{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuyhuay","c_root_id_B":"fuygctl","created_at_utc_A":1592264920,"created_at_utc_B":1592264145,"score_A":175,"score_B":84,"human_ref_A":"Hello, theoretical physics PhD student here!  I think this is a common misconception that there's a lot of sitting around thinking for theoretical physics, because we're not actually physically fiddling with experimental equipment and what not.  While, yes, a lot of thought has to go into what we're doing, you're right, we're not all having miraculous break throughs all the time (as much as we like to think we are!)  As for the day to day, it really depends on what area of physics you work in. One way it can work, is that someone will do an experiment, and there'll be some unexpected thing happening, or a result they can't explain. Along comes your friendly neighbourhood theoretical physicist, armed with a bunch of equations that we know *should* describe the system. We can then combine extra effects and try to derive an equation to explain what's being seen in the experiments.  Other times it works slightly differently. Maybe you want to know what parameters are actually useful to look at in an experiment. For example, I work in quantum transport, and one of my jobs is to look at an electron, look at all of the ways that electron in a certain system can interact with that system, and then figure out a model that the experimentalists can use to figure out what the best parameters are for their design.   Other people do a lot more numerical simulations, and their day to day will look a lot more like sitting down at a computer, and coding up ways to visualise physics that we otherwise wouldn't be able to study, or, again, modelling experiments to help test and explore the physics.  Usually a lot of this is combined. You derive an equation, based on what we know, (this is where a lot of the traditional image of physicist at chalk board probably comes in, although we do that for all areas of physics) , you make some approximations (physicists love approximations), so that you can have a version of your equation that you can look at and go \"OK, if I make that number bigger, that number gets smaller, that means that this, this and this happens,\" so it's a quick way to see physical behaviour. Then, you can code up your full version and check to see how closely your approximations match, to make sure they're actually useful\/find out where they stop working etc.  I hope that answer wasn't too long winded and was actually helpful! Like I said, it's very subject dependent. This is my experience of theoretical physics so far (final year PhD student), but this might well differ for others!  Edit: some wording for clarity","human_ref_B":"This is like asking \"how can you be a professional baseball player if you aren't Barry Bonds if Barry Bonds was that much better than everybody else?\" Well, there are 750 roster slots, so 749 non-Barry-Bonds have to fill it. Discovering the Dirac equation wasn't the only thing to do in physics for the past 100 years. Things as \"unimportant\" as mentoring undergraduates still has to happen.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":775.0,"score_ratio":2.0833333333}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuyhgsu","c_root_id_B":"fuyhuay","created_at_utc_A":1592264722,"created_at_utc_B":1592264920,"score_A":21,"score_B":175,"human_ref_A":"Especially with the rise of computation modelling, there's pretty much and endless amount of things to be modelled in every niche of physics.  Then a smaller segment of physicist are still working on that more traditional theory, and hopefully their work will contribute to useful work.  For example, I've personally collaborated with the guy who made some materials predictions in my field.  Theory is alive an well, but the same as you hear about the Dr. Carson's doing groundbreaking surgery but not the local pediatricians, you'll hear about the Diracs and the Hawkings, but not the average theorist (also, if you're into the live's of great scientists, look into Greene and Majorana.  Both had significant contribution in very short, unorthodox careers with very interesting lives)","human_ref_B":"Hello, theoretical physics PhD student here!  I think this is a common misconception that there's a lot of sitting around thinking for theoretical physics, because we're not actually physically fiddling with experimental equipment and what not.  While, yes, a lot of thought has to go into what we're doing, you're right, we're not all having miraculous break throughs all the time (as much as we like to think we are!)  As for the day to day, it really depends on what area of physics you work in. One way it can work, is that someone will do an experiment, and there'll be some unexpected thing happening, or a result they can't explain. Along comes your friendly neighbourhood theoretical physicist, armed with a bunch of equations that we know *should* describe the system. We can then combine extra effects and try to derive an equation to explain what's being seen in the experiments.  Other times it works slightly differently. Maybe you want to know what parameters are actually useful to look at in an experiment. For example, I work in quantum transport, and one of my jobs is to look at an electron, look at all of the ways that electron in a certain system can interact with that system, and then figure out a model that the experimentalists can use to figure out what the best parameters are for their design.   Other people do a lot more numerical simulations, and their day to day will look a lot more like sitting down at a computer, and coding up ways to visualise physics that we otherwise wouldn't be able to study, or, again, modelling experiments to help test and explore the physics.  Usually a lot of this is combined. You derive an equation, based on what we know, (this is where a lot of the traditional image of physicist at chalk board probably comes in, although we do that for all areas of physics) , you make some approximations (physicists love approximations), so that you can have a version of your equation that you can look at and go \"OK, if I make that number bigger, that number gets smaller, that means that this, this and this happens,\" so it's a quick way to see physical behaviour. Then, you can code up your full version and check to see how closely your approximations match, to make sure they're actually useful\/find out where they stop working etc.  I hope that answer wasn't too long winded and was actually helpful! Like I said, it's very subject dependent. This is my experience of theoretical physics so far (final year PhD student), but this might well differ for others!  Edit: some wording for clarity","labels":0,"seconds_difference":198.0,"score_ratio":8.3333333333}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuz8lsi","c_root_id_B":"fuz9syd","created_at_utc_A":1592280671,"created_at_utc_B":1592281486,"score_A":21,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"Hello, PhD in Theoretical Physics here,   We basically send a lot of memes to my fellow PhD students while we are not sitting around and playing with equations.   When you mention Dirac, Feynman, Einstein, Landau or Fermi. These guys were in the golden ages where everything about the nature were being discovered such as the Standard Model, Quantum Electrodynamics, Higgs Mechanism and other things such as Supersymmetry Model (Which is extremely beautiful) but yet not accurate. So being a Physicist in this age, where most of the fundamentals are discovered, is basically digging deeper into the phenomena and trying to look at things from different points of view. Mainly running simulations and checking our own predictions and so forth.   Physics right now is like an onion with many layers and the old OG's discovered the main layer and we just need to dig deeper, thats why Fermi(or Landau) was considered the last Universal Physicist knowing everything, because right now you just simply can not do that.","human_ref_B":"This question has a very simple answer. The average theoretical physicist downloads a lot of pdfs on their computer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":815.0,"score_ratio":2.2857142857}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuz9syd","c_root_id_B":"fuyhgsu","created_at_utc_A":1592281486,"created_at_utc_B":1592264722,"score_A":48,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"This question has a very simple answer. The average theoretical physicist downloads a lot of pdfs on their computer.","human_ref_B":"Especially with the rise of computation modelling, there's pretty much and endless amount of things to be modelled in every niche of physics.  Then a smaller segment of physicist are still working on that more traditional theory, and hopefully their work will contribute to useful work.  For example, I've personally collaborated with the guy who made some materials predictions in my field.  Theory is alive an well, but the same as you hear about the Dr. Carson's doing groundbreaking surgery but not the local pediatricians, you'll hear about the Diracs and the Hawkings, but not the average theorist (also, if you're into the live's of great scientists, look into Greene and Majorana.  Both had significant contribution in very short, unorthodox careers with very interesting lives)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16764.0,"score_ratio":2.2857142857}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuyylxd","c_root_id_B":"fuz9syd","created_at_utc_A":1592274442,"created_at_utc_B":1592281486,"score_A":11,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"They beg for funding","human_ref_B":"This question has a very simple answer. The average theoretical physicist downloads a lot of pdfs on their computer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7044.0,"score_ratio":4.3636363636}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuz9syd","c_root_id_B":"fuynjel","created_at_utc_A":1592281486,"created_at_utc_B":1592268061,"score_A":48,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"This question has a very simple answer. The average theoretical physicist downloads a lot of pdfs on their computer.","human_ref_B":"I spend my time doing different things. Part of it is reading papers to get some new ideas. Part of it is working on something of my own and other part is working with collaborators. In this time this includes a lot of skype calls. I am not a genius like mr Dirac an I am very okay with it since there is nothing I can do about it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13425.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuykli2","c_root_id_B":"fuz9syd","created_at_utc_A":1592266402,"created_at_utc_B":1592281486,"score_A":5,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"i ran a lot of simulations. it's a lot of computer work. a LOT of coding.","human_ref_B":"This question has a very simple answer. The average theoretical physicist downloads a lot of pdfs on their computer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15084.0,"score_ratio":9.6}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuz9syd","c_root_id_B":"fuywh22","created_at_utc_A":1592281486,"created_at_utc_B":1592273192,"score_A":48,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This question has a very simple answer. The average theoretical physicist downloads a lot of pdfs on their computer.","human_ref_B":"As a student, calling myself a theoretical physicist is a bit of a stretch (more like a theorist-in-training), but I basically sit down and alternate between writing code and doing math. My particular research group is especially focused on developing new numerical tools for solving problems in relativity because the biggest problems of interest at the moment are really hard to model with existing tools.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8294.0,"score_ratio":9.6}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuz9syd","c_root_id_B":"fuz0ras","created_at_utc_A":1592281486,"created_at_utc_B":1592275713,"score_A":48,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"This question has a very simple answer. The average theoretical physicist downloads a lot of pdfs on their computer.","human_ref_B":"Snap necks and cash checks, bro!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5773.0,"score_ratio":8.0}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuyylxd","c_root_id_B":"fuz8lsi","created_at_utc_A":1592274442,"created_at_utc_B":1592280671,"score_A":11,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"They beg for funding","human_ref_B":"Hello, PhD in Theoretical Physics here,   We basically send a lot of memes to my fellow PhD students while we are not sitting around and playing with equations.   When you mention Dirac, Feynman, Einstein, Landau or Fermi. These guys were in the golden ages where everything about the nature were being discovered such as the Standard Model, Quantum Electrodynamics, Higgs Mechanism and other things such as Supersymmetry Model (Which is extremely beautiful) but yet not accurate. So being a Physicist in this age, where most of the fundamentals are discovered, is basically digging deeper into the phenomena and trying to look at things from different points of view. Mainly running simulations and checking our own predictions and so forth.   Physics right now is like an onion with many layers and the old OG's discovered the main layer and we just need to dig deeper, thats why Fermi(or Landau) was considered the last Universal Physicist knowing everything, because right now you just simply can not do that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6229.0,"score_ratio":1.9090909091}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuz8lsi","c_root_id_B":"fuynjel","created_at_utc_A":1592280671,"created_at_utc_B":1592268061,"score_A":21,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Hello, PhD in Theoretical Physics here,   We basically send a lot of memes to my fellow PhD students while we are not sitting around and playing with equations.   When you mention Dirac, Feynman, Einstein, Landau or Fermi. These guys were in the golden ages where everything about the nature were being discovered such as the Standard Model, Quantum Electrodynamics, Higgs Mechanism and other things such as Supersymmetry Model (Which is extremely beautiful) but yet not accurate. So being a Physicist in this age, where most of the fundamentals are discovered, is basically digging deeper into the phenomena and trying to look at things from different points of view. Mainly running simulations and checking our own predictions and so forth.   Physics right now is like an onion with many layers and the old OG's discovered the main layer and we just need to dig deeper, thats why Fermi(or Landau) was considered the last Universal Physicist knowing everything, because right now you just simply can not do that.","human_ref_B":"I spend my time doing different things. Part of it is reading papers to get some new ideas. Part of it is working on something of my own and other part is working with collaborators. In this time this includes a lot of skype calls. I am not a genius like mr Dirac an I am very okay with it since there is nothing I can do about it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12610.0,"score_ratio":2.625}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuz8lsi","c_root_id_B":"fuykli2","created_at_utc_A":1592280671,"created_at_utc_B":1592266402,"score_A":21,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Hello, PhD in Theoretical Physics here,   We basically send a lot of memes to my fellow PhD students while we are not sitting around and playing with equations.   When you mention Dirac, Feynman, Einstein, Landau or Fermi. These guys were in the golden ages where everything about the nature were being discovered such as the Standard Model, Quantum Electrodynamics, Higgs Mechanism and other things such as Supersymmetry Model (Which is extremely beautiful) but yet not accurate. So being a Physicist in this age, where most of the fundamentals are discovered, is basically digging deeper into the phenomena and trying to look at things from different points of view. Mainly running simulations and checking our own predictions and so forth.   Physics right now is like an onion with many layers and the old OG's discovered the main layer and we just need to dig deeper, thats why Fermi(or Landau) was considered the last Universal Physicist knowing everything, because right now you just simply can not do that.","human_ref_B":"i ran a lot of simulations. it's a lot of computer work. a LOT of coding.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14269.0,"score_ratio":4.2}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuywh22","c_root_id_B":"fuz8lsi","created_at_utc_A":1592273192,"created_at_utc_B":1592280671,"score_A":5,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"As a student, calling myself a theoretical physicist is a bit of a stretch (more like a theorist-in-training), but I basically sit down and alternate between writing code and doing math. My particular research group is especially focused on developing new numerical tools for solving problems in relativity because the biggest problems of interest at the moment are really hard to model with existing tools.","human_ref_B":"Hello, PhD in Theoretical Physics here,   We basically send a lot of memes to my fellow PhD students while we are not sitting around and playing with equations.   When you mention Dirac, Feynman, Einstein, Landau or Fermi. These guys were in the golden ages where everything about the nature were being discovered such as the Standard Model, Quantum Electrodynamics, Higgs Mechanism and other things such as Supersymmetry Model (Which is extremely beautiful) but yet not accurate. So being a Physicist in this age, where most of the fundamentals are discovered, is basically digging deeper into the phenomena and trying to look at things from different points of view. Mainly running simulations and checking our own predictions and so forth.   Physics right now is like an onion with many layers and the old OG's discovered the main layer and we just need to dig deeper, thats why Fermi(or Landau) was considered the last Universal Physicist knowing everything, because right now you just simply can not do that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7479.0,"score_ratio":4.2}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuz8lsi","c_root_id_B":"fuz0ras","created_at_utc_A":1592280671,"created_at_utc_B":1592275713,"score_A":21,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Hello, PhD in Theoretical Physics here,   We basically send a lot of memes to my fellow PhD students while we are not sitting around and playing with equations.   When you mention Dirac, Feynman, Einstein, Landau or Fermi. These guys were in the golden ages where everything about the nature were being discovered such as the Standard Model, Quantum Electrodynamics, Higgs Mechanism and other things such as Supersymmetry Model (Which is extremely beautiful) but yet not accurate. So being a Physicist in this age, where most of the fundamentals are discovered, is basically digging deeper into the phenomena and trying to look at things from different points of view. Mainly running simulations and checking our own predictions and so forth.   Physics right now is like an onion with many layers and the old OG's discovered the main layer and we just need to dig deeper, thats why Fermi(or Landau) was considered the last Universal Physicist knowing everything, because right now you just simply can not do that.","human_ref_B":"Snap necks and cash checks, bro!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4958.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuyylxd","c_root_id_B":"fuynjel","created_at_utc_A":1592274442,"created_at_utc_B":1592268061,"score_A":11,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"They beg for funding","human_ref_B":"I spend my time doing different things. Part of it is reading papers to get some new ideas. Part of it is working on something of my own and other part is working with collaborators. In this time this includes a lot of skype calls. I am not a genius like mr Dirac an I am very okay with it since there is nothing I can do about it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6381.0,"score_ratio":1.375}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuykli2","c_root_id_B":"fuyylxd","created_at_utc_A":1592266402,"created_at_utc_B":1592274442,"score_A":5,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"i ran a lot of simulations. it's a lot of computer work. a LOT of coding.","human_ref_B":"They beg for funding","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8040.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuyylxd","c_root_id_B":"fuywh22","created_at_utc_A":1592274442,"created_at_utc_B":1592273192,"score_A":11,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"They beg for funding","human_ref_B":"As a student, calling myself a theoretical physicist is a bit of a stretch (more like a theorist-in-training), but I basically sit down and alternate between writing code and doing math. My particular research group is especially focused on developing new numerical tools for solving problems in relativity because the biggest problems of interest at the moment are really hard to model with existing tools.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1250.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuykli2","c_root_id_B":"fuynjel","created_at_utc_A":1592266402,"created_at_utc_B":1592268061,"score_A":5,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"i ran a lot of simulations. it's a lot of computer work. a LOT of coding.","human_ref_B":"I spend my time doing different things. Part of it is reading papers to get some new ideas. Part of it is working on something of my own and other part is working with collaborators. In this time this includes a lot of skype calls. I am not a genius like mr Dirac an I am very okay with it since there is nothing I can do about it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1659.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuzb6v7","c_root_id_B":"fuykli2","created_at_utc_A":1592282471,"created_at_utc_B":1592266402,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Empty the coffee mug","human_ref_B":"i ran a lot of simulations. it's a lot of computer work. a LOT of coding.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16069.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuzb6v7","c_root_id_B":"fuywh22","created_at_utc_A":1592282471,"created_at_utc_B":1592273192,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Empty the coffee mug","human_ref_B":"As a student, calling myself a theoretical physicist is a bit of a stretch (more like a theorist-in-training), but I basically sit down and alternate between writing code and doing math. My particular research group is especially focused on developing new numerical tools for solving problems in relativity because the biggest problems of interest at the moment are really hard to model with existing tools.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9279.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuz0ras","c_root_id_B":"fuzb6v7","created_at_utc_A":1592275713,"created_at_utc_B":1592282471,"score_A":6,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Snap necks and cash checks, bro!","human_ref_B":"Empty the coffee mug","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6758.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuzgz3a","c_root_id_B":"fuykli2","created_at_utc_A":1592286907,"created_at_utc_B":1592266402,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I'd encourage you to look at the titles of the articles in the latest issue of Modern Physics Letters A: https:\/\/www.worldscientific.com\/toc\/mpla\/current  This should give a feel for what regular physicists, particularly those doing more theoretical work, are doing.  Lets take the first one as an example: *New LHCb pentaquarks as hadrocharmonium states*  They propose some theoretical explanations for new pentaquark data from the LHC and do a compare\\contrast between them. It is this sort of iterative work that slowly chips away at the unknown that is the backbone of science.   The household names in physics are responsible for big paradigm shifts in understanding, however we have to remember that these people stand on the shoulders of those who came before them. The reason we had such a cluster of 'physics geniuses' in the 20th century was because physics was in a state where such leaps were possible. The geniuses were, in a sense, a product of the state of the field. Rather than vice-versa.","human_ref_B":"i ran a lot of simulations. it's a lot of computer work. a LOT of coding.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20505.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuzgz3a","c_root_id_B":"fuywh22","created_at_utc_A":1592286907,"created_at_utc_B":1592273192,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I'd encourage you to look at the titles of the articles in the latest issue of Modern Physics Letters A: https:\/\/www.worldscientific.com\/toc\/mpla\/current  This should give a feel for what regular physicists, particularly those doing more theoretical work, are doing.  