THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: evilbobthebob on 27 Sep 2009, 14:18
-
OK. Science. Describes the universe people. And how living things interact with the universe. And everything in between.
So here's a thread for discussing it, new advances, tricky problems...anything physics science related.
My personal area of interest is astrophysics, because that's where all the cool stuff happens. Also the hot stuff :-P
So who else round here likes physics? SCIENCE YEAAHHH
Can I at least mock religion?
Made the title a little less shouty :-P
-
I like physics!
edited:
Astrophysics is very interesting, but I also find many other areas (quantum theory, dynamics, optics) in which I have some general-to-none knowledge, quite fascinating, because it's
Good for you!
good for me.
Physics! It's good for you!
(also, Physics makes us all it's bitches)
-
Good for you!
-
answer a question for me?
what's gravitys beef i ain't never done nothing all i want to do is fly man but big g's always there keepin me down
-
dude don't even worry about it gravity is a dick i was talking about it with inertia yesterday.
-
Gravity is very charismatic.
-
Guys, gravity doesn't even exist! Why you gotta be all up in the grill of a guy who is actually the warping of spacetime around a sufficiently massy object? It's not his fault!
-
If I study physics enough, will I learn how to move things with my mind?
-
Gravity's dick-ness is further elaborated on in this unified field theory comic (http://abstrusegoose.com/175). Well, those are four words I never thought would go together.
I really enjoy optics (and therefore E&M) and quantum mechanics (as well as quantum optics, obviously). I am currently pursuing a PhD in optics, and my courses this semester are waveguides (basically, a lot of E&M and non-linear optics) and quantum optics (FUCK). I am also doing research in fibers (which are a type of waveguide). I also intend to do an independent study on parentheses...
-
If I study physics enough, will I learn how to move things with my mind?
Depends what you mean by "with your mind". If you mean that you'll think "I want to move an object" then studying physics will tell you precisely what force you'll need and where it's best applied :-P
Of course if you mean telekinesis, you should start an occult thread.
-
I like physics. I would disagree that it's the best science but then I find myself wondering if Mathematics counts as a science. If not then Physics is the best.
Do you know why Protons and Neutrons are so cool? Because they're all about threesomes. Three Quarks getting it together with a bottle of Tequila and making stuff! The whole universe comes from Tequila and Quarks having threesomes.
And Electrons, but nobody likes them.
-
Sure mathematics is a science. However, as xkcd says: Physics is to maths as sex is to masturbation.
-
What? A lot less dangerous but can lead to you stripping skin off of your penis or going through a lot of bananas in a month?
I always liked the old:
"Applied Biologists think they're Biologists,
Biologists think they're Applied Chemists,
Applied Chemists think they're Chemists,
Chemists think they're Applied Physicists,
Applied Physicists think they're Physicists,
Physicists think they're God and God thinks he's a Mathematician."
Only other people usually do it with more style.
-
I like "All of science is either physics or stamp collecting". I use this to annoy biologists.
(Thank you Ernest Rutherford)
-
So, these two physicists were at a conference and during a break they decided to explore the surrounding town. They happen upon a hot air balloon and decide that they want to ride in it (nobody ever said physicists had common sense). As they know nothing about hot air balloons, they drift out-of-control and as they're drifting above a height at which they can have conversation with someone on the ground, they see another conference attendee on the ground.
One of the physicists calls out the the guy on the ground, "Where are we?"
The guy on the ground thinks for a bit and responds, "You're in a hot air balloon."
One of the physicists in the balloon turns to the other and says, "Great. We've run into a mathematician."
"How do you know?" asks the other hapless scientist in the basket.
"He considered our question for a while, and then he gave us an answer that was absolutely correct but completely useless."
-
I gave up Physics after one term at uni. That's because I discovered the Engineering Science course, which made it real. I mean, I did all the same fancy maths, quantum theory, materials, dynamics etc kind of stuff (except optics), plus cool stuff like heavy electrical engineering, theory of structures, mixing concrete and designing roads.
I then got a job as a sound engineer at the Beeb...
-
This is why I'm going for astrophysics. You get to do stuff. Well, at least if I end up going round all the observatories. That would be awesome. I find theoretical physics way too dry. Important, yeah, but gathering data looks way more fun (even though calling it that makes it seem sooo boring)
-
As much as I call myself a scientist, the optics department is technically part of the Engineering School at my university. The thing is, you need a really strong physics background to understand a lot of the optics technology stuff.
-
Old antique physicist (BS, MS in the early 1960's) reporting for duty.
My career actually consisted of engineering physics, designing stuff to do what I wanted it to do, with the knowledge of physics that I had available. Acoustics, radiography, and eddy currents were my specialties. Nondestructive evaluation was the name of the game.
A friend of mine and I followed the magnetic monopole work for several years, but it never worked out.
The experiment I did for my undergraduate finals was an optics experiment, but it was relatively simple, as in it took me longer to write it up than to do the experiment.
My father was not impressed with my physics studies, since he figured that when he was taking the courses, electricity ran the other way (in other words, they thought that positive charges moved rather than negative charges).
Still, I have had a lot of fun with physics, including the physics jokes that appear in QC.
-
If I study physics enough, will I learn how to move things with my mind?
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2009-01-06-force-trainer-toy_N.htm
-
I suck at maths. I'm mean really really suck at them. Failed my A-Level math course.
And yet, I still wish i could understand them so that I could have a career studying pure mathematics. It always seemed like a really neat way to spend your life, solving math puzzles all day long and looking for patterns in the numbers themselves.
A scientist from CERN was finally dragged away from his work for a day by his long-suffering wife to go shopping. They drove into town and parked the car. She said "Right, I'm going to the hairdressers. I'll be back in an hour. Get the things on the grocery list and I'll meet you back here."
The scientist walks to the grocers and as he's about to go in a beautiful science groupie sees him and grabs him, whispering in his ear "Come back to my place and we can do all kinda of dirty things!"
