science_memes

This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

driving_crooner, in Imaginary friends.
@driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br avatar

Complex numbers are as real as the Real numbers.

ziggurism,
@ziggurism@lemmy.world avatar

complex numbers are just numbers in a plane instead of a line. saying you don’t believe in i is like saying you don’t believe in “up”

kogasa,
@kogasa@programming.dev avatar

For that matter, the real numbers are fake as fuck. “Ah yes, let’s just throw in uncountably many non-computable numbers.” They have played us for absolute fools.

Gutek8134,
@Gutek8134@lemmy.world avatar

Their subset, irrational numbers, is somehow worse

funnystuff97,

“there are as many even/odd/prime/composite numbers as there are numbers”

g(63)? TREE(3)? BB(10^100)? Rayo’s Number? Fuck outta here with that fake bullshit

starman2112,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

Yeah TREE(3) is so big, how can you possibly know that there are that many evens??

cpw,

The set of all rational numbers has zero size in the real numbers. And yet, they’re fucking dense, meaning you can find a rational arbitrarily close to any real number. I mean, what the fuck?

starman2112, (edited )
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

That’s it, I’m Amish now. I use inches and fractions of inches, and that’s as far as my numbers need to take me

ThePyroPython,

No that just makes you an American Mechanical Engineer.

lugal,

Big math is laughing at us right now

nodsocket,

I can’t tell if this is supposed to be a joke

lorty,
@lorty@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Not only that, but their existence is implied wven when working just with real numbers!

joneskind,

The fact that you can’t solve any real life electro-magnetism problem without them kinda put an end to that complex shaming nonsense.

Yet there are still people to miss the absolute poetry of their story.

In 1545, an Italian genius called Gerolamo Cardano was pissed he couldn’t solve square root of negative number.

« Fine! I’ll make it myself » he said, before sending everyone to hell.

He then invented an imaginary number i whose square would be -1.

It wasn’t until centuries later that another famous genius named Leonhard Euler found a practical use of those numbers.

Without those numbers we would still be living like 1800´s peons.

driving_crooner,
@driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br avatar

In 1545, an Italian genius called Gerolamo Cardano was pissed he couldn’t solve square root of negative number.

Iirc, it was while trying to solve cubic polynomials, that he found out that accepting the existence of sqrt(-1) let him solve them.

Jackcooper, in stop, coma time

Cold blooded creatures deserve to be dunked on. Obsolete ass circulatory system, falling out of trees and shit…

Bishma, in Handy Pocket Guide
@Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

Algernon

Algernon

Hupf,
Lux,

Get this man mouse some mf’n flowers

embed_me, in rocc on
@embed_me@programming.dev avatar

What’s this made of, appollo?

Rocc

youtube.com/shorts/sm2ZkuRtwWw?si=qXpkK6qHO77ZU0p…

MajorMajormajormajor, in Handy Pocket Guide

Thanks, I’m always mixing up Oregano and Aragorn. Makes cooking mighty awkward when I accidentally put Aragorn King of Gondor onto my food.

shiveyarbles,

Kick it up a notch with a pinch of Strider

MajorMajormajormajor,

Bam!

Holyhandgrenade,
@Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world avatar

The blood of Numenor tastes so good though

alcoholicorn, in sea bunnies

Moopsy!

julianh, in thx for coming to my ted talk

Neuroscientists are just brains that talk about brains to other brains.

Darkard,
goddard_guryon,

Chemists are just bags of chemicals talking about chemicals

Nuklia,
@Nuklia@lemdro.id avatar

Physicists are just atoms talking about atoms

Mothra, in Entire Observable Universe so far by Pablo Carlos Budassi
@Mothra@mander.xyz avatar

… can someone please ELI5 why the top part looks like a coral reef or some kind of spaghetti? I’m not familiar with that type of whatever it is.

DeepFriedDresden,
Mothra,
@Mothra@mander.xyz avatar

Thanks! TIL

GarytheSnail,
@GarytheSnail@programming.dev avatar

Due to the accelerating expansion of the universe, the individual clusters of gravitationally bound galaxies that make up galaxy filaments are moving away from each other at an accelerated rate; in the far future they will dissolve.

This has always been mega sad to me.

someguy3, (edited ) in Hummingbird feet

This is what smartphones have taken from us.

nachtigall, in Handy Pocket Guide
Maultasche, (edited )

The image doesn’t seem to load but I think it’s this one

nachtigall,

Hmm works for me. But indeed it is a similar one

Maultasche,

Maybe it’s a Liftoff issue on my side.

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar
edinbruh, in Ploidy!

This will affect the productivity goals of the company

fossilesque,
@fossilesque@mander.xyz avatar

muh bottom line!!

AtmaJnana, in Entire Observable Universe so far by Pablo Carlos Budassi

Where meme?

MajorMajormajormajor,
ininewcrow,
@ininewcrow@lemmy.ca avatar

The joke is that we think we are important and significant in the universe

If more people understood that cosmic bit of humour, we’d probably treat each other a bit nicer.

homoludens, in Handy Pocket Guide
ininewcrow, in rocc on
@ininewcrow@lemmy.ca avatar

Even better

Countries sending people to space: … Space is a hostile environment so we have to work really hard at creating a liveable atmosphere, protect it and maintain it to ensure our long term survival.

Back in earth: The companies, corporations, governments and workers that helped to build the rocket drive away in gas powered vehicles so that they can all go live in homes powered by coal powered generators, that are pumping air borne pollution into their planet sized space craft that only has a thin layer of breathable, liveable atmosphere with no backup or emergency rescue.

Tb0n3, in Speediest little fella.

Does a photon actually accelerate? Sure seems like it always goes at light speed through whatever medium from its creation.

trash80,

They change direction and speed, right?

ziggurism,
@ziggurism@lemmy.world avatar

The fact that light cannot change speed is one of the core axioms of relativity

trash80,

Light doesn’t travel the same speed in water or glass as in a vacuum.

In a medium, light usually does not propagate at a speed equal to c; further, different types of light wave will travel at different speeds. The speed at which the individual crests and troughs of a plane wave (a wave filling the whole space, with only one frequency) propagate is called the phase velocity vp. A physical signal with a finite extent (a pulse of light) travels at a different speed. The overall envelope of the pulse travels at the group velocity vg, and its earliest part travels at the front velocity vf.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#In_a_medium

Neato,
@Neato@kbin.social avatar

That's light as an aggregate wave. Photons, actual light, always travel at c. What's happening in a medium is the rapid absorption and readmission of photons. The probability of admission is based on structure of material causing things like lens or mirrors to work.

You can think of it as the photons having to jump between platforms before the can continue running at c.

trash80,

Now I’m not sure how reflective telescopes work.

TonyTonyChopper,
@TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz avatar
Neato,
@Neato@kbin.social avatar

Interference in matters structure causes classical wave like behavior.

trash80,

I find so much of physics to be very intuitive and then you have light.

Entropius,
@Entropius@lemmy.world avatar

What’s happening in a medium is the rapid absorption and readmission of photons. […]

You can think of it as the photons having to jump between platforms before the can continue running at c.

That’s an intuitive model, but unfortunately it doesn’t have the advantage of actually being correct. Photons are not being absorbed and reemitted. See here for why: lemmy.world/comment/5444224

Neato,
@Neato@kbin.social avatar

That is wrong. Stochastic yes. Photons emission is probabilistic. Destructive interference causes emission to overwhelming follow classical wave theory. Here's a better explanation with a neat graphic.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/466/what-is-the-mechanism-behind-the-slowdown-of-light-photons-in-a-transparent-medi

Entropius,
@Entropius@lemmy.world avatar

It sounds like you’re conflating different concepts. A stochastic process like absorption/reemission would blur the light, so that’s not it. And the linked explanation is basically correct (in classical physics at least), but it doesn’t corroborate what you originally claimed as that’s not necessarily requiring absorbing anything. Photons can jiggle the charged particles in glass and get them to make new phase shifted light despite not being absorbed.

youtu.be/YW8KuMtVpug

youtu.be/CiHN0ZWE5bk

there1snospoon, (edited )

But doesn’t relativity explicitly state that c is the speed of light in a vacuum, and travelling through other mediums explicitly changes and is explained by relativity?