Lets take the first one as an example: *New LHCb pentaquarks as hadrocharmonium states*  They propose some theoretical explanations for new pentaquark data from the LHC and do a compare\\contrast between them. It is this sort of iterative work that slowly chips away at the unknown that is the backbone of science.   The household names in physics are responsible for big paradigm shifts in understanding, however we have to remember that these people stand on the shoulders of those who came before them. The reason we had such a cluster of 'physics geniuses' in the 20th century was because physics was in a state where such leaps were possible. The geniuses were, in a sense, a product of the state of the field. Rather than vice-versa.","human_ref_B":"As a student, calling myself a theoretical physicist is a bit of a stretch (more like a theorist-in-training), but I basically sit down and alternate between writing code and doing math. My particular research group is especially focused on developing new numerical tools for solving problems in relativity because the biggest problems of interest at the moment are really hard to model with existing tools.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13715.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuz0ras","c_root_id_B":"fuzgz3a","created_at_utc_A":1592275713,"created_at_utc_B":1592286907,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Snap necks and cash checks, bro!","human_ref_B":"I'd encourage you to look at the titles of the articles in the latest issue of Modern Physics Letters A: https:\/\/www.worldscientific.com\/toc\/mpla\/current  This should give a feel for what regular physicists, particularly those doing more theoretical work, are doing.  Lets take the first one as an example: *New LHCb pentaquarks as hadrocharmonium states*  They propose some theoretical explanations for new pentaquark data from the LHC and do a compare\\contrast between them. It is this sort of iterative work that slowly chips away at the unknown that is the backbone of science.   The household names in physics are responsible for big paradigm shifts in understanding, however we have to remember that these people stand on the shoulders of those who came before them. The reason we had such a cluster of 'physics geniuses' in the 20th century was because physics was in a state where such leaps were possible. The geniuses were, in a sense, a product of the state of the field. Rather than vice-versa.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11194.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuykli2","c_root_id_B":"fuz0ras","created_at_utc_A":1592266402,"created_at_utc_B":1592275713,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"i ran a lot of simulations. it's a lot of computer work. a LOT of coding.","human_ref_B":"Snap necks and cash checks, bro!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9311.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"h9r2ii","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"What does an \"average\" theoretical physicist do? Hi - non-scientist who is really into physics.   Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was listening to a podcast about Paul Dirac and some physicists were talking about how his abilities and insight were so far beyond everyone else.  And it got be wondering, most physicists aren't making big breakthroughs\/aren't once in a generation geniuses.  Every profession has people of average ability and it is not hard to imagine an average doctor, plumber, etc.  But if your job is thinking about stuff, what do you do all day if you're just \"ok\" at it?","c_root_id_A":"fuywh22","c_root_id_B":"fuz0ras","created_at_utc_A":1592273192,"created_at_utc_B":1592275713,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"As a student, calling myself a theoretical physicist is a bit of a stretch (more like a theorist-in-training), but I basically sit down and alternate between writing code and doing math. My particular research group is especially focused on developing new numerical tools for solving problems in relativity because the biggest problems of interest at the moment are really hard to model with existing tools.","human_ref_B":"Snap necks and cash checks, bro!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2521.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"in1wk5","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I read that the \u201cobservable\u201d universe is 90 billion light years. If the universe is only 13.7 billion years old, how can we see something 90 billion light years away?","c_root_id_A":"g44lr9r","c_root_id_B":"g44kxos","created_at_utc_A":1599316346,"created_at_utc_B":1599315978,"score_A":119,"score_B":53,"human_ref_A":"We're seeing the light as it was 13.7 billion light years ago, so in a way, it \"appears\" to be 13.7 bly away. However, because the expansion of the universe is faster than light, it would *currently* be 90 bly away  Edit: 45 bly away, 90 bly is the diameter  Edit: What I meant was that objects far enough away appear to move away from us faster than light, as a previous comment showed","human_ref_B":"The reason for this is, that the universe is expanding.   So while the photons of the most distant structures were traveling towards us, space between us and those structures has been expanding. Thus, by the time the photons reach us, the sources of those photons are farther away than the calculation (travel time of photon · speed of light) would suggest.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":368.0,"score_ratio":2.2452830189}
{"post_id":"ixhgur","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Apples n peanut butter So I'm sittin here at like 12:30 at night eatin some apples and peanut butter because that's the healthy choice, right? Well I notice something and I've noticed it before but always just brushed it off as one of those great life mysteries. So of course I cut my apples into slices, and I notice that it's pretty easy to scoop up the peanut butter, like the corner of the apple gets in there and just scoops real nice. But then, I wanna rescoop. And the edge is flat now because I bit it. And the peanut butter doesn't scoop. It just pushes the peanut butter around. Why? It's not like any property of either changed, except the edge is flat. Why doesn't the peanut butter just stick to the flat edge? I'm wondering if when I bite it, more juice comes out and that's creating like a barrier. I'm not sure.  My solution to this is just to turn the apple around to the other pointy edge, but the question is still there. What do flat edges have against peanut butter???","c_root_id_A":"g66yv82","c_root_id_B":"g66v31b","created_at_utc_A":1600758273,"created_at_utc_B":1600754602,"score_A":67,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"I love this post lol  Some people in the thread seem to think that it's due to the moisture on the apple slice after you bite, but I don't think a bite would leave a significant amount of moisture, and apples are already pretty moist inside.  I think it's more likely due to a change in the geometry of the apple slices after you've taken a bite. Like I'm imagining you cut the apples into the little normal shaped slices, and grabbing up the peanut butter with a sharp edge of the slice, so it gets in there real good and nabs some sweet sweet peanut butter. It gets in deep because of the sharp edge, it creates more pressure causing the apple to penetrate deep into the peanut butter, so you can scoop it. But after you take a bite, you don't have as much of an edge, so the apple slice doesn't penetrate much into the peanut butter, so it can't get as much of a hold, so it just pushes it around.   If you want to test if it has anything to do with the moisture, and not the geometry like I think, you could try licking, but not biting, an apple slice and then trying to scoop. If it doesn't scoop, it's likely due to moisture. If it scoops just fine it's probably due to there being no edge.","human_ref_B":"Hmm this is quite a post I've stumbled on in the middle of the night. I would have to try this out for myself to better understand all the factors at play. I might guess that with the initial scoop, the apple slice simply goes deep enough to get more peanut butter stuck to it, as well as having more surface area for the peanut butter to stick to. With the second scoop you can't push the apple slice in as deeply for a nice big scoop as you did with this one.  I would recommend trying to scoop as deeply the second time as you did with the first scoop and seeing what happens. Of course since the end is no longer pointed it gets harder to scoop it in as deeply. If you want to check whether the juice is affecting things, try drying the apple slice before scooping again and see if that changes things.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3671.0,"score_ratio":2.3928571429}
{"post_id":"ixhgur","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Apples n peanut butter So I'm sittin here at like 12:30 at night eatin some apples and peanut butter because that's the healthy choice, right? Well I notice something and I've noticed it before but always just brushed it off as one of those great life mysteries. So of course I cut my apples into slices, and I notice that it's pretty easy to scoop up the peanut butter, like the corner of the apple gets in there and just scoops real nice. But then, I wanna rescoop. And the edge is flat now because I bit it. And the peanut butter doesn't scoop. It just pushes the peanut butter around. Why? It's not like any property of either changed, except the edge is flat. Why doesn't the peanut butter just stick to the flat edge? I'm wondering if when I bite it, more juice comes out and that's creating like a barrier. I'm not sure.  My solution to this is just to turn the apple around to the other pointy edge, but the question is still there. What do flat edges have against peanut butter???","c_root_id_A":"g66yv82","c_root_id_B":"g66vjrw","created_at_utc_A":1600758273,"created_at_utc_B":1600755037,"score_A":67,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I love this post lol  Some people in the thread seem to think that it's due to the moisture on the apple slice after you bite, but I don't think a bite would leave a significant amount of moisture, and apples are already pretty moist inside.  I think it's more likely due to a change in the geometry of the apple slices after you've taken a bite. Like I'm imagining you cut the apples into the little normal shaped slices, and grabbing up the peanut butter with a sharp edge of the slice, so it gets in there real good and nabs some sweet sweet peanut butter. It gets in deep because of the sharp edge, it creates more pressure causing the apple to penetrate deep into the peanut butter, so you can scoop it. But after you take a bite, you don't have as much of an edge, so the apple slice doesn't penetrate much into the peanut butter, so it can't get as much of a hold, so it just pushes it around.   If you want to test if it has anything to do with the moisture, and not the geometry like I think, you could try licking, but not biting, an apple slice and then trying to scoop. If it doesn't scoop, it's likely due to moisture. If it scoops just fine it's probably due to there being no edge.","human_ref_B":"My weak guess has always been that since the apple after you bite it is much more moist where you bit it, it is no longer as sticky, you could test this by wetting the apple slice before dipping. Though honestly i dont have high confidence in this, id leave it as a \"plausible\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3236.0,"score_ratio":13.4}
{"post_id":"ixhgur","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Apples n peanut butter So I'm sittin here at like 12:30 at night eatin some apples and peanut butter because that's the healthy choice, right? Well I notice something and I've noticed it before but always just brushed it off as one of those great life mysteries. So of course I cut my apples into slices, and I notice that it's pretty easy to scoop up the peanut butter, like the corner of the apple gets in there and just scoops real nice. But then, I wanna rescoop. And the edge is flat now because I bit it. And the peanut butter doesn't scoop. It just pushes the peanut butter around. Why? It's not like any property of either changed, except the edge is flat. Why doesn't the peanut butter just stick to the flat edge? I'm wondering if when I bite it, more juice comes out and that's creating like a barrier. I'm not sure.  My solution to this is just to turn the apple around to the other pointy edge, but the question is still there. What do flat edges have against peanut butter???","c_root_id_A":"g66vjrw","c_root_id_B":"g67c52z","created_at_utc_A":1600755037,"created_at_utc_B":1600773518,"score_A":5,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"My weak guess has always been that since the apple after you bite it is much more moist where you bit it, it is no longer as sticky, you could test this by wetting the apple slice before dipping. Though honestly i dont have high confidence in this, id leave it as a \"plausible\"","human_ref_B":"I have a few ideas:  1. The flat edge of the apple now has juice and saliva on it. The peanut butter may have trouble sticking to that.  2. The peanut butter is having a hard time gripping the apple. Peanut butter probably sticks to itself easier than the apple, so when you dip the sharp edge into the apple, it\u2019s able to pierce through and the peanut butter can grab on with self-stick force. This would be easiest when there\u2019s not a large area of apple to cover, allowing it to hold on with a lower tension. When you flatten the apple, the peanut butter has to reach around the entire edge to grab onto the apple.  3. This is your karma for double dipping, you sick freak.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18481.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
{"post_id":"ixhgur","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Apples n peanut butter So I'm sittin here at like 12:30 at night eatin some apples and peanut butter because that's the healthy choice, right? Well I notice something and I've noticed it before but always just brushed it off as one of those great life mysteries. So of course I cut my apples into slices, and I notice that it's pretty easy to scoop up the peanut butter, like the corner of the apple gets in there and just scoops real nice. But then, I wanna rescoop. And the edge is flat now because I bit it. And the peanut butter doesn't scoop. It just pushes the peanut butter around. Why? It's not like any property of either changed, except the edge is flat. Why doesn't the peanut butter just stick to the flat edge? I'm wondering if when I bite it, more juice comes out and that's creating like a barrier. I'm not sure.  My solution to this is just to turn the apple around to the other pointy edge, but the question is still there. What do flat edges have against peanut butter???","c_root_id_A":"g677xif","c_root_id_B":"g67c52z","created_at_utc_A":1600768978,"created_at_utc_B":1600773518,"score_A":4,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"It could very likely be due to the apple corner being sharper so there\u2019s more force per unit area against the peanut butter so it\u2019s easier to scoop with the corner. In comparison the flat edge has the force spread out over the edge so it\u2019s harder to scoop the peanut butter because of less force per unit area","human_ref_B":"I have a few ideas:  1. The flat edge of the apple now has juice and saliva on it. The peanut butter may have trouble sticking to that.  2. The peanut butter is having a hard time gripping the apple. Peanut butter probably sticks to itself easier than the apple, so when you dip the sharp edge into the apple, it\u2019s able to pierce through and the peanut butter can grab on with self-stick force. This would be easiest when there\u2019s not a large area of apple to cover, allowing it to hold on with a lower tension. When you flatten the apple, the peanut butter has to reach around the entire edge to grab onto the apple.  3. This is your karma for double dipping, you sick freak.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4540.0,"score_ratio":2.75}
{"post_id":"ixhgur","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Apples n peanut butter So I'm sittin here at like 12:30 at night eatin some apples and peanut butter because that's the healthy choice, right? Well I notice something and I've noticed it before but always just brushed it off as one of those great life mysteries. So of course I cut my apples into slices, and I notice that it's pretty easy to scoop up the peanut butter, like the corner of the apple gets in there and just scoops real nice. But then, I wanna rescoop. And the edge is flat now because I bit it. And the peanut butter doesn't scoop. It just pushes the peanut butter around. Why? It's not like any property of either changed, except the edge is flat. Why doesn't the peanut butter just stick to the flat edge? I'm wondering if when I bite it, more juice comes out and that's creating like a barrier. I'm not sure.  My solution to this is just to turn the apple around to the other pointy edge, but the question is still there. What do flat edges have against peanut butter???","c_root_id_A":"g6718e8","c_root_id_B":"g67c52z","created_at_utc_A":1600760842,"created_at_utc_B":1600773518,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"My guess would be that because it was a wedge at first it could push its way into the peanut butter easily as it could separate it, and once you bit it it was no longer a wedge so rather than stab in like it would before the bite the flat surface would push the peanut butter away, but I\u2019ll have to test this out when I can to confirm   Also I might add that I love this post","human_ref_B":"I have a few ideas:  1. The flat edge of the apple now has juice and saliva on it. The peanut butter may have trouble sticking to that.  2. The peanut butter is having a hard time gripping the apple. Peanut butter probably sticks to itself easier than the apple, so when you dip the sharp edge into the apple, it\u2019s able to pierce through and the peanut butter can grab on with self-stick force. This would be easiest when there\u2019s not a large area of apple to cover, allowing it to hold on with a lower tension. When you flatten the apple, the peanut butter has to reach around the entire edge to grab onto the apple.  3. This is your karma for double dipping, you sick freak.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12676.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
{"post_id":"ixhgur","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Apples n peanut butter So I'm sittin here at like 12:30 at night eatin some apples and peanut butter because that's the healthy choice, right? Well I notice something and I've noticed it before but always just brushed it off as one of those great life mysteries. So of course I cut my apples into slices, and I notice that it's pretty easy to scoop up the peanut butter, like the corner of the apple gets in there and just scoops real nice. But then, I wanna rescoop. And the edge is flat now because I bit it. And the peanut butter doesn't scoop. It just pushes the peanut butter around. Why? It's not like any property of either changed, except the edge is flat. Why doesn't the peanut butter just stick to the flat edge? I'm wondering if when I bite it, more juice comes out and that's creating like a barrier. I'm not sure.  My solution to this is just to turn the apple around to the other pointy edge, but the question is still there. What do flat edges have against peanut butter???","c_root_id_A":"g67c52z","c_root_id_B":"g674t23","created_at_utc_A":1600773518,"created_at_utc_B":1600765158,"score_A":11,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I have a few ideas:  1. The flat edge of the apple now has juice and saliva on it. The peanut butter may have trouble sticking to that.  2. The peanut butter is having a hard time gripping the apple. Peanut butter probably sticks to itself easier than the apple, so when you dip the sharp edge into the apple, it\u2019s able to pierce through and the peanut butter can grab on with self-stick force. This would be easiest when there\u2019s not a large area of apple to cover, allowing it to hold on with a lower tension. When you flatten the apple, the peanut butter has to reach around the entire edge to grab onto the apple.  3. This is your karma for double dipping, you sick freak.","human_ref_B":"if u scoop the peanut butter so that the peanut butter lies on top of the skin of the apple, there is a difference in both difficult of scooping and amount scooped when compared to scooping the peanut butter so it lies on the fleshy inside of the apple.  i think this may be due to the wax layer that some apples are coated with during processing. even without the wax though, there is a clear difference between the texture and material of the skin and the inside of the apple.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8360.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
