/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12843241

94KiB, 1200x808, 9267508f048077b25064fbd82bc77fcb.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Is it possible to contribute to a field without going into academia?

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 22:39:41 2021 No.12843241 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12843295 >>12844849 >>12844935 >>12844948 >>12845083 >>12845221

Is it possible to contribute in a meaningful way to Physics (theoretical) or Mathematics without going into academia? I doubt it's possible nowadays but I still would like input.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 22:56:57 No.12843295 Report

Quoted By: >>12844897

>>12843241
Yes. A housewife did in the 50s or 60s for math. You just have to be diligent and properly independent. A little dependence is good but you get less of that on your own. Just make sure you debate and try to apply your stuff to a lot of things

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Mar 2021 07:18:26 No.12844849 Report

Quoted By:

>>12843241
Physics seems to be complete,,... But it also seems to be utter bullshit in detail, like pixelated texture...

There's more detail in reality.

And when it comes to contribution:

They will rob anything off, you, especially you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Mar 2021 07:46:28 No.12844897 Report

Quoted By: >>12844916

>>12843295
Are you talking about the woman who proved a dumb theorem about polygonal tilings in the plane? Because that one was utterly trivial and it hadn't been proved yet simply because actual mathematicians had better things to do than solve cute little puzzles that amuse bored housewives.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Mar 2021 07:54:49 No.12844916 Report

Quoted By: >>12844928

>>12844897
Yeah that's what I meant but it can definitely go further just usually not

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Mar 2021 07:58:35 No.12844928 Report

Quoted By: >>12845227 >>12845233

>>12844916
Don't give people false hope with black swan anecdotes. Housewives rarely if ever prove anything, and when they do it's usually irrelevant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Mar 2021 08:01:17 No.12844935 Report

Quoted By:

>>12843241
Yes. Mathematics literally requires:
-A knowledge of the existing state of the field (can be acquired through google, libgen, maybe going to a local university library if necessary)
-A pen and paper
-Maybe a little programming
And also you have a pretty good shot at getting access to uni resources if you contribute in ways that are attachment to a name, even a pseudoname.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Mar 2021 08:06:13 No.12844948 Report

Quoted By:

>>12843241
yeah id guess so

its just easier in the academia because youre already a part of a system and have something to your name. you also know some of the profs and can get their help publishing your material.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Mar 2021 09:04:23 No.12845083 Report

Quoted By:

>>12843241
Perhaps in astronomy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Mar 2021 10:18:05 No.12845221 Report

Quoted By:

>>12843241
No one will believe me but I'm an unqualified college dropout pleb who was working in a factory doing fabrication and managed to get my name included as a contributor in an endodontology paper

I just helped drill and tap holes in some custom-made 3D printed culture plates for my friend who was doing the study. That's my one claim to scientific fame. I don't know if anyone's ever even cited the damn thing though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Mar 2021 10:19:57 No.12845227 Report

Quoted By: >>12845233

>>12844928
You can contribute to math if you want. I've had good conversations with PhD ppl on mathematical logic which were fruitful and from me steering the convo

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Mar 2021 10:25:07 No.12845233 Report

Quoted By: >>12845255

>>12844928
>>12845227
After just a month or two of starting math but I've started logic quite a bit before. I've done the same with vector geometry a day or two after I started that. In the book it said the author effectively wasn't sure why PA = -AP and I spent a day going over it and figure it out.
Assuming p = a+b, and p = 3, a = 1, b = 2 then pa = 2 and pb = 1. pa = b by definition and if pa = -ap then -ap = 2. Broken down that means -1 - -(3)= 2.

Not sure if that was what was confusing but he didn't say it and nobody else knew.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20210317-043050_ReadEra.jpg, 615KiB, 1440x969

Anonymous Wed 17 Mar 2021 10:34:44 No.12845255 Report

Quoted By:

>>12845233
It's more talking about the technique it uses to justify it but it doesn't justify PA = -AP in chapter 2 and it's weird to not use a masspoint calculus considering that's the foundation of it.

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