▲ 805 ▼ average physics student vs POTUS 47 (thelemmy.club) submitted 3 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 122 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago (18 children) well... to be fair....... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] pmk@piefed.ca 18 points 3 months ago (10 children) Whenever I think about magnets I remember this Feynman interview where someone asks him why magnets behave the way they do, and he says that to answer a "why"-question you need a foundation where something is agreed to be true, and it seems like for electromagnetic forces we end up in " because that's how the universe is apparently". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 months ago (3 children) Sure, but between nothing and the axioms of the standard model we end up with a fairly comprehensive description which can predict how different kinds of magnets behave in a wide variety of situations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 months ago (2 children) That's knowing how to use it, not how it works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (1 child) No, the theory of electromagnetism and by extension physics in general is knowing how it works. How to use it is engineering, a different set of knowledge which we also have some of. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago I think they mean more the difference between what rules it follows and why it follows those rules. It sounds like we know more about the "what" but not much about the "why" for magnets (or any of the fundamental forces). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (5 children) Feynman was a bit pedantic sometimes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] oce@jlai.lu 4 points 3 months ago This seems to be easily said of anyone trying to popularize science philosophy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) That is sort of how the universe operates though. You can have a greater and greater understanding of the underlying principles of physics but eventually you do get to "that just how it is". Why is there no such thing as a negative photon, apparently we just can't have a negative excitation in the photon field, no one knows why. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago* I mean one of the points he's making there comes up in every good science class: science doesn't answer 'why' it answers 'how'. The goal of science is to describe what we see in the world; science less about explaining things. Its easy to do without being a pedant. He's absolutely being pedantic on camera in that clip. Like if you look at how people treat science now: MAGA completely pissing on it because its funded by snake oil people. Rich guys like Elon Musk cynically using it as a way to bilk the public and government. The press just has different goals than the scientific community and I would say that clip showed some of that friction manifest. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) I'd expect nothing less from a scientist. Decrying pedantry from a scientist would be like decrying financial accuracy from an accountant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago When its warranted yes, the pedantry is a plus. The gift of a talented pop scientist is to know when to turn on and off the pedantry. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 months ago* (6 children) Yeah. Each time we think we've got it, there's another hole to dig deeper. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 4 points 3 months ago (5 children) With a lot of things: You start off with no knowledge, and it’s a big mystery. You gain some knowledge and feel like you have understanding. You gain a lot more knowledge and you learn how much more there is that isn’t known. The President is either at stage 1 or stage 3, take your pick. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 3 months ago No he's at stage 0. He has no knowledge but he doesn't investigate he just makes things up and then says that. We're talking about the person who thought that stealth planes were physically invisible. permalink fedilink source parent [–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago you forgot about the parallel imaginary number line (√-1), i think that is where the president lives. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) Wish he was at stage 4... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ddplf@szmer.info 1 point 3 months ago I can't wait until he's crossed the final stage permalink fedilink source parent [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 months ago You meant stage 2? "some knowledge and feel like you have understanding." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pmk@piefed.ca 18 points 3 months ago (10 children) Whenever I think about magnets I remember this Feynman interview where someone asks him why magnets behave the way they do, and he says that to answer a "why"-question you need a foundation where something is agreed to be true, and it seems like for electromagnetic forces we end up in " because that's how the universe is apparently". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 months ago (3 children) Sure, but between nothing and the axioms of the standard model we end up with a fairly comprehensive description which can predict how different kinds of magnets behave in a wide variety of situations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 months ago (2 children) That's knowing how to use it, not how it works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (1 child) No, the theory of electromagnetism and by extension physics in general is knowing how it works. How to use it is engineering, a different set of knowledge which we also have some of. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago I think they mean more the difference between what rules it follows and why it follows those rules. It sounds like we know more about the "what" but not much about the "why" for magnets (or any of the fundamental forces). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (5 children) Feynman was a bit pedantic sometimes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] oce@jlai.lu 4 points 3 months ago This seems to be easily said of anyone trying to popularize science philosophy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) That is sort of how the universe operates though. You can have a greater and greater understanding of the underlying principles of physics but eventually you do get to "that just how it is". Why is there no such thing as a negative photon, apparently we just can't have a negative excitation in the photon field, no one knows why. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago* I mean one of the points he's making there comes up in every good science class: science doesn't answer 'why' it answers 'how'. The goal of science is to describe what we see in the world; science less about explaining things. Its easy to do without being a pedant. He's absolutely being pedantic on camera in that clip. Like if you look at how people treat science now: MAGA completely pissing on it because its funded by snake oil people. Rich guys like Elon Musk cynically using it as a way to bilk the public and government. The press just has different goals than the scientific community and I would say that clip showed some of that friction manifest. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) I'd expect nothing less from a scientist. Decrying pedantry from a scientist would be like decrying financial accuracy from an accountant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago When its warranted yes, the pedantry is a plus. The gift of a talented pop scientist is to know when to turn on and off the pedantry. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 months ago (3 children) Sure, but between nothing and the axioms of the standard model we end up with a fairly comprehensive description which can predict how different kinds of magnets behave in a wide variety of situations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 months ago (2 children) That's knowing how to use it, not how it works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (1 child) No, the theory of electromagnetism and by extension physics in general is knowing how it works. How to use it is engineering, a different set of knowledge which we also have some of. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago I think they mean more the difference between what rules it follows and why it follows those rules. It sounds like we know more about the "what" but not much about the "why" for magnets (or any of the fundamental forces). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 months ago (2 children) That's knowing how to use it, not how it works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (1 child) No, the theory of electromagnetism and by extension physics in general is knowing how it works. How to use it is engineering, a different set of knowledge which we also have some of. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago I think they mean more the difference between what rules it follows and why it follows those rules. It sounds like we know more about the "what" but not much about the "why" for magnets (or any of the fundamental forces). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (1 child) No, the theory of electromagnetism and by extension physics in general is knowing how it works. How to use it is engineering, a different set of knowledge which we also have some of. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago I think they mean more the difference between what rules it follows and why it follows those rules. It sounds like we know more about the "what" but not much about the "why" for magnets (or any of the fundamental forces). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago I think they mean more the difference between what rules it follows and why it follows those rules. It sounds like we know more about the "what" but not much about the "why" for magnets (or any of the fundamental forces). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (5 children) Feynman was a bit pedantic sometimes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] oce@jlai.lu 4 points 3 months ago This seems to be easily said of anyone trying to popularize science philosophy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) That is sort of how the universe operates though. You can have a greater and greater understanding of the underlying principles of physics but eventually you do get to "that just how it is". Why is there no such thing as a negative photon, apparently we just can't have a negative excitation in the photon field, no one knows why. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago* I mean one of the points he's making there comes up in every good science class: science doesn't answer 'why' it answers 'how'. The goal of science is to describe what we see in the world; science less about explaining things. Its easy to do without being a pedant. He's absolutely being pedantic on camera in that clip. Like if you look at how people treat science now: MAGA completely pissing on it because its funded by snake oil people. Rich guys like Elon Musk cynically using it as a way to bilk the public and government. The press just has different goals than the scientific community and I would say that clip showed some of that friction manifest. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) I'd expect nothing less from a scientist. Decrying pedantry from a scientist would be like decrying financial accuracy from an accountant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago When its warranted yes, the pedantry is a plus. The gift of a talented pop scientist is to know when to turn on and off the pedantry. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] oce@jlai.lu 4 points 3 months ago This seems to be easily said of anyone trying to popularize science philosophy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) That is sort of how the universe operates though. You can have a greater and greater understanding of the underlying principles of physics but eventually you do get to "that just how it is". Why is there no such thing as a negative photon, apparently we just can't have a negative excitation in the photon field, no one knows why. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago* I mean one of the points he's making there comes up in every good science class: science doesn't answer 'why' it answers 'how'. The goal of science is to describe what we see in the world; science less about explaining things. Its easy to do without being a pedant. He's absolutely being pedantic on camera in that clip. Like if you look at how people treat science now: MAGA completely pissing on it because its funded by snake oil people. Rich guys like Elon Musk cynically using it as a way to bilk the public and government. The press just has different goals than the scientific community and I would say that clip showed some of that friction manifest. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago* I mean one of the points he's making there comes up in every good science class: science doesn't answer 'why' it answers 'how'. The goal of science is to describe what we see in the world; science less about explaining things. Its easy to do without being a pedant. He's absolutely being pedantic on camera in that clip. Like if you look at how people treat science now: MAGA completely pissing on it because its funded by snake oil people. Rich guys like Elon Musk cynically using it as a way to bilk the public and government. The press just has different goals than the scientific community and I would say that clip showed some of that friction manifest. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) I'd expect nothing less from a scientist. Decrying pedantry from a scientist would be like decrying financial accuracy from an accountant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago When its warranted yes, the pedantry is a plus. The gift of a talented pop scientist is to know when to turn on and off the pedantry. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago When its warranted yes, the pedantry is a plus. The gift of a talented pop scientist is to know when to turn on and off the pedantry. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 months ago* (6 children) Yeah. Each time we think we've got it, there's another hole to dig deeper. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 4 points 3 months ago (5 children) With a lot of things: You start off with no knowledge, and it’s a big mystery. You gain some knowledge and feel like you have understanding. You gain a lot more knowledge and you learn how much more there is that isn’t known. The President is either at stage 1 or stage 3, take your pick. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 3 months ago No he's at stage 0. He has no knowledge but he doesn't investigate he just makes things up and then says that. We're talking about the person who thought that stealth planes were physically invisible. permalink fedilink source parent [–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago you forgot about the parallel imaginary number line (√-1), i think that is where the president lives. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) Wish he was at stage 4... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ddplf@szmer.info 1 point 3 months ago I can't wait until he's crossed the final stage permalink fedilink source parent [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 months ago You meant stage 2? "some knowledge and feel like you have understanding." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 4 points 3 months ago (5 children) With a lot of things: You start off with no knowledge, and it’s a big mystery. You gain some knowledge and feel like you have understanding. You gain a lot more knowledge and you learn how much more there is that isn’t known. The President is either at stage 1 or stage 3, take your pick. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 3 months ago No he's at stage 0. He has no knowledge but he doesn't investigate he just makes things up and then says that. We're talking about the person who thought that stealth planes were physically invisible. permalink fedilink source parent [–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago you forgot about the parallel imaginary number line (√-1), i think that is where the president lives. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) Wish he was at stage 4... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ddplf@szmer.info 1 point 3 months ago I can't wait until he's crossed the final stage permalink fedilink source parent [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 months ago You meant stage 2? "some knowledge and feel like you have understanding." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 3 months ago No he's at stage 0. He has no knowledge but he doesn't investigate he just makes things up and then says that. We're talking about the person who thought that stealth planes were physically invisible. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago you forgot about the parallel imaginary number line (√-1), i think that is where the president lives. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) Wish he was at stage 4... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ddplf@szmer.info 1 point 3 months ago I can't wait until he's crossed the final stage permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ddplf@szmer.info 1 point 3 months ago I can't wait until he's crossed the final stage permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 months ago You meant stage 2? "some knowledge and feel like you have understanding." permalink fedilink source parent