{"post_id":"ixhgur","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Apples n peanut butter So I'm sittin here at like 12:30 at night eatin some apples and peanut butter because that's the healthy choice, right? Well I notice something and I've noticed it before but always just brushed it off as one of those great life mysteries. So of course I cut my apples into slices, and I notice that it's pretty easy to scoop up the peanut butter, like the corner of the apple gets in there and just scoops real nice. But then, I wanna rescoop. And the edge is flat now because I bit it. And the peanut butter doesn't scoop. It just pushes the peanut butter around. Why? It's not like any property of either changed, except the edge is flat. Why doesn't the peanut butter just stick to the flat edge? I'm wondering if when I bite it, more juice comes out and that's creating like a barrier. I'm not sure.  My solution to this is just to turn the apple around to the other pointy edge, but the question is still there. What do flat edges have against peanut butter???","c_root_id_A":"g677xif","c_root_id_B":"g6718e8","created_at_utc_A":1600768978,"created_at_utc_B":1600760842,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It could very likely be due to the apple corner being sharper so there\u2019s more force per unit area against the peanut butter so it\u2019s easier to scoop with the corner. In comparison the flat edge has the force spread out over the edge so it\u2019s harder to scoop the peanut butter because of less force per unit area","human_ref_B":"My guess would be that because it was a wedge at first it could push its way into the peanut butter easily as it could separate it, and once you bit it it was no longer a wedge so rather than stab in like it would before the bite the flat surface would push the peanut butter away, but I\u2019ll have to test this out when I can to confirm   Also I might add that I love this post","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8136.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"ixhgur","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Apples n peanut butter So I'm sittin here at like 12:30 at night eatin some apples and peanut butter because that's the healthy choice, right? Well I notice something and I've noticed it before but always just brushed it off as one of those great life mysteries. So of course I cut my apples into slices, and I notice that it's pretty easy to scoop up the peanut butter, like the corner of the apple gets in there and just scoops real nice. But then, I wanna rescoop. And the edge is flat now because I bit it. And the peanut butter doesn't scoop. It just pushes the peanut butter around. Why? It's not like any property of either changed, except the edge is flat. Why doesn't the peanut butter just stick to the flat edge? I'm wondering if when I bite it, more juice comes out and that's creating like a barrier. I'm not sure.  My solution to this is just to turn the apple around to the other pointy edge, but the question is still there. What do flat edges have against peanut butter???","c_root_id_A":"g674t23","c_root_id_B":"g677xif","created_at_utc_A":1600765158,"created_at_utc_B":1600768978,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"if u scoop the peanut butter so that the peanut butter lies on top of the skin of the apple, there is a difference in both difficult of scooping and amount scooped when compared to scooping the peanut butter so it lies on the fleshy inside of the apple.  i think this may be due to the wax layer that some apples are coated with during processing. even without the wax though, there is a clear difference between the texture and material of the skin and the inside of the apple.","human_ref_B":"It could very likely be due to the apple corner being sharper so there\u2019s more force per unit area against the peanut butter so it\u2019s easier to scoop with the corner. In comparison the flat edge has the force spread out over the edge so it\u2019s harder to scoop the peanut butter because of less force per unit area","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3820.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"ixhgur","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Apples n peanut butter So I'm sittin here at like 12:30 at night eatin some apples and peanut butter because that's the healthy choice, right? Well I notice something and I've noticed it before but always just brushed it off as one of those great life mysteries. So of course I cut my apples into slices, and I notice that it's pretty easy to scoop up the peanut butter, like the corner of the apple gets in there and just scoops real nice. But then, I wanna rescoop. And the edge is flat now because I bit it. And the peanut butter doesn't scoop. It just pushes the peanut butter around. Why? It's not like any property of either changed, except the edge is flat. Why doesn't the peanut butter just stick to the flat edge? I'm wondering if when I bite it, more juice comes out and that's creating like a barrier. I'm not sure.  My solution to this is just to turn the apple around to the other pointy edge, but the question is still there. What do flat edges have against peanut butter???","c_root_id_A":"g6809yq","c_root_id_B":"g67lmba","created_at_utc_A":1600788695,"created_at_utc_B":1600780717,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Try biting the apple slice into a point.","human_ref_B":"Probably the same reason why a sharp knife would cut you but a blunt object wouldnt","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7978.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ixhgur","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Apples n peanut butter So I'm sittin here at like 12:30 at night eatin some apples and peanut butter because that's the healthy choice, right? Well I notice something and I've noticed it before but always just brushed it off as one of those great life mysteries. So of course I cut my apples into slices, and I notice that it's pretty easy to scoop up the peanut butter, like the corner of the apple gets in there and just scoops real nice. But then, I wanna rescoop. And the edge is flat now because I bit it. And the peanut butter doesn't scoop. It just pushes the peanut butter around. Why? It's not like any property of either changed, except the edge is flat. Why doesn't the peanut butter just stick to the flat edge? I'm wondering if when I bite it, more juice comes out and that's creating like a barrier. I'm not sure.  My solution to this is just to turn the apple around to the other pointy edge, but the question is still there. What do flat edges have against peanut butter???","c_root_id_A":"g6809yq","c_root_id_B":"g67my7u","created_at_utc_A":1600788695,"created_at_utc_B":1600781540,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Try biting the apple slice into a point.","human_ref_B":"I love the original question, so I tested it out myself.   I got an apple from our own garden (so no unknown substances on the peel) and cut it into pieces.   It seems to me that the peanut butter tends to stick primarily on the peel, which is easily done with an fresh piece. After your bit, the exposed part of the apple (to the peanut butter) is mostly the inside, within the pool. And it doesn't stick as well on the inside.   That is why the first grab is always more \"successful\" than your second round. I don't know why it sticks better on the peel. It may have to do with the hydrophobic property of the peel. You see, it is made to repel water, instead of it sticking on the apple. One of the main components of peanut butter is fat. Fat sticks to the peel, so does peanut butter.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7155.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ixhgur","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Apples n peanut butter So I'm sittin here at like 12:30 at night eatin some apples and peanut butter because that's the healthy choice, right? Well I notice something and I've noticed it before but always just brushed it off as one of those great life mysteries. So of course I cut my apples into slices, and I notice that it's pretty easy to scoop up the peanut butter, like the corner of the apple gets in there and just scoops real nice. But then, I wanna rescoop. And the edge is flat now because I bit it. And the peanut butter doesn't scoop. It just pushes the peanut butter around. Why? It's not like any property of either changed, except the edge is flat. Why doesn't the peanut butter just stick to the flat edge? I'm wondering if when I bite it, more juice comes out and that's creating like a barrier. I'm not sure.  My solution to this is just to turn the apple around to the other pointy edge, but the question is still there. What do flat edges have against peanut butter???","c_root_id_A":"g67vi2r","c_root_id_B":"g6809yq","created_at_utc_A":1600786273,"created_at_utc_B":1600788695,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This is my favorite snack and I too have contemplated the properties of peanut butter and apples. I\u2019m a fan of the Granny Smith and Jif Natural Creamy, from my experiments I concluded that the problem was both geometry and apple juice. The solution is to stand at the counter, and load the Apple with the peanut butter via knife and shovel it quickly into your mouth like a PROPER late night snacker","human_ref_B":"Try biting the apple slice into a point.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2422.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"jn6f1q","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"If temperature is the movement of small molecules and atoms, is there a way to convert C\u00b0 to m\/s?","c_root_id_A":"gaziohm","c_root_id_B":"gazjrev","created_at_utc_A":1604390750,"created_at_utc_B":1604391835,"score_A":12,"score_B":136,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Kinetic\\_theory\\_of\\_gases#Speed\\_of\\_molecules","human_ref_B":"Yes, we can for example relate the tempetature to the average speed, and the temperature has to be measured in Kelvin, K. Let's just consider an ideal gas, because that's easiest. There's N particles in the gas, which has a temperature T, measured in kelvin. The gas has internal energy U = f\/2*NkT, where k is Boltzmann's constant and f is the number of square degrees of freedom. (This is the equipartition theorem). f is a bit hard to explain, but for air with mostly oxygen and nitrogen f = 5. So U = 5\/2 NkT.   Let's say the gas particles have an average mass of m and are moving at an average speed of v. The kinetic energy of N such atoms will be K = 1\/2 Nmv^2. If we then assume that all the internal energy of the gas comes from the kinetic energy of the particles, then  K = U  Rearranging this equation a bit gives  v = sqrt(5kT\/m)  So the average speed is directly related to the temperature. But there's some subtly issues with this naive derivation, the first being the value of f. So f can kind of intuitively be thought of as the number of ways a molecule can store energy. There's some translational ways of storing enerrgy: kinetic energy, but the molecule can also rotate, for which there's an associated energy. When assuming f = 5 I've assumed the molecules can rotate, but this isn't necessarily true at the given temperature. So for low temperatures f = 3, and the average speed is then instead  v = sqrt(3kT\/m)  You can also look up the Maxwell-Boltzmann speed distribution.  Edit: What I've called \"average speed\" here actually corresponds to what's normally called the root mean square speed, but for these purposes it doesn't hugely matter.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1085.0,"score_ratio":11.3333333333}
{"post_id":"m0wyhw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"If I were floating in space moving away from the sun, how far would I have to get before I can't see my own hand? I was thinking about floating in space, and how you would technically be able to see the shadow of your hand as it blocked out stars behind it. But then that got me thinking how far away from the sun you would have to be in order for it to be basically pitch black.","c_root_id_A":"gqaftqq","c_root_id_B":"gqabpw5","created_at_utc_A":1615260584,"created_at_utc_B":1615258299,"score_A":105,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Ignoring all other stars, you could calculate this for the sun by looking at the total solar flux and considering that the iris is roughly 1 mm radius with sensitivity roughly \\~50 photons\/second. As a first approximation I'd just assume all the suns photons are visible and ignore wavelength dependence. A quick search didn't find total solar flux but this must be well known, I'll check later if I remember.  Nevermind I found a number: this says 10\\^45 photons per second emitted from sun. With 50 photons\/second eye sensitivity and 1mm iris radius this gives a distance of 2 x 10^(18) meters, \\~500,000 times further out than pluto if my math is correct. So really really freaking far out there. And since not all these photons are detectable by eye, the actual distance ~~would be even further.~~ Wait no the distance would be closer, this approximation gives an upper limit on the distance.","human_ref_B":"Thats a good question  Damn im going to be thinking about this all night","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2285.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"j2kztz","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Do you find philosophy and art to be useful for physics? The early inventors of scientific and mathematic concepts usually did so without any apparent delineation from god and philosophy. This trend continues up until the 18th to 19th century or so, (early enlightenment) with big names such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler and the like still mixing religion and philosophy with science.   Today there is a very obvious and stark differentiation that we can all readily point to. However, many great scientists (Einstein being the prime example) have still remarked as having found philosophy to be tremendously useful, perhaps even necessary to know.   For you, has philosophy, the arts, god, or any such subject been at all helpful?","c_root_id_A":"g763wzf","c_root_id_B":"g763p38","created_at_utc_A":1601472581,"created_at_utc_B":1601472446,"score_A":50,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I find philosophy very helpful. There is an entire field of philosophy of physics, and philosophy of mathematics as well. Some concepts, such as falsifiability, may seem evident, because our whole education is built on that framework and we cannot imagine science in other way. But it was very helpful to structure my worldview by reading  relevant textbooks. I also find philosophy helpful to shape my internal acceptance  of quantum mechanics and general relativity.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019d say so. It helps you think outside the box and view things from a different perspective","labels":1,"seconds_difference":135.0,"score_ratio":2.7777777778}
{"post_id":"j2kztz","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Do you find philosophy and art to be useful for physics? The early inventors of scientific and mathematic concepts usually did so without any apparent delineation from god and philosophy. This trend continues up until the 18th to 19th century or so, (early enlightenment) with big names such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler and the like still mixing religion and philosophy with science.   Today there is a very obvious and stark differentiation that we can all readily point to. However, many great scientists (Einstein being the prime example) have still remarked as having found philosophy to be tremendously useful, perhaps even necessary to know.   For you, has philosophy, the arts, god, or any such subject been at all helpful?","c_root_id_A":"g763wzf","c_root_id_B":"g7615x7","created_at_utc_A":1601472581,"created_at_utc_B":1601470927,"score_A":50,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I find philosophy very helpful. There is an entire field of philosophy of physics, and philosophy of mathematics as well. Some concepts, such as falsifiability, may seem evident, because our whole education is built on that framework and we cannot imagine science in other way. But it was very helpful to structure my worldview by reading  relevant textbooks. I also find philosophy helpful to shape my internal acceptance  of quantum mechanics and general relativity.","human_ref_B":"I'd have to say no.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1654.0,"score_ratio":4.1666666667}
{"post_id":"j2kztz","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Do you find philosophy and art to be useful for physics? The early inventors of scientific and mathematic concepts usually did so without any apparent delineation from god and philosophy. This trend continues up until the 18th to 19th century or so, (early enlightenment) with big names such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler and the like still mixing religion and philosophy with science.   Today there is a very obvious and stark differentiation that we can all readily point to. However, many great scientists (Einstein being the prime example) have still remarked as having found philosophy to be tremendously useful, perhaps even necessary to know.   For you, has philosophy, the arts, god, or any such subject been at all helpful?","c_root_id_A":"g763p38","c_root_id_B":"g7615x7","created_at_utc_A":1601472446,"created_at_utc_B":1601470927,"score_A":18,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019d say so. It helps you think outside the box and view things from a different perspective","human_ref_B":"I'd have to say no.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1519.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"j2kztz","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Do you find philosophy and art to be useful for physics? The early inventors of scientific and mathematic concepts usually did so without any apparent delineation from god and philosophy. This trend continues up until the 18th to 19th century or so, (early enlightenment) with big names such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler and the like still mixing religion and philosophy with science.   Today there is a very obvious and stark differentiation that we can all readily point to. However, many great scientists (Einstein being the prime example) have still remarked as having found philosophy to be tremendously useful, perhaps even necessary to know.   For you, has philosophy, the arts, god, or any such subject been at all helpful?","c_root_id_A":"g764pke","c_root_id_B":"g764h0j","created_at_utc_A":1601473070,"created_at_utc_B":1601472925,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Obviously, philosophy of science still applies in ways like deciding what it means for an idea to be scientific and how to verify or falsify it. Not only does the philosophy of logic have some overlap there, it also concerns mathematical logic.  I think religion and the arts are more a part of culture than anything. I guess they're indirectly related to physics insofar as one's cultural background influences their views and how they think. Now the question of whether or not they've been \"helpful,\" becomes very complicated. You'll have to come up with a specific definition of \"helpful\" as it relates to the progress of science and delve into the complexities of various cultures.","human_ref_B":"IMO philosophy is helpful, but obviously not all of it. Ethics is not particularly useful, for example. Philosophy of science, however, is. It's the basis as to why we deem physics itself useful. Of course, this is useful only in the theoretical sense. In practice, you can be a perfectly good physicist without having any idea about it.  Arts, religion, literature... they can be inspirational, but I wouldn't say they are useful.  EDIT: Also, a quote from Paul Feyerabend (not necessarily saying I agree with it): \u201cThe withdrawal of philosophy into a \"professional\" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schr\u00f6dinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth \u2013 and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending.\u201d","labels":1,"seconds_difference":145.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"j2kztz","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Do you find philosophy and art to be useful for physics? The early inventors of scientific and mathematic concepts usually did so without any apparent delineation from god and philosophy. This trend continues up until the 18th to 19th century or so, (early enlightenment) with big names such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler and the like still mixing religion and philosophy with science.   Today there is a very obvious and stark differentiation that we can all readily point to. However, many great scientists (Einstein being the prime example) have still remarked as having found philosophy to be tremendously useful, perhaps even necessary to know.   For you, has philosophy, the arts, god, or any such subject been at all helpful?","c_root_id_A":"g768dt4","c_root_id_B":"g76zzv7","created_at_utc_A":1601475225,"created_at_utc_B":1601487231,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Personally, I've found philosophy (or at least, the associated skill of applying rigorous logical reasoning to problems that aren't purely mathematical) to be extremely useful, especially in working through the conceptual aspects of stuff like QM and relativity.","human_ref_B":"Can't really say the responses and voting in these answers is reflective of my experiences in physics. I'd say the majority of individuals I've been around in the field don't view philosophy and art very positively.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12006.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"j2kztz","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Do you find philosophy and art to be useful for physics? The early inventors of scientific and mathematic concepts usually did so without any apparent delineation from god and philosophy. This trend continues up until the 18th to 19th century or so, (early enlightenment) with big names such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler and the like still mixing religion and philosophy with science.   Today there is a very obvious and stark differentiation that we can all readily point to. However, many great scientists (Einstein being the prime example) have still remarked as having found philosophy to be tremendously useful, perhaps even necessary to know.   For you, has philosophy, the arts, god, or any such subject been at all helpful?","c_root_id_A":"g76c7jb","c_root_id_B":"g76zzv7","created_at_utc_A":1601477304,"created_at_utc_B":1601487231,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"god? Absolutely not. Philosophy? Yes. Especially when it comes to quantum","human_ref_B":"Can't really say the responses and voting in these answers is reflective of my experiences in physics. I'd say the majority of individuals I've been around in the field don't view philosophy and art very positively.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9927.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"j2kztz","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Do you find philosophy and art to be useful for physics? The early inventors of scientific and mathematic concepts usually did so without any apparent delineation from god and philosophy. This trend continues up until the 18th to 19th century or so, (early enlightenment) with big names such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler and the like still mixing religion and philosophy with science.   Today there is a very obvious and stark differentiation that we can all readily point to. However, many great scientists (Einstein being the prime example) have still remarked as having found philosophy to be tremendously useful, perhaps even necessary to know.   For you, has philosophy, the arts, god, or any such subject been at all helpful?","c_root_id_A":"g76esfv","c_root_id_B":"g76zzv7","created_at_utc_A":1601478606,"created_at_utc_B":1601487231,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It depends on your exact definition of these terms.  If you define philosophy very generally as some people do as just the thought and assumptions behind anything, then yeah that is essential to any field.  If you mean actual philosophy classes, then I would say no and I took quite a lot of them.","human_ref_B":"Can't really say the responses and voting in these answers is reflective of my experiences in physics. I'd say the majority of individuals I've been around in the field don't view philosophy and art very positively.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8625.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"j2kztz","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Do you find philosophy and art to be useful for physics? The early inventors of scientific and mathematic concepts usually did so without any apparent delineation from god and philosophy. This trend continues up until the 18th to 19th century or so, (early enlightenment) with big names such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler and the like still mixing religion and philosophy with science.   Today there is a very obvious and stark differentiation that we can all readily point to. However, many great scientists (Einstein being the prime example) have still remarked as having found philosophy to be tremendously useful, perhaps even necessary to know.   For you, has philosophy, the arts, god, or any such subject been at all helpful?","c_root_id_A":"g76uocz","c_root_id_B":"g76zzv7","created_at_utc_A":1601485130,"created_at_utc_B":1601487231,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I'd say yes to philosophy.  And yes to art, in so much as the really great physicists\/mathematicians are totally using their creative brain in their works.  They have such mastery of math and statistical mechanics and the like, that they apply those tools as an artist would apply paint to a canvas.","human_ref_B":"Can't really say the responses and voting in these answers is reflective of my experiences in physics. I'd say the majority of individuals I've been around in the field don't view philosophy and art very positively.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2101.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6dumi","c_root_id_B":"fe6g4rd","created_at_utc_A":1578888002,"created_at_utc_B":1578889873,"score_A":13,"score_B":96,"human_ref_A":"Physics is the next step in just about every field. Most fields are waiting on better physics for their breakthroughs.  I really want to do my grad school in physics but other physics phds told me not to so im going to make it my side focus in my research.","human_ref_B":"\u201cPhysics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.\u201d  -Richard P. Feynman","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1871.0,"score_ratio":7.3846153846}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6cb52","c_root_id_B":"fe6g4rd","created_at_utc_A":1578886809,"created_at_utc_B":1578889873,"score_A":13,"score_B":96,"human_ref_A":"The applications will be far in the future.  For example, many similarly thought studying electricity was a waste of time. Now it\u2019s fundamental to society.","human_ref_B":"\u201cPhysics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.\u201d  -Richard P. Feynman","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3064.0,"score_ratio":7.3846153846}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6apgu","c_root_id_B":"fe6g4rd","created_at_utc_A":1578885628,"created_at_utc_B":1578889873,"score_A":9,"score_B":96,"human_ref_A":"Yes, that's why I'm choosing to study condensed matter\/AMO. My goal is to make the world better via direct action, so I hope to research and develop with a company or organization where that's the goal.","human_ref_B":"\u201cPhysics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.\u201d  -Richard P. Feynman","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4245.0,"score_ratio":10.6666666667}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6dumi","c_root_id_B":"fe6jnrf","created_at_utc_A":1578888002,"created_at_utc_B":1578893070,"score_A":13,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"Physics is the next step in just about every field. Most fields are waiting on better physics for their breakthroughs.  I really want to do my grad school in physics but other physics phds told me not to so im going to make it my side focus in my research.","human_ref_B":"I believe that it's very difficult (or in fact stupid) to predict what a particular field in physics might develop into in the future. A lot of ideas, when they were proposed for the first time, were frowned upon by the experts mostly because they thought that there's were not practical enough.   To demonstrate how indeterministic these processes are, I would like to give you an example in particle physics itself! The world wide web was developed by Tim Berners-lee when he was working in CERN. Even though it had nothing to do with the millions of processes that go on at the LHC, the discovery revolutionized our lives!  Another brilliant example is that of Einstein. He developed the theory of general relativity, not with the intention of making GPS satellites work but to find the right set of transformations that the Maxwell's equations were invariant under in both inertial as well as non-inertial frame of references. It's staggering that something that is so disconnected from our day to day life can make such a huge difference in the future.  The bottom line is - work in whatever you think is interesting! If you are good at it, you will make progress. One thing that I find people underappreciate is the value of steady progress, no matter how small it is. Rome wasn't built in a day! What we are doing is that we are adding more and more points to our database and one day we might reach the critical mass required to  do something astonishing. So buckle up... it's gonna be a bumpy ride. But it's worth it!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5068.0,"score_ratio":3.6153846154}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6cb52","c_root_id_B":"fe6jnrf","created_at_utc_A":1578886809,"created_at_utc_B":1578893070,"score_A":13,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"The applications will be far in the future.  For example, many similarly thought studying electricity was a waste of time. Now it\u2019s fundamental to society.","human_ref_B":"I believe that it's very difficult (or in fact stupid) to predict what a particular field in physics might develop into in the future. A lot of ideas, when they were proposed for the first time, were frowned upon by the experts mostly because they thought that there's were not practical enough.   To demonstrate how indeterministic these processes are, I would like to give you an example in particle physics itself! The world wide web was developed by Tim Berners-lee when he was working in CERN. Even though it had nothing to do with the millions of processes that go on at the LHC, the discovery revolutionized our lives!  Another brilliant example is that of Einstein. He developed the theory of general relativity, not with the intention of making GPS satellites work but to find the right set of transformations that the Maxwell's equations were invariant under in both inertial as well as non-inertial frame of references. It's staggering that something that is so disconnected from our day to day life can make such a huge difference in the future.  The bottom line is - work in whatever you think is interesting! If you are good at it, you will make progress. One thing that I find people underappreciate is the value of steady progress, no matter how small it is. Rome wasn't built in a day! What we are doing is that we are adding more and more points to our database and one day we might reach the critical mass required to  do something astonishing. So buckle up... it's gonna be a bumpy ride. But it's worth it!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6261.0,"score_ratio":3.6153846154}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6jnrf","c_root_id_B":"fe6apgu","created_at_utc_A":1578893070,"created_at_utc_B":1578885628,"score_A":47,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I believe that it's very difficult (or in fact stupid) to predict what a particular field in physics might develop into in the future. A lot of ideas, when they were proposed for the first time, were frowned upon by the experts mostly because they thought that there's were not practical enough.   To demonstrate how indeterministic these processes are, I would like to give you an example in particle physics itself! The world wide web was developed by Tim Berners-lee when he was working in CERN. Even though it had nothing to do with the millions of processes that go on at the LHC, the discovery revolutionized our lives!  Another brilliant example is that of Einstein. He developed the theory of general relativity, not with the intention of making GPS satellites work but to find the right set of transformations that the Maxwell's equations were invariant under in both inertial as well as non-inertial frame of references. It's staggering that something that is so disconnected from our day to day life can make such a huge difference in the future.  The bottom line is - work in whatever you think is interesting! If you are good at it, you will make progress. One thing that I find people underappreciate is the value of steady progress, no matter how small it is. Rome wasn't built in a day! What we are doing is that we are adding more and more points to our database and one day we might reach the critical mass required to  do something astonishing. So buckle up... it's gonna be a bumpy ride. But it's worth it!","human_ref_B":"Yes, that's why I'm choosing to study condensed matter\/AMO. My goal is to make the world better via direct action, so I hope to research and develop with a company or organization where that's the goal.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7442.0,"score_ratio":5.2222222222}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6j954","c_root_id_B":"fe6jnrf","created_at_utc_A":1578892678,"created_at_utc_B":1578893070,"score_A":5,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"i think this is an important question that deserves attention.  one thing which has made me feel more confident in my choice to do physics is the belief that there is already a lot of talent in efforts to fight climate change and that issues are political.   i have recently pondered the related question on whether a work environment is healthier if there's a clearly noble purpose. i haven't really found much evidence to suggest that that's true, based on the anecdotal evidence i collect. the person who is happiest with their job that i know is a nurse practitioner. the least happy was a teacher. i suspect that workplace happiness is moreso related to work\/life balance and good compensation.   i fundamentally believe that exploring curiosity and fundamental questions is important and that humans aren't just here to engineer better experiences.  i have a phd in physics fwiw!","human_ref_B":"I believe that it's very difficult (or in fact stupid) to predict what a particular field in physics might develop into in the future. A lot of ideas, when they were proposed for the first time, were frowned upon by the experts mostly because they thought that there's were not practical enough.   To demonstrate how indeterministic these processes are, I would like to give you an example in particle physics itself! The world wide web was developed by Tim Berners-lee when he was working in CERN. Even though it had nothing to do with the millions of processes that go on at the LHC, the discovery revolutionized our lives!  Another brilliant example is that of Einstein. He developed the theory of general relativity, not with the intention of making GPS satellites work but to find the right set of transformations that the Maxwell's equations were invariant under in both inertial as well as non-inertial frame of references. It's staggering that something that is so disconnected from our day to day life can make such a huge difference in the future.  The bottom line is - work in whatever you think is interesting! If you are good at it, you will make progress. One thing that I find people underappreciate is the value of steady progress, no matter how small it is. Rome wasn't built in a day! What we are doing is that we are adding more and more points to our database and one day we might reach the critical mass required to  do something astonishing. So buckle up... it's gonna be a bumpy ride. But it's worth it!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":392.0,"score_ratio":9.4}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6jnrf","c_root_id_B":"fe6hl8e","created_at_utc_A":1578893070,"created_at_utc_B":1578891136,"score_A":47,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I believe that it's very difficult (or in fact stupid) to predict what a particular field in physics might develop into in the future. A lot of ideas, when they were proposed for the first time, were frowned upon by the experts mostly because they thought that there's were not practical enough.   To demonstrate how indeterministic these processes are, I would like to give you an example in particle physics itself! The world wide web was developed by Tim Berners-lee when he was working in CERN. Even though it had nothing to do with the millions of processes that go on at the LHC, the discovery revolutionized our lives!  Another brilliant example is that of Einstein. He developed the theory of general relativity, not with the intention of making GPS satellites work but to find the right set of transformations that the Maxwell's equations were invariant under in both inertial as well as non-inertial frame of references. It's staggering that something that is so disconnected from our day to day life can make such a huge difference in the future.  The bottom line is - work in whatever you think is interesting! If you are good at it, you will make progress. One thing that I find people underappreciate is the value of steady progress, no matter how small it is. Rome wasn't built in a day! What we are doing is that we are adding more and more points to our database and one day we might reach the critical mass required to  do something astonishing. So buckle up... it's gonna be a bumpy ride. But it's worth it!","human_ref_B":"Current physics phd here, 2 months away from the dissertation defense  The purpose of arts and sciences is not to make \"the world\" a better place! \"The world\" is already a great place, (like a lot better than any anxious boy with an A in calculus class can make it)  and arts and sciences allow us to understand it!   Engineering and other professional degrees are not about enjoying the beauty of the world - they want to be a useful part in factory called society, which is rather insignificant part of \"the world\"  Read Anderson's More is Different 1972 and if that doesn't excite you about the workings of \"the world\", just do one of the engineerings and get a job at making the world a better place. Like at google or ExxonMobil","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1934.0,"score_ratio":23.5}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6dumi","c_root_id_B":"fe6apgu","created_at_utc_A":1578888002,"created_at_utc_B":1578885628,"score_A":13,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Physics is the next step in just about every field. Most fields are waiting on better physics for their breakthroughs.  I really want to do my grad school in physics but other physics phds told me not to so im going to make it my side focus in my research.","human_ref_B":"Yes, that's why I'm choosing to study condensed matter\/AMO. My goal is to make the world better via direct action, so I hope to research and develop with a company or organization where that's the goal.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2374.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6cb52","c_root_id_B":"fe6apgu","created_at_utc_A":1578886809,"created_at_utc_B":1578885628,"score_A":13,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The applications will be far in the future.  For example, many similarly thought studying electricity was a waste of time. Now it\u2019s fundamental to society.","human_ref_B":"Yes, that's why I'm choosing to study condensed matter\/AMO. My goal is to make the world better via direct action, so I hope to research and develop with a company or organization where that's the goal.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1181.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6kh97","c_root_id_B":"fe6j954","created_at_utc_A":1578893873,"created_at_utc_B":1578892678,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If you want to do research into global warming or sustainable energy, that's fantastic!  However, you should not feel morally obligated to do so.  There are already many people studying those things, and frankly, I don't think the issue with climate change is that not enough people are studying it.  If you want to build a career, in any field, it's going to take a lot of work and commitment on your end, which will be easiest if you're studying the topic you love the most.  People on the whole, I think, have a narrow view of what it means to help society. I don't know what country you live in, but I'll assume for now it's the US. Other countries would kill to have the vibrant community of well established and productive particle physicists that the US has. Why? First of all, having such a group of people lifts up the country in many indirect ways. Many American universities are overflowing with distinguished and qualified professors who educate year after year of students. They know their subjects well and use that expertise to teach them. Those students then go on to do all sorts of things, including things that directly help people and the economy. In general, it's very beneficial for a country to have a large number of smart people kicking around, passionately studying their field and raising the intellectual capacity of the country.  If you love what you study, you will be in an excellent position to confer what you know to the next generation of scientists. Because you've studied your subject thoroughly, working through all the hard parts and sorting out all of your confusions, you'll know exactly how to explain it when a kid comes to you asking how to do it. That's requires an incredible amount of expertise which very very few people have.  You can also give promising kids, who love the subject but don't understand the trade, the guidance that they need.  (Don't feel bad about using government grants for research either. In the grand scheme of things, the price of all the physics happening in the US is very small. Furthermore, the general population at large is very interested in the happenings of particle physicists and the fundamental laws of nature. As a scientist, you play an important role in educating the people about their own universe.)  Or maybe your career totally falls apart, and, in the worst case scenario, you become a high school teacher. (Perish the thought!) You will be incredibly qualified to teach that class and probably be the best physics teacher those kids could have, offering rare insights that other teachers won't be able to give.  The world benefits in many ways from you studying what you love the most! Obviously, if you want to become a climate scientist or a biophysicist, that's fantastic. But you also have to bring your own unique talents and passions into account to figure out what you're best suited for.","human_ref_B":"i think this is an important question that deserves attention.  one thing which has made me feel more confident in my choice to do physics is the belief that there is already a lot of talent in efforts to fight climate change and that issues are political.   i have recently pondered the related question on whether a work environment is healthier if there's a clearly noble purpose. i haven't really found much evidence to suggest that that's true, based on the anecdotal evidence i collect. the person who is happiest with their job that i know is a nurse practitioner. the least happy was a teacher. i suspect that workplace happiness is moreso related to work\/life balance and good compensation.   i fundamentally believe that exploring curiosity and fundamental questions is important and that humans aren't just here to engineer better experiences.  i have a phd in physics fwiw!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1195.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6hl8e","c_root_id_B":"fe6kh97","created_at_utc_A":1578891136,"created_at_utc_B":1578893873,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Current physics phd here, 2 months away from the dissertation defense  The purpose of arts and sciences is not to make \"the world\" a better place! \"The world\" is already a great place, (like a lot better than any anxious boy with an A in calculus class can make it)  and arts and sciences allow us to understand it!   Engineering and other professional degrees are not about enjoying the beauty of the world - they want to be a useful part in factory called society, which is rather insignificant part of \"the world\"  Read Anderson's More is Different 1972 and if that doesn't excite you about the workings of \"the world\", just do one of the engineerings and get a job at making the world a better place. Like at google or ExxonMobil","human_ref_B":"If you want to do research into global warming or sustainable energy, that's fantastic!  However, you should not feel morally obligated to do so.  There are already many people studying those things, and frankly, I don't think the issue with climate change is that not enough people are studying it.  If you want to build a career, in any field, it's going to take a lot of work and commitment on your end, which will be easiest if you're studying the topic you love the most.  People on the whole, I think, have a narrow view of what it means to help society. I don't know what country you live in, but I'll assume for now it's the US. Other countries would kill to have the vibrant community of well established and productive particle physicists that the US has. Why? First of all, having such a group of people lifts up the country in many indirect ways. Many American universities are overflowing with distinguished and qualified professors who educate year after year of students. They know their subjects well and use that expertise to teach them. Those students then go on to do all sorts of things, including things that directly help people and the economy. In general, it's very beneficial for a country to have a large number of smart people kicking around, passionately studying their field and raising the intellectual capacity of the country.  If you love what you study, you will be in an excellent position to confer what you know to the next generation of scientists. Because you've studied your subject thoroughly, working through all the hard parts and sorting out all of your confusions, you'll know exactly how to explain it when a kid comes to you asking how to do it. That's requires an incredible amount of expertise which very very few people have.  You can also give promising kids, who love the subject but don't understand the trade, the guidance that they need.  (Don't feel bad about using government grants for research either. In the grand scheme of things, the price of all the physics happening in the US is very small. Furthermore, the general population at large is very interested in the happenings of particle physicists and the fundamental laws of nature. As a scientist, you play an important role in educating the people about their own universe.)  Or maybe your career totally falls apart, and, in the worst case scenario, you become a high school teacher. (Perish the thought!) You will be incredibly qualified to teach that class and probably be the best physics teacher those kids could have, offering rare insights that other teachers won't be able to give.  The world benefits in many ways from you studying what you love the most! Obviously, if you want to become a climate scientist or a biophysicist, that's fantastic. But you also have to bring your own unique talents and passions into account to figure out what you're best suited for.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2737.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6j954","c_root_id_B":"fe6lp24","created_at_utc_A":1578892678,"created_at_utc_B":1578895108,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"i think this is an important question that deserves attention.  one thing which has made me feel more confident in my choice to do physics is the belief that there is already a lot of talent in efforts to fight climate change and that issues are political.   i have recently pondered the related question on whether a work environment is healthier if there's a clearly noble purpose. i haven't really found much evidence to suggest that that's true, based on the anecdotal evidence i collect. the person who is happiest with their job that i know is a nurse practitioner. the least happy was a teacher. i suspect that workplace happiness is moreso related to work\/life balance and good compensation.   i fundamentally believe that exploring curiosity and fundamental questions is important and that humans aren't just here to engineer better experiences.  i have a phd in physics fwiw!","human_ref_B":"Tell you friend to shove it with shaming crap and to get off his ass and work on solutions rather than bitching about other people\u2019s life decisions.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2430.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6lp24","c_root_id_B":"fe6kyeb","created_at_utc_A":1578895108,"created_at_utc_B":1578894350,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Tell you friend to shove it with shaming crap and to get off his ass and work on solutions rather than bitching about other people\u2019s life decisions.","human_ref_B":"I do, I'm in a nearly identical situation.  I was googling this question the other day and came across the paper \"Some ethical questions in particle physics\".  Copied and pasted from the third page:  >Fundamental research has led to many applications, now being thought of as a given in modern society. Prominent examples come from medical diagnostics and cures. Many scanning and imaging devices find their roots in particle detector technologies, also radiotherapy, hadron therapy, or even the production of special isotopes would not be thinkable without accelerator technologies \u2013 this forms a direct answer regarding the use of money in cancer treatment. Indeed, particle physics provides new tools and methods for medical treatment of cancer and more.   >   >Many of the everyday materials, such a e.g. ordinary shrink-wrap used for packing food before placing it in an ordinary refrigerator, car tyres, cable isolations, etc., etc. need to undergo special treatment to obtain their needed structures, hardness, or softness depending on specific requirements and use cases. Such special treatment means that materials undergo radiation with electrons and sometimes also other particles accelerated using particle accelerators. Indeed, many tens of thousands of particle accelerators are operating almost unnoticed continuously for industrial purposes worldwide, whereas only a handful of pure research accelerators exist in the world. With better food storage, and in general with better materials available, an important contribution to world hunger is made. Sure in cases of urgent needs such as draughts, wars, and other catastrophes, resources must be made available for immediate help. For creating longer-term improvements of the overall situation, new applications and spin-offs from fundamental research activities will provide tools and methods to linger and help.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":758.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6lp24","c_root_id_B":"fe6hl8e","created_at_utc_A":1578895108,"created_at_utc_B":1578891136,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Tell you friend to shove it with shaming crap and to get off his ass and work on solutions rather than bitching about other people\u2019s life decisions.","human_ref_B":"Current physics phd here, 2 months away from the dissertation defense  The purpose of arts and sciences is not to make \"the world\" a better place! \"The world\" is already a great place, (like a lot better than any anxious boy with an A in calculus class can make it)  and arts and sciences allow us to understand it!   Engineering and other professional degrees are not about enjoying the beauty of the world - they want to be a useful part in factory called society, which is rather insignificant part of \"the world\"  Read Anderson's More is Different 1972 and if that doesn't excite you about the workings of \"the world\", just do one of the engineerings and get a job at making the world a better place. Like at google or ExxonMobil","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3972.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6hl8e","c_root_id_B":"fe6j954","created_at_utc_A":1578891136,"created_at_utc_B":1578892678,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Current physics phd here, 2 months away from the dissertation defense  The purpose of arts and sciences is not to make \"the world\" a better place! \"The world\" is already a great place, (like a lot better than any anxious boy with an A in calculus class can make it)  and arts and sciences allow us to understand it!   Engineering and other professional degrees are not about enjoying the beauty of the world - they want to be a useful part in factory called society, which is rather insignificant part of \"the world\"  Read Anderson's More is Different 1972 and if that doesn't excite you about the workings of \"the world\", just do one of the engineerings and get a job at making the world a better place. Like at google or ExxonMobil","human_ref_B":"i think this is an important question that deserves attention.  one thing which has made me feel more confident in my choice to do physics is the belief that there is already a lot of talent in efforts to fight climate change and that issues are political.   i have recently pondered the related question on whether a work environment is healthier if there's a clearly noble purpose. i haven't really found much evidence to suggest that that's true, based on the anecdotal evidence i collect. the person who is happiest with their job that i know is a nurse practitioner. the least happy was a teacher. i suspect that workplace happiness is moreso related to work\/life balance and good compensation.   i fundamentally believe that exploring curiosity and fundamental questions is important and that humans aren't just here to engineer better experiences.  i have a phd in physics fwiw!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1542.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6kyeb","c_root_id_B":"fe6hl8e","created_at_utc_A":1578894350,"created_at_utc_B":1578891136,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I do, I'm in a nearly identical situation.  I was googling this question the other day and came across the paper \"Some ethical questions in particle physics\".  Copied and pasted from the third page:  >Fundamental research has led to many applications, now being thought of as a given in modern society. Prominent examples come from medical diagnostics and cures. Many scanning and imaging devices find their roots in particle detector technologies, also radiotherapy, hadron therapy, or even the production of special isotopes would not be thinkable without accelerator technologies \u2013 this forms a direct answer regarding the use of money in cancer treatment. Indeed, particle physics provides new tools and methods for medical treatment of cancer and more.   >   >Many of the everyday materials, such a e.g. ordinary shrink-wrap used for packing food before placing it in an ordinary refrigerator, car tyres, cable isolations, etc., etc. need to undergo special treatment to obtain their needed structures, hardness, or softness depending on specific requirements and use cases. Such special treatment means that materials undergo radiation with electrons and sometimes also other particles accelerated using particle accelerators. Indeed, many tens of thousands of particle accelerators are operating almost unnoticed continuously for industrial purposes worldwide, whereas only a handful of pure research accelerators exist in the world. With better food storage, and in general with better materials available, an important contribution to world hunger is made. Sure in cases of urgent needs such as draughts, wars, and other catastrophes, resources must be made available for immediate help. For creating longer-term improvements of the overall situation, new applications and spin-offs from fundamental research activities will provide tools and methods to linger and help.","human_ref_B":"Current physics phd here, 2 months away from the dissertation defense  The purpose of arts and sciences is not to make \"the world\" a better place! \"The world\" is already a great place, (like a lot better than any anxious boy with an A in calculus class can make it)  and arts and sciences allow us to understand it!   Engineering and other professional degrees are not about enjoying the beauty of the world - they want to be a useful part in factory called society, which is rather insignificant part of \"the world\"  Read Anderson's More is Different 1972 and if that doesn't excite you about the workings of \"the world\", just do one of the engineerings and get a job at making the world a better place. Like at google or ExxonMobil","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3214.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6me55","c_root_id_B":"fe6hl8e","created_at_utc_A":1578895848,"created_at_utc_B":1578891136,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The way I see it, advanced physics may not have immediate applications, but it will absolutely be useful in the far future.  In fact, I consider pursuing physics as the best thing that I personally can do for the betterment of humanity. Yeah, I could become a doctor or something and help people now, but the work I can do as a physicist may benefit far more people in the longterm.  Just keep in mind that Benjamin Franklin never could have predicted things like computers, electric cars, or even electric refrigeration.","human_ref_B":"Current physics phd here, 2 months away from the dissertation defense  The purpose of arts and sciences is not to make \"the world\" a better place! \"The world\" is already a great place, (like a lot better than any anxious boy with an A in calculus class can make it)  and arts and sciences allow us to understand it!   Engineering and other professional degrees are not about enjoying the beauty of the world - they want to be a useful part in factory called society, which is rather insignificant part of \"the world\"  Read Anderson's More is Different 1972 and if that doesn't excite you about the workings of \"the world\", just do one of the engineerings and get a job at making the world a better place. Like at google or ExxonMobil","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4712.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6uzwf","c_root_id_B":"fe6pzw7","created_at_utc_A":1578905744,"created_at_utc_B":1578900016,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"If Schr\u00f6dinger had come to your friend (or someone likeminded) asking for funds to study the behaviour of really small systems he would have been given the door since *\"thats not gonna help anyone\".* Now the ramifications of his development in quantum theory are said to conform between 10% and 20% of the global GDP.  Base research is as important as any other type of research or else technologies would stagnate.","human_ref_B":"On the other hand, mathematician Groethendieck didn't want to do anything with any potential applications, because it could be used for war.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5728.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6hl8e","c_root_id_B":"fe6uzwf","created_at_utc_A":1578891136,"created_at_utc_B":1578905744,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Current physics phd here, 2 months away from the dissertation defense  The purpose of arts and sciences is not to make \"the world\" a better place! \"The world\" is already a great place, (like a lot better than any anxious boy with an A in calculus class can make it)  and arts and sciences allow us to understand it!   Engineering and other professional degrees are not about enjoying the beauty of the world - they want to be a useful part in factory called society, which is rather insignificant part of \"the world\"  Read Anderson's More is Different 1972 and if that doesn't excite you about the workings of \"the world\", just do one of the engineerings and get a job at making the world a better place. Like at google or ExxonMobil","human_ref_B":"If Schr\u00f6dinger had come to your friend (or someone likeminded) asking for funds to study the behaviour of really small systems he would have been given the door since *\"thats not gonna help anyone\".* Now the ramifications of his development in quantum theory are said to conform between 10% and 20% of the global GDP.  Base research is as important as any other type of research or else technologies would stagnate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14608.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6pzw7","c_root_id_B":"fe7m92v","created_at_utc_A":1578900016,"created_at_utc_B":1578916370,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"On the other hand, mathematician Groethendieck didn't want to do anything with any potential applications, because it could be used for war.","human_ref_B":"> how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people?  Tools based on ideas that were first developed for particle physics detected a tumor in my grandfather's brain and lung before any of the myriad symptoms arrived, by which time it is often already too late. X-rays helped destroy the tumors.  For that alone, at least one person should get a pass from the \"yeah, but...\" bullshit. I nominate you. Sleep peacefully, finish your education, do something awesome in particle physics.  Particle physics, or the technologies that continue to evolve from particle physics tools, have made many lives better, and who knows, *may* change the world for the better. People who walk around telling other people \"*your* field isn't going to solve global warming\" aren't contributing to anything, other than annoying people and instilling doubt in their friends' minds.  > I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\"  You friend sounds like a dick.  Looking at past Nobel awards and the current population of the earth, maybe 70 out of the 7 billion people on the planet right now are going to be the prime cause of anything globally useful.  So perhaps 99.99999999% of people aren't going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.  A much higher percentage are going to walk around telling everyone *else* they aren't helping. In my experience, such people rarely examine their own lives so harshly. Or they have a wildly exaggerated sense of the importance of their own field.  People who are driven to excel in their field - *whatever* their field is - are the ones who make change. You know what that field is for you, and are working toward that goal. Don't listen the doubts. *Everyone* gets the doubts. The people who actually get anything done ignore the doubts.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16354.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6hl8e","c_root_id_B":"fe7m92v","created_at_utc_A":1578891136,"created_at_utc_B":1578916370,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Current physics phd here, 2 months away from the dissertation defense  The purpose of arts and sciences is not to make \"the world\" a better place! \"The world\" is already a great place, (like a lot better than any anxious boy with an A in calculus class can make it)  and arts and sciences allow us to understand it!   Engineering and other professional degrees are not about enjoying the beauty of the world - they want to be a useful part in factory called society, which is rather insignificant part of \"the world\"  Read Anderson's More is Different 1972 and if that doesn't excite you about the workings of \"the world\", just do one of the engineerings and get a job at making the world a better place. Like at google or ExxonMobil","human_ref_B":"> how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people?  Tools based on ideas that were first developed for particle physics detected a tumor in my grandfather's brain and lung before any of the myriad symptoms arrived, by which time it is often already too late. X-rays helped destroy the tumors.  For that alone, at least one person should get a pass from the \"yeah, but...\" bullshit. I nominate you. Sleep peacefully, finish your education, do something awesome in particle physics.  Particle physics, or the technologies that continue to evolve from particle physics tools, have made many lives better, and who knows, *may* change the world for the better. People who walk around telling other people \"*your* field isn't going to solve global warming\" aren't contributing to anything, other than annoying people and instilling doubt in their friends' minds.  > I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\"  You friend sounds like a dick.  Looking at past Nobel awards and the current population of the earth, maybe 70 out of the 7 billion people on the planet right now are going to be the prime cause of anything globally useful.  So perhaps 99.99999999% of people aren't going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.  A much higher percentage are going to walk around telling everyone *else* they aren't helping. In my experience, such people rarely examine their own lives so harshly. Or they have a wildly exaggerated sense of the importance of their own field.  People who are driven to excel in their field - *whatever* their field is - are the ones who make change. You know what that field is for you, and are working toward that goal. Don't listen the doubts. *Everyone* gets the doubts. The people who actually get anything done ignore the doubts.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25234.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6ywzr","c_root_id_B":"fe7m92v","created_at_utc_A":1578907830,"created_at_utc_B":1578916370,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I agree with you about the importance of the application of your research. I like having projects with direct relevance to industry, it gives the work some additional sense of meaning. And I do think that even without having collaborations with the industry it is still beneficial to keep in mind the applications of your work as a motivation for it, sometimes just for getting grants and projects, sometimes just for improving the introduction of your paper, but sometimes just to feel better about yourself!   But it is fallacious to say that the only stuff scientists should ever do needs to be directly improving somebody's life, or in the most exaggerated case - anything more than one step from solving climate change or cancer is useless bullshit. If the only research we ever do would be of obvious applications, the progress would actually be much slower in the long run! Not only we need research that directly helps people, but we also need research that helps other researchers to research better (say, improvement of analytical tools), research that formulates principles that can be used by those other researchers to help the former researchers, and so on. General relativity and quantum mechanics might have started as fundamental exercises with no connection to \"the real world\" of ordinary people, but their applications have transformed our everyday life anyway. It can be hard to judge how useful are any of these fundamental exercises when they are developed, but that shouldn't stop the scientific community as a whole from having them. As a particle scientist, one might not be helping themselves or even the generation of their children, but the people of the future.","human_ref_B":"> how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people?  Tools based on ideas that were first developed for particle physics detected a tumor in my grandfather's brain and lung before any of the myriad symptoms arrived, by which time it is often already too late. X-rays helped destroy the tumors.  For that alone, at least one person should get a pass from the \"yeah, but...\" bullshit. I nominate you. Sleep peacefully, finish your education, do something awesome in particle physics.  Particle physics, or the technologies that continue to evolve from particle physics tools, have made many lives better, and who knows, *may* change the world for the better. People who walk around telling other people \"*your* field isn't going to solve global warming\" aren't contributing to anything, other than annoying people and instilling doubt in their friends' minds.  > I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\"  You friend sounds like a dick.  Looking at past Nobel awards and the current population of the earth, maybe 70 out of the 7 billion people on the planet right now are going to be the prime cause of anything globally useful.  So perhaps 99.99999999% of people aren't going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.  A much higher percentage are going to walk around telling everyone *else* they aren't helping. In my experience, such people rarely examine their own lives so harshly. Or they have a wildly exaggerated sense of the importance of their own field.  People who are driven to excel in their field - *whatever* their field is - are the ones who make change. You know what that field is for you, and are working toward that goal. Don't listen the doubts. *Everyone* gets the doubts. The people who actually get anything done ignore the doubts.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8540.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe7m92v","c_root_id_B":"fe7cly9","created_at_utc_A":1578916370,"created_at_utc_B":1578912838,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people?  Tools based on ideas that were first developed for particle physics detected a tumor in my grandfather's brain and lung before any of the myriad symptoms arrived, by which time it is often already too late. X-rays helped destroy the tumors.  For that alone, at least one person should get a pass from the \"yeah, but...\" bullshit. I nominate you. Sleep peacefully, finish your education, do something awesome in particle physics.  Particle physics, or the technologies that continue to evolve from particle physics tools, have made many lives better, and who knows, *may* change the world for the better. People who walk around telling other people \"*your* field isn't going to solve global warming\" aren't contributing to anything, other than annoying people and instilling doubt in their friends' minds.  > I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\"  You friend sounds like a dick.  Looking at past Nobel awards and the current population of the earth, maybe 70 out of the 7 billion people on the planet right now are going to be the prime cause of anything globally useful.  So perhaps 99.99999999% of people aren't going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.  A much higher percentage are going to walk around telling everyone *else* they aren't helping. In my experience, such people rarely examine their own lives so harshly. Or they have a wildly exaggerated sense of the importance of their own field.  People who are driven to excel in their field - *whatever* their field is - are the ones who make change. You know what that field is for you, and are working toward that goal. Don't listen the doubts. *Everyone* gets the doubts. The people who actually get anything done ignore the doubts.","human_ref_B":"Particle physics is actually very useful for medicine, mainly in Particle Therapy for cancer treatment. CERN has a branch dedicated to research on medical physics. So if you really like particle physics, you can go for it. If anything, the technology developed while trying to find new particles will be used in new imaging techniques or approaches.   Although I am struggling with my own purposes in theoretical biophysics too.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3532.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"eny88s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do you ever wonder how your studying\/researching physics actually helps make the world a better place? I hope this is the right place to post this. I ask this of anyone and everyone who's in physics.  I'm a physics undergrad student. My interest during my undergrad years has been mainly in particle physics. Up until a few days ago, I was pretty sure that I would keep studying and researching particle physics through a PhD. These past few days I've been having this thought: how is becoming a particle physicist actually going to help people? Even though I want to go into this field of physics that aims to understand the most fundamental particles in the universe, which in and of itself is important to society, how does this actually *help* society? How will it make the world a better place?  I had a friend say to me a few months ago, \"Particle physics is cool, but it's not going to solve global warming, cure diseases, etc.\". I've been thinking more and more about this. It's made me start looking into branches like biophysics, even though I've never even taken a biology class, simply because it uses physics to help us understand ourselves as biological systems. To me, this seems like it would help people more than particle physics.  I've been passive-aggressively telling myself things like, \"Well, omgphysics, why don't you become a doctor instead if you want to help people so badly?\", but I love particle physics and I don't want to stop studying and researching it just because of this dilemma I've found myself in.  Do you ever feel this way?","c_root_id_A":"fe6pzw7","c_root_id_B":"fe6hl8e","created_at_utc_A":1578900016,"created_at_utc_B":1578891136,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"On the other hand, mathematician Groethendieck didn't want to do anything with any potential applications, because it could be used for war.","human_ref_B":"Current physics phd here, 2 months away from the dissertation defense  The purpose of arts and sciences is not to make \"the world\" a better place! \"The world\" is already a great place, (like a lot better than any anxious boy with an A in calculus class can make it)  and arts and sciences allow us to understand it!   Engineering and other professional degrees are not about enjoying the beauty of the world - they want to be a useful part in factory called society, which is rather insignificant part of \"the world\"  Read Anderson's More is Different 1972 and if that doesn't excite you about the workings of \"the world\", just do one of the engineerings and get a job at making the world a better place. Like at google or ExxonMobil","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8880.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"gx6xj4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Can one PROVE physics equations? So I've heard of proofs in math, but I was wondering if there were proofs in physics.  I often have a hard time taking some equations that I learn \"on faith\". This means I want to know the intuition behind them; how they came to be, the logical thought process behind them, and the mathematical proofs behind them. For example, I was recently wondering about the derivations of the formula which calculates the gravitational potential energy between two objects(which I believe is  -GMm\/r).   So, how does one prove stuff in physics, how do I train myself to do that, and are there any books or resources I can use to do this.   Also I'm new to physics. Please keep the resources or answers as basic as possible. Maybe only ones that are calc based","c_root_id_A":"fszg8w2","c_root_id_B":"fszh2ty","created_at_utc_A":1591372942,"created_at_utc_B":1591373341,"score_A":11,"score_B":166,"human_ref_A":"I have a couple thoughts on this. I'm a 4th year grad student pursing a PhD in HEP experiment and I've had to teach many intro and upper level undergraduate physics courses. I **always** tell my students to avoid the use of the word proof, especially in lab reports. Proof is a concept that is reserved for logic and mathematics.  In the world of physics, we use mathematics to describe the behavior of the world around us. However, there's no way to \"prove\" beyond a doubt that x will always lead to y; all we can do is show that x not leading to y has not been observed yet. One interesting example of this is the decay of the proton. There are some proposed extensions to the Standard Model of particle physics which indicate that the proton should eventually decay. However, we have yet to observe this happening so the model needs to be tuned in such a way that the lifetime of the proton is longer than the current lifetime of the universe.  Much of the modern understanding of physics is shaped by observation. We observe that x leads to y, so we develop a mathematical model to describe this situation in a way that is consistent with all our past models. This is a bit of an art, but really shows that \"proof\" is beyond the scope of physics and the work of physicists. As a scientist I believe it is imperative to avoid the word \"prove\" or \"proof\" when reporting on findings because it is not a claim we can, or should make.  ​  Edit: there are ways to show various relations in physics using mathematics. If you wish to become better at this my suggestion is practice practice practice. Find books which cover the material in detail and work through as much of the math oriented problems as possible, but **please** do not think of this as \"proof.\"","human_ref_B":"Of course!   Ok, here is the deal. In math, there are things called axioms or postulates. Axioms are statements assumed to be true with no justification.   For example, the Peano axioms are the axioms that form the natural numbers and define what you know to be addition and multiplication.   https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Peano_axioms  Maybe you find this intuitive, but they are axioms. You can easily create other mathematical systems that have different properties. In fact, mathematicians do this all the time! They can chose any set of axioms they want!   Mathematicians don't prove axioms, they prove statements based on those axioms. You take your basic assumptions (axioms) and you put them together like Lego blocks to make a more complex statement that must be true given the assumptions.  Ok, what's the point? Well, physics is a science, that means that we are slaves to empiricism. We do math, but we can't chose any axiom, we have to chose axioms that seem to mirror the real world.  For example, the basic laws of Newtonian physics can be seen as axioms that creat a system. With these axioms, I can prove statements like projectiles travel in parabolas or Kepler's laws.   However, it turns out those axioms are only approximately correct. So while those proven statements are useful and intuitively understandable, I haven't proven truth about the universe. I've proven truth about a mathematical system that closely resembles the universe in some situations.   And so we discover new axioms\/laws from more advanced experiments (e.g. realtivity) and thus can prove new, more accurate statements in that framework.   So the answer is \"yes, we can prove statements using physical laws as they do in math\", but we can never prove that those statements are true in the universe.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":399.0,"score_ratio":15.0909090909}
{"post_id":"gx6xj4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Can one PROVE physics equations? So I've heard of proofs in math, but I was wondering if there were proofs in physics.  I often have a hard time taking some equations that I learn \"on faith\". This means I want to know the intuition behind them; how they came to be, the logical thought process behind them, and the mathematical proofs behind them. For example, I was recently wondering about the derivations of the formula which calculates the gravitational potential energy between two objects(which I believe is  -GMm\/r).   So, how does one prove stuff in physics, how do I train myself to do that, and are there any books or resources I can use to do this.   Also I'm new to physics. Please keep the resources or answers as basic as possible. Maybe only ones that are calc based","c_root_id_A":"fszh2ty","c_root_id_B":"fszg97r","created_at_utc_A":1591373341,"created_at_utc_B":1591372947,"score_A":166,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Of course!   Ok, here is the deal. In math, there are things called axioms or postulates. Axioms are statements assumed to be true with no justification.   For example, the Peano axioms are the axioms that form the natural numbers and define what you know to be addition and multiplication.   https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Peano_axioms  Maybe you find this intuitive, but they are axioms. You can easily create other mathematical systems that have different properties. In fact, mathematicians do this all the time! They can chose any set of axioms they want!   Mathematicians don't prove axioms, they prove statements based on those axioms. You take your basic assumptions (axioms) and you put them together like Lego blocks to make a more complex statement that must be true given the assumptions.  Ok, what's the point? Well, physics is a science, that means that we are slaves to empiricism. We do math, but we can't chose any axiom, we have to chose axioms that seem to mirror the real world.  For example, the basic laws of Newtonian physics can be seen as axioms that creat a system. With these axioms, I can prove statements like projectiles travel in parabolas or Kepler's laws.   However, it turns out those axioms are only approximately correct. So while those proven statements are useful and intuitively understandable, I haven't proven truth about the universe. I've proven truth about a mathematical system that closely resembles the universe in some situations.   And so we discover new axioms\/laws from more advanced experiments (e.g. realtivity) and thus can prove new, more accurate statements in that framework.   So the answer is \"yes, we can prove statements using physical laws as they do in math\", but we can never prove that those statements are true in the universe.","human_ref_B":"This is a great question. In the sciences there is no equivalent to mathematical proof. Instead we support and confirm our theories with experimental evidence. All models have limitations, however, none are exactly accurate. My advisor has a favorite saying that, \"all models are wrong, some are useful.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":394.0,"score_ratio":20.75}
{"post_id":"gx6xj4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Can one PROVE physics equations? So I've heard of proofs in math, but I was wondering if there were proofs in physics.  I often have a hard time taking some equations that I learn \"on faith\". This means I want to know the intuition behind them; how they came to be, the logical thought process behind them, and the mathematical proofs behind them. For example, I was recently wondering about the derivations of the formula which calculates the gravitational potential energy between two objects(which I believe is  -GMm\/r).   So, how does one prove stuff in physics, how do I train myself to do that, and are there any books or resources I can use to do this.   Also I'm new to physics. Please keep the resources or answers as basic as possible. Maybe only ones that are calc based","c_root_id_A":"fsziql2","c_root_id_B":"fszg8w2","created_at_utc_A":1591374139,"created_at_utc_B":1591372942,"score_A":16,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"As a matter of language, I think what you're asking for would be better classified as a derivation than a proof. You would like to learn how to derive equations based on first principles \/ physical reasoning. For that, you should basically just follow a standard undergrad program. It's really just a combination of learning more math and more physics. For example, potential functions are more or less completely demystified by vector calculus.  I refrain from using the word proof because unlike in pure mathematics, you don't start with a set of axioms. In physics, you use experiments to figure out the rules of how something behaves (under those conditions) and then develop the mathematics to deal with things that behave that way. Sometimes you luck out and it's described by existing mathematics. Other times, physicists have to pioneer the mathematics necessary (e.g., the development of calculus). The process is quite a bit different.","human_ref_B":"I have a couple thoughts on this. I'm a 4th year grad student pursing a PhD in HEP experiment and I've had to teach many intro and upper level undergraduate physics courses. I **always** tell my students to avoid the use of the word proof, especially in lab reports. Proof is a concept that is reserved for logic and mathematics.  In the world of physics, we use mathematics to describe the behavior of the world around us. However, there's no way to \"prove\" beyond a doubt that x will always lead to y; all we can do is show that x not leading to y has not been observed yet. One interesting example of this is the decay of the proton. There are some proposed extensions to the Standard Model of particle physics which indicate that the proton should eventually decay. However, we have yet to observe this happening so the model needs to be tuned in such a way that the lifetime of the proton is longer than the current lifetime of the universe.  Much of the modern understanding of physics is shaped by observation. We observe that x leads to y, so we develop a mathematical model to describe this situation in a way that is consistent with all our past models. This is a bit of an art, but really shows that \"proof\" is beyond the scope of physics and the work of physicists. As a scientist I believe it is imperative to avoid the word \"prove\" or \"proof\" when reporting on findings because it is not a claim we can, or should make.  ​  Edit: there are ways to show various relations in physics using mathematics. If you wish to become better at this my suggestion is practice practice practice. Find books which cover the material in detail and work through as much of the math oriented problems as possible, but **please** do not think of this as \"proof.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1197.0,"score_ratio":1.4545454545}
{"post_id":"gx6xj4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Can one PROVE physics equations? So I've heard of proofs in math, but I was wondering if there were proofs in physics.  I often have a hard time taking some equations that I learn \"on faith\". This means I want to know the intuition behind them; how they came to be, the logical thought process behind them, and the mathematical proofs behind them. For example, I was recently wondering about the derivations of the formula which calculates the gravitational potential energy between two objects(which I believe is  -GMm\/r).   So, how does one prove stuff in physics, how do I train myself to do that, and are there any books or resources I can use to do this.   Also I'm new to physics. Please keep the resources or answers as basic as possible. Maybe only ones that are calc based","c_root_id_A":"fsziql2","c_root_id_B":"fszh77d","created_at_utc_A":1591374139,"created_at_utc_B":1591373398,"score_A":16,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"As a matter of language, I think what you're asking for would be better classified as a derivation than a proof. You would like to learn how to derive equations based on first principles \/ physical reasoning. For that, you should basically just follow a standard undergrad program. It's really just a combination of learning more math and more physics. For example, potential functions are more or less completely demystified by vector calculus.  I refrain from using the word proof because unlike in pure mathematics, you don't start with a set of axioms. In physics, you use experiments to figure out the rules of how something behaves (under those conditions) and then develop the mathematics to deal with things that behave that way. Sometimes you luck out and it's described by existing mathematics. Other times, physicists have to pioneer the mathematics necessary (e.g., the development of calculus). The process is quite a bit different.","human_ref_B":"No because physics isnt axiomatic like mathematics is. At best you can *derive* new equations and check them against experimental results or other models, but even then what you have is a *model* \/  *theory* .","labels":1,"seconds_difference":741.0,"score_ratio":1.7777777778}
{"post_id":"gx6xj4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Can one PROVE physics equations? So I've heard of proofs in math, but I was wondering if there were proofs in physics.  I often have a hard time taking some equations that I learn \"on faith\". This means I want to know the intuition behind them; how they came to be, the logical thought process behind them, and the mathematical proofs behind them. For example, I was recently wondering about the derivations of the formula which calculates the gravitational potential energy between two objects(which I believe is  -GMm\/r).   So, how does one prove stuff in physics, how do I train myself to do that, and are there any books or resources I can use to do this.   Also I'm new to physics. Please keep the resources or answers as basic as possible. Maybe only ones that are calc based","c_root_id_A":"fsziql2","c_root_id_B":"fszg97r","created_at_utc_A":1591374139,"created_at_utc_B":1591372947,"score_A":16,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"As a matter of language, I think what you're asking for would be better classified as a derivation than a proof. You would like to learn how to derive equations based on first principles \/ physical reasoning. For that, you should basically just follow a standard undergrad program. It's really just a combination of learning more math and more physics. For example, potential functions are more or less completely demystified by vector calculus.  I refrain from using the word proof because unlike in pure mathematics, you don't start with a set of axioms. In physics, you use experiments to figure out the rules of how something behaves (under those conditions) and then develop the mathematics to deal with things that behave that way. Sometimes you luck out and it's described by existing mathematics. Other times, physicists have to pioneer the mathematics necessary (e.g., the development of calculus). The process is quite a bit different.","human_ref_B":"This is a great question. In the sciences there is no equivalent to mathematical proof. Instead we support and confirm our theories with experimental evidence. All models have limitations, however, none are exactly accurate. My advisor has a favorite saying that, \"all models are wrong, some are useful.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1192.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"gx6xj4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Can one PROVE physics equations? So I've heard of proofs in math, but I was wondering if there were proofs in physics.  I often have a hard time taking some equations that I learn \"on faith\". This means I want to know the intuition behind them; how they came to be, the logical thought process behind them, and the mathematical proofs behind them. For example, I was recently wondering about the derivations of the formula which calculates the gravitational potential energy between two objects(which I believe is  -GMm\/r).   So, how does one prove stuff in physics, how do I train myself to do that, and are there any books or resources I can use to do this.   Also I'm new to physics. Please keep the resources or answers as basic as possible. Maybe only ones that are calc based","c_root_id_A":"fsziql2","c_root_id_B":"fszi90j","created_at_utc_A":1591374139,"created_at_utc_B":1591373905,"score_A":16,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"As a matter of language, I think what you're asking for would be better classified as a derivation than a proof. You would like to learn how to derive equations based on first principles \/ physical reasoning. For that, you should basically just follow a standard undergrad program. It's really just a combination of learning more math and more physics. For example, potential functions are more or less completely demystified by vector calculus.  I refrain from using the word proof because unlike in pure mathematics, you don't start with a set of axioms. In physics, you use experiments to figure out the rules of how something behaves (under those conditions) and then develop the mathematics to deal with things that behave that way. Sometimes you luck out and it's described by existing mathematics. Other times, physicists have to pioneer the mathematics necessary (e.g., the development of calculus). The process is quite a bit different.","human_ref_B":"Sure. You have some assumptions \/ the basics of your model from which you then derive mathematical statements. It's a mathematical proof.  What you can't \"mathematically prove\" however is that a model accurately represents reality (ie it makes correct predictions).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":234.0,"score_ratio":3.2}
{"post_id":"gx6xj4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Can one PROVE physics equations? So I've heard of proofs in math, but I was wondering if there were proofs in physics.  I often have a hard time taking some equations that I learn \"on faith\". This means I want to know the intuition behind them; how they came to be, the logical thought process behind them, and the mathematical proofs behind them. For example, I was recently wondering about the derivations of the formula which calculates the gravitational potential energy between two objects(which I believe is  -GMm\/r).   So, how does one prove stuff in physics, how do I train myself to do that, and are there any books or resources I can use to do this.   Also I'm new to physics. Please keep the resources or answers as basic as possible. Maybe only ones that are calc based","c_root_id_A":"fszg97r","c_root_id_B":"fszh77d","created_at_utc_A":1591372947,"created_at_utc_B":1591373398,"score_A":8,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"This is a great question. In the sciences there is no equivalent to mathematical proof. Instead we support and confirm our theories with experimental evidence. All models have limitations, however, none are exactly accurate. My advisor has a favorite saying that, \"all models are wrong, some are useful.\"","human_ref_B":"No because physics isnt axiomatic like mathematics is. At best you can *derive* new equations and check them against experimental results or other models, but even then what you have is a *model* \/  *theory* .","labels":0,"seconds_difference":451.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
{"post_id":"gx6xj4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Can one PROVE physics equations? So I've heard of proofs in math, but I was wondering if there were proofs in physics.  I often have a hard time taking some equations that I learn \"on faith\". This means I want to know the intuition behind them; how they came to be, the logical thought process behind them, and the mathematical proofs behind them. For example, I was recently wondering about the derivations of the formula which calculates the gravitational potential energy between two objects(which I believe is  -GMm\/r).   So, how does one prove stuff in physics, how do I train myself to do that, and are there any books or resources I can use to do this.   Also I'm new to physics. Please keep the resources or answers as basic as possible. Maybe only ones that are calc based","c_root_id_A":"ft1v8x1","c_root_id_B":"fszwpqz","created_at_utc_A":1591413575,"created_at_utc_B":1591380815,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"**Well yes, but actually no.**  Yes, you can show that physics equations are valid mathematically and logically.  But there\u2019s a catch\u2014a really big one:  It all depends on whether your stated assumptions are correct.  And you ALWAYS have assumptions, whether you realize it not.  The reason you have to have assumptions in physics is that it is simply not possible to observe everything you need to observe in order to PROVE an equation.  I cannot travel back in time.  I cannot send a probe past a black hole\u2019s event horizon and get data back.  I cannot see beyond the limits of the observable universe.  I cannot go faster than the speed of light.  I cannot get around the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  I cannot observe the formation of the Earth and the Sun, nor the moment the universe came into existence.  The best we can do is measure as best as we can according to the laws we think govern the physics of measurement, and see if those measurements match our equations down to the very last decimal place of uncertainty.  If it matches, we think we have proven our equation.  That is, until new measurement technology and new theories and equations prove us wrong.  And that happens over and over and over again in science.  Just like when Einstein\u2019s new-fangled Theory of Relativity proved that the planet Vulcan did not exist.)  And as is often the case with new physics, the new equations frequently reduce to the older simpler versions when you consider a more limited case.","human_ref_B":"You can \"prove\" that an equation is necessarily derived from some axiom (a experimentally confirmed fact) or some other equation (that is also usually confirmed by experiment).   However, you can't prove that this equation is true, that's something you have to test with evidence.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32760.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"gx6xj4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Can one PROVE physics equations? So I've heard of proofs in math, but I was wondering if there were proofs in physics.  I often have a hard time taking some equations that I learn \"on faith\". This means I want to know the intuition behind them; how they came to be, the logical thought process behind them, and the mathematical proofs behind them. For example, I was recently wondering about the derivations of the formula which calculates the gravitational potential energy between two objects(which I believe is  -GMm\/r).   So, how does one prove stuff in physics, how do I train myself to do that, and are there any books or resources I can use to do this.   Also I'm new to physics. Please keep the resources or answers as basic as possible. Maybe only ones that are calc based","c_root_id_A":"ft1v8x1","c_root_id_B":"ft19o5w","created_at_utc_A":1591413575,"created_at_utc_B":1591403978,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"**Well yes, but actually no.**  Yes, you can show that physics equations are valid mathematically and logically.  But there\u2019s a catch\u2014a really big one:  It all depends on whether your stated assumptions are correct.  And you ALWAYS have assumptions, whether you realize it not.  The reason you have to have assumptions in physics is that it is simply not possible to observe everything you need to observe in order to PROVE an equation.  I cannot travel back in time.  I cannot send a probe past a black hole\u2019s event horizon and get data back.  I cannot see beyond the limits of the observable universe.  I cannot go faster than the speed of light.  I cannot get around the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  I cannot observe the formation of the Earth and the Sun, nor the moment the universe came into existence.  The best we can do is measure as best as we can according to the laws we think govern the physics of measurement, and see if those measurements match our equations down to the very last decimal place of uncertainty.  If it matches, we think we have proven our equation.  That is, until new measurement technology and new theories and equations prove us wrong.  And that happens over and over and over again in science.  Just like when Einstein\u2019s new-fangled Theory of Relativity proved that the planet Vulcan did not exist.)  And as is often the case with new physics, the new equations frequently reduce to the older simpler versions when you consider a more limited case.","human_ref_B":"You can\u2019t prove anything to be \u2018true\u2019 in physics. There are just models which are always an approximation to \u2018reality\u2019. The best you can hope for is that your model is not currently disproven by observation\/evidence. As someone said, all models are wrong, but some are useful.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9597.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"gx6xj4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Can one PROVE physics equations? So I've heard of proofs in math, but I was wondering if there were proofs in physics.  I often have a hard time taking some equations that I learn \"on faith\". This means I want to know the intuition behind them; how they came to be, the logical thought process behind them, and the mathematical proofs behind them. For example, I was recently wondering about the derivations of the formula which calculates the gravitational potential energy between two objects(which I believe is  -GMm\/r).   So, how does one prove stuff in physics, how do I train myself to do that, and are there any books or resources I can use to do this.   Also I'm new to physics. Please keep the resources or answers as basic as possible. Maybe only ones that are calc based","c_root_id_A":"ft0lu49","c_root_id_B":"ft1v8x1","created_at_utc_A":1591393050,"created_at_utc_B":1591413575,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"If you want to \"prove\" things in physics, you become a mathematical physicist which technically speaking means you'll be an applied mathematician that works on physics related problems.  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Mathematical\\_physics   If I remember correctly, there was a recent advancement made in a mathematical proof for Batchelor's law which governs some(?) instances of turbulence in fluid dynamics.","human_ref_B":"**Well yes, but actually no.**  Yes, you can show that physics equations are valid mathematically and logically.  But there\u2019s a catch\u2014a really big one:  It all depends on whether your stated assumptions are correct.  And you ALWAYS have assumptions, whether you realize it not.  The reason you have to have assumptions in physics is that it is simply not possible to observe everything you need to observe in order to PROVE an equation.  I cannot travel back in time.  I cannot send a probe past a black hole\u2019s event horizon and get data back.  I cannot see beyond the limits of the observable universe.  I cannot go faster than the speed of light.  