[QUOTE=booster;34589828]I've been thinking whether I should go and study "Earth Science" after high-school. I've got good grades in Geology/Geography, and it does interest me a lot. But I'm not at the moment "qualified" to get applied for the program, and thus I'd have to spend an entire year studying chemistry, "advanced" maths and physics.
Are there any "geoscientists" here, and if so, what can you tell me about it?[/QUOTE]
become a petrogeologist and make megabucks with Saudi Aramco
[editline]9th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Collin665;34593498]So the girl I want to get a gift for, for Valentine's day, is a physics/math dual major. What should I get her? I don't want to just get a generic chocolate/roses/something gift. Anyone know of any decent physics/math related gifts?
There was some clothing I liked, like a shirt with the plot of a heart curve, but I don't know what size to get her... and I really want it to be a surprise, so I'm not going to ask.
There is also a few rings made of silver/gold/platinum that had the elemental symbols and atomic numbers on the front, but they were way too expensive when we're not even dating.
I may just have to resort to chocolate dipped strawberries, since she likes strawberries.[/QUOTE]
you can buy shiny iron meteorite pieces pretty cheap ($50 and up for nice ones)
'i heard you light up my life so have part of a sun'
anyway it's a fairly unique gift
[QUOTE=fluke42;34566121]So I'm currently working on my bachelors in microbiology at Purdue University, and I've realized two things:
Organic chemistry is easy, and it was a dumb idea to go for a minor in philosophy.[/QUOTE]
Ew, Purdue. But Organic Chemistry can be easy depending on what you learn and how you learn. Depending on what your class covers it may not be as advanced as the Organic Chemistry a Chemist Major might take.
Purdue has a good Chemistry department, better than IU.
transferring here because it got a bit out of hand in the AI thread
[quote]alright I admit I was rude, I'm sorry.
I said about epicycles because at the time, the new heliocentric model was criticised because it didn't really describe or predict anything new. It just predicted the existing data, perhaps to a greater degree of accuracy, but nothing really revolutionary. I think "saved appearances" was the phrase used at the time.
In the epicyclic model, the apparently zigzaggy motions of the planets in the night sky exist explicitly in the model, while in the heliocentric model, the zigzaggy motions are the result of us being on one orbit while observing others. As such they are only there implicitly.
Even if the heliocentric model offered no [I]practical[/I] advantage in making predictions - if we lived in a world in which the Ptolemaic model described everything just as well as heliocentrism, it would [I]still[/I] make sense to consider the latter more correct, because it assumes less.
In this vein, I will just say that the relative advantages of MWI are implicit in my metaphor.[/quote]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34623557]I said about epicycles because at the time, the new heliocentric model was criticised because it didn't really describe or predict anything new. It just predicted the existing data, perhaps to a greater degree of accuracy, but nothing really revolutionary. I think "saved appearances" was the phrase used at the time.
In the epicyclic model, the apparently zigzaggy motions of the planets in the night sky exist explicitly in the model, while in the heliocentric model, the zigzaggy motions are the result of us being on one orbit while observing others. As such they are only there implicitly.
Even if the heliocentric model offered no [I]practical[/I] advantage in making predictions - if we lived in a world in which the Ptolemaic model described everything just as well as heliocentrism, it would [I]still[/I] make sense to consider the latter more correct, because it assumes less.
In this vein, I will just say that the relative advantages of MWI are implicit in my metaphor.[/QUOTE]
The Copernican model was originally advanced entirely BECAUSE it had practical advantage, and people were warned not to take it as physically true to avoid confrontation with the Church. It wasn't until there was overwhelming physical evidence that the earth did orbit the sun that it became clear the Ptolemaic model did not accurately describe the solar system. In MWI's case, there is no such empirical evidence for its truth yet, and I'm not sure it actually simplifies any calculation and if it does you can enlighten me. But you can't really argue for it as purely a mathematical model as the Copernican theory originally was because the probabilistic/deterministic theory difference means it has real physical implications.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34623729]The Copernican model was originally advanced entirely BECAUSE it had practical advantage, and people were warned not to take it as physically true to avoid confrontation with the Church.[/quote]
This is true, the metaphor doesn't have an exact correspondence.