I am 100% a layman and do not know the answer.

trash80,

I don’t know. I thought I used to know.

wildginger,

This is how I feel every time I touch any non-basal physics topic.

I swear this made sense once upon a time…

sushibowl,

Not really no. Special relativity explains the relationship between space and time. General relativity expands on this to account for gravitation.

One of the postulates (i.e. assumptions) of relativity is that the speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers. But the theory doesn’t actually require any particular value for c, it only needs it to be constant. And it doesn’t explain the behavior of light in a medium at all.

In fact, relativity doesn’t explain the mechanism by which light interacts at all, that is the domain of Quantum Electro Dynamics.

ziggurism,
@ziggurism@lemmy.world avatar

the speed of light expressed in units of distance per time, is a dimensionful quantity so it probably doesn’t mean anything to say some theory does or does not predict a value for it. The value is entirely determined by how big you choose your yardsticks and sundials to be, which is arbitrary convention.

It is only meaningful to talk about theoretical predictions of the values of constants if they are dimensionless, like the fine structure constant.

However relativity does suggest as a natural point of view that space and time are just orthogonal directions in a unified spacetime. In this point of view, relativity gives you the option of measuring your timelike and spacelike coordinates with the same yardstick (which you may still choose arbitrarily). And then relativity does predict its value. It’s 1. No units.

there1snospoon,

Wow that is so interesting. So am I understanding that relativity explains space, time and gravity’s interactions with one another, while quantum science explains interactions with much smaller objects like matter?

marcos,

No, they don’t. They can get absorbed and re-emitted, and the space they are moving though can compress sideways. But they can’t make curves at all.

trash80,

Do lenses absorb and re-emit light?

Neato, (edited )
@Neato@kbin.social avatar

Yes.

Don't think about individual photons. Think about billions of them with destructive and constructive interference. The probabilities of all the sitting l additive waves of light.

marcos,

That’s basically all that refraction is. A dead giveaway is that light doesn’t move at the speed of light in them.

Vilian,

well, if it get reflected and change direction it going to be at light speed, so it can be interpreted (probably incorrectly lol) that it “accelerated instantly to the other direction after the reflection”?

kogasa, (edited )
@kogasa@programming.dev avatar

This is an interesting question. Instant acceleration is mathematically implausible, but I don’t know if there’s a better physical interpretation for what happens to a bouncing photon. I’m guessing this is one of those “less particle, more wave” situations where the instantaneous velocity of the photon is undefined.

According to some random internet sources, reflection is the not-quite-instantaneous process of the photon being absorbed and then emitted by the electrons in the mirror.

Entropius,
@Entropius@lemmy.world avatar

As a rule, it’s probably best to avoid “random” internet sources on matters of how light works because there’s so much confidently parroted misinformation out there. For example, this is completely wrong: youtu.be/FAivtXJOsiI See here for correct answers to that issue: youtu.be/CiHN0ZWE5bk

For how mirrors work see this: scientificamerican.com/…/what-is-the-physical-pro…youtu.be/rYLzxcU6ROM

AlwaysNowNeverNotMe,
@AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social avatar

This is acceleration with no mass and no resistance to medium.

Tb0n3,
Neato,
@Neato@kbin.social avatar

Photons are born and die at c. They experience no time and have no frame of reference.

hansl,

The loneliest of experience.

Aurenkin,

The speed of light is different depending on the medium though isn’t it? So to change speed I would have thought some acceleration would have to be involved.

I have no idea what I’m talking about though.

Neato,
@Neato@kbin.social avatar

It's not. The wave front moves slower. Because when light moves through matter it's getting absorbed and reradiated.

Aurenkin,

That’s neato, thanks for the science fact

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • science_memes@mander.xyz
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #

    Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 24190232 bytes) in /var/www/kbin/kbin/vendor/symfony/http-kernel/Profiler/FileProfilerStorage.php on line 174

    Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 6307840 bytes) in /var/www/kbin/kbin/vendor/symfony/error-handler/Resources/views/logs.html.php on line 38