Then can you tell me another formula? And explain the one you already told me? Because I don't really see why we suddenly treat vector components as scalars.
And the limit is not just some thing whose exact nature precisely followed from what we knew before. The creation of the limit was borne out of necessity. We started with a very intuitive notion of it because it formed the basis for some things we needed, like the notion of a derivative. It's only more recently that the very precise epsilonic definition was formalized.
[editline]19th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;30570644]Then can you tell me another formula? And explain the one you already told me? Because I don't really see why we suddenly treat vector components as scalars.[/QUOTE]
They ARE scalar numbers. They always have been. A Cartesian distance vector in three dimensions is just a bunch of scalars, the distances along the three axes, that we've put together in a nice and useful mathematical object that we've figured out how to do operations on.
[editline]19th June 2011[/editline]
And if you want another way to think of a dot product, there's really nothing special about it. It's just the most useful inner product we've found on a 3D vector space and has thus become the standard inner product on that space. You could define a new inner product that just gives twice the value of the standard dot product. There's no reason not to except that it has less useful geometric interpretations and applications.
But if a vector is the same as a scalar, why invent it and treat it differently?
It's not the same exactly because they way we treat operations on it is different. You can't just take a couple unrelated scalars and form a cross product, but we invented them because they're an easy and intuitive way to combine direction and magnitude. Vector proofs are ugly as fuck in Cartesian almost uniformly but can be very nice in vector notation. It's like referring to a set A instead of every element individually every time you want to refer to them.
[editline]19th June 2011[/editline]
A vector is not "no different" than a collection of scalars, and I didn't say it was. That's why there's a unique set of rules for working with them. The vector v + 2 doesn't make sense. But that doesn't mean we can't retrieve scalars that tell us useful things about vectors. Like the divergence of a vector field, which is itself a scalar field. The Laplacian operator as well, (the scalar Laplacian, anyway) which maps a scalar field into a vector field and then back to a new scalar field.
[editline]19th June 2011[/editline]
Like I could define a new vector operation, a/b. Let's say this gives me (a1 + b1)^2 + (a2 + b2)^2 + (a3 + b3)^2. There's nothing that prevents my using the information contained in vectors to produce a scalar in that way, it just might not be useful.
[editline]19th June 2011[/editline]
On an unrelated note: free book on topology if anyone wants it.
[url]http://www.topologywithouttears.net/topbook.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=Zareox7;30111146]I'm in high school Physics right now and it sucks. We've just finished the topic of Light and I can't say that I've learned anything major that I didn't know before. I believe I slept through at least 1/3 of the entire school year of Physics and am still passing with an A.[/QUOTE]
I loled at forensic criminal science,anatomy,biology,zoology, and psychology everyone would study hard and i would wake up and fix there mistakes then go put my headphones in and just back to sleep. people would ask me why i even took the classes because i dont need that many science credits and i wouldn't do 90% of the class work yet the tests would be given and my name would be on the highest one every time and when i go into those classes people think i'm just some retarded skater junkie but we would have games to test your intelligence and my competitive alpha male drive would keep me awake to slaughter my classmates and answer everything then i would go back into sleep mode.
[QUOTE=Roflcopter :3;30585631]I loled at forensic criminal science,anatomy,biology,zoology, and psychology everyone would study hard and i would wake up and fix there mistakes then go put my headphones in and just back to sleep. people would ask me why i even took the classes because i dont need that many science credits and i wouldn't do 90% of the class work yet the tests would be given and my name would be on the highest one every time and when i go into those classes people think i'm just some retarded skater junkie but we would have games to test your intelligence and my competitive alpha male drive would keep me awake to slaughter my classmates and answer everything then i would go back into sleep mode.[/QUOTE]
Watch your ego, friend. It's a fickle and deceptive companion.
Wait why am I telling this to you? You apparently aced psychology so you should know better.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;30587356]Watch your ego, friend. It's a fickle and deceptive companion.
Wait why am I telling this to you? You apparently aced psychology so you should know better.[/QUOTE]
lol i know there are people smarter then me its just harder to find them and no ones a master of everything like i completely fail at any language i can remember vocabulary but then not how to properly use it or spell. its just science and mathematics especially life sciences that i excel at. im mostly good at logical stuff.
I was just thinking that it might be a good idea to do my Ph.D in nuclear physics. I mean, assuming I go straight from my bachelors to Ph.D and don't take a year off or something I'll probably finish my thesis in like 2018 or 2019 or something.
ITER is expected to achieve break even fusion in 2019. I'd imagine a lot of job opportunities would pop up if ITER was a success (either jobs at ITER itself, or jobs closer to home if they decided that they wanted to follow suit and build their own fusion plant). Plus fusion power is badass, etc.
[QUOTE=sltungle;30603015]I was just thinking that it might be a good idea to do my Ph.D in nuclear physics. I mean, assuming I go straight from my bachelors to Ph.D and don't take a year off or something I'll probably finish my thesis in like 2018 or 2019 or something.
ITER is expected to achieve break even fusion in 2019. I'd imagine a lot of job opportunities would pop up if ITER was a success (either jobs at ITER itself, or jobs closer to home if they decided that they wanted to follow suit and build their own fusion plant). Plus fusion power is badass, etc.[/QUOTE]
You master fusion and you will master the world. The entire world would be begging you to come work for them since you have so much experience with ITER.
But thats if it works.
[QUOTE=sltungle;30603015]I was just thinking that it might be a good idea to do my Ph.D in nuclear physics. I mean, assuming I go straight from my bachelors to Ph.D and don't take a year off or something I'll probably finish my thesis in like 2018 or 2019 or something.
ITER is expected to achieve break even fusion in 2019. I'd imagine a lot of job opportunities would pop up if ITER was a success (either jobs at ITER itself, or jobs closer to home if they decided that they wanted to follow suit and build their own fusion plant). Plus fusion power is badass, etc.[/QUOTE]
just so you know - most job opportunities in nuclear generation are for engineers
[QUOTE=mike;30607514]just so you know - most job opportunities in nuclear generation are for engineers[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure they always have at least one nuclear physicist on site at nuclear power plants. I could be wrong about that, though.
Disregard job offers, discover crazy-ass shit.
[QUOTE=mike;30607514]just so you know - most job opportunities in nuclear generation are for engineers[/QUOTE]
Engineering is just applied science. It will be some time before you get fusion engineers if ITER succeeds and fusion plants get the approval to be installed everywhere.
Can't have an Engineering degree if it has no use in the real world.
[editline]21st June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;30609021]Disregard job offers, discover crazy-ass shit.[/QUOTE]
Theoretical turning experimental fist-bump, bro
I like science.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;30609261]Engineering is just applied science. It will be some time before you get fusion engineers if ITER succeeds and fusion plants get the approval to be installed everywhere.[/QUOTE]
all i'm saying is that pretty much all the work is on the engineering side, not theoretical physics
[QUOTE=sltungle;30607742]I'm pretty sure they always have at least one nuclear physicist on site at nuclear power plants. I could be wrong about that, though.[/QUOTE]
pretty much all engineers tbh
Man I know I want to be a scientist but sadly I don't know which field. They are all awesome.
<--- Mechanical engineer.
Ok everyone here? lets invent some stuff.
Im either thinking about ever lasting big macs or a toilet brush that can also be used to brush your teeht.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;30628365]Man I know I want to be a scientist but sadly I don't know which field. They are all awesome.[/QUOTE]
physics physics physics physics
[editline]22nd June 2011[/editline]
I am past gay for Carl Sagan. ;_;
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHuve33yOVY[/media]
Disregard Sagan, acquire Feynman.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM[/media]
The badass motherfucker wrote a book about "the chapter titled “You Just Ask Them?” An unabashed womanizer who enjoyed hanging around in strip clubs, Feynman learns from a friend that the way to get a woman to go home with you is to treat her like dirt. If you buy her anything—even a drink or a cigarette—before asking her to sleep with you, the lesson goes, you’ll get nowhere. He discovers, at least on one occasion, that not only is this lesson factual, but that it even works on “nice girls” (as opposed to “bar girls,” who seem to fall somewhere lower on the morality scale). He then throws the lesson aside, saying merely that he didn’t like to do things that way."
Plus electrodynamics and shit.
Feynman is awesome as well but it doesn't make Sagan any less awesome.
Feynman actually used to hang around at the strip club near the university he worked at because he always had trouble marking papers due to being interrupted by other professors and students (y'know, 'cause he was a fucking genius and all and everybody wanted his input on everything).
Whenever he took papers to the strip club he managed to get them all marked, though.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;30611188]I like science.[/QUOTE]
So you come in to religious chitterchatter to praise science and deem religiousness absolutely unnecessary/foolish and then the first (and only) thing you have to say about science is "I like science."
You know that's just great :colbert:
[url]http://www.cracked.com/article_19273_6-shocking-ways-robots-are-already-becoming-human_p2.html[/url]
Guys, guys, guys, gu- guys. They are Self-Aware. SELF-AWARE!
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;30670718]So you come in to religious chitterchatter to praise science and deem religiousness absolutely unnecessary/foolish and then the first (and only) thing you have to say about science is "I like science."
You know that's just great :colbert:[/QUOTE]
Well most people in this thread probably know all that stuff already. And also, this isnt the thread for religious vs scientific debate. I guess the religion thread isnt either, but there isnt much else going on over there anyway :v:
A few friends and I decided to make a band called RuBisCO
:smug:
enzymin' it up
I got an A+ in my physics exam! :buddy:
And I got an A+ in my microbiology exam :buddy:
I was thinking yesterday that orbit around a planet in uniform circular motion from a general relativistic perspective should be an inertial reference frame, but is it from a classical perspective? It didn't seem so on a first thought to me, but does gravity balancing the reactive centrifugal force make it one?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