Now, being a rather nerdy scientist, who isn't used to that sort of thing, and being rather swept off of his feet by the science groupie, (They're a rare breed you know) he goes obediently along with her and they spend several hours in a frenzy of animal passions. When they're finally done, he looks at the clock and gasps in horror. Thinking quickly as he re-dresses, he turns to the beautiful young groupie.
"Quick! Sprinkle some flour on the sleeves of my jacket!"
She does so and he sprints back to his car to find his wife there, looking absolutely livid.
"Darling!"
He gasps, being a nerdy scientist who's not in the best of shape and who has just completed a rather intense session of unaccustomed animal sex.
"I was going to get the groceries when I ran into this beautiful science groupie who took me back to her place and we've spent the last few hours having dirty monkey sex!"
"Don't give me that!"
His wife snaps.
"I can see the chalk dust on your cuffs! You went back to CERN to do Physics didn't you!"
-
Pure mathematicians tend to get jobs in cryptography or academia. I guess some might get jobs in computer science, too.
-
Thread title reminded me of this, which has been in my Facebook profile for years and I probably got from OINY:
"Now listen, folks. You got them crazies preachin' the end of the world. They's saying God's gonna come and un-begat us all the way to Adam. I'm not like that. I'm not. Listen -- I'm not -- so listen, okay? Listen. See, I'm a man of science. No heavenly undoing here. There's a black hole comin' this way. Those niggas comin' at like a thousand light miles an hour. I don't need no wheelchair super-talk from my computer to know that. It'll come and it'll steal your children. Pull 'em from bed and rape 'em and eat 'em. That's what them black holes do. Eat you. You and your children. Science!"
-Professor Hobo
-
This reminds me of something I heard:
Your life can be defined by the interactions you have with other people. The study of these interactions among people is sociology. But really, all sociology is broadly applied psychology. And all psychology is the study of the effects of everyone's personal biological drives. And really, biology consists of nothing more than chemical reactions that drive life. Chemistry is really just the study of small scale physics between atoms and molecules. And, ultimately, physics is just math. So if you suck at math, you're going to have a hard life.
But yeah, I took physics in 10th grade and loved it. I managed to turn it into a degree (MS) in mechanical engineering, and am now designing fixes for nuclear reactors. :)
But the nuclear physics guys I work with... fuck them. All they do is code all day.
-
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png)
Sorry for deriving the subject.
So, yeah, I love Physics. We are studying optics right now, and I love that. Reflection, Refraction and all that. It is really cool.
-
I like "All of science is either physics or stamp collecting". I use this to annoy biologists.
(Thank you Ernest Rutherford)
You know what?
Fuck you guys. I'd like to see you do half the things this "applied chemist" does.
I'd like to see you grow cultures of unknown bacteria without contaminating them with the nasty strain of Psuedomonas that likes to pop up in our lab.
I'd like to see you knock out genes in bacteria with poorly developed genetic tools.
Fuck you guys.
-
http://abstrusegoose.com/
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
-
But yeah, I took physics in 10th grade and loved it. I managed to turn it into a degree (MS) in mechanical engineering, and am now designing fixes for nuclear reactors. :)
But the nuclear physics guys I work with... fuck them. All they do is code all day.
It scares me that there are nuclear reactors out there that require 'Fixes'. Are those like patches for software? Because if we build reactors the way Micro$oft builds software then I'm amazed we're not all glowing green right about now.
Weirdly enough, the Neuro-psychologists I work with spend all their time coding too.
-
I like "All of science is either physics or stamp collecting". I use this to annoy biologists.
(Thank you Ernest Rutherford)
You know what?
Fuck you guys. I'd like to see you do half the things this "applied chemist" does.
I'd like to see you grow cultures of unknown bacteria without contaminating them with the nasty strain of Psuedomonas that likes to pop up in our lab.
I'd like to see you knock out genes in bacteria with poorly developed genetic tools.
Fuck you guys.
Hey, I totally respect what biologists and chemists do. It's just that physicists tend to come up with some of the best quotes to describe why their science is superior. And back when Ernest Rutherford made that joke, biology was mostly "stamp collecting". Now, biology is probably more important than physics in a number of ways. (Also, I was never very good at biology. Take from that what you will)
-
Right then, physics, eh? Up for a challenge?
This photo comes from a book published in the early part of the last century by a physicist working at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge:
(http://cassland.org/images/physics.jpg)
Who can tell me what the image is supposed to represent or illustrate?
-
OK. Water, floating things...I'd say Brownian motion, but that wouldn't explain the little sticks under the objects. It isn't necessarily water either...hmm...something to do with electromagnetism maybe? This is going to be one of those things I Should Know. :oops:
-
I assume it's supposed to represent the atom. In this case the J.J.Thomson 'Plum Pudding' model of the atom from 1904. Y'know, before they discovered the charges on the nucleus.
BTW, I'm currently sitting about half a mile from the Cavendish.
-
Well done! I expected it to take a bit longer. The photo shows a 2-D analogue (using bar magnets floating in water, suspended from corks, over an electromagnet) of the 3-D "currant bun" theory of the atom. The book is "Molecular Physics" by J A Crowther, published in 1914 (but consisting of reprints of articles published a year or two earlier). Rutherford's competing "nuclear" theory (1911) is also mentioned, but put aside because the mathematics was considered much harder. Of course, Rutherford's atom was not viable until quantum theory was applied by Bohr to get over the fact that accelerating electrons (like those in orbit) would otherwise be continually emitting energy through radiation, which also led to the electron shells (which the current bun already had).
-
Grrrr, I thought "atom" as soon as I saw it, but then I thought "no, too simple, gotta be something more obscure". This is why I'm not a better physicist. I must remember Occam's Razor...
-
It scares me that there are nuclear reactors out there that require 'Fixes'.
Reactors are all stainless steel except for the fuel, and everything is pretty much welded together. Occasionally we will find a small crack (aka 1 inch long crack, which is considered HUGE, in 30-60 foot tall reactor), and we try to find the source of the cracking (usually flow induced vibration) and then we try to come up with a clamp or something along those lines to prevent it from cracking more.
as for software and patches. My buddies run fuel analysis to see how much further they can push the reactors. When the reactors were first built in the 50s-70s there were no computers so the scientists/engineers had to make all sorts of assumptions to make their calculations easier. Now that we have super computers we can take some of those assumptions away and get a more accurate picture of whats going on in the reactor.
-
Hey, as long as there's no glowing or booming I am overjoyed with the quality of your work! I say raises all round!
Now if only we could get that pesky Fusion thing working as something other than a bomb...
-
I was going to guess sperm that went 'belly up'.
-
You know what?
Fuck you guys. I'd like to see you do half the things this "applied chemist" does.
I'd like to see you grow cultures of unknown bacteria without contaminating them with the nasty strain of Psuedomonas that likes to pop up in our lab.
I'd like to see you knock out genes in bacteria with poorly developed genetic tools.
Fuck you guys.
Ah, but those are the technical parts of science that require practice of the technique. I might as well ask if you could play bass. Or align an optical setup (lots of fun). All the technical parts of science are hard (except for the psychology people). Also, people are making these quotes because they believe a "fundamental" understanding is better, which is nice, but sometimes not an option. Do you really need to know quantum physics and stat mech to understand chemistry so that you can do biology? Will it even be helpful? Probably not. Even so, the concept of other people treating stuff that we actually understand as a "black box" that does things for mysterious reasons is amusing to us.
-
Do you really need to know quantum physics and stat mech to understand chemistry so that you can do biology? Will it even be helpful? Probably not.
So wrong. I have taken a handful of biophysics classes as well as a molecular simulations class with a heavy emphasis on quantum mechanics. Even if I never actually use these techniques in my research having a firm grasp of them actually really helps to best understand the system I'm working with. You guys keep on talking about how physics is more basic, but do you know how many people in various biology fields use X-ray crystallography, SAXS, SANS, molecular simulations, NMR, etc, etc?
-
I didn't realise until the other day that you can actually get more bang out of a gram of matter than you can from antimatter. Apparently a relativistic impact will release more energy than the mutual destruction of the same amount of matter and antimatter. Supposedly unique Quarks are even worse. I wonder what would happen if you accelerated Antimatter up to .99c and crashed it into a unique Quark storage container?
-
So wrong. I have taken a handful of biophysics classes as well as a molecular simulations class with a heavy emphasis on quantum mechanics. Even if I never actually use these techniques in my research having a firm grasp of them actually really helps to best understand the system I'm working with. You guys keep on talking about how physics is more basic, but do you know how many people in various biology fields use X-ray crystallography, SAXS, SANS, molecular simulations, NMR, etc, etc?
I had written a really long reply about how you weren't quite fundamental enough, and other people's understanding is completely, 100% from first principles. The thing is, it doesn't really matter. This shouldn't be a physics thread, it should be a damned science thread! I think we should all get together and agree that medical doctors don't know what the hell they're doing.
-
Some of my friends from college are now doctors. Also, both my sisters. I used to trust doctors.
-
Doctors need to stop calling what they do 'Practicing' medicine. I don't want a doctor who's still practicing. I want a doctor who's done it enough not to need practice!
Or at least, they need to stop prescribing medications and saying they'll cure you and instead say "This might cure you or it might do something completely weird, either way it'll be informative!"
Hmmm... Is a Doctor an Applied Chemist or an Applied Biologist? Maybe Doctors should work in pairs where each one takes half the puzzle!
of course it would help if people only went to doctors when they need treatment and not when they've just got a runny nose and fancy a chat.
-
Hmmm... Is a Doctor an Applied Chemist or an Applied Biologist? Maybe Doctors should work in pairs where each one takes half the puzzle!
I would reckon a Doctor is more of an applied chemist and a pharmacist more of an applied biologist. Of course, I don't think either of them really belong in either of those categories.
-
I thought about making this a Science thread, but then I decided the arguments would probably get out of hand. Too late :oops:
-
Imagine if Doctors were applied Physicists.
"Doctor! My poop is a funny colour!"
"Hmmm indeed? We need to investigate. I'll imagine you're a perfect sphere in a vacuum while you step into this particle accelerator. Now do you have any uncollapsed Eigenstates I should know about before we begin?"
-
Actually if it was a funny colour I'd recommend full spectroscopic analysis first. /lame
-
I would call doctors "people who check things off a list and prescribe drugs based on what said list tells them".
Also, spectroscopic analysis won't actually tell you anything. Lots of bacteria bind chromophores, but won't actually express the proteins that bind them unless induced by light/oxygen (hint: neither are present in the intestines/colon).
-
Reed, every time you post I see your signature and it makes me giggle so much. Goodness that was an interesting night.
-
There were so many great quotes from you. It was really difficult to just choose one!
-
I should have kept that conversation, really I should have. This is why I now use meebo solely through pidgin- chat logs saved automatically.
-
I thought about making this a Science thread, but then I decided the arguments would probably get out of hand. Too late :oops:
Arguments would have been more avoided, I think, if we had been more inclusive at the beginning. I think my problem with biology people is not actual biology people, but pre-med biology people. My undergrad institution was basically a feeder school for Medical University of South Carolina. As a result, "biology major" or "chemistry major" was pretty much meaningless, because I'm sure it was easy enough for pre-med people. Pre-med people in South Carolina.
-
I just get really tired of hearing physicists talk about how biology isn't as good as physics, or in depth. Honestly, they take completely different mindsets and joining either field involves completely different stresses and problems. I'm pretty sure that most physicists wouldn't be able to understand genetics or even biochemistry like I do, while I don't doubt that I would be pretty terrible as a physicist.
And Liz, the moral of the story is: you need to get drunk and discuss tying up Matt for deviant sexual purposes more often.
-
I was not drunk! I only had two hard ciders in me at that point, there was merely a nice buzz going.
The second bit of that I will keep in mind, though...
-
Oh, no doubt I'm terrible at biology. It requires far more memorization that I am capable of, and I never got past that part so I don't know what else is required. I think incredibly smart people go into all fields.
I commonly make the analogy of violin vs. guitar. Guitar is easier to get a sound out of and it's easier to play things that sound nice, but are the world's top violinists any "better" than the world's top guitarists? They've all probably put in similar amounts of work and are similarly intelligent, but most people would say that the violinists are "better," because violin is "harder" than guitar. I put those words in quotes because I don't believe those statements. Neither is harder, one is just harder to get something that sounds decent. Physics in this analogy is, of course, played by the violin. You need to know a lot more math and a lot more physics before you can ever do any science, but does that make the science done by physicists any harder than biologists? Probably not.
-
See, that's a pretty sad misconception about biology (well, some fields of it). Once you get to grad school, memorization becomes less and less important. If I need to know something about Bradyrhizobium's metabolic pathways I look it up on Kegg. If I need to know HPrK's gene neighborhood, I check out MiST. At the graduate level biology is more about knowing how to set up genetics experiments, or properly purify/assay proteins or whatever other experiment you are doing.
-
I don't know so much about not needing to memorize stuff any more. Maybe you don't need to memorize as much and you've gotten used to it. My buddy is taking a biochem (maybe different type of stuff?) class at the graduate level, and he's having to memorize tons of stuff. Yes, he's having to understand things, but compared to all of the memorization, that's been pretty easy so far. Which is not to say it's been easy. We're taling in relative terms here. Also, maybe physics people are incredibly terrible at memorization from years of not having to memorize anything ever.
-
Well that sounds like he has a not so great biochem professor, potentially your school doesn't have a very good program. At the graduate level he should be learning techniques and how to apply them to research. In grad school a biochemist should be learning how to do research independent of the system that they are working on (which is different from what we learn in micro).
I should probably point out that I can, in fact, tell you the gene order in certain loci in alpha-proteobacteria as well as diagram the ED pathway and TCA cycle, as well as talk about structure and function of the PTS proteins in all the proteobacteria plus firmicutes and a few other families. This isn't due to being forced to memorize any of this so much as repeatedly looking over all of them for the past 2+ years.
-
My school doesn't have that good a program in pretty much anything that doesn't have to do with optics, so that's extremely likely. Are all grad classes for you guys just there to teach techniques rather than provide an understanding of the subject matter? We rarely learn anything to do with how to accomplish something in the lab while in class. It's usually theoretical background that is necessary for an understanding of what we're trying to do.
I also have a number of things memorized due to frequent use, but that doesn't really count.
-
Medicine is an elabourate process of analysis and occasionally some creative thinking, but it really does take quite a lot to be good at it. There is so much out there to take into consideration! Perhaps a computer would be better at it, but that would be a waste because there is something so incredibly satisfying about coming up with exactly the right answer.
-
We have basic biochem and structural biology classes, but past that are pretty much techniques classes with a few exceptions. I've taken spectroscopy and now I'm taking biophysical techniques (anything from analytical ultracentrifugation to SAXS to light scattering to single molecule techniques). The one big exception is a class called cellular machines, which is a fantastic class where basically you look at structural biology not in terms of individual proteins, but the large complexes that they tend to occur in within the cell. It also teaches you a lot about doing protein structure visualization and analysis on the computer, it was a lot of fun! (yes, I know I am a huge nerd).
-
I think his class is a fairly basic one, since he's not a biochem guy by trade. It's just important for him to know some of that stuff for his research (there are a lot of medical optics people, since there is a hospital attached to our school).
Medicine is an elabourate process of analysis and occasionally some creative thinking, but it really does take quite a lot to be good at it. There is so much out there to take into consideration! Perhaps a computer would be better at it, but that would be a waste because there is something so incredibly satisfying about coming up with exactly the right answer.
I don't think anybody is debating that the list isn't significant, but it is certainly just a list. They tend to be good at memorization, though and that's something I can't do. Plus, it clearly must attract intelligent people since there's so much money to be had in it.
-
Chances are, he's in a combined undergrad-grad student biochem course. They tend to be pretty heavy in rote memorization (Memorize this metabolic pathway, including all reduced NAD+!).
The sad thing about doctors is that even if they make a lot of money coming out of med school, they still have about $200,000 in student loan debt! And Katie, I did microbiology as an undergrad, which was pretty much the main pre-med major. From my experience the pre-med students tend to be pretty dumb!
-
Not so much rote, but there are a lot of things you just need to know, and that's completely foreign to us physics-types.
Also, I was a physics tutor. Can you guess what most of my students wanted to do when they graduated? Some of them were actually not too bad at 100-level physics courses.
-
Fuck all yall technical fuckers, I will take my fishy isopods and enormous crabs and fuzzy lobsters any day.
-
The advantage we technical people have over the Bio people is that when we open something up to check how it works it's usually less slimy and smelly. Plus there are, overall, less fangs and spines.
Operative words here are Usually, Overall and Less.
Plus it's a lot easier to bang together a test rig for a circuit to make sure it does what you think it does than it is to do the same for, say, an Octopus.
-
This thread is now about all the sciences. And I don't want to get into a discussion about which ones are included
-
Ah, memories! Dissecting out the cranial nerves of a dogfish...
(http://cassland.org/images/cranial.gif)
Before I went to university and did engineering, my main subject at school was zoology.
-
Is maths included or are we mathematicians being forced to sit in the corner again while the "cool" guys argue their theorems with our work? :-P
Anyway, today was my first day back at uni, now in my final year of a maths course and get to start studying much more interesting stuff. Today, Medical Statistics, Financial Mathematics and Combinatorics, YAY!!
:lol:
-
Yeah, we discussed if mathematics is a science and decided that it is. Well. I said that it is.
However, I don't associate the words "medical statistics" with "much more interesting" :-P
-
Fuck all yall technical fuckers, I will take my fishy isopods and enormous crabs and fuzzy lobsters any day.
Hey! Biology is cool. Just not medicine.
-
I am not a biologist.
-
(Try ecology.)
-
Ecology is cool! And really important at the moment. Not that it's ever been unimportant.
-
Okay, squishy sciences are cool. They're all pretty much the same to me and my nice and clean technical science. I would like to be interested in a squishy science (or even a squishy application of my technical science), because there's more money in that, but unfortunately I'm not.
-
I'm an artist!
a bloo bloo bloo
-
Okay, squishy sciences are cool. They're all pretty much the same to me and my nice and clean technical science. I would like to be interested in a squishy science (or even a squishy application of my technical science), because there's more money in that, but unfortunately I'm not.
why you gotta be a dick about science man
-
Y'know what's cool about bio-sciences?
Putting two people in an MRI and telling them to engage in coitus so you can see what happens. Now THAT'S research!
-
I'm an artist!
a bloo bloo bloo
Art is even harder than science. You have to overanalyze stuff and you don't even have an algorithm!
-
TTGCCCCTGCCACCTCACTCGCCTGCAAGCCCGGTCGCCCGTGTCCATGAACTCGATGGGCAGGTACTTC
TCCTCGGCGTGGGACACGATGCCAACACGACGCTGCATCTTGCCGAGTTGATGGCAAAGGTTCCCTATGG
GGTGCCGAGACACTGCACCATTCTTCAGGATGGCAAGTTGGTACGCGTCGATTATCTCGAGAATGACCAC
TGCTGTGAGCGCTTTGCCTTGGCGGACAGGTGGCTCAAGGAGAAGAGCCTTCAGAAGGAAGGTCCAGTCG
GTCATGCCTTTGCTCGGTTGATCCGCTCCCGCGACATTGTGGCGACAGCCCTGGGTCAACTGGGCCGAGA
TCCGTTGATCTTCCTGCATCCGCCAGAGGCGGGATGCGAAGAATGCGATGCCGCTCGCCAGTCGATTGGC
TGAGCTCATGAGCGGAGAACGAGATGACGTTGGAGGGGCAAGGTCGCGCTGATTGCTGGGGCAACACGTG
GAGCGGATCGGGGATTGTCTTTCTTCAGCTCGCTGATGATATGCTGACGCTCAATGCCGTTTGGCCTCCG
ACTAACGAAAATCCCGCATTTGGACGGCTGATCCGATTGGCACGGCGGACGGCGAATGGCGGAGCAGACG
-
YEAH
GENETICS
(I'm actually a little glad I don't have to stare at that on a screen day in and day out anymore)
-
Bonus points if you can do that again and make it into ASCII art.
-
There was a time when I thought I might get into physics. I spent so much of my time reading (somewhat popularised) books about physics that it just seemed to be a given truth. But then something happened and now it's all medicine for me... every aspect of every area of medical science, on all scales from molecules to populations. I love it, because it satisfies my desire to work with things that are clearly human-centric, things that are supposed to lead to better lives for humans in concrete ways... rather than inquiry simply for the sake of acquiring knowledge and a deeper understanding of the universe.
Various areas of medical research also require a deep understanding of other sciences and disciplines, which makes medical science even more interesting... the opportunities to work with people from many different fields, to combine what we've learned from eg. physics and from biology to solve problems... very cool.
Medicine allows me to combine pursuits that are (to me) intellectually very satisfying with goals that are (to me) emotionally satisfying or down-right central to my life and my views.
I've often come accross this notion that doctors don't really need to be scientists, that they instead benefit more from memorisation and from checking off things on a list... I've even seen it in the occasional med-student, my peers... But I personally don't believe you can be a good doctor for your patients if you lack a thorough understanding of the science behind the tools and techniques and strategies that you implement in your work.
I'm not sure why someone would assume medicine and those who practice it are (or should be) separate from the rest of science and the scientific community. Every single med-student in Sweden has a background in natural science at the highschool level at the very least, and tend to love science. Many have studied other areas of science before going into medicine. Many go on to conduct research in various areas of biology, eg. microbiology, molecular biology. Some even go into physics, which is great because physics is very important to modern medicine.
Guys, seriously, people are hopping around all over the place from one discipline to another. We have physicists using evolutionary biology to solve problems in medicine for chrissakes. I think it's awesome, and I think it may be time to let go of the attitude that eg. physicists have a monopoly on physics :p
cheerio
-
with that said, a compelling argument against interdisciplinary research:
(http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/high_energy_biology.PNG)
-
A compelling argument against that webcomic also.
-
A compelling argument against your mum
-
I'm curious as to how the herpetoid was accelerated to such a speed as to display no visible drop due to gravity in the space of the frame, through such a short device, without causing fatal injuries to the little fella.
What do you think? Gravitational field mass driver?
-
A wizard did it.
-
Just saw this:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/date.png)
Incidentally, I do happen to have a degree in biology and have in fact conversed with my fiancee about the probabilities of our children having blue eyes. I have also explained this to the hygienist at my dentist's office (if I had to explain this to the dentist I would have been a bit concerned.)
-
Trivia: Most biologists don't actually give a shit about punnett squares
-
Why so serious? 'Tis a comic, people aren't going to look at that and think it's true.
This thread is now about all the sciences. And I don't want to get into a discussion about which ones are included
What about computer science? Is that really science? I mean, it has the word "science" in the name so it must be, right?
-
It may have been an overreaction, but a lot of people really do think biologists act like that. It gets really annoying!
(Note: I have been really grumpy lately because my research is being stupid and I have a big exam on friday that I forgot about until today)
-
I love it, because it satisfies my desire to work with things that are clearly human-centric, things that are supposed to lead to better lives for humans in concrete ways... rather than inquiry simply for the sake of acquiring knowledge and a deeper understanding of the universe.
I am studying things that will assist with communication (fiber optics). Discoveries that I make will lead to a world where communicating with other people is cheaper and easier.
But I personally don't believe you can be a good doctor for your patients if you lack a thorough understanding of the science behind the tools and techniques and strategies that you implement in your work.
This may be true, but that would mean there are an awful lot of doctors out there who aren't good.
Every single med-student in Sweden has a background in natural science at the highschool level at the very least, and tend to love science. Many have studied other areas of science before going into medicine. Many go on to conduct research in various areas of biology, eg. microbiology, molecular biology. Some even go into physics, which is great because physics is very important to modern medicine.
I've seen a number of MD/PhD people. Not too many of them go on to be practicing physicians. They pretty much always go into research. Just because they got a medical degree doesn't make them a medical doctor, in my opinion. Also, most of the med students I've met got their undergraduate degree in science. At the very least, they needed to take a large number of science classes and understand them well enough to do well on the MCAT. However, their actual working understanding of the material was usually minimal.
Medical doctors are essentially extremely well-educated technicians and well they should be! Do I want my doctor to go into the back room and plug data into a model that will predict, from first principles, my ailment? No, because the human body is not well-understood enough (as of now) to be able to do that effectively. I want somebody to fix my body, not design me a new one.
What about computer science? Is that really science? I mean, it has the word "science" in the name so it must be, right?
It is, but coding is not computer science any more than designing a bridge is physics. Both use results from the subject, but neither actually goes into the science.
Also, computer science is pretty much just applied math. More than any other field, really.
-
This may be true, but that would mean there are an awful lot of doctors out there who aren't good.
Yes... that is true...
I've seen a number of MD/PhD people. Not too many of them go on to be practicing physicians. They pretty much always go into research. Just because they got a medical degree doesn't make them a medical doctor, in my opinion.
*shrugs* I'm talking about people who combine clinical medicine and clinical research. Over time, they often increase the research aspect and cut down on the stressful time-consuming clinical work. Of course, some people go in the other direction :o and some stay exclusively in one camp throughout their careers. I find it's hard to generalise :p
Medical doctors are essentially extremely well-educated technicians and well they should be!
What can I say except that I strongly disagree with this largely unfounded and absurdly reductionistic generalisation? Being a medical doctor doesn't preclude also being a scientist. Often, people are both, which is awesome because medicine relies heavily on science.
EDIT: And I don't feel you can or should reduce the role of a compassionate fellow human being to being a "technician". That's a crucial part of the "job" for a great many doctors.
-
Physics is old news. Molecular biology is obviously the best science because it is the most likely to produce mutants with super-human powers.
-
Do any of your lectures include basic instructions on making chiptune music?
No, didn't think so. (Chaos theory rules!)
-
Nick, you are so right!
-
Posting in this thread! At the moment I'm only really involved with Maths, being a secondary school Maths teacher, and my only involvement with Physics is high school stuff and a lot of casual reading. But I'm starting teaching Physics at school next year, so I'll be going back to do a couple courses at uni to refresh my memory. Looking forward to it - as much as I love Maths, I imagine Physics will be much more enjoyable to teach.
-
What can I say except that I strongly disagree with this largely unfounded and absurdly reductionistic generalisation? Being a medical doctor doesn't preclude also being a scientist. Often, people are both, which is awesome because medicine relies heavily on science.
EDIT: And I don't feel you can or should reduce the role of a compassionate fellow human being to being a "technician". That's a crucial part of the "job" for a great many doctors.
I'm starting to think that you are thinking of a scientist differently from what I am thinking of as a scientist. A scientist answers questions about how the world works that were previously unanswered. I do not want a doctor doing things that are not know whether or not they work (if it was know, it wouldn't be science!). I want a doctor fixing people, and I call someone who fixes things a technician. Now, doctors use science, of course! How could they not? Well, they could be faith healers, but then they wouldn't be doctors. But so do engineers and as I said earlier, engineers are not scientists.
Also, all technicians are fellow human beings. McDonald's burger flippers are fellow human beings. Not all of them are compassionate, but neither are all doctors compassionate.
Finally, in the above, I mean medical doctors. I just didn't want to keep differentiating between them and other doctors.
-
Isn't his point more that medical doctors are often also involved in research, and can thereby be correctly defined as scientists? Hospitals have research wings too.
-
I don't think (butting in on the argument here) that just understanding science necessarily makes one a scientist. Surely a scientist needs to actually apply to scientific method to some extent, whether it's developing hypotheses, testing those hypotheses with experiments, whatever. I mean, I have a science degree, that doesn't make me a scientist even if I do understand science.
-
This, and also:
I was about to use a mechanic as an example, but I figured that might not go over so well, since I was already pretty down on doctors. The mechanic knows that the parts fit together and knows that the combustion happens in the cylinder to make it expand. The mechanic does not know why combustion happens or why it causes the cylinder to expand, or even why it causes the engine to heat up. Speaking of heating up, the mechanic knows that the radiator gets heat away from the engine, but the mechanic does not know that the reason radiators exist is because convection is a far superior way of transferring heat than conduction.
Isn't his point more that medical doctors are often also involved in research, and can thereby be correctly defined as scientists? Hospitals have research wings too.
It's rare. Most doctors do their job and go home. Occasionally you get someone who's involved on the clinical side of a trial, but that person is usually just a data-taker. The actual science is being done by someone else. Now, this is based on personal experience, so I've not met a medical doctor who does science, but that also means they're on the rare side.
(one of these days I'll be able to post without someone saying something interesting first)
-
Come back when you can play with the big dogs. I'll still be here hating my life and being bitter about people who don't have to worry about propagation equations and eigenstates.
p.s. Firefox spell-check recognizes "eigenstates" as a word. I hate my life slightly less now.
-
Just about every class I took as an undergrad was with pre-med students. Barring only a couple of exceptions none of them were interested in the science at all. They really don't care. The vast majority of them were just going through the motions so they could get good enough grades to get into the med schools they wanted to.
