Ask an experimental physicist anything

Ask an experimental physicist anything

Other urls found in this thread:

phys.org/news/2017-10-proton-small-radius-muonic-hydrogen.html
phys.org/news/2016-04-capacity-condensed.html.
startingastore.com
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

So how likely is it that we are currently in a simulation?

Why don't you believe in God considering His self-evident nature?

Do you feel superior to theoretical physicists?

as a theoretical physics student, i feel superior to OP

Wat is new future superstong material

what do you think about the use of SWCNT in multi-gated CNFET for pressure sensors?

I don't think it's likely at all
Show me the evidence and I'll believe it
Not at all, theory and experiment need to work together to advance physics. Without experiment theorists are just mathematicians, and without theory experimentalists are just engineers.
Still probably CNT's

I'm not sure about the use in pressure sensors, but I'm always excited for CNFETS. I'm doing some work on VACNTS for field emitters atm.

So does that mean you feel both disciplines are superior to mathematics and engineering?

Nope, it's just that physics is a hybrid of many things. Most of my friends agree that it takes multiple physicists to form one scientist.

What are the implications of the proton being ~4% smaller than it had been thought? At both the subatomic general relativity level and the quantum level?

I'm not an expert in theory so i'm not sure what's really meant by this. From what I knew mass has never been constant and totally depends on RG theory. Frankly if you asked me to explain what the hell mass even is I don't think I could ever give a good answer...

What is the most important experiment you've conducted?

>I don't think it's likely at all
So is the filter behind us or still ahead of us?

I'm in the process of building and testing chemical weapon detectors for an ARL grant if that counts. I think it's probably the most important I've done in regards to human life. Its on flexible CNT patch antennas that can be heat treated onto any kind of clothing, and can pick up trace amounts of chemicals in the air.

I'm not a cosmologist so I don't really think much about that stuff on a professional level. I focus on CMP

What is the airspeed velocity of a swallow carrying a coconut (by the husks)

african or european swallow?

referring to this:

phys.org/news/2017-10-proton-small-radius-muonic-hydrogen.html

What? I dont knowwwwwww!

african

Any thoughts in graphene gel battery tech. Also, wtf is graphene gel?

Is it possible to create antimatter or dark matter/dark energy weapons?

Given an arbitrary system of equations, why is direction-in-space "stored" in the variables when considering the system as linear equations, but "stored" in vectors when considering the system as a vector equation? For example suppose we have a system of three equations in three variables where each equation is of the form (a_i)x + (b_i)y + (c_i)z = d_i. Lets also suppose they represent three distinct planes in R^3 (so they are linearly independent). In the context of the system representing planes in space, it seems to me that dimension/direction is sort of "stored" in the variables x, y and z. Considering the system as a linear combination of vectors, the coefficients associated with any one variable make a column vector, and the variables simply scale them; for example, for variable x lets call the vector v_1 = . The vector equation associated with the system would then be xv_1 + yv_2 + zv_3 = . In this context it seems as though dimension/direction is stored in the vectors, and the variables x,y, and z now just scale them. I realize that both contexts have the same solution set, and both take place in R^3, but is there a more intuitive explanation for this relatedness? This gets even more confusing, given our arbitrary system, by the fact we can define each of these planes as the dot product of two vectors set equal to 0: one vector that is lying on the plane and the unique vector that is perpendicular to it.

How much do you make?

how many north americas would it take to reach the sun

nerd

Where is your manifesto on oscillations?

Oh that's kind of neat. I don't think it'll have a super serious impact (it seems more like a "huh" kind of issue as opposed to anything ground breaking) but who knows, give it more time for more precise data to be taken and we might find something neat from it. I'd need to figure out why the "radius" matters that much in the first place, since it's all just a fucked up quark bound state.
I don't know much about graphene aerogel. That's more for the material science guys.
Maybe something with antimatter, but I don't think dark matter could ever be weaponized.
Alright I think I might finally have an answer of some sort to this, but I think the grand answer is "eh it's just a representation". We know any system of equations can be written in the form of a matrix (though it may not be properly reducible or have independent solutions). I think all that's happening is that due to whatever algebra we're working in, the representations are isomorphic to each other. Really this is a problem for a mathematican who's more suited in abstract algebra than I am.
I'm finishing my graduate degree so not much, but starting job prospects are looking to be around 80k USD.
what do you mean?

Do you think it's fair to claim "I'm an X" when you're still at school studying to become an X?

what do you think of r/holofractal? the tetragrammaton stuff?

I'm iffy on it. I only call myself a physicist because I'm doing actual big boy research writing my own grants and leading a small research team while working with my advisor. I wouldn't have said this in undergrad where all I did was little pet projects to prove i'm not retarded. But at this point I am a person who is paid to do physics, so why not call myself one?

Are there any new developments in your field that the rest of us should or could be excited about?