I cannot get around the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  I cannot observe the formation of the Earth and the Sun, nor the moment the universe came into existence.  The best we can do is measure as best as we can according to the laws we think govern the physics of measurement, and see if those measurements match our equations down to the very last decimal place of uncertainty.  If it matches, we think we have proven our equation.  That is, until new measurement technology and new theories and equations prove us wrong.  And that happens over and over and over again in science.  Just like when Einstein\u2019s new-fangled Theory of Relativity proved that the planet Vulcan did not exist.)  And as is often the case with new physics, the new equations frequently reduce to the older simpler versions when you consider a more limited case.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20525.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"gx6xj4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Can one PROVE physics equations? So I've heard of proofs in math, but I was wondering if there were proofs in physics.  I often have a hard time taking some equations that I learn \"on faith\". This means I want to know the intuition behind them; how they came to be, the logical thought process behind them, and the mathematical proofs behind them. For example, I was recently wondering about the derivations of the formula which calculates the gravitational potential energy between two objects(which I believe is  -GMm\/r).   So, how does one prove stuff in physics, how do I train myself to do that, and are there any books or resources I can use to do this.   Also I'm new to physics. Please keep the resources or answers as basic as possible. Maybe only ones that are calc based","c_root_id_A":"ft19o5w","c_root_id_B":"ft0lu49","created_at_utc_A":1591403978,"created_at_utc_B":1591393050,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You can\u2019t prove anything to be \u2018true\u2019 in physics. There are just models which are always an approximation to \u2018reality\u2019. The best you can hope for is that your model is not currently disproven by observation\/evidence. As someone said, all models are wrong, but some are useful.","human_ref_B":"If you want to \"prove\" things in physics, you become a mathematical physicist which technically speaking means you'll be an applied mathematician that works on physics related problems.  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Mathematical\\_physics   If I remember correctly, there was a recent advancement made in a mathematical proof for Batchelor's law which governs some(?) instances of turbulence in fluid dynamics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10928.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2tvmd8","c_root_id_B":"i2tzib1","created_at_utc_A":1648721441,"created_at_utc_B":1648724367,"score_A":45,"score_B":111,"human_ref_A":"As you can probably already see from the comments so far, it's pretty hard to find a branch of mathematics that some physicist hasn't tried to make *some* use of. I guess maybe if you get specific enough -- for example, I don't think there's any physics applications for tropical algebra, although obviously there are tons of applications for abstract algebra more generally.","human_ref_B":"Have you tried also asking this question at r\/math?  It's kind of problematic to ask it in either place.   There are likely to be areas of math that physicists aren't familiar with, and haven't (yet?) applied to physics, that you might learn about there and not here.  On the other hand, if you ask there, you will find a lot of mathematicians who are simply oblivious to whether or not their work has physical applications.  Maybe you could get a list of candidates from them, and then come here to have people note which already have applications in physics.  There are mathematicians for whom doing work that has no application is a point of pride.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2926.0,"score_ratio":2.4666666667}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2tzib1","c_root_id_B":"i2trph9","created_at_utc_A":1648724367,"created_at_utc_B":1648718160,"score_A":111,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Have you tried also asking this question at r\/math?  It's kind of problematic to ask it in either place.   There are likely to be areas of math that physicists aren't familiar with, and haven't (yet?) applied to physics, that you might learn about there and not here.  On the other hand, if you ask there, you will find a lot of mathematicians who are simply oblivious to whether or not their work has physical applications.  Maybe you could get a list of candidates from them, and then come here to have people note which already have applications in physics.  There are mathematicians for whom doing work that has no application is a point of pride.","human_ref_B":"Most of mathematics has an obvious connection to physics, and even the most abstract and pure fields of math have proven to have practical significance to physics. However, even if the connection to physics wasnt obvious that doesnt mean it wont bdcome obvious once we understand more as has happened many times, and even in the case of math that is completely disconnected from reality, understanding it can have a significance in its own that could be argued to be even more fundamental than the nature of reality.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6207.0,"score_ratio":13.875}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2tur83","c_root_id_B":"i2tzib1","created_at_utc_A":1648720736,"created_at_utc_B":1648724367,"score_A":8,"score_B":111,"human_ref_A":"Does proof, ~~model, category,~~ or type theory ever shown up in physics?  I think modal and fuzzy logic has been used, but I don't really expect higher order logic would have made an appearance either.  Might be wrong though.","human_ref_B":"Have you tried also asking this question at r\/math?  It's kind of problematic to ask it in either place.   There are likely to be areas of math that physicists aren't familiar with, and haven't (yet?) applied to physics, that you might learn about there and not here.  On the other hand, if you ask there, you will find a lot of mathematicians who are simply oblivious to whether or not their work has physical applications.  Maybe you could get a list of candidates from them, and then come here to have people note which already have applications in physics.  There are mathematicians for whom doing work that has no application is a point of pride.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3631.0,"score_ratio":13.875}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2trph9","c_root_id_B":"i2tvmd8","created_at_utc_A":1648718160,"created_at_utc_B":1648721441,"score_A":8,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"Most of mathematics has an obvious connection to physics, and even the most abstract and pure fields of math have proven to have practical significance to physics. However, even if the connection to physics wasnt obvious that doesnt mean it wont bdcome obvious once we understand more as has happened many times, and even in the case of math that is completely disconnected from reality, understanding it can have a significance in its own that could be argued to be even more fundamental than the nature of reality.","human_ref_B":"As you can probably already see from the comments so far, it's pretty hard to find a branch of mathematics that some physicist hasn't tried to make *some* use of. I guess maybe if you get specific enough -- for example, I don't think there's any physics applications for tropical algebra, although obviously there are tons of applications for abstract algebra more generally.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3281.0,"score_ratio":5.625}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2tvmd8","c_root_id_B":"i2tur83","created_at_utc_A":1648721441,"created_at_utc_B":1648720736,"score_A":45,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"As you can probably already see from the comments so far, it's pretty hard to find a branch of mathematics that some physicist hasn't tried to make *some* use of. I guess maybe if you get specific enough -- for example, I don't think there's any physics applications for tropical algebra, although obviously there are tons of applications for abstract algebra more generally.","human_ref_B":"Does proof, ~~model, category,~~ or type theory ever shown up in physics?  I think modal and fuzzy logic has been used, but I don't really expect higher order logic would have made an appearance either.  Might be wrong though.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":705.0,"score_ratio":5.625}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2u00q5","c_root_id_B":"i2trph9","created_at_utc_A":1648724722,"created_at_utc_B":1648718160,"score_A":26,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Intra-Universal Teichm\u00fcller Theory","human_ref_B":"Most of mathematics has an obvious connection to physics, and even the most abstract and pure fields of math have proven to have practical significance to physics. However, even if the connection to physics wasnt obvious that doesnt mean it wont bdcome obvious once we understand more as has happened many times, and even in the case of math that is completely disconnected from reality, understanding it can have a significance in its own that could be argued to be even more fundamental than the nature of reality.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6562.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2tur83","c_root_id_B":"i2u00q5","created_at_utc_A":1648720736,"created_at_utc_B":1648724722,"score_A":8,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"Does proof, ~~model, category,~~ or type theory ever shown up in physics?  I think modal and fuzzy logic has been used, but I don't really expect higher order logic would have made an appearance either.  Might be wrong though.","human_ref_B":"Intra-Universal Teichm\u00fcller Theory","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3986.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2vj4q1","c_root_id_B":"i2trph9","created_at_utc_A":1648749023,"created_at_utc_B":1648718160,"score_A":19,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"A very clear answer is set theory. I'm actually surprised this wasn't even mentioned yet. (Actually upon further thought this is probably because this isn't a math subreddit.)   And when I say \"set theory,\" I don't mean basic set theory. I mean the things that a set theorist studies.   Ultrafilters, stationary sets, models of different kinds of set theories, forcing, large cardinals are all things that a physicist has little to no idea about (unless they specifically studied this).","human_ref_B":"Most of mathematics has an obvious connection to physics, and even the most abstract and pure fields of math have proven to have practical significance to physics. However, even if the connection to physics wasnt obvious that doesnt mean it wont bdcome obvious once we understand more as has happened many times, and even in the case of math that is completely disconnected from reality, understanding it can have a significance in its own that could be argued to be even more fundamental than the nature of reality.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30863.0,"score_ratio":2.375}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2vj4q1","c_root_id_B":"i2uljt9","created_at_utc_A":1648749023,"created_at_utc_B":1648736010,"score_A":19,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"A very clear answer is set theory. I'm actually surprised this wasn't even mentioned yet. (Actually upon further thought this is probably because this isn't a math subreddit.)   And when I say \"set theory,\" I don't mean basic set theory. I mean the things that a set theorist studies.   Ultrafilters, stationary sets, models of different kinds of set theories, forcing, large cardinals are all things that a physicist has little to no idea about (unless they specifically studied this).","human_ref_B":"It's probably easy to say yes and pick something obscure but generally you never know if something isn't going to become useful in physics. no math is useless to know","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13013.0,"score_ratio":1.9}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2vj4q1","c_root_id_B":"i2tur83","created_at_utc_A":1648749023,"created_at_utc_B":1648720736,"score_A":19,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"A very clear answer is set theory. I'm actually surprised this wasn't even mentioned yet. (Actually upon further thought this is probably because this isn't a math subreddit.)   And when I say \"set theory,\" I don't mean basic set theory. I mean the things that a set theorist studies.   Ultrafilters, stationary sets, models of different kinds of set theories, forcing, large cardinals are all things that a physicist has little to no idea about (unless they specifically studied this).","human_ref_B":"Does proof, ~~model, category,~~ or type theory ever shown up in physics?  I think modal and fuzzy logic has been used, but I don't really expect higher order logic would have made an appearance either.  Might be wrong though.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":28287.0,"score_ratio":2.375}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2vj4q1","c_root_id_B":"i2ufnzz","created_at_utc_A":1648749023,"created_at_utc_B":1648733415,"score_A":19,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"A very clear answer is set theory. I'm actually surprised this wasn't even mentioned yet. (Actually upon further thought this is probably because this isn't a math subreddit.)   And when I say \"set theory,\" I don't mean basic set theory. I mean the things that a set theorist studies.   Ultrafilters, stationary sets, models of different kinds of set theories, forcing, large cardinals are all things that a physicist has little to no idea about (unless they specifically studied this).","human_ref_B":"Inter-universal Teichm\u00fcller theory","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15608.0,"score_ratio":4.75}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2vj4q1","c_root_id_B":"i2uhfw8","created_at_utc_A":1648749023,"created_at_utc_B":1648734222,"score_A":19,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A very clear answer is set theory. I'm actually surprised this wasn't even mentioned yet. (Actually upon further thought this is probably because this isn't a math subreddit.)   And when I say \"set theory,\" I don't mean basic set theory. I mean the things that a set theorist studies.   Ultrafilters, stationary sets, models of different kinds of set theories, forcing, large cardinals are all things that a physicist has little to no idea about (unless they specifically studied this).","human_ref_B":"Thinking about it does number theory (specially about integers) have good use in physics?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14801.0,"score_ratio":9.5}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2v32hh","c_root_id_B":"i2vj4q1","created_at_utc_A":1648742932,"created_at_utc_B":1648749023,"score_A":2,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"There must be. I couldn't specifically tell you which though. Usually new maths is found\/made and then physicists try to see if any of it applies to physics, so math is usually in front. I know of one instance where it was actually the other way around, where number-pairs where necessary for string-theory and created a new branch of maths. Sadly I can't find the exact example anymore.  This is also subject to an almost philosophical debate:   https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Relationship\\_between\\_mathematics\\_and\\_physics","human_ref_B":"A very clear answer is set theory. I'm actually surprised this wasn't even mentioned yet. (Actually upon further thought this is probably because this isn't a math subreddit.)   And when I say \"set theory,\" I don't mean basic set theory. I mean the things that a set theorist studies.   Ultrafilters, stationary sets, models of different kinds of set theories, forcing, large cardinals are all things that a physicist has little to no idea about (unless they specifically studied this).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6091.0,"score_ratio":9.5}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2trph9","c_root_id_B":"i2uljt9","created_at_utc_A":1648718160,"created_at_utc_B":1648736010,"score_A":8,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Most of mathematics has an obvious connection to physics, and even the most abstract and pure fields of math have proven to have practical significance to physics. However, even if the connection to physics wasnt obvious that doesnt mean it wont bdcome obvious once we understand more as has happened many times, and even in the case of math that is completely disconnected from reality, understanding it can have a significance in its own that could be argued to be even more fundamental than the nature of reality.","human_ref_B":"It's probably easy to say yes and pick something obscure but generally you never know if something isn't going to become useful in physics. no math is useless to know","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17850.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2tur83","c_root_id_B":"i2uljt9","created_at_utc_A":1648720736,"created_at_utc_B":1648736010,"score_A":8,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Does proof, ~~model, category,~~ or type theory ever shown up in physics?  I think modal and fuzzy logic has been used, but I don't really expect higher order logic would have made an appearance either.  Might be wrong though.","human_ref_B":"It's probably easy to say yes and pick something obscure but generally you never know if something isn't going to become useful in physics. no math is useless to know","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15274.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2ufnzz","c_root_id_B":"i2uljt9","created_at_utc_A":1648733415,"created_at_utc_B":1648736010,"score_A":4,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Inter-universal Teichm\u00fcller theory","human_ref_B":"It's probably easy to say yes and pick something obscure but generally you never know if something isn't going to become useful in physics. no math is useless to know","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2595.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2uhfw8","c_root_id_B":"i2uljt9","created_at_utc_A":1648734222,"created_at_utc_B":1648736010,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Thinking about it does number theory (specially about integers) have good use in physics?","human_ref_B":"It's probably easy to say yes and pick something obscure but generally you never know if something isn't going to become useful in physics. no math is useless to know","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1788.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2vuw9d","c_root_id_B":"i2uhfw8","created_at_utc_A":1648753531,"created_at_utc_B":1648734222,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Had some marketing guy talk about \"color math\" (ie finding complementaries on the color wheel), which im not aware of being directly used in physics hahaha.... though it is analogized in QCD, so maybe theres some quibbles there","human_ref_B":"Thinking about it does number theory (specially about integers) have good use in physics?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19309.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"tsv3l4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Are there any branches of math that aren't used in physics? From what little I know, it seems practically any type of math I've encountered has some applications in physics, e.g abstract algebra, set theory, topology, even number theory. What math is so pure it literally doesn't have physics applications?","c_root_id_A":"i2v32hh","c_root_id_B":"i2vuw9d","created_at_utc_A":1648742932,"created_at_utc_B":1648753531,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"There must be. I couldn't specifically tell you which though. Usually new maths is found\/made and then physicists try to see if any of it applies to physics, so math is usually in front. I know of one instance where it was actually the other way around, where number-pairs where necessary for string-theory and created a new branch of maths. Sadly I can't find the exact example anymore.  This is also subject to an almost philosophical debate:   https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Relationship\\_between\\_mathematics\\_and\\_physics","human_ref_B":"Had some marketing guy talk about \"color math\" (ie finding complementaries on the color wheel), which im not aware of being directly used in physics hahaha.... though it is analogized in QCD, so maybe theres some quibbles there","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10599.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqyydi2","c_root_id_B":"gqz8rmh","created_at_utc_A":1615773788,"created_at_utc_B":1615780161,"score_A":50,"score_B":116,"human_ref_A":"Perfectly balancing something sharp","human_ref_B":"Early fluid dynamics couldn't explain a bumblebee's flight. The wings just couldn't generate enough lift, according to calculations. But then somebody was all, what if we assume the wings do generate enough lift, how do we have to modify the equations? And this name was Osborne Reynolds.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6373.0,"score_ratio":2.32}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqz882l","c_root_id_B":"gqz8rmh","created_at_utc_A":1615779803,"created_at_utc_B":1615780161,"score_A":29,"score_B":116,"human_ref_A":"A lot of the cool stuff they create in Kurzgesagt videos","human_ref_B":"Early fluid dynamics couldn't explain a bumblebee's flight. The wings just couldn't generate enough lift, according to calculations. But then somebody was all, what if we assume the wings do generate enough lift, how do we have to modify the equations? And this name was Osborne Reynolds.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":358.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqz8rmh","c_root_id_B":"gqz7vba","created_at_utc_A":1615780161,"created_at_utc_B":1615779575,"score_A":116,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Early fluid dynamics couldn't explain a bumblebee's flight. The wings just couldn't generate enough lift, according to calculations. But then somebody was all, what if we assume the wings do generate enough lift, how do we have to modify the equations? And this name was Osborne Reynolds.","human_ref_B":"I don't understand, are you asking for everyday examples of where physics theory is effectively wrong?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":586.0,"score_ratio":8.9230769231}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqz8rmh","c_root_id_B":"gqyrjem","created_at_utc_A":1615780161,"created_at_utc_B":1615769810,"score_A":116,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Early fluid dynamics couldn't explain a bumblebee's flight. The wings just couldn't generate enough lift, according to calculations. But then somebody was all, what if we assume the wings do generate enough lift, how do we have to modify the equations? And this name was Osborne Reynolds.","human_ref_B":"Building a fire","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10351.0,"score_ratio":11.6}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqyydi2","c_root_id_B":"gqzclmf","created_at_utc_A":1615773788,"created_at_utc_B":1615782846,"score_A":50,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"Perfectly balancing something sharp","human_ref_B":"\"I understand the concepts, I'll do fine in the test\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9058.0,"score_ratio":1.48}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqz882l","c_root_id_B":"gqzclmf","created_at_utc_A":1615779803,"created_at_utc_B":1615782846,"score_A":29,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"A lot of the cool stuff they create in Kurzgesagt videos","human_ref_B":"\"I understand the concepts, I'll do fine in the test\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3043.0,"score_ratio":2.5517241379}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqz7vba","c_root_id_B":"gqzclmf","created_at_utc_A":1615779575,"created_at_utc_B":1615782846,"score_A":13,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"I don't understand, are you asking for everyday examples of where physics theory is effectively wrong?","human_ref_B":"\"I understand the concepts, I'll do fine in the test\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3271.0,"score_ratio":5.6923076923}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqyrjem","c_root_id_B":"gqzclmf","created_at_utc_A":1615769810,"created_at_utc_B":1615782846,"score_A":10,"score_B":74,"human_ref_A":"Building a fire","human_ref_B":"\"I understand the concepts, I'll do fine in the test\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13036.0,"score_ratio":7.4}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqyydi2","c_root_id_B":"gqyrjem","created_at_utc_A":1615773788,"created_at_utc_B":1615769810,"score_A":50,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Perfectly balancing something sharp","human_ref_B":"Building a fire","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3978.