[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] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile 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]

[Catalog] [Archive]

File: fag.jpg (14 KB, 300x200)
14 KB
I just got my MS in Chemistry. How fucked am I in terms of finding a job?
Hardly. My cousin just got hers and she has a great job with a major cleaning product manufacturer.
From where and what was your thesis

>inb4 "direct" C-H activation

File: 1564025764540.jpg (81 KB, 937x960)
81 KB
18 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
It is 0% because it is literally impossible to get a correct answer. Even if you answer 0% you are wrong because that changes it to 25%
I need to know how many of the answers are correct first
>smol brain
>guessed B randomly
>found out it was B
>i got the 50%
What the fuck is even the question? It's a non-question. There is no "correct" "answer".
>>11306699 and >>11306717
>this is how your brain degenerates on math

File: autism.png (72 KB, 672x518)
72 KB
What is the link between autism, gender dysphoria, and bizarre fetishes? I want serious answers please.
20 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
Too much test aromatizes to estrogen.
They're not mutually exclusive.
There were a bunch of studies going back to the early 2000s that ostensibly established sexual dimorphism in transsexual brains, albeit with uselessly low sample size. Recently, a bunch of transphobes have taken these exact same studies and run them through some semantic horseshit to argue that rather than proving sexual dimorphism they actually prove erotic target location error or whatever other fashionable nonsense. No new research is added, so it's still N=20 horseshit, just with an extra layer of horseshit on top of it. But people swallow it because trannies are the last acceptable niggers.
Perhaps womanhood actually is a lack. Wouldn't that be hilarious?
>tranny lover
back to re󠛡ddit, so󠛡yboy
Not an argument

File: Vacuum Density.jpg (71 KB, 720x540)
71 KB
If the brain runs on electrical signals and most of our energy consumption goes to the brain -- wouldn't it make sense to conduct an alternating current into our head. This does two things:
1. Increases processing speed
2. Requires less kcals per day. Perhaps at most a basic metabolic rate of 1200.
DC is better for that. AC is only for long distance.
DC would be for evoking thoughts by shocking certain neurons. An alternating current would allow neurons to more readily pull energy from the environment without resorting to glucose chemical reactions.

File: P1200963lo_zpsl4zzyhzl.jpg (138 KB, 800x600)
138 KB
138 KB JPG
>100+ years of research
>obscene funding year after year
>countless studies
>still have a caveman understanding of the dopaminergic system
>treatment today is the same as it was in the 70's (spamming the dopa pathway)
>future treatments involve spamming the pathway but in different forms of delivery

why is this allowed?
You just described every disease. Causes and viable treatments are known, they have no intention of doing anything other than perpetual maintenance. It should be illegal. The research apparatus is a glorified money laundering machine.
schizo poster pls
The cause and solution lies with electricity.
Guy, listen to me. Just how stupid do you have to be?
Regrowing actual neurons, dendritic connections, or even just receptor sites isn't really possible at this time.
I also believe that you would be depersonalized if you were to get a new set of the above so it's a complex issue. And I mean, oxidative stress in the brain is such a stupidly complicated issue I doubt we are going to have a silver bullet solution. The best bet might be targeted antioxidants which cross the BB barrier and reduce damage or stemcell/neuroplasticity drug therapy.

Let's say Cryptids were real. What would be the best way to prove their existence scientifically?
to actually capture one world be pretty convincing
This, end of the thread
What if cryptids ARE real but they are simply animals which are already known and we have names for? Have you ever considered that? Maybe squirrels are cryptids, for example. Squirrels are real.
a hair or blood sample, also a body of one either living or dead, video photographs and even sound clips can be very convincingly faked these days so you'd need tangible evidence

File: ambidextrous.jpg (82 KB, 1280x720)
82 KB
I am training myself to become ambidextrous. Right now I am using my computer mouse on my left hand (it is a symmetric mouse so you can hold it with your left hand), and it is driving me nuts but I am keeping at it. I am playing thought intensive games on my computer (chess, minesweeper) with my left hand.
I also spin my pen every now and then to train those weak pathetic muscles.
I eventually want to write and draw with my left hand almost as good as my right hand.
Can this somehow improve my cognitive abilities, or do the opposite?
hahaha. i had this same fascination back in 9th grade and now I write with both hands. I use my left hand on the left side of my notebook and right hand on the right side. I personally have found that it made me a little less intelligent, but that could have been due to the ocassional joint I smoked when I was younger. There have been studies showing that naturally born ambidextrous people had lower iq's than their one handed counterparts.
but I wonder if they get a complementary EQ boost, like right handedness is tied to left brain, ,which is logical, IQ heavy. I know you said 'one handed' but I wonder how many lefties they actually got

A few rounds of Particle D&D Anyone?
Ok. I'm a 2.7*10^20 eV neutrino
I'm a Higgs boson artificer

File: icon.png (1001 B, 19x19)
1001 B
1001 B PNG
Are there any actually smart women in academia, particularly in maths/computer science?
9 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>Yes. I've had smart STEM professors with vaginas. I've had smart STEM tutors with vaginas. I've had smart mentors and partners in STEM who had vaginas. My best lab partners who contaminated my data the least have been women.
LARP of the century. Tits or gtfo.
Well my power systems prof is a women and shes very accomplished in her field.
Shes a shit prof tho. As in she cant teach for shit.
>Particularly in bio, chem, and medically-related fields. Largely female.
That's because they require significantly less critical thinking compared to physics, math or philosophy.
I'm a dude.

They are way less common in compact, pure math, and physics courses, yes. And yeah, philosophy majors skew male in a lot of places.
This is why I think the sexes' brains diverge. Women and men appear interested in different subjects on average.
>I'm a dude
In your dreams, tranny.
Dial 8.

File: Fritz Honka.jpg (226 KB, 768x1024)
226 KB
226 KB JPG
non-local hidden variables will turn out to be behind quantum physics

screencap this
8 replies omitted. Click here to view.
File: 1573428072827.jpg (115 KB, 1600x900)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
>consistent histories actually makes sense, as opposed to MW

Yeah reality is just a bunch of statements which are consistent with each other according to the rules of classical logic. Wait who chooses the set of statements again? How is this different from copenhagen? (protip: it isn't, and even its proponents admit this)
CH bridges copenhagen and MW in a way that makes sense, but it actually has rules unlike the other two.

>who chooses the statement again?
the experimentalists who actually measured shit
>CH bridges copenhagen and MW in a way that makes sense, but it actually has rules unlike the other two.
I agree with this. It is still not a very satisfying interpretation because it is still very epistemological. If someone does not like Copenhagen because it elevates the idea of measurement to a fundamental part of the interpretation, then they will not like consistent histories either
okay, but i don’t care if it makes people’s fee-fees better. CH is the best way to understand physics, especially since we are trying to understand the early universe before “observers” existed. if philosophers dislike that then they can fuck off while cosmologists do real work

What's the scientific theory explanation for Mice in Space?

https://youtu.be/ZfPoUROLw3M at 1:04:35
27 replies and 5 images omitted. Click here to view.
File: AxialTiltObliquity.png (238 KB, 760x590)
238 KB
238 KB PNG
And it's clear that you didn't even bother to look into some of the points in that image. The very first one, the South celestial pole, is only physically possible if the Earth's surface is curved. There can't be a flat surface (where the observers stay on one side of said surface) and two points in the night sky where the stars appear to revolve around.
Holy shit, you're so behind on your flat earth theory. You're repeating the most common arguments against flat earth, which have, unsurprisingly, been addressed. All arguments against flat earth and for round earth fail.
File: shuttle_1838383c.jpg (5 KB, 460x287)
5 KB
So how does the south celestial pole work on a flat earth? You travel south far enough and you stop being able to see certain stars, and start seeing others, that also appear to rotate around a central point. This is easy to explain with a spherical Earth; how would you explain it if the earth is flat.

Then there is the ISS, which even with an amateur telescope you can clearly tell is an artificial object, moving quickly across the sky. I have seen it personally. My father, who got me into stargazing, remembers it not being there, and beong excited to see it go up. How do you explain that?
You mean it doesn't work with the globe model of the moon. Why would it?
Explain exactly what the moon is in the flat model, how it functions, and how you can use your model to predict its exact position in the sky and phase for any given location at any given time or date for the next century. Only then would it rival the globe model in usefulness and accuracy to real world observations (in this specific circumstance)

File: xenobots.jpg (16 KB, 780x438)
16 KB

they call it xenobots, but its basically the same

this is it brothers, this is the discovery weve all been waiting for, the ability to manipulate the body cell by cell, ocne this is at an industrial scale we can instastop cancer and we have insta perfect functioning forever of every organ that we understand how it works, which is basically everything but the brain. so get ready for radical life extension, at least till 300 and every second you live you wil have a perfect everything except brain, even better than perfect, muscle skin sex drive sleep, everything youll have it good.

that alone is heaven, but it also has crazy industrial application, we can manufacture anything at the molecular level with this, and remember thes emachines self replicate.

basically, on top of having eternal life were about to have plants that eat lumps of coarse iron and shit out finished iphones.
50 replies and 7 images omitted. Click here to view.
Dentists would still be needed for cleanings, because oral surgery is still expensive. Dentists would probably apply enamel-regrowth treatments (which are closer to being ready than growing new teeth).
File: 1468557095572.png (513 KB, 782x736)
513 KB
513 KB PNG
>over at buds house
>drinking beer and playing mario kart
>tells me about how one of his coworkers is a chem trail believer
>laughing our ass off at all the crazy theories he has
>bud's dad comes in
>"They're all true"
>we laugh
>dad just stands there blank faced
>awkward silence ensues
>dad walks out
>mfw bud tells me his dad works for Boeing
>that alone is hell
is it really that easy to publish in PNAS? Especially if you're a harvard professor?
pnas accepts to publish just about anything in exchange for money on top of their regular process.

File: heh notin personel.png (2.44 MB, 3200x1252)
2.44 MB
2.44 MB PNG
Checkmate, math
12 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
Kindly fuck your kind
This is proof of the existence of one way functions and therefore a proof that P != NP
Kek, I was in that /ck/ thread
Mathematicians will never recover
Mathcels btfo
This guy explains it quite well

File: 7SrM3.png (19 KB, 440x253)
19 KB
Is any sequence of continous functions that is pointly covergent to some continous function on closed compartment and it isn't uniformly convergent?//I hope i didn't make much language mistakes.
2 replies omitted. Click here to view.
So if f is point wise convergent, then for every epsilon we get N(x) s.t. at x, that f(x)-f_{N(x)}(x) < epsilon where epsilon is given. Choose the largest such N(x) and let that be N, and since g(x) = f(x)-f_{N}(x) is continuous, we have that there is delta s.t. for d(x,y)<delta that g(x)-g(y) < 2epsilon. Since this holds for all x, and such a construction can be made for all epsilon, it holds that f_{n}(x) is uniformly convergent.
That being said the final continuity argument only holds because of the closed set its defined on, and we can choose a smaller delta to replace epsilon/2 with epsilon, but any mathematician would be able to make the connection
The last part about g(x ) and its continuity is crucial because it tells us that for M > N that g(x) will be less than epsilon for all x
Let [0,2] be your closed interval.
Let f_n(x) = nx for x in [0,1/n]
2-nx for x in [1/n,2/n]
0 for x in [2/n,2].

The sequence converges pointwise to the constant 0 but it is not uniformly convergent to 0 because for each n there exists an x such that f_n(x)=1.
This >>11307334 is an example.
This >>11307207 is embarrassing.

File: img0015.jpg (51 KB, 640x480)
51 KB
are we living in a false vacuum? will it decay? will a "bubble" that expands radially at light speed destroy earth sooner or later?

my opinion is yes. if the cosmological constant is positive, it implies a lower energy vacuum state exists, and gravitational tunneling nucleation of true vacuum must occur based on Coleman-De Luccia. so we are doomed bros.

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.