[quote]In MWI's case, there is no such empirical evidence for its truth yet, and I'm not sure it actually simplifies any calculation and if it does you can enlighten me.[/quote]
Well obviously not, but there's also no empirical evidence that holds any other interpretations any higher than it. In such a case we apply Occam's Razor and lo and behold, MWI doesn't assume collapse postulates for one thing.
[quote]But you can't really argue for it as purely a mathematical model as the Copernican theory originally was because the probabilistic/deterministic theory difference means it has [B]real physical implications.[/B][/QUOTE]
Didn't you say it was unfalsifiable?
For how the universe itself operates, but we may not be able to test them
[editline]9th February 2012[/editline]
Also, I said possibly.
oh, fair enough.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34623798]Well obviously not, but there's also no empirical evidence that holds any other interpretations any higher than it. In such a case we apply Occam's Razor and lo and behold, MWI doesn't assume collapse postulates for one thing.[/QUOTE]
I consider the existence of multiple universes to explain observed wave function collapse to be assuming more than simply wave function collapse regardless of how problematic it is in Copenhagen
[QUOTE=Squad;34623122]Ew, Purdue. But Organic Chemistry can be easy depending on what you learn and how you learn. Depending on what your class covers it may not be as advanced as the Organic Chemistry a Chemist Major might take.
Purdue has a good Chemistry department, better than IU.[/QUOTE]
I'm taking the same organic chemistry as chemistry majors. It is taught by a professor who has worked along side 3 nobel laureates.
[QUOTE=fluke42;34624926]I'm taking the same organic chemistry as chemistry majors. It is taught by a professor who has worked along side 3 nobel laureates.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately you'll learn that a professors qualifications don't necessarily speak for his ability to teach and enlighten students. Sad truth. The professors are good there, wasn't really pushing any hate on Purdue.
[QUOTE=Squad;34630396]Unfortunately you'll learn that a professors qualifications don't necessarily speak for his ability to teach and enlighten students. Sad truth. The professors are good there, wasn't really pushing any hate on Purdue.[/QUOTE]
There was a nobel laureate Physics prof that used to teach at my school who was quite notorious for being quite bad at teaching and was a bit detached, too. And also for killing whole forests with his exams.
My debate team won again! 2 8-0's in a row
Our resolve was...
The united states government should increase its development and/or exploration of Earth beyond its atmosphere.
So the Affirmative team's plan's were meteor detection and deflection, and space debris clean up. And the negative's brutally raped the other schools affirmative teams.
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;34641735]My debate team won again! 2 8-0's in a row
Our resolve was...
The united states government should increase its development and/or exploration of Earth beyond its atmosphere.
So the Affirmative team's plan's were meteor detection and deflection, and space debris clean up. And the negative's brutally raped the other schools affirmative teams.[/QUOTE]
nice one man
General relativity and quantum mechanics are so interesting. Why must I be shit at both?
[editline]15th February 2012[/editline]
Particularly GR. Super interesting, and I'm super shit at it.
I've wondered.
Since diamonds are made of Carbon at extreme pressure and heat, could neutron stars create massive diamonds as long as it's carbon there? We haven't had about how neutron stars are in physics yet, other than that the gravity on them are somewhat similar to of those in Atom cores.
I've heard about white dwarfs being of Diamond, like "Lucky"
[img]http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/1296/20120217183641.png [/img]
How do I respond, it hurts too much, do I say
~700$ Billion spent on war for the US and ~1.6 Trillion around the world
and end it there?
[img]http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/6899/20120217183652.png [/img][img]http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3871/20120217183716.png [/img]
I think they kind of have a valid argument, but they're stupid regardless. They should also probably realize one of the issues they just mentioned, "war", is something we spend 600 to 800 billion dollars on annually to perpetuate.
Funding for space is nowhere near that, and has far more benefits, even if those benefits aren't all short-term. (Also keep in mind it puts money into the economy either way, and pushes forward research and development... which is what people like to argue war spending is good for... and personally I'd say space > war.)
I also wonder what hes doing to prevent the 'dying of starvation, rape, sickness, and war'. Or does he just preach on facebook while sitting in his comfy computer chair.
So, for a while I was planning on studying Chemistry in college, but after getting first in a county science competition for Biology, I've started thinking that I may be able to do that instead.
The big question is: Which has more job opportunities and do I have to go outside all the time to be a Biologist like Bill Nye implies?
[QUOTE=Collin665;34747821]I think they kind of have a valid argument, but they're stupid regardless. They should also probably realize one of the issues they just mentioned, "war", is something we spend 600 to 800 billion dollars on annually to perpetuate.
Funding for space is nowhere near that, and has far more benefits, even if those benefits aren't all short-term. (Also keep in mind it puts money into the economy either way, and pushes forward research and development... which is what people like to argue war spending is good for... and personally I'd say space > war.)
I also wonder what hes doing to prevent the 'dying of starvation, rape, sickness, and war'. Or does he just preach on facebook while sitting in his comfy computer chair.[/QUOTE]
18 Billion is such a little amount on programs that brought us Velcro, gps, satellites, and cell phones! Space exploration and development brought us new technology out of its necessity, and will do so again!
And space is fucking rad
[img]http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/54350main_MM_image_feature_101_jw4.jpg[/img]
look at that shit
[QUOTE=theseltsamone;34748227]So, for a while I was planning on studying Chemistry in college, but after getting first in a county science competition for Biology, I've started thinking that I may be able to do that instead.
The big question is: Which has more job opportunities and do I have to go outside all the time to be a Biologist like Bill Nye implies?[/QUOTE]
which one do you enjoy more? pick that one.
[QUOTE=theseltsamone;34748227]So, for a while I was planning on studying Chemistry in college, but after getting first in a county science competition for Biology, I've started thinking that I may be able to do that instead.
The big question is: Which has more job opportunities and do I have to go outside all the time to be a Biologist like Bill Nye implies?[/QUOTE]
There are different types of biology, and then there are also things that branch off of biology.
Here is some stuff to help on your research:
Engineers (Chemical, Biomedical, Environmental, Marine, Materials, etc)
[URL="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#projections_data"]Projections[/URL]
[URL="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#earnings"]Earnings[/URL]
Chemists/Materials Scientists
[URL="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos049.htm#projections_data"]Projections[/URL]
[URL="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos049.htm#earnings"]Earnings[/URL]
Biological Scientists
[URL="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm#projections_data"]Projections[/URL]
[URL="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm#earnings"]Earnings[/URL]
Environmental Scientists
[URL="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos311.htm#projections_data"]Projections[/URL]
[URL="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos311.htm#earnings"]Earnings[/URL]
Agricultural and Food Scientists
[URL="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos046.htm#projections_data"]Projections[/URL]
[URL="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos046.htm#earnings"]Earnings[/URL]
Geoscientists and Hydrologists
[URL="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos312.htm#projections_data"]Projections[/URL]
[URL="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos312.htm#earnings"]Earnings[/URL]
Biomedical Engineering has always been of interest to me, and its one of the fastest growing careers (Expected to almost double (78% increase) in the next decade) and the median pay with a bachelor's degree is ~80,000 USD per year.
Agriculture scientists are a damn joke over here. Hell, one of the big agriculture unis over here is famous for using manure in their hazings.
Also, do you guys know the ig nobel award for the guy who proved heaps of strips always went up in knots? I think it's because, when you apply a force to a bunch of straight strings, it propagates to the whole body, and since it's imperfect and not uniform, the force-field isn't uniform either, so some parts are pushed more than others, that errors builds up on itself and so are the knots created.
