thing with neuropharmacology and pharmacology as a whole is that most research has to go through the US government for research funding. As such, there's this massive bias to propose research that "fits their narrative
" that bad drugs are bad and good drugs work because they're not bad drugs. Obviously this is complete fucking horse shit, but it's crippled the field for decades.
To make matters worse, this government funded research is then open to be patented by private entities via the Bayh-Dole act. I'm not fucking kidding, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to patent government funded research and sell it back to the people.
Shit's absolutely, 100%, unequivocally, fucked.
Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 15:51:41 No.11656518 Report

Quoted By:

>>11655691
dialtheism and paraconsistent logic used to be it for me; the very notion seemed absurd.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 16:21:55 No.11656609 Report

Quoted By:

>>11656455
This is pretty much my line of thought. You tell people you are skeptical about pharmacology and people treat you like a schizo. At worst I'm ADHD but I hate that there's a stigma about pointing out an obvious conflict of interest happening in the medical system

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 17:42:13 No.11656855 Report

Quoted By:

>>11655691
>Light is a wave without a medium
Just admit your theory is bad, stop making up this bullshit

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO big cat of slight disdain.jpg, 341KiB, 1614x1080

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 18:17:13 No.11656973 Report

Quoted By: >>11657007 >>11657232 >>11657520 >>11658790

The Schrodinger's cat analogy.

Granted I'm not a physicist by any means (I even avoided it in high school) and I might be missing something deeper, but Schrodinger's cat makes the whole thing sound like esoteric witchcraft.
I find the in-a-nutsheel explanation much clearer than this nonsense.
just say "an electron is in a superposition until it interacts with something, so that's why we can't "see" a superposition directly, because we can only see and measure things by how they interact with other things (like how you see me because light bounces from me to your eyes)".
in contract, saying "you see if you put a cat in a box and have a poison dispenser set to go off at a random time the cat is both alive and dead at the same time! and only by opening the box and having Dorothy click her magic shoes can the cat be one or the other!" makes it sound like observation in and of itself has some magical properties and just brings up so many questions! how could a cat be both alive and dead? can the cat not observe itself? what makes someone an observer?

Seriously, am I missing something? why is this analogy so popular?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 18:27:59 No.11657007 Report

Quoted By: >>11657547 >>11657655

>>11656973
> Schrodinger's cat makes the whole thing sound like esoteric witchcraft.

yeah that's the point.
But pop-sci misses the point and rides the analogy like a big fat black cock.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 19:18:26 No.11657188 Report

Quoted By:

>>11656184
>>11656184
> it gives the impression to brainlets that complex numbers appear in nature.
ever heard of quantum mechanics? sure they don't occur in nature to the extent we can measure complex numbers but good luck formulating QM (the most successful modern scientific theory) without complex numbers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 19:31:14 No.11657232 Report

Quoted By: >>11657655 >>11658533

>>11655691
>>There are infinite sets of infinite
Yes
{0,1, 0,001, 0,0001, 0,00001...}
{0,2, 0,002, 0,0002, 0,00002...}
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5...}
>>11656973
Schrodinger's whole point was to make fun of quantum superposition, his flaw was that quantum laws don't apply to the macroworld

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 21:12:58 No.11657520 Report

Quoted By: >>11657547 >>11657655

>>11656973
>makes it sound like observation in and of itself has some magical properties
My current understanding of quantum physics is that this IS thought to be true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 21:21:14 No.11657547 Report

Quoted By: >>11657639 >>11657655

>>11657007
>>11657520
Yeah, both.
Schrödinger brought up the thought experiment to show how silly it is.
But really Schrödinger is at the butt of the joke, since rejecting it because ">but I wouldn't like this kind of workld" or ">it's absurd" is the worst kind of bias you can bring into it. He demonstrated an aspect of formal QM and nobody should get emotionally triggered by it. Unless they are old men clinging to god or determinism or classical views.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 21:54:56 No.11657639 Report

Quoted By: >>11657652 >>11658168

>>11657547
Certainly you're not saying a cat is dead and alive at the same time in a literal sense. I'd imagine the universe has something to prevent quantum spookiness from influencing macroscopic events whether another person is watching or not. I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 22:01:40 No.11657652 Report

Quoted By:

>>11657639
>I'd imagine the universe has something to prevent quantum spookiness from influencing macroscopic events
This is the biasedness I'm talking about.
You try to assign probabilities of what's reasonable to fundamental microscopic physics. You don't want something to be true so you adopt a stance on one of the possibilities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 22:02:07 No.11657655 Report

Quoted By: >>11657665 >>11657669 >>11657908 >>11658168

>>11657007
>>11657232
>>11657547
Wait, you mean Schrodinger's cat was never supposed to be a good analogy? and that Schrodinger just said it to point out why he thought quantum physics was bullshit?
On one hand this does make me feel a bit better, on the other hand I am a little pissed they use it as an actual analogy in pop-sci.
God damn it, pop-sci has failed me yet again.
>>11657520
Well no, it's not that observation itself does anything, but rather in order to observe a particle (or anything really) it needs to interact with something, like how you can see your hand because your hands interacts with light and bounces it back, that interaction collapses the superposition.
no idea why I'm explaining something in a field I know nothing about, I guess I'm looking for confirmation that I'm correct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 22:05:33 No.11657665 Report

Quoted By:

>>11657655
>Wait, you mean Schrodinger's cat was never supposed to be a good analogy?
Yes, he described this situation as a pointer towards this being absurd.
He wanted something not to be true and so cooked up a way to convince others of this as well.
He took the formalism and took it to the natural conclusion.

He fucked up in his attentions, as this only shows his human flaws, but the whole thing is also one of his great contributions to physics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 22:07:11 No.11657669 Report

Quoted By:

>>11657655
>Wait, you mean Schrodinger's cat was never supposed to be a good analogy?
Yes, he described this situation as a pointer towards this being absurd.
Taking the formalism to the natural conclusion.
He wanted something not to be true and so cooked up a way to convince others of this as well.

This wasn't very scientific in his intentions and so showed some of his flaws, but the whole thing is also one of his great contributions to physics.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1543346624324.png, 576KiB, 594x569

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 22:07:31 No.11657672 Report

Quoted By:

>>11655691
fourier transforms

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 23:15:56 No.11657908 Report

Quoted By:

>>11657655
>Well no, it's not that observation itself does anything
Well in my latest attempt to slightly understand the basics of it all, I came across something that said an experiment with double slits showed that adding a sensor before the slit actually made part of the resulting pattern disappear, or something like that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 May 2020 23:18:08 No.11657914 Report

Quoted By:

Anything to do with 2d cartersian planes in a 3 dimensional space. Like why do we even need to worry about that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2020 00:30:08 No.11658159 Report

Quoted By:

>>11656184
Complex numbers are used in circuit theory because basic algebra in C is much easier than differential equations of various orders in R
All about Laplace transforms buddy

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2020 00:35:41 No.11658168 Report

Quoted By:

>>11657639
You're just saying that you support the Copenhagen interpretation and don't believe Everett interpretation because it screws with your perception of the world.

>>11657655
Your explanation regarding observation is fine, it is indeed because measurement requires an interaction and interactions destabilise the superposition state and force it to be a definite state. It certainly isn't because someone is looking.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1564345041112s.jpg, 8KiB, 250x244

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2020 02:40:33 No.11658533 Report

Quoted By:

> Orders of infinity
>>11657232
>>There are infinite sets of infinite
>Yes
And that's a good thing!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2020 04:44:26 No.11658790 Report

Quoted By: >>11658987

>>11656973
Better pop-sci explanation:

We measure things by bouncing photons or other small particles off of them. One small, but very important, process this can mess up is electron orbitals. When electrons change orbitals, they either absorb or emit photons. We accidentally change stuff by shooting photons or other small particles at stuff to measure it.

This analogy continues with all interactions of small things. You just can't measure things with complete accuracy when they are so sensitive to the measuring device. Instead, we try to indirectly measure and use statistics to fill in the gap.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2020 04:56:02 No.11658811 Report

Quoted By:

>set theory
>axiom of choice
>misuse of bayes theorem
>string theory
>"fat and cholesterol are bad for you"
>disconnect between neuropharmacology and psychiatric classification
>using complex numbers to describe electricity
>paraconsistent logic
>non-medium based theories of light
>observation-dependent theories of interaction

Yeah I'm thinking this thread is pretty based so far. Carry on gentlemen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 May 2020 06:39:41 No.11658987 Report

Quoted By:

>>11658790
So why does quantum physics put so much emphasis on uncertainty? If I look at a weather vane to gauge how windy it is, I don't worry about how much the vain is interrupting the air flow.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches