Upload
Login or register

/science/ board

Leave a comment Refresh Comments (5410)
[ 5410 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
34 comments displayed.
#5525 - zonetransferrer
Reply +1
(06/12/2016) [-]
does any of you have some solid materials for studying macromolecular chemistry?, i need reactions, kinetics, mechanism, principles. I cant find anything useful and my textbook is really hard to read (yes i know science is hard to read but that shit is ridiculous) :/
#5526 to #5525 - Fgner
Reply +1
(06/13/2016) [-]
Sorry, I'm not in the field myself so I don't know exactly what you mean by "macromolecular". Polymer? Metallurgic? Either way, I hope this list does you good in y our studies: www.reddit.com/r/chemistry/comments/2kqe53/if_youve_ever_wanted_to_learn_university_level/
#5522 - anon
Reply -2
(06/07/2016) [-]
new episode of sci school COMING IN HOT sci school
#5517 - totallytito ONLINE
Reply +1
(06/06/2016) [-]
GIF
Serious question here; assuming how life can be programmed through DNA and operates on its own specialized code language,
it could be argued that biology and machinery share a slight overlap in their development and programmability.
If the difference between the living and animate were to be a factor of complexity, what would be the required level of complexity necessary in order to produce artificial(if not genuine) life?
We have bacteria and viruses which we classify as living, but do not meet the complexity requirements to be acknowledged as individuals as we do towards animals and pets. There are also computer viruses which also are said to meet the requirements of a living virus, but are also not "respected" as living individuals.

Some would argue that the ability to reproduce would be a major factor, but then again we have infertile men and women who are unable to fulfill this task while still being classified as living.

So again, what would be the requirements necessary to classify an AI as a living being whose life must be preserved?
#5518 to #5517 - Fgner
Reply +1
(06/06/2016) [-]
There's no difference between biological organisms and mechanical machines. They're both just a mix of chemicals and electric potentials making things happen. Machines are simply built with certain tasks in mind and assumes inputs. They have no need to reproduce, seek food or shelter, avoid predators unless actively designed for it. Therefore all that excess cruft doesn't need to exist. They have the added benefit of intelligent design, so nothing goes in that they don't directly need.

The entire conversation is arbitrary philosophy anyway. Existing AIs have more thought behind them than most animals do. Hell, your word processor has more complex behavior than the average reptile. To say that existing machines aren't sentient, but then turn around and say your pet gecko has a soul would be stupid. Going further, the interaction of planets or stars or galaxies are vastly complicated, as well - are they sentient? What about atoms - which are complex in composition and also react to stimuli? The entire Earth has far more complexity than a human brain - so that MUST be sentient right? The only reason this is a discussion is because most people are uncomfortable admitting we aren't special and either everything has a soul or nothing does. I fall into the former category To say anything else would be implying this magical barrier where *poof* now experience occurs because you have this specific type of complexity humans have and then another where *poof* OH, sorry, now you don't experience because you're too complex.

But to what level of consciousness do we have to achieve to preserve it? In my mind, we should seek to minimize the suffering of any experiencing entity. So it's rather easy for me to say it needs to be capable of 2 things: (1) higher thought - so it can freely think and truly understand it's situation. And (2) emotion - so that, in combination with 1, it may fear it's own death by the means that threaten it - AKA, if it can know you're going to kill it with a sword - don't. But if it can't fear the gun you're pointing, no big deal. .

Beyond that, all machines - biological, mechanical, or electrical - are simply tools. Use a hammer to hammer, your ox to plow, etc. If it can't fear it's own death, there's no reason to feel bad about killing it. Though, the consequences should be thought of (for instance, killing an ecosystem isn't intrinsically bad because it can't experience itself, but causes suffering to all the living things inside)

When this debate happens in real life, I always like to bring up Sims characters. They have complex states that determine emotions and needs. They have thought processes that give them impulses to act, they can freely observe their situation and make their own moves if left alone. The computer keeps track of dreams and desires and the characters actively seek positive outcomes and avoid negative situations. Sure, it's not higher thought, but this is no different from a basic lizard - complex states, seeking to avoid noxious stimuli and achieve positives.

If you believe a lizard is conscious, if you believe they have souls, it would be intentionally ignorant to think all those Sims you killed weren't alive in some way as well.
#5527 to #5518 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
There is some point in which start being different than machines, because matter behaves differently depending on if we look at it or not. It does no do that for a keyboard or a chair
#5528 to #5527 - Fgner
Reply 0
(06/29/2016) [-]
> because matter behaves differently depending on if we look at it or not

No, it doesn't. The double split experiment has been so widely misattributed, same with the Schrodinger thought experiment, it's sad.

First up, we didn't observe the particles, the detectors did. The detectors are inorganic machines, the observation was never a "conscious" being.

Quantum systems like light are in a superposition at any time. We can't tell what state it is in, until a larger (but still quantum) system interferes with it to observe. When this happens, the quantum state is forced to collapse, it must decide at that time whether the cat is dead or alive. However, we've now interacted with the light and collapsed it's superposition by observing it before the slit, it's been polarized by the detectors. So when the quanta (packets of light) reach the slit, it's in a definite particle state and must follow the accompanying laws of that particle. As such, it can only go straight through those little slits and form bands on the final detector.

However, without the detector the light remains in superposition, the polarity and behavior of the light is not definite but a set, or wave, of probabilities. When it reaches the slits, the light is still such a wave and follows the according laws. But all good things come to an end and the light must hit the detector at the end. And when it does, the quantum system comes into contact with a larger system and the superposition is again forced to collapse. So when it hits the detector, it becomes a particle again. However, unlike with the detector, the quanta are now all over the place, with the highest number of quanta appearing at the crests of the interference pattern for the two probability waves coming from our slits. (What a disgusting sentence).

It was never the human observation that changed it, it was the fact that the light was polarized by the detector. Even if you unplugged the computer that recorded the polarization data, the light would still act as a particle. Quantum state follows lazy evaluation for collapse waits until the last possible second to be determined , but data erasure cannot recover quantum state.
#5530 to #5528 - sobir
Reply 0
(06/29/2016) [-]
sorry if im being a bother
#5532 to #5530 - Fgner
Reply 0
(06/29/2016) [-]
Not at all, I have all the patience in the world for someone who legitimately wants to learn.
#5533 to #5532 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
Starting uni this year in Leicester, England. Gonna study physics. I want the hardcore theorethical one. pretty hyped tbh
#5534 to #5533 - Fgner
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
Fuck yeah, git 'er done! It's definitely going to be a lot of math and hard thinking, but every day will be a puzzle for you to solve and you'll bring humanity one step closer to... well we don't know! Time travel, teleportation, instant data transfer, stable quantum computing, the possibilities are endless!
#5535 to #5534 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
fuck, youre giving me a motivation hard-on. Just read what you typed about my last question and I think imma need to re-read it all over again. Thanks for the explanation tho, I rarely find someone to talk with about this.
#5529 to #5528 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
I really like your explanation stile, its very clear. As far as I remember it was proven that all things act like waves and particles, because the same experiment you just described with light was made with electrons as well with the same results. Do we know how it knows when to choose a position tho, and how it chooses the one it does.

Btw you seem to have done your research, are you studying physics or do you just enjoy learning about such things
#5531 to #5529 - Fgner
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
> Do we know how it knows when to choose a position tho

Lazy evaluation. Quantum states will remain that way as long as they possibly can, they really don't want to fall into a defined state. But the exact moment another, interfering quantum state comes into play, all quantum states involved are immediately collapsed. Most likely within the exact Planck frame such interaction begins (though this can't be observed).

Well, what do you mean other, interfering quantum state? Literally everything, really. At a macroscopic scale it's not noticeable. But if you zoom in, all interactions actually occur at an atomic scale, and those interactions are almost all determined by how electrons interact with each other. And those interactions are determined by the interactions of fields. And these "solid" particles are just the result of interacting fields and smaller particles themselves. And so on and so forth.



When it comes down to it, nothing is "truly real", the very matter you're composed of is just a cascading collapse of countless quantum systems, falling into their probability curves and producing certain "normal" behaviors. In reality, the laws of physics aren't absolute and they're violated all the time in very, very, very tiny amounts (because of how improbable the outcome is on the probability curves).

For instance, electron tunneling is the process where an electron can pass barriers they are incapable of passing by known laws of physics. However, the probability that they are there is still allowed in a quantum state, so when a collapse occurs, they sometimes show up. It's a huge problem in hardware engineering these days, as our transistors are getting smaller.

And imagine you're playing red light, green light. When played right, the kid in charge will do it every few seconds, and somebody soon reaches the finish line. But what if the kid was shouting every half a second? You'd never have time to move, the game wouldn't ever end! Well that's what happens with radioactive decay. It's a quantum process, and atoms don't actually "count" or anything. They have no way of determining when it's their time to die. It's simply a probability curve for them and, statistically, after X amount of time 50% of them will have died. The probability curve never changes, so we call that a half-life.

But if you continually observe them, constantly collapsing them, you "freeze" them in time. Like in the video, like in the game, they become unable to travel along the probability curve any longer and, theoretically if you observe in every Planck frame , NEVER experience decay. Congradulations, a violation of classical physics.

I guess, more accurately, we could say that we're proving classical physics isn't being violated so much as being proven inaccurate.

> and how it chooses the one it does.

