Large Hardon Collider

[Woozie]

I just screwed up so bad on my complex variables exam. Virtually every point I lost was due to negative signs. I did it so much that it dropped exam grade to a C. I literally lost points on every single question.

[Woozie]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20101209.gif

Oh man, this is so true. This summer we had to go to a seminar about "Talking to the media about science", and the people there were so frustrated at the physicists. Every time someone asked why we were doing the research we were working out, we said "because it's fun". The biologists/chemists/medical all had reasons like "potential to repair spinal injuries, etc", but the physics people usually just said "because it's interesting to me". They lectures us for hours on how we're never supposed to say stuff like that, even if it's true (when talking to the media), and then made us come up with "reasons" we were doing our research. Even the guy researching dark matter had to come up with something, which was nearly impossible since dark matter research has pretty much no applications that we know of.

Despite the fact that our research actually has plenty of applications, my partner and I had a hard time coming up with stuff because we never bothered to figure out what the applications were. We simply didn't care what the applications were. I probably will never truly care about the applications of something I research. I research it because it's interesting to me. Even after I asked the professor I was working under, he said "who cares, let the engineers figure that out".

I'm wondering if this is just a physics thing or do scientist in other fields think the same way?

[Shiroikage]

Agreed. You guys are no good at making up reasons as to why your stuff is useful.

[Woozie]

Agreed. You guys are no good at making up reasons as to why your stuff is useful.

Why do you always reply to me so fast when I'm trying to ninja edit? It always happens, and it's always you D:

Edit: A problem I had with the people doing the seminar/workshop was that they didn't seem to care about the fact that sometimes we don't really know what the important applications are ahead of time. A lot of our good technology came from stuff that we either thought was useless or simply didn't know how to use when it was originally being researched. Though, to be fair, maybe the reason they didn't care about this fact is because the media doesn't care, and their job was to make sure we could be effective when communicating with the media.

[Shiroikage]

Hey, at least I didn't quote you this time.
Man, if this shit that I've been working on all week doesn't yield results tomorrow, I may actually, genuinely cry.

[Woozie]

What exactly are you working on? Explain it in terms that an idiot like me can understand, because I just barely passed chem 2. Well, I think I got a B but that's only because the exams had a lot of math questions that I could answer without really understanding the chemistry behind it.

[Shiroikage]

Really basic shit. I'm cloning a gene for a protein and trying to express it in E. coli. Most of the cloning protocols I have aren't working, and it's frustrating because it's such a basic experiment. Expression of this protein will be a whole different nightmare.

[Eliseos]

Even after I asked the professor I was working under, he said "who cares, let the engineers figure that out".

We aren't called the Oompa Loompas of science for nothing.

[Kaylia]

Oh man, this is so true. This summer we had to go to a seminar about "Talking to the media about science", and the people there were so frustrated at the physicists. Every time someone asked why we were doing the research we were working out, we said "because it's fun". The biologists/chemists/medical all had reasons like "potential to repair spinal injuries, etc", but the physics people usually just said "because it's interesting to me". They lectures us for hours on how we're never supposed to say stuff like that, even if it's true (when talking to the media), and then made us come up with "reasons" we were doing our research. Even the guy researching dark matter had to come up with something, which was nearly impossible since dark matter research has pretty much no applications that we know of.

Despite the fact that our research actually has plenty of applications, my partner and I had a hard time coming up with stuff because we never bothered to figure out what the applications were. We simply didn't care what the applications were. I probably will never truly care about the applications of something I research. I research it because it's interesting to me. Even after I asked the professor I was working under, he said "who cares, let the engineers figure that out".

I'm wondering if this is just a physics thing or do scientist in other fields think the same way?

"Make bigger bombs obviously".
It's fun to see people's reaction.



It amazes me that people are still asking this question 400 years after Newton. Did I miss a memo that said our technology peaked? Are they not conscious of the progress we did because of sciences?

[Eliseos]

Are they not conscious of the progress we did because of sciences?

They don't read, so no. Didn't you see people in the NASA thread questioning why it gets funded at all?

[Kaylia]

But why would you send shit in space? That's stupid.

[Woozie]

people in the NASA thread questioning why it gets funded at all?

I think this was the main reason they kept telling us "Because it's interesting" wasn't a good thing to say to the media. They said when talking to the media, we need to be thinking primarily about our funding and we have to say things that will increase the funding or at least prevent it from being decreased.

[Ferion]

I'm wondering if this is just a physics thing or do scientist in other fields think the same way?

Economics isn't exactly a hard science, but the field I'm currently doing research in doesn't really have any applications towards coming up with something useful. I'm only an undergrad, but if some one were to ask the professor I'm working with why we're doing this research, I can't imagine that he would have any kind of useful response. So I completely understand what you're saying. On the other hand my brother is working towards a Phd in biology, and every time some one asks him what his research can be used for he can name off about ten things. He got an engineering degree as an undergrad though.

[Tyche]

[Kaylia]

^
Make me want to go play with my lego again




Random math question:
How can you demonstrate that f= exp(-X/a)/integral[exp(-x/a)] tend toward Dirac distribution when a -> 0.

I can show that x/a-> infinity for any x=/=0 , which is enough imo, but is there any better solution?

[Tristam]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20101209.gif

Oh man, this is so true. This summer we had to go to a seminar about "Talking to the media about science", and the people there were so frustrated at the physicists. Every time someone asked why we were doing the research we were working out, we said "because it's fun". The biologists/chemists/medical all had reasons like "potential to repair spinal injuries, etc", but the physics people usually just said "because it's interesting to me". They lectures us for hours on how we're never supposed to say stuff like that, even if it's true (when talking to the media), and then made us come up with "reasons" we were doing our research. Even the guy researching dark matter had to come up with something, which was nearly impossible since dark matter research has pretty much no applications that we know of.

Despite the fact that our research actually has plenty of applications, my partner and I had a hard time coming up with stuff because we never bothered to figure out what the applications were. We simply didn't care what the applications were. I probably will never truly care about the applications of something I research. I research it because it's interesting to me. Even after I asked the professor I was working under, he said "who cares, let the engineers figure that out".

I'm wondering if this is just a physics thing or do scientist in other fields think the same way?

Most bio-whatever fields are NIH funded, which over the years has relied on public funding with the understanding that even basic science would have the potential application for medical use or understanding of disease. *edit: Fun fact, when the NIH was begun the prevailing criticism was that the gov't was socializing medicine and that the NIH would be a colossal failure. It of course has turned out as one of the greatest investments the gov't ever made.* Thus we have a "roadmap" to whatever and funding guidelines are set with public health goals in mind (that are frequently unachievable over the term of any awarded grant). Therefore, in almost every field that relies primarily on the NIH (or disease associated private agency) for funding, grad students are encouraged to prepare and write NIH style grants at some point, which require some sort of medical relevance. Yes, most of the time direct medical relevance is bullshit, but even with a "wink-wink" understanding there's alot of good that can come out of doing basic biomedical research, so the public and gov't gets to feel good about investing in public health (or at least it used to be political capital, these days everyone hates on science despite the longevity revolution we're undergoing) and tenured faculty get to work on what interests them with at least some effort spent on doing something that might one day be medically relevant.

Don't get too comfortable though, if the proposed return to 2008 funding levels actually happens the NSF will get totally bludgeoned worse than the NIH because the NSF has seen great gains over the past two years while the NIH has been mired in stupidly small increases that don't keep pace with inflation for too damn long now. The sad thing is that basic physical sciences DO have ENORMOUS value, both in understanding of how the world works and economic benefit. I mean shit, Bell Labs invented the modern world.

Consider careers in public policy. We need it.

[Woozie]

Is there a typo, Kaylia? I don't think that function goes to the dirac delta function.

[Kaylia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_ensemble
I forgot to mention it was normalized, and that x and a can't be negative. Sorry. I should have spent more time writing my last post.


What I wrote (or at least, the french equivalent) in this homeworks is:

Because we know this distribution is normalized, the integral over the whole domain is 1. Since the function is 0 when x>>a (x>>a and a-->0 implies that exp(-x/a)= 0), and not 0 when x->(a->0) , you have a spike localized around 0 with an integral of 1.

This result match the definition of dirac delta relatively well.


[edit]

What bug me is that if I set x=2a or 2x=a, you could technically demonstrate that this distribution is never localized. Idk...I dont really see any other way to show explicitly the function has a spike at x=0.

[Ferion]

Having some really serious problems with this proof on a practice exam I was given. My professor said something like this will definitely be on the final I have on Thursday, so if anyone has any suggestions they would be very appreciated. Here's the question:

Suppose that (H1) f is defined on (-2,2) and (H2) f is differentiable at 0 and f'(0)=3. Do not assume that f is differentiable anywhere else. Show that there must exist a positive d (d = delta) such that f(x) > f(0) + 2.9 (x-0) whenever 0 < x < d.

I honestly do not really have any clue where to go with this, so I'll edit this post with my work when I actually come up with something. Just wanted to post this now to see if anyone sees something I'm missing.

[Woozie]

Are you sure it's not x^2 instead of X, kaylia?