[QUOTE=mike;34748687]which one do you enjoy more? pick that one.[/QUOTE]
this
you are doing a terrible disservice to yourself by picking something because of fucking job opportunities
pick a passion and do it well
[editline]20th February 2012[/editline]
if you want money, do petrochemical engineering
[QUOTE=Contag;34785185]this
you are doing a terrible disservice to yourself by picking something because of fucking job opportunities
pick a passion and do it well
[editline]20th February 2012[/editline]
if you want money, do petrochemical engineering[/QUOTE]
What about if you have two fields you enjoy? I'm trying to choose between chemistry and computer science. The catch is that I've been programming for about six or seven years and enjoy that side of it, but I've never taken a class in computer science or programming. I fear that I'll be extremely bored learning about the programming side in college, yet extremely weak when it comes to the theory which I've only started learning in the past couple months. It's pretty much the opposite for chemistry: I learned some about it like 5 years ago on my own, and I've taken classes on it for school and I'm currently in AP chemistry and doing very well. I really don't know where I want to go here.
[QUOTE=Octave;34786370]What about if you have two fields you enjoy? I'm trying to choose between chemistry and computer science. The catch is that I've been programming for about six or seven years and enjoy that side of it, but I've never taken a class in computer science or programming. I fear that I'll be extremely bored learning about the programming side in college, yet extremely weak when it comes to the theory which I've only started learning in the past couple months. It's pretty much the opposite for chemistry: I learned some about it like 5 years ago on my own, and I've taken classes on it for school and I'm currently in AP chemistry and doing very well. I really don't know where I want to go here.[/QUOTE]
well in that case you might want to look at things that bridge the gap. for what you're saying, something like chemoinformatics could be interesting?
[QUOTE=Octave;34786370]What about if you have two fields you enjoy? I'm trying to choose between chemistry and computer science. The catch is that I've been programming for about six or seven years and enjoy that side of it, but I've never taken a class in computer science or programming. I fear that I'll be extremely bored learning about the programming side in college, yet extremely weak when it comes to the theory which I've only started learning in the past couple months. It's pretty much the opposite for chemistry: I learned some about it like 5 years ago on my own, and I've taken classes on it for school and I'm currently in AP chemistry and doing very well. I really don't know where I want to go here.[/QUOTE]
Why not do a double degree or double major so that you can do both?
Me and a friend is stuck on a seemingly quite simple physics problem, any hints towards the right direction would be awesome:
Visible white light falls towards a thin film (n = 1,45). Which wavelength is the most visible in the reflection, if the film is a half micrometer?
We've been looking a several formulas regarding thin films, but the only thing we've managed to get is the wavelength dependent on the angle.
Is there any other way to solve this problem?
Have any of you heard of the Gaia spore idea? Where the earth is represented as plant , and it reproduces/ spreads with its spores(humans). And as we spread by visiting other world's we create the Earth's offspring.
[editline]21st February 2012[/editline]
I think that's a p cool thought
[QUOTE=Swebonny;34790835]Me and a friend is stuck on a seemingly quite simple physics problem, any hints towards the right direction would be awesome:
Visible white light falls towards a thin film (n = 1,45). Which wavelength is the most visible in the reflection, if the film is a half micrometer?
We've been looking a several formulas regarding thin films, but the only thing we've managed to get is the wavelength dependent on the angle.
Is there any other way to solve this problem?[/QUOTE]
It depends on what is on the other side of the thin film (eg if n>1.45 or n<1.45) because if its less when it reflects the light becomes 180 degrees out of phase. The formula you want is OPL = (m+1/2)*lambda. If it's more on the other side you want OPL = m*lambda
OPL (optical path length) would be given by 2*n*t if the light is perpendicular to the film (n= refractive index, t = film thickness). I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question well enough, though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