-
I keep meaning to post this incredibly relevant video and forgetting.
this one (http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail98.html)
-
Damn. I'll need to get me a lab coat, then I'll be able to outsmart anybody.
-
I have a lab coat! And it's covered with bacterial stains, so it makes me look extra smart!
Also, can we talk about science? I have my biophysical techniques exam on friday and i slept through the AU lectures, so guys, what are the main differences between sedimentation velocity and sedimentation equilibrium analytical ultracentrifugation? Which equations describe them again? Fuck, I don't want to go through the online notes.
-
I think you're going to have to, because the only thing I know about sediment is that it's carried by rivers sometimes. Now, give me some perturbation theory, or some Maxwell's equation questions and I'll be all over that shit.
-
Uhm, sedimentation velocity is the speed by which a substance sedimentates in one of them fancy cone shaped sedimentation jars ? Say you have 10gr/l and in an hour 5 gr sedimentates, then the sedimentation velocity would be 5gr/hr (shocking eh)
Also, the only proper labcoatstains are coffeestains! (ok, and algea stains)
-
AND FISHY STAINS
OMNOMNOMNOMNOM
-
Has anyone here read "An Introduction to Planetary Defense: A Study of Modern Warfare Applied to Extra-Terrestrial Invasion" by Travis S Taylor and Bob Boan? It's a scholarly work that actually takes an in-depth look at the possibilities, probabilities, weapons, strategy and tactics of an alien invasion of Earth and attempts to foster discussion and preparation on the subject. It's on my 'to buy' list, but it's a little expensive for a casual read. I've read some of Travis Taylor's collaborations with John Ringo and the science he comes out with certainly seems believable.
-
Also, the only proper labcoatstains are coffeestains! (ok, and algea stains)
The only lab coat I own (owned?) was literally drenched in coffee stains, because a first chem prac involved extracting caffeine from coffee, and an overly powerful lab tap meant i was covered with the stuff. Of course, I explained them away as blood stains
-
Punnet squares
I do this with my g/f all the time! Although neither of us are biologists; she is just finishing up her biomedical science degree and I am a dumbass. Professionally.
-
a first chem prac involved extracting caffeine from coffee
Ah that takes me back. I remember back in college when I photoshopped together a hilarious collage to illustrate how HPLC works, with stuff like a mosquito injecting the liquid into the line. And then during the presentation that file got corrupted and the projected image was totally garbled. I got an A on the presentation because the professor was impressed by how I smoothly improvised over the technical problems, where most people would be all nervous and flustered.
-
...and I am a dumbass. Professionally.
Dovey you need to set me up in this industry, hook me up with some contacts. You know I'm qualified, man, you know I'm good for it.
-
I'm starting to think that you are thinking of a scientist differently from what I am thinking of as a scientist. A scientist answers questions about how the world works that were previously unanswered. I do not want a doctor doing things that are not know whether or not they work (if it was know, it wouldn't be science!). I want a doctor fixing people, and I call someone who fixes things a technician.
Like I've said and others have also pointed out, being a doctor doesn't preclude also being a scientist eg. in the sense of being someone who conducts research. Never mind that much of clinical medicine relies on hypothesis-driven investigation as well.
A doctor that doesn't have a thorough understanding of the science of medicine can be severely impaired in his clinical work because it will be more difficult for him to appropriately assess his patients and find the best possible treatments. Just because a treatment has been approved doesn't mean it's right for your patient, and getting a good idea of when it may be inappropriate or just uncertain requires having an understanding of the science behind the treatment as well as of what the clinical research has shown.
Also, all technicians are fellow human beings. McDonald's burger flippers are fellow human beings. Not all of them are compassionate, but neither are all doctors compassionate.
At the same time, providing that kind of support is not a required part of the job of a McDonald's burger-flipper, while it is often central to the job of a practicing physician, eg. any primary care physician. You're right, not all doctors are compassionate, but nor am I talking about all doctors.
Finally, in the above, I mean medical doctors. I just didn't want to keep differentiating between them and other doctors.
Yes, I am also talking about medical doctors.
Isn't his point more that medical doctors are often also involved in research, and can thereby be correctly defined as scientists? Hospitals have research wings too.
This, and also:
I was about to use a mechanic as an example, but I figured that might not go over so well, since I was already pretty down on doctors. The mechanic knows that the parts fit together and knows that the combustion happens in the cylinder to make it expand. The mechanic does not know why combustion happens or why it causes the cylinder to expand, or even why it causes the engine to heat up. Speaking of heating up, the mechanic knows that the radiator gets heat away from the engine, but the mechanic does not know that the reason radiators exist is because convection is a far superior way of transferring heat than conduction.
[...]
It's rare. Most doctors do their job and go home. Occasionally you get someone who's involved on the clinical side of a trial, but that person is usually just a data-taker. The actual science is being done by someone else. Now, this is based on personal experience, so I've not met a medical doctor who does science, but that also means they're on the rare side.
Doctors doing research are pretty common here. If you were to see research as a second specialty then it would probably be among the most common specialities in Sweden. I think the percentage of doctors actively doing research in the US is something like 2% of the entire pool, so I guess you're right in that it's pretty rare where you are (although I'm guessing comparable to some of the rarer specialties?). That's unfortunate for you guys, I'd say. Last I heard, the total number of physicians actively doing research in the US has been more or less constant for a couple of decades, even though the pool of physicians has grown much larger... that's crazy.
I think it might be more informative to look at the prevalence of physicians among people working with medical research.
EDIT: As for your examples with mechanics and their knowledge... here I thought we were talking about understanding and about method rather than about knowledge. The average microbiologist would probably be on the same level as that mechanic wrt his knowledge of the merits of conduction and convection, but he could still be a scientist doing research in microbiology.
-
Also, the only proper labcoatstains are coffeestains! (ok, and algea stains)
So. Wrong.
Shit, I was going to take a picture of my lab coat, but I just realized that I have bleached it since the last time I taught. All that's left are a couple of iodine stains and a faded crystal violet stain.