As we understand it now, we don't understand. And unfortunately, we may be completely unable to pinpoint the underlying behaviors of quantum systems; they're hidden from us and already incredibly hard to interpret or understand. Hell, we don't know why quantum systems even collapse around each other like they do. We just observe that it happens. We're looking down into a deep hole, with no way of knowing what's at the bottom... or if a bottom even exists at all. Perhaps this is the very basis of the universe, things just randomly happening?

But we do know it all falls along probability curves. The video here shows the process of decoherence, where atoms start in a system of superposition but the environment causes it to fall into a definite state.

> are you studying physics or do you just enjoy learning about such things

My dream job would be chemistry, but my family wasn't wealthy and I just did my 4-years for mechanical engineering to minimize the burden on them. But what a wonderful world we live in, I can just make sure I'm well read on things I'm interested in.
#5536 to #5531 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
Have you watched a movie called "How deep does the rabbit hole go"
#5537 to #5536 - Fgner
Reply 0
(06/29/2016) [-]
Can't say I have.
#5538 to #5537 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
Well it says some pretty weird shit and its not something I can easily google, or so I think. It looks at the way we as observers change things. One experiment that I would really like to see the source of claims that if we record a number of beeps, some sounding in the left ear and some in the right and give it to random people to listen to without we listening to it ourselfs, if we tell them to focus on on ear more than the other the number of beeps heard there rises. Since it hasnt been observed its normal that the beeps are random but this interaction is really weird. I wanted to ask you on your opinion on the whole thing because it sounds made up
#5539 to #5538 - Fgner
Reply 0
(06/29/2016) [-]
Not sure, I'd need to actually see the study itself. As it stands, that sounds made up, I've never experienced that happen before and there have been plenty of times I do that exact thing watching videos online. If it's not, it can rather easily be explained by our brain's sometimes faulty wiring. Auditory illusions, just like optical, exist.

But I say that making conjecture that we, as humans, are special and influence how things exist is purely fictional. Based on the same kind of misunderstanding of science we see with the double slit experiment. And that's coming from a guy whose entire world-view is based around the idea of a fundamental superposition with "collapse" by a fundamental observer. AKA, that theory would support my world view if I chose to believe it.
#5540 to #5539 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
Im gonna watch it one more time and see if I can get hold of the experiment source
#5541 to #5540 - Fgner
Reply 0
(06/29/2016) [-]
You da mvp.
#5542 to #5541 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
time to sleep now doe. Its been great meating you man, thanks for everything. ill message you when I get to the bottom of things
#5520 to #5518 - totallytito ONLINE
Reply +1
(06/06/2016) [-]
Furthermore, I was asking about the human justification for calling something sentient.
I'm already aware of how the mechanics work, but I wanted to ask about what humans consider worthy of being conscious.
#5521 to #5520 - Fgner
Reply 0
(06/07/2016) [-]
Ah, well that varies on an individual basis doesn't it? Some people have a very narrow worldview, and choose to believe that humans are the only truly sentient creatures. Some people choose to believe that every single thing ever is sentient and should be respected as such.

I think most people believe, though, that biological organisms with human-like emotion are sentient. So reptiles, mammals, avians. But not insects. And computers are ruled out because "they're just machines" and not much thought is really put into questioning that boundary for the layman.
#5519 to #5518 - totallytito ONLINE
Reply +1
(06/06/2016) [-]
This exactly the kind of response I wanted to hear,
I'm in the right image board at last.

I'll get back to this when im more alert
#5513 - whitechino
Reply 0
(06/05/2016) [-]
How many years of my life and I still didn't know our solar system has four planets with rings. Why does every planet after the asteroid belt has rings and not ours.
#5516 to #5513 - brownskin ONLINE
Reply +1
(06/06/2016) [-]
The outer planets are all gas giants, with a significantly higher mass, and a stronger, larger gravitational field as a result gas giants can only form naturally far from the parent star, as the matter that makes up the gas giants would have been captures by the parent star while still in the planetary disk phase.

The inner planets can have rings as well (it is theorized that the Martian moon Phobos may form a small ring as it is torn apart by the planet's gravity, and before it finished it's formation, our moon may have also been a ring), but, they lack key factors to ring sustainability that the larger planets have.

1. Mass. There is simply more mass for larger rings to be made of.

2. Ring Shepards. This term refers to small moons that orbit area around the ring systems, whose gravitational field helps keep the rings from dissipating. They often form during the ring's early years, as the ring material collides, much like planetary formation. On a much larger scale, our asteroid belt exists due to the conflicting gravitational forces from the Sun and Jupiter.

That's all I can remember though. Basically the inner planets don't have the proper mass for large enough rings, nor the ring Shepards necessary to keep them from breaking apart
#5515 to #5513 - Fgner
Reply +1
(06/05/2016) [-]
Why doesnt earth have rings  Tell me why
#5514 to #5513 - polarbare
Reply +1
(06/05/2016) [-]
it turned into the moon?