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqzpq2t","c_root_id_B":"gqz882l","created_at_utc_A":1615794456,"created_at_utc_B":1615779803,"score_A":36,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"I love the idea, that if you throw a tennis ball slow enough through a slit you'll measure a diffraction pattern. The effect is based on the the broglie wavelength. We once calculated the speed needed to do so and it turned out that the ball would need about a billion times the time our universe exists to pass through a 6.5cm slit.","human_ref_B":"A lot of the cool stuff they create in Kurzgesagt videos","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14653.0,"score_ratio":1.2413793103}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqzgisz","c_root_id_B":"gqzpq2t","created_at_utc_A":1615785958,"created_at_utc_B":1615794456,"score_A":14,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"Muon-catalyzed fusion","human_ref_B":"I love the idea, that if you throw a tennis ball slow enough through a slit you'll measure a diffraction pattern. The effect is based on the the broglie wavelength. We once calculated the speed needed to do so and it turned out that the ball would need about a billion times the time our universe exists to pass through a 6.5cm slit.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8498.0,"score_ratio":2.5714285714}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqz7vba","c_root_id_B":"gqzpq2t","created_at_utc_A":1615779575,"created_at_utc_B":1615794456,"score_A":13,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"I don't understand, are you asking for everyday examples of where physics theory is effectively wrong?","human_ref_B":"I love the idea, that if you throw a tennis ball slow enough through a slit you'll measure a diffraction pattern. The effect is based on the the broglie wavelength. We once calculated the speed needed to do so and it turned out that the ball would need about a billion times the time our universe exists to pass through a 6.5cm slit.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14881.0,"score_ratio":2.7692307692}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqyrjem","c_root_id_B":"gqzpq2t","created_at_utc_A":1615769810,"created_at_utc_B":1615794456,"score_A":10,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"Building a fire","human_ref_B":"I love the idea, that if you throw a tennis ball slow enough through a slit you'll measure a diffraction pattern. The effect is based on the the broglie wavelength. We once calculated the speed needed to do so and it turned out that the ball would need about a billion times the time our universe exists to pass through a 6.5cm slit.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24646.0,"score_ratio":3.6}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqz7vba","c_root_id_B":"gqz882l","created_at_utc_A":1615779575,"created_at_utc_B":1615779803,"score_A":13,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"I don't understand, are you asking for everyday examples of where physics theory is effectively wrong?","human_ref_B":"A lot of the cool stuff they create in Kurzgesagt videos","labels":0,"seconds_difference":228.0,"score_ratio":2.2307692308}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqz882l","c_root_id_B":"gqyrjem","created_at_utc_A":1615779803,"created_at_utc_B":1615769810,"score_A":29,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"A lot of the cool stuff they create in Kurzgesagt videos","human_ref_B":"Building a fire","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9993.0,"score_ratio":2.9}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqzsj94","c_root_id_B":"gr06jpg","created_at_utc_A":1615797350,"created_at_utc_B":1615810539,"score_A":15,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"The rotation direction in Crookes radiometer. It's a simple toy that consists of a mill with wings that are black on one side and white on the other. In principle, radiation pressure should make it move from white to black... But in reality in spins the opposite way.","human_ref_B":"The power series solution to the three-body problem. It's proven to work, and can even be extended to N>3 bodies, but it converges so slowly that it's useless for any real applications.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13189.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gr06jpg","c_root_id_B":"gqzgisz","created_at_utc_A":1615810539,"created_at_utc_B":1615785958,"score_A":24,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"The power series solution to the three-body problem. It's proven to work, and can even be extended to N>3 bodies, but it converges so slowly that it's useless for any real applications.","human_ref_B":"Muon-catalyzed fusion","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24581.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqz7vba","c_root_id_B":"gr06jpg","created_at_utc_A":1615779575,"created_at_utc_B":1615810539,"score_A":13,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"I don't understand, are you asking for everyday examples of where physics theory is effectively wrong?","human_ref_B":"The power series solution to the three-body problem. It's proven to work, and can even be extended to N>3 bodies, but it converges so slowly that it's useless for any real applications.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":30964.0,"score_ratio":1.8461538462}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gr06jpg","c_root_id_B":"gqyrjem","created_at_utc_A":1615810539,"created_at_utc_B":1615769810,"score_A":24,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"The power series solution to the three-body problem. It's proven to work, and can even be extended to N>3 bodies, but it converges so slowly that it's useless for any real applications.","human_ref_B":"Building a fire","labels":1,"seconds_difference":40729.0,"score_ratio":2.4}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gr06jpg","c_root_id_B":"gr016os","created_at_utc_A":1615810539,"created_at_utc_B":1615806177,"score_A":24,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The power series solution to the three-body problem. It's proven to work, and can even be extended to N>3 bodies, but it converges so slowly that it's useless for any real applications.","human_ref_B":"The Mermin-Wagner theorem always seems to have very little applicability to real systems, since either extremely small anisotropies (in the case of magnets), or minute distortions (in the case of crystals) inevitably allow long range order in 2D systems.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4362.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gr06jpg","c_root_id_B":"gr0336h","created_at_utc_A":1615810539,"created_at_utc_B":1615807847,"score_A":24,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The power series solution to the three-body problem. It's proven to work, and can even be extended to N>3 bodies, but it converges so slowly that it's useless for any real applications.","human_ref_B":"The Banash Tarski paradox. https:\/\/youtu.be\/s86-Z-CbaHA","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2692.0,"score_ratio":12.0}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqzsj94","c_root_id_B":"gqzgisz","created_at_utc_A":1615797350,"created_at_utc_B":1615785958,"score_A":15,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"The rotation direction in Crookes radiometer. It's a simple toy that consists of a mill with wings that are black on one side and white on the other. In principle, radiation pressure should make it move from white to black... But in reality in spins the opposite way.","human_ref_B":"Muon-catalyzed fusion","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11392.0,"score_ratio":1.0714285714}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqz7vba","c_root_id_B":"gqzsj94","created_at_utc_A":1615779575,"created_at_utc_B":1615797350,"score_A":13,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I don't understand, are you asking for everyday examples of where physics theory is effectively wrong?","human_ref_B":"The rotation direction in Crookes radiometer. It's a simple toy that consists of a mill with wings that are black on one side and white on the other. In principle, radiation pressure should make it move from white to black... But in reality in spins the opposite way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17775.0,"score_ratio":1.1538461538}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqyrjem","c_root_id_B":"gqzsj94","created_at_utc_A":1615769810,"created_at_utc_B":1615797350,"score_A":10,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Building a fire","human_ref_B":"The rotation direction in Crookes radiometer. It's a simple toy that consists of a mill with wings that are black on one side and white on the other. In principle, radiation pressure should make it move from white to black... But in reality in spins the opposite way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27540.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqzgisz","c_root_id_B":"gqz7vba","created_at_utc_A":1615785958,"created_at_utc_B":1615779575,"score_A":14,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Muon-catalyzed fusion","human_ref_B":"I don't understand, are you asking for everyday examples of where physics theory is effectively wrong?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6383.0,"score_ratio":1.0769230769}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqyrjem","c_root_id_B":"gqzgisz","created_at_utc_A":1615769810,"created_at_utc_B":1615785958,"score_A":10,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Building a fire","human_ref_B":"Muon-catalyzed fusion","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16148.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"m58th8","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What\u2019s your favorite example of something that works, in theory, as a matter of physics, but doesn\u2019t work in reality?","c_root_id_A":"gqz7vba","c_root_id_B":"gqyrjem","created_at_utc_A":1615779575,"created_at_utc_B":1615769810,"score_A":13,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I don't understand, are you asking for everyday examples of where physics theory is effectively wrong?","human_ref_B":"Building a fire","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9765.0,"score_ratio":1.3}
{"post_id":"ipgr34","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Why are ashes white after the fire has died down, but then black when I poor water on them?","c_root_id_A":"g4korie","c_root_id_B":"g4jv3zq","created_at_utc_A":1599678233,"created_at_utc_B":1599663439,"score_A":36,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Calcium carbonate or calcium oxide is the white. When you knock it off\/wash it away the black carbon is what remains. https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wood_ash","human_ref_B":"This is my best guess but I think it\u2019s maybe better than nothing:  Ash is mostly powder or agglomerates of powder. If the powder particles are of various enough sizes, they\u2019ll scatter light of all wavelengths, giving it a white colour. When wet, *something* happens that makes the powder absorb the light instead of reflecting it. It might be thin layer interference, that makes it absorb mostly visible light, or simple total internal reflection, or the water smoothing out the surface of the powder particles or clumping them together, making the initial scattering effect moot. Maybe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14794.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"ipgr34","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Why are ashes white after the fire has died down, but then black when I poor water on them?","c_root_id_A":"g4jzsoh","c_root_id_B":"g4korie","created_at_utc_A":1599665835,"created_at_utc_B":1599678233,"score_A":7,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"I assumed (emphasis on \"assumed\") that the white stuff was either washed away or dissolved.","human_ref_B":"Calcium carbonate or calcium oxide is the white. When you knock it off\/wash it away the black carbon is what remains. https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wood_ash","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12398.0,"score_ratio":5.1428571429}
{"post_id":"ipgr34","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Why are ashes white after the fire has died down, but then black when I poor water on them?","c_root_id_A":"g4korie","c_root_id_B":"g4kmigk","created_at_utc_A":1599678233,"created_at_utc_B":1599677143,"score_A":36,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Calcium carbonate or calcium oxide is the white. When you knock it off\/wash it away the black carbon is what remains. https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wood_ash","human_ref_B":"Doesn't really solve your question, but that's how people made ink earlier in human history. Thought that may be a fun fact for some.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1090.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
{"post_id":"ipgr34","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Why are ashes white after the fire has died down, but then black when I poor water on them?","c_root_id_A":"g4korie","c_root_id_B":"g4k76zv","created_at_utc_A":1599678233,"created_at_utc_B":1599669489,"score_A":36,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Calcium carbonate or calcium oxide is the white. When you knock it off\/wash it away the black carbon is what remains. https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wood_ash","human_ref_B":"The white stuff is probably transparent, and stops scattering light nearly as much when wet, allowing dark particles to become much more prominent, much like how wetting a white shirt makes it somewhat transparent, and more gray.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8744.0,"score_ratio":12.0}
{"post_id":"ipgr34","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Why are ashes white after the fire has died down, but then black when I poor water on them?","c_root_id_A":"g4k76zv","c_root_id_B":"g4kmigk","created_at_utc_A":1599669489,"created_at_utc_B":1599677143,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The white stuff is probably transparent, and stops scattering light nearly as much when wet, allowing dark particles to become much more prominent, much like how wetting a white shirt makes it somewhat transparent, and more gray.","human_ref_B":"Doesn't really solve your question, but that's how people made ink earlier in human history. Thought that may be a fun fact for some.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7654.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"ipgr34","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Why are ashes white after the fire has died down, but then black when I poor water on them?","c_root_id_A":"g4k76zv","c_root_id_B":"g4l46z1","created_at_utc_A":1599669489,"created_at_utc_B":1599685692,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The white stuff is probably transparent, and stops scattering light nearly as much when wet, allowing dark particles to become much more prominent, much like how wetting a white shirt makes it somewhat transparent, and more gray.","human_ref_B":"Other's have correctly pointed out that it is a combination of water making the ash less reflective and dissolving the white oxides\/hydroxides left in the ash (hence Potash or soda ash names for potassium and sodium hydroxide).   This is also how you extract lye to make soap.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16203.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"m9cjtn","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Which are the current important topics for research in physics?","c_root_id_A":"grm49iw","c_root_id_B":"grm5liy","created_at_utc_A":1616265425,"created_at_utc_B":1616265989,"score_A":33,"score_B":78,"human_ref_A":"There is research in every subfield and every subfield has probably a number of central \/ interesting questions at the moment.","human_ref_B":"You\u2019ll need to be more specific to a sub field of physics you\u2019re interested in (and even then it will be a difficult question to answer). It is comparable to asking \u201cwhat are the best bands in music right now\u201d, there are so many different genres and the answer will vary widely from person to person. If you are looking for some fun topics to learn about, try looking through this Wikipedia page to give you an idea: https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics","labels":0,"seconds_difference":564.0,"score_ratio":2.3636363636}
{"post_id":"m9cjtn","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Which are the current important topics for research in physics?","c_root_id_A":"grm3o0i","c_root_id_B":"grm5liy","created_at_utc_A":1616265182,"created_at_utc_B":1616265989,"score_A":7,"score_B":78,"human_ref_A":"There's a lot of different topics. And the criteria for something being \"important\" varies from physicist to physicist.","human_ref_B":"You\u2019ll need to be more specific to a sub field of physics you\u2019re interested in (and even then it will be a difficult question to answer). It is comparable to asking \u201cwhat are the best bands in music right now\u201d, there are so many different genres and the answer will vary widely from person to person. If you are looking for some fun topics to learn about, try looking through this Wikipedia page to give you an idea: https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics","labels":0,"seconds_difference":807.0,"score_ratio":11.1428571429}
{"post_id":"m9cjtn","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Which are the current important topics for research in physics?","c_root_id_A":"grm3o0i","c_root_id_B":"grm49iw","created_at_utc_A":1616265182,"created_at_utc_B":1616265425,"score_A":7,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"There's a lot of different topics. And the criteria for something being \"important\" varies from physicist to physicist.","human_ref_B":"There is research in every subfield and every subfield has probably a number of central \/ interesting questions at the moment.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":243.0,"score_ratio":4.7142857143}
{"post_id":"m9cjtn","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Which are the current important topics for research in physics?","c_root_id_A":"grmb10n","c_root_id_B":"grm3o0i","created_at_utc_A":1616268315,"created_at_utc_B":1616265182,"score_A":16,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"You could have a look through big, inter-disciplinary journals like Physical Review Letters, Reviews of Modern Physics or Nature Physics to get an idea of what kind of things are getting published -- I think anything making into one of those journals counts as \"important\". Of course, most of that is behind a paywall, but you can still still titles and abstracts. You could also have a look at what is being put on the arXiv -- everything there is freely available to everyone. Not everything on the arXiv will make it onto high-impact journals, so maybe not everything there fits your personal definition of \"important\", but every paper seems important to the person who wrote it.","human_ref_B":"There's a lot of different topics. And the criteria for something being \"important\" varies from physicist to physicist.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3133.0,"score_ratio":2.2857142857}
{"post_id":"m9cjtn","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Which are the current important topics for research in physics?","c_root_id_A":"grmej9i","c_root_id_B":"grmxa0z","created_at_utc_A":1616269839,"created_at_utc_B":1616278018,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"How is it possible for us to bend space and time? I read about a paper that got recently peer reviewed about this engine drive traveling faster than speed of light. Theoretically it's possible, but now engineers have to figure out how to invent the thing","human_ref_B":"It depends on what you mean by \"important\", because what a physicist thinks is important and what the general public thinks is important are two very different questions.  From my experience, \"is this useful\" isn't a question that physcists tend to ask themselves very often, so the most important topics will tend to be whatever's most interesting without much consideration over whether it has any use to non-physicists","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8179.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"m9cjtn","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Which are the current important topics for research in physics?","c_root_id_A":"gro3bbx","c_root_id_B":"grmej9i","created_at_utc_A":1616300646,"created_at_utc_B":1616269839,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Gravitational field theory as it relates to adjacent dimensions.   What is dark energy\/dark matter?   Physical properties of nano materials on a quantum scale.","human_ref_B":"How is it possible for us to bend space and time? I read about a paper that got recently peer reviewed about this engine drive traveling faster than speed of light. Theoretically it's possible, but now engineers have to figure out how to invent the thing","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30807.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"m9cjtn","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Which are the current important topics for research in physics?","c_root_id_A":"grmej9i","c_root_id_B":"grpejrs","created_at_utc_A":1616269839,"created_at_utc_B":1616338311,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"How is it possible for us to bend space and time? I read about a paper that got recently peer reviewed about this engine drive traveling faster than speed of light. Theoretically it's possible, but now engineers have to figure out how to invent the thing","human_ref_B":"Condensed Matter, Astrophysics, AMO, and High Energy","labels":0,"seconds_difference":68472.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"m9cjtn","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Which are the current important topics for research in physics?","c_root_id_A":"grp01oa","c_root_id_B":"grpejrs","created_at_utc_A":1616329202,"created_at_utc_B":1616338311,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Quantum Computing","human_ref_B":"Condensed Matter, Astrophysics, AMO, and High Energy","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9109.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"kvpw5l","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"I'm studying physics and barely getting any interest in mechanics and on the other hand I am loving thermodynamics. The title says it all... I just want to know if this is only me or is this thing common that people who say they love physics never actually love to study every branch of it but just some particular ones.. I don't know why but i never seem to understand mechanics and always find it to be super boring.  Does anyone has the same problem like that?","c_root_id_A":"gizszh9","c_root_id_B":"gizt44z","created_at_utc_A":1610455287,"created_at_utc_B":1610455387,"score_A":12,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Exactly the opposite.","human_ref_B":"there are typically at least two mechanics classes a physics student takes (not counting quantum), Introductory mechanics and analytical mechanics  The first is intro mechanics where you learn about basic problems like incline planes, pulleys, work energy theorem, etc. and just begin using calculus to do physics.  Have you taken both? because for me I didn't like mechanics after the intro course but when I got to the higher level one and learned about things like lagrangians and Hamiltonians it became very interesting to me","labels":0,"seconds_difference":100.0,"score_ratio":1.5833333333}
{"post_id":"kvpw5l","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"I'm studying physics and barely getting any interest in mechanics and on the other hand I am loving thermodynamics. The title says it all... I just want to know if this is only me or is this thing common that people who say they love physics never actually love to study every branch of it but just some particular ones.. I don't know why but i never seem to understand mechanics and always find it to be super boring.  Does anyone has the same problem like that?","c_root_id_A":"gj1bd4s","c_root_id_B":"gj0wmov","created_at_utc_A":1610482588,"created_at_utc_B":1610475915,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Of course all have their preferred paradigms of Physics