My field is kind of broad (in terms of what I like as well as what i'm currently doing) but I'd say so. There's been a fuckton of work with Carbon nanotube and graphene biological scaffolds to assist in neural re connection of severed spinal column, which drastically reduces the difficulty of the neuron search problem. This could lead to easier and simpler restorative surgeries for people with incomplete spinal damage. There's also been a lot of work with CNTFETS (carbon nanotube field effect transistors) which have some properties that are much better than our current MOSFETs (metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors)

That sounds like some sacred geometry bullshit to me. Things can look pretty but there's nothing mystical about a bunch of circles in circles.

For engineers, mathematicians and scientists, yes. For doctors and such, no. If it needs a certificate/license, no.

>Alright I think I might finally have an answer of some sort to this, but I think the grand answer is "eh it's just a representation". We know any system of equations can be written in the form of a matrix (though it may not be properly reducible or have independent solutions). I think all that's happening is that due to whatever algebra we're working in, the representations are isomorphic to each other. Really this is a problem for a mathematican who's more suited in abstract algebra than I am.
Most appreciated man. I probably waste too much time worrying about this sort of stuff.

explain all 11 dimensions in your own words

That's pretty cool. Though I don't often find myself at serious risk of spinal injury.

Not gonna lie the wiki page on a system of linear equations might actually lead you in the right direction. There's a lot of shit about abstract algebra and whatnot involved on the deep end, but it might enhance your search.
for a 10+1D field theory? You have 10 physical dimensions all at right angles to each other, and 1 for time.
Fair, but CNT's seem to have a lot of cool uses for medical applications that are finally being looked into. I've been doing some side studying on topological quantum field theory for theoretical quantum computers, but personally I think actual quantum computing is a gimmick.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

A woodchuck could chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck wood.

What is your concept of god, would it be the manifestation of concioussness, or would it be a humanoid type entity? I lean towards the manifestion of concioussness argument. Meaning that the manifestation of the experience of concioussness is a result of the collective autonomy of individuals sharing an interconnected framework of information, able to be accessed through the complex structure of macroscopic systems which inturn share information in the form of light interactions.

He'd chuck all the wood a woodchuck could, if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

I don't really have a concept for god. I don't think a "beyond the realm of human understanding" deity exists. If I had to pick one for fun i'd probably want a more humanoid god.

How big is ur pp

Most humans want a humanoid god. That's why most gods humans have invented are humanoid.

is it possible to solidify light?

Just put it in the freezer overnight and make light cubes.

a bit above average
Makes sense, it's easier to relate to
depends on what you mean solidify. We can trap light and have it "sit" somewhere but we're not going to ever turn it into a solid like something with mass and volume. It doesn't couple to the higgs field so we can associate a "mass" to it.

Do you browse or post on /sci/?

we've already made solid light
gtfo pls

consider suicide. you're baiting. The photon has the least amount of mass, and isn't even really a particle that you can make a molecular structure out of.

I don't really post, since I think a majority of sci doesn't actually care about science as much as they care about stroking some over inflated ego. I like the touhou math/physics poster guy tho, he knows his shit.
Again read what I said. I didn't say it was impossible, I asked for clarification. Yes we can trap light and have multiple photons behave like a singular entity, but that's not the definition of a solid.
It's not bait depending on what you mean by solidify. He probably just googled it and got that paper by the EE group a while back that did some crap with condensed light

Is this a real job? Or one of those things where if you don’t make tenure your entire life has been a waste at age 40.

condensed light is not solid. assuming he's talking about the BEC/superphoton mentioned at phys.org/news/2016-04-capacity-condensed.html.

I plan on going into the industry after my graduate degree, so i'd say it's a very real job. It just depends on if you want academia or not.
Yea that's what I figured he was talking about, but I don't know if most people know the difference between condensing something and calling it a solid. That's why I was asking for clarification.

What's the best organic soil mix to grow my weed in?

I personally prefer the idea that a non physical form of spirit which manifests in biological lifeforms as the experience of consciousness. This making conscious entities like ourselves necessary for the universe to exist in a tangible form, rather than a quantum foam of possibility. In this way both the form of a universe and the emergence of conscious beings within it would lend the solidity and verifiability of said universe. This would be exhibited in both the behavior of quantum events and the macroscopic emergence of awareness in the form of consciousness, this would be comparably indicative to the chicken and egg problem, with the added twisted of whether the universe was created for consciousness to exist or merely a byproduct of the existence of said universe. Thoughts?

do you understand the philosophical constraints and limits of your field? Because I would say, you guys are wasting your time unless you realize how presumptuous the scientific framework is.

Forgot image

If you can explain the world better go for it. The math works, it matches experiment, and most physicists understand that we're not trying to "understand" the world, but instead just trying to build a model that describes it. Math is a flawed construct from the start but who cares if it works.
I don't know bio stuff much sorry.

your too stupid to even understand the basics of dynamical quantum phases let alone how they interact with light how about you just end yourself already?

"A solid is a sample of matter that retains its shape and density when not confined."

So yeah using you can cause light to start crystallizing itself except the only main issue is the fact it requires 0.00018 kelvin for it to be able to "grow" and continues the cycle indefinitely.

do you have any advice for a first year undergrad in physics who started late (im 27 years old)

Oh. Well good then. We’re all very proud of you!

yeah.... your conception of your field is sophmoric.

good luck with your inability to every understand or properly model time with that tautological presumption that "math = rationality= realism" tripe.

Just study, be humble, and find the niche you like. In my department we had a 30 year old undergrad and at my current department there's a 32ish year old undergrad. You're never too old to learn.
How do you define the density of a bosonic system? I'm not going to call a BEC a solid or cooper pairs or phonons a solid, even if they can be contained. That's like saying a standing wave surface plasmon polariton is a solid

>uses buzzword fancy term
>broken grammar

At least we try? I get you're trolling but it's actually a bit annoying to deal with people like this in real life. They give us shit but don't try to explain it any better.

Can I see your dick?

thanks for the advice. im glad to hear that there are others. i will try to stay humble.

So 1/2 says you take 1 and divide it into 2 pieces. Why then is 1/0 undefined shouldnt that be saying take 1 and divide it into no pieces, meaning that it is whole or that it is zero.

Does Penny swallow?

you know that the big bang doesnt really make sense. do you really think that the universe got made by exploding dust?

Welcome to (((post-modern))) philosophical discourse; or as I prefer to call it: academic kvetching.

Now long before we start seeing consumer level shit made of graphene?

X/1 would mean it is whole

Buy me a drink first
The big bang isn't about a literal explosion.
You can see some of it in use already, super fancy bikes and sports shit uses CNT threads and graphene layers, but it'll still probably be a while till anything crazy comes out. CNTs' are hard fuckers to make.

what animal is this

You're making a primate dominance gambit out of what should be a strictly academic pursuit: understanding the universe.

>If you can explain the world better go for it.

Russian loli is the best loli
startingastore.com

clearly elefant

why haven't you lazy ass physicists invented a warp drive yet? you've barely gotten to the point of making an argument that it might conceivably be possible to do without violating our (incomplete) set of laws

What do you think about weed? How about pharmaceutical stimulants?

I wanna see armor made of tungsten carbide plates enameled with a few dozen layers of graphene to prevent it from shattering.

You are taking something and making it into nothing. This violates the basic principles of division.

Think about division as the inverse of multiplication. the inverse of 0 is 0, so if I multiply a number by 0, how could I get an answer that isn't 0?
Is it one of those sad hairless cats?
Because it's fucking hard to do, and also probably more on the aerospace guys to do than us.
Weed is fine, but I'm not a fan. I think the war on drugs is a massive failure and I should be free to do whatever I want in my own home.
Maybe one day, but not soon.

what is your take on pic related

How do you visualize division? Multiplication is easy: to multiply x by y simply take x and make your rows of it, then add them all up. It's basically repeated addition. Can one imagine division in a similar way?

(OP)
why is vore so popular in the furry fanbase

Graphene use, battery technology, scramjet, unlimited power generation, gravity engines breakthrus are always "just around the corner". Why can no one deliver anything useful?

Ugh, should say:take x and make y rows of it

take a basket of y apples and ask yourself how many groups of x apples are in it. that is dividing y by x

Looks like some hippy shit to me
No clue, i'm not in that fanbase
Because the media tends to hype every little bit so people think something is bigger than it actually is. Things like graphene and CNT's are still very infantile (we've only known of cnt's for 29 years, much less been able to control them in any fashion)

So it can be envisioned as repeated subtraction? Each group we make we take away from the whole. But we stop when we get to 0 or can no longer take away x apples (leaving a remainder). Sorry if this seems autistic, I'm just try to deeply understand this

you guys are total fucktards, you are designing the shitfest that you expect to be respected for?

'not trying to understand the universe' 'just trying to build math models

REEEEEEEEEE: 'give us better explanations', REEEEEEEEE: 'we are Academia, we are understanding the universe'.

You cant fucking have it both ways, your a incoherent mess, and you expect someone to explain it better according to your shifting worldview that's based on a skeptical dilemma that means you can only ever respect the kind of non-sense knowledge that science manufactures in its pursuit for math models.

Get a clue, you guys are just adult version of the 5-year old kids who builds a tree house, and then elects themselves kings of the universe, its fucking delusional. And no, I can't explain reason and understanding to people who think have given themselves the authority over knowledge comparable to Napoleonic grandiosity.

Your presumptuousness is showing, now continue to languish in pitiful showmanship so you can get the plebs to lick your boots, and continue to corrupt Academia in you millennia of incoherent falsification that approaches 'understanding' ....
LOL

OP what are your thoughts on PEMF treatment. is it complete bs. I need to heal from surgery but i'm a skeptic of the technology. athletes use it so have people in NASA . it's supposed to work on cells at a quantum level hence why i'm asking

What are you're thoughts on the solid electrolyte glass battery created recently by john b. Goodenough?

thats right. just count the number of subtractions until you cant do a whole one anymore. then the remainder is just whats left compared with the size of what was being subtracted repeatedly

>just engineers
I'm studying EE and im totally not offended