Also, I know the basics of AU, I was looking for something more specific, like equations for fitting SE data.
-
A doctor that doesn't have a thorough understanding of the science of medicine can be severely impaired in his clinical work because it will be more difficult for him to appropriately assess his patients and find the best possible treatments. Just because a treatment has been approved doesn't mean it's right for your patient, and getting a good idea of when it may be inappropriate or just uncertain requires having an understanding of the science behind the treatment as well as of what the clinical research has shown.
I think it's easier if you have an understanding, but most doctors I've encountered have just memorized sets of rules about what goes on. Thinking is strongly discouraged because it can lead to an unorthodox treatment that might not work and result in a malpractice lawsuit. This is the United States we're talking about.
Doctors doing research are pretty common here. If you were to see research as a second specialty then it would probably be among the most common specialities in Sweden. I think the percentage of doctors actively doing research in the US is something like 2% of the entire pool, so I guess you're right in that it's pretty rare where you are (although I'm guessing comparable to some of the rarer specialties?). That's unfortunate for you guys, I'd say. Last I heard, the total number of physicians actively doing research in the US has been more or less constant for a couple of decades, even though the pool of physicians has grown much larger... that's crazy.
This is why we've been having an argument? FUCK!
EDIT: As for your examples with mechanics and their knowledge... here I thought we were talking about understanding and about method rather than about knowledge. The average microbiologist would probably be on the same level as that mechanic wrt his knowledge of the merits of conduction and convection, but he could still be a scientist doing research in microbiology.
I do optics, and I've needed to know the relative merits of conduction vs. convection. With research, one must understand the underlying mechanism in order to come up with a way to do new things. Sure, a microbiologist might not know how a piece of equipment works, but the microbiologist uses that piece of equipment and isn't doing research on it. Even then, sometimes actually understanding how the piece of equipment works might be necessary to know why one is getting anomalous readings. The point of being a scientist is understanding your system well enough to describe why it's not acting like people think it should, because otherwise you haven't done science, just potentially made a mistake.
-
Is this a case of words meaning different things in different languages? I mean, in a lot of continental Europe the term "historical scientist" would not be out of place because the word means something different to what we mean by science (at least this is what the historical scientists I have been reading have said).
I am not a scientist, though.
-
I keep meaning to post this incredibly relevant video and forgetting.
this one (http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail98.html)
I figure this one is very relevant too (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQaF4YXCXsc).
-
I am not a scientist, though.
What are you doing here, then? Get out! I think you might be right, but I also think there's a bigger cultural difference of doctors actually being legitimate research scientists not in the US. It is a concept that is foreign to me, since the doctors over here are mostly morons with connections and money. I've met at least one quite smart person who wanted to go into doctorin', and I assume there are others.
-
The one that always gets my goat is "Political Science". How many so-called Political Scientists have you ever seen testing their theories by experimentation? I could maybe accept them as Philosophers but scientists? Not a chance.
"My PhD thesis is that long term socio-economic change can be be achieved by assassination of chosen political figures. I therefore propose to murder fifty carefully selected international politicians and observe the result. By the time I get out of jail the world should have altered sufficiently to include direct observations in my conclusion!"
-
By that logic, though, astronomers are rarely scientists.
-
Fair point. I guess there's no way to say a Political Scientist isn't a scientist without ruling out some other class of scientist.
Doesn't mean I have to like it.
-
I for one, intend to get a B MedSci before I try and get my B Medicene / B Surgery so that I can better understand the science so resultantly I'm a more effective doctor.
Man, does this feel like a useless post.
-
If I had known there was a possibility of posting lab coat pictures, I would have brought mine home today.
p.s. I'm a chemist! Woooooo!
-
What is up, lab coat thread.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v736/branston_pickle/Labcoat2.jpg)
My lab coat looks pretty clean here.
In reality it had a multitude of stains, mainly bromophenol blu and xylene cyanol (I ran a lot of gels and would always dunk my sleeves in the dye by accident).
p.s. woooooooooooo
-
Man, my "lab coat" is whatever jacket I wear to the office, because it's fucking cold in the lab. We're on the same ventilation system as some other labs that actually do have to be kept fairly cold, which sucks extra because my office is always crazy hot. I don't really have to worry about spilling anything, though, so that helps.
-
I've only worn a lab coat while teaching because we are required to. And because our students get the stain everywhere. In fact, I don't even wear proper PPE when using hazardous chemicals in lab!
-
If I were using hazardous chemicals, I'd probably wear my chef's jacket (from an old job), because it's made to prevent burning and chemicals scare me. Of course, so does electricity and heat, yet I'm currently working in a lab with crazy power supplies everywhere and I've previously worked in a kitchen, so...
I do wear laser safety glasses all the time, but those are pretty required.
-
One of our honours students once came in on the weekend to do work, and there was no-one around. She started a phenol-chloroform extraction. She woke up on the lab floor some hours later and it was dark.
She'd passed out due to chloroform fumes, which isn't supposed to happen if you use a fume hood correctly. Luckily she didn't spill any phenol on herself... but yeah, there's a good reason for most safety gear and protocols, I think, when dealing stuff like that.
-
Better than the accident one of our units had a year or two back. Guy was filling Liquid nitrogen dewars and passed out.
He didn't wake up.
The woman who found him? She passed out too. Thankfully the guy who found both of them took a deep breath before coming in and managed to drag her out. She did wake up but it was a close run thing.
-
The thing is, I don't use chemicals. I don't even use high-powered lasers. Some people in the building do, and therefore nobody in the building is allowed to work alone. Yay government labs!
-
Meh, I don't use chloroform or anything like that (we buy those kits with nifty little columns for plasmid and genomic preps). I'm more referring to the solutions I have to make using concentrated phosphoric or hydrochloric acids. I've gotten a few chemical burns from those. Also, I don't always use gloves when I'm pouring acrylamide gels or agarose gels containing ethidium bromide.