this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
719 points (99.0% liked)

xkcd

8836 readers
115 users here now

A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

https://xkcd.com/2933

Alt text:

==COSMOLOGY==> 'Uhhh ... how sure are we that everything is made of these?'

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Galapagon@sh.itjust.works 84 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Somewhat related, back in highschool I was really enjoying chemistry class. Super fun stuff, definitely a career path. Then when we were doing the math practices, I got a question wrong that I knew I combined correctly.

I asked the teacher and she said "oh yeah that one just doesn't follow the rules" instantly killed my enjoyment of chemistry.

[–] macaroni1556@lemmy.ca 64 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Aw that's too bad. That response I'm sure you're paraphrasing, but "that one doesn't follow the rules" is the best part of science.

It means our rules aren't good enough, or we don't understand that one well enough. Figuring it out can be an entire career of discovery. And the reasons why can be fascinating and inspiring to more discoveries!

[–] oce@jlai.lu 42 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

In this case, it was probably the teacher not being knowledgeable enough to explain a more advance theory that goes beyond the simple model he was teaching. What's sad is that the teacher didn't take the opportunity to dig deeper with the student, it could have been very motivating for the student to feel like he found something that went beyond the normal curriculum.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 months ago

High school chemistry felt less like imperfect modeling and more like alchemy that sometimes yields tangible results. I can't remember specifics anymore but there were many moments where I was like "you're using too many shortcuts and this doesn't make any damn sense mathematically or dimensionally anymore". I know real chemistry is too complex to fit a high school program, but the way it was taught really was like a soft science cosplaying as a hard science.

Also chemists would use any pressure units before they used Pa. mmHg as a unit suffers from congenital defects I can only assume stem from repeated inbreeding.

[–] match@pawb.social 8 points 6 months ago

or it's ochem

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You aren't following the rules! You're supposed to nonchalantly get the correct answer and thus discover a new rule that we nowadays know as the Galapagon Principle.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 7 points 6 months ago

One of my great regrets in high school chemistry was that I was born too late to discover some pattern and have it called Liz 's Formula or whatever.

[–] SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's similar to what I felt learning organic chemistry. That's why I ended pursuing a career in math.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 25 points 6 months ago (5 children)

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/01/requiem-for-a-string-charting-the-rise-and-fall-of-a-theory-of-everything/

I never seriously studied physics. A few years back I decided that it was time to push myself a little and start reading up. I started with some articles on string theory and suddenly remembered why I didn't want to study physics.

Looks like I saved twice as much time as I thought I had.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 34 points 6 months ago

I started with some articles on string theory

Yeah, that's a mistake.

Unless you understand the working theories out there, you gain nothing by going deep into speculative ideas.

[–] oce@jlai.lu 25 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You could try reading Feynman's lectures, he was a very passionate teacher, and he used intuition a lot, so you don't need to grind on equations to follow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] onion@feddit.de 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 9 points 6 months ago

Thanks a second time!

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee 21 points 6 months ago (3 children)

String theory is barely a scientific theory, it's an untestable (experimentally) mathematical framework.

I'm far from an expert on this, but I don't think this is the best introduction to physics.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If strings are just a theory then how do you explain shoelaces? 😏

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There are many kinds of 'string.'

For example, you just made a second string joke.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What are you gonna do, string me up for it?

[–] bitwaba@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

We really should have more stringent requirements for joke quality here.

[–] MyFairJulia@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

We would do that of you didn‘t keep stringing me along!

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 6 points 6 months ago

According to the article it's no longer a credible theory

[–] mumblerfish@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

It's not untestable. It gives predictions and there has been tests for those predictions. The unfortunate part is that the predictions are often not very concrete, and the range of a lot of these predictions lies far beyond our capabilities. But people are looking to measure them indirectly in various ways. So it's not like it is untestable by design or anything like that.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

AFAIK, every single idea from string theory that could be tested was rejected. And the theory was made more complex, less predictive so that it could still work without the testable idea.

