You want to actually contribute to the topic or just keep criticizing?
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6983
I am contributing.Superior Mind wrote:
You want to actually contribute to the topic or just keep criticizing?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
that's really complete bullshit tbh. proof: venus.globefish23 wrote:
Hmm...Winston_Churchill wrote:
Mars had liquid water and an atmosphere at one point. And we do have the ability to terraform it today, its more a question of why instead of how. The cost of attempting to do something like that has been estimated to be around $10^15, which is pointless since the optimal conditions we could turn that planet into would be something like living in the Arctic Circle. It would also take at least 100,000 years before it could come moderately livable. There's really no point to doing this other than "hey, that'd be a pretty cool idea".
I'm writing a paper on the terraforming process of Mars right now
I read somewhere, that without a magnetic field like Earth, you couldn't nearly get an atmosphere like here, since solar winds would blow away most of it.
look, solar wind does have a stripping effect, but it's definitely not impossible to get an atmosphere without a magnetic field - mind you, it'd be a baaaad idea to try and live on a planet without a magnetic field (unshielded) for fairly obvious reasons - it'd be like deciding to move in next to a live reactor room.
Last edited by Spark (2013-02-19 08:30:38)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Based on a couple papers I've read so far, in the distant future they hope to solve some of that by introducing a nanoswarm to shield the planet from solar winds and radiation as well as aid in developing and maintaining the atmosphere. Apparently there's some research into doing something similar on Earth (but obviously far away from actually using it).
We still don't know very much about either world, but I would think that for all the difficulties Venus poses, that it would be easier to create an Earth-like environment there than on Mars simply because of its closer proximity to the sun (could be shaded) and its mass.
Its already boiling hot, how do you plan to shade it without making it just as bad with greenhouse gases? Its very widely viewed that Mars is the most viably habitable in our solar system. Most research papers dont even acknowledge it as an option compared to Mars and some of the further out moons or places outside our solar system
Spark, what do you study/do? I'd guess some sort of Physics degree?
physics/maths yeah
and i guess mars is the most *habitable* in that its temperature range is probably the most comfortable and whatnot, but if you're actually looking for life then you're looking at europa.
and i guess mars is the most *habitable* in that its temperature range is probably the most comfortable and whatnot, but if you're actually looking for life then you're looking at europa.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Same, undergrad? What year? And yeah, I think the plan is to introduce life to Mars, not find it there. Other than the slim possibility there's subsurface liquid water there could be life, but its still highly unlikely.
What kind of stuff are you taking this year? Im curious about curriculum at other universities
What kind of stuff are you taking this year? Im curious about curriculum at other universities
There's canals of water on Mars, don'tchaknow?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
going into honours in july.Winston_Churchill wrote:
Same, undergrad? What year? And yeah, I think the plan is to introduce life to Mars, not find it there. Other than the slim possibility there's subsurface liquid water there could be life, but its still highly unlikely.
What kind of stuff are you taking this year? Im curious about curriculum at other universities
what have I already taken? well, as some people know what I take may not be representative because my program has been all over the place but you're talking some advanced qm - including some field theory - condensed matter stuff (which i've mostly forgotten already), general relativity, all that kind of thing. normal stuff. it's in the honours year where it gets hairy (multi-body qm and proper field theory, advanced em out of jackson, mathematical physics including basic conformal field theory and stuff), and in my maths program where all the nasties have been (graduate level algebraic topology, graduate level differential geometry, far more differential equation theory [both ordinary and partial] than i'll ever need, more complex analysis than most maths undergrads would ever learn etc etc)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Ah, you have a different system than us as well. We have 4 years for everyone, automatic honours. It looks like you really have diversified yourself a lot more than I have - I have a couple years in quantum (no multi-body or in depth field yet), some EM and classical and taking particle and nuclear now. Probably going to go into optics/quantum optics for my final year though particle physics has really drawn me in recently.
Math is just a minor for me so I havent had to go near as in depth as you, only some basic topology, with ODEs, PDEs, complex and linear algebra.
Math is just a minor for me so I havent had to go near as in depth as you, only some basic topology, with ODEs, PDEs, complex and linear algebra.
yeah look my program is very, very different to even my friends', so i wouldn't take my program as particularly representative.
i've done some optics and obvs i've posted a fair bit here about quantum optics too. optics i can take or leave but quantum optics is quite fun on the theoretical side. in fact it's a lot of fun full-stop, but anything optics on the experimental side can be... irritating. unless you like twiddling knobs.
if you want to do particle physics then you need field theory. and lots of it.
i've done some optics and obvs i've posted a fair bit here about quantum optics too. optics i can take or leave but quantum optics is quite fun on the theoretical side. in fact it's a lot of fun full-stop, but anything optics on the experimental side can be... irritating. unless you like twiddling knobs.
if you want to do particle physics then you need field theory. and lots of it.