[–] mumblerfish@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

These are very broad statements that are not very easy to comment on. "Every single idea", makes it sound like they are a lot, I would not say they are. "Was rejected", depends what you mean... " did not show positiv results", "no longer possible to motivate economically", sure, " refuted as bullshit", not so much. "Was made more complex", sounds like there is intent, and/or, depending on what you mean by complex, that it would be necessarily a bad thing to using more advanced maths to formulate things you could not before, and hence solve new problems.

I can mention two possible avenues of inquiry that are less than 5 years old that has sprung from string theory as possible support for it: signals of black hole structure in gravitational wave 'ring downs' of black hole mergers, and the exclusion of a positive cosmological constant. But if you know that these are untestable or rejected, I'd love to hear about it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I did a semester of physics in high school and loved it. One of the few classes I actually enjoyed. I joined the nuclear program in the Navy and still loved it. I got to college and brought along all my ACE credits so I got to skip some math, physics, early chemistry, and thermodynamics.

We got to experimental physics and it broke my brain. I barely walked away with my BS and even though I could have made good money I never ended up using the degree because I ended up hating the whole field. It hangs on the wall next to my certificate from a two week bartending school.

I ended up with a long and fruitful IT career where I've never had to apply even a little knowledge I gained from that degree.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

Thanks for the story.

Nice to know I'm not the only one.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee 25 points 6 months ago (2 children)

What is this author for XKCD’s background? He seems to know a lot about a lot of complex subjects. I’m always impressed.

[–] higgsboson@dubvee.org 52 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Degree in physics. Worked for NASA as a programmer and roboticist. Full time "cartoonist" since 2006.

[–] ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee 28 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Sounds like he’s related to this guy

https://i.imgur.com/dBmspo8.jpeg

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

At my work, we meet astronauts fairly often (I met Jonny Kim last year), and it's amazing how many of them are like this. They'll usually pass out their headshots that have their bio on the back, and the number of advanced degrees and impressive accomplishments is jaw dropping. Like I feel like I'd think my life was worthwhile if I did one of those things by the end of it, and a lot of the astronauts are hardly more than half my age. And to really rub it in, they all seem incredibly genuine, personable, and well adjusted.

There are a giant number of people who want to be astronauts, and NASA only needs a small number in a given year, so they can pick the very cream of the crop.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

At least we're sending space our best.

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Could you imagine what the world would be like if we let their like lead our countries?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Neon@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Just wait until you learn about Johnny Sins

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's understandable that he didn't have time to learn how to draw, then.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Per the alt text: How do we know that particles are the smallest bits? Let's zoom in even further.

[–] DogWater@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago (3 children)

These are the questions that make me feel such an insane sense of wonder and awe.

How deep does it go?

How high does it go the other way? How big does existence get?

Why is there something rather than nothing?

What is nothing made of?

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Nothing is more of a definition than a thing. It's just the absence of matter.

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Even in the absence of matter, there’s still the quantum foam. The most perfect vacuum is teeming with this energy. To truly understand the nature of 'nothing,' one would need to venture beyond spacetime itself—and even then, it’s not guaranteed that 'nothing' would be found. Physics suggests that anything existing outside of or predating spacetime would generally have no impact on us; it doesn't necessarily explain what the 'outside' might be like.

I'd say nothing is less a definition but rather an informal shorthand for how we percieve at macro scale with our wrinkly 4D brains.

[–] reinei@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

And then even when you try to peer behind the definition of "nothing" with math all you are greeted with is infinities which we handily just swept under the rug and pretended to be zero so we could define a "nothing" state in the first place!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] psoul@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

It’s turtles all the way down

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 4 points 6 months ago

What is nothing made of?

Oooh! I know this one! It's Quantum Foam! 😁

[–] omega_x3@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Cosmology you put enough mass in a small enough area it becomes a singularity.

Quantum mechanics information can't be destroyed to an unrecoverable state so singularities are impossible.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sentau@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 6 months ago (8 children)

Crazy thing is very similar mathematical structures is used to define the behavior of a single particle in QFT and of a huge collection of particles in condensed matter physics

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Quantum field theory really aligns with my fap roulette kink.

[–] randomaccount43543@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›