Last edited by Spark (2013-03-05 21:25:58)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6614|Graz, Austria
Nah, Jules Verne has dried them all up on his way to the center.Jay wrote:
There's canals of water on Mars, don'tchaknow?
Ah ha. In your face non engineers.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Wow, you posted that in a serious manner.
fenyman: amazing math/science prodigy, hopeless public intellectual. he is the arch epitome of the stupid internecine, small-minded, campus squabbling science prof. "everything else is invalid!""your thought is not rational!" "let's laugh at everything that isn't within my expert purview!". he's as bad as dawkins is w/r/t atheism. a talented scientist thrust into the limelight, where all the raging egotism and socially-retarded genius that earnt him his position shows its ugliest side.
it really bores me shitless how reddit and a whole host of mongs adopt these youtube-friendly science lords as demi-gods. people assume that because someone is incredibly bright in one area, that all of their opinions on everything will somehow be valid. heaven forbid the possibility that a scientist could harbour petty resentments and prejudices.
re: 'social sciences': i agree they are quasi-scientific. but that's the position they occupy: between humanities and sciences. of course they're going to borrow some empirical/positivist methodologies. but then scientists like feynman get all snarky and snort outloud, as if the disciplines are of no worth because they can't prove anything axiomatically, or using a perfect scientific method. social sciences aren't black and white. funny that it troubles the quantum experts, isn't it?
it really bores me shitless how reddit and a whole host of mongs adopt these youtube-friendly science lords as demi-gods. people assume that because someone is incredibly bright in one area, that all of their opinions on everything will somehow be valid. heaven forbid the possibility that a scientist could harbour petty resentments and prejudices.
re: 'social sciences': i agree they are quasi-scientific. but that's the position they occupy: between humanities and sciences. of course they're going to borrow some empirical/positivist methodologies. but then scientists like feynman get all snarky and snort outloud, as if the disciplines are of no worth because they can't prove anything axiomatically, or using a perfect scientific method. social sciences aren't black and white. funny that it troubles the quantum experts, isn't it?
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-10 18:16:41)
The point is that they use tools like statistics haphazardly and then turn that into a thesis, which the media then picks up on and touts as fact. It's generally bad science. Something like 2/3 of the claims made in medical and science journals end up being false when further testing is conducted, and that's coming from people that do understand the mathematical tools they are using. Frankly, the rampant abuse of statistics among the social sciences is why people no longer believe any of it. You end up with stupid sayings like '99% of statistics are made up on the spot, including this one'. Or conducting experiments under the guise of the scientific method but not understanding how to remove the intrinsic biases, or accounting for them if they can't be removed. Science isn't all that hard, but people in the social sciences fuck it up constantly. But I guess that's why they get a Bachelor of Arts instead of Bachelor of Science.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I bought a bunch of physics classics the other day, QED was one of them. I've read bits of it before but apparently the entire thing is a great read. I picked up Einstein's book on relativity too as it's supposed to be really interesting and surprisingly readable.
QED is superb. Highly recommended.
Feynman was probably the best science communicator we've ever seen imo. No one had a better grasp of the scientific method or put it as eloquently as he did.
Feynman was probably the best science communicator we've ever seen imo. No one had a better grasp of the scientific method or put it as eloquently as he did.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
eloquent? he turned the scientific method into an ideology and something for a group to stake its identity on. a brilliant thinker, but the first in a long line of scientists to turn their nose up at everything that isn't hard science.
well the aim of a bachelor of arts isn't to study things with total certitude and 'right' and 'wrong' answers, so the goalposts are moved a little on your "fucking it up" claims. but yes, sure. statistics are misused by everyone. from madison avenue to 'news'/factual sources, to politics and the public sphere. it's not a social sciences thing exclusively. feynman misunderstands their point and function within academia. they are not trying to get at 'scientific truths' in the same sense that physics tries to find immutable 'laws of the universe'.Jay wrote:
The point is that they use tools like statistics haphazardly and then turn that into a thesis, which the media then picks up on and touts as fact. It's generally bad science. Something like 2/3 of the claims made in medical and science journals end up being false when further testing is conducted, and that's coming from people that do understand the mathematical tools they are using. Frankly, the rampant abuse of statistics among the social sciences is why people no longer believe any of it. You end up with stupid sayings like '99% of statistics are made up on the spot, including this one'. Or conducting experiments under the guise of the scientific method but not understanding how to remove the intrinsic biases, or accounting for them if they can't be removed. Science isn't all that hard, but people in the social sciences fuck it up constantly. But I guess that's why they get a Bachelor of Arts instead of Bachelor of Science.
He's an extremely eloquent and funny writer. I've read several of his books. He had a way of breaking down extremely difficult concepts down to manageable pieces like only a true master of his craft can.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
eloquent? he turned the scientific method into an ideology and something for a group to stake its identity on. a brilliant thinker, but the first in a long line of scientists to turn their nose up at everything that isn't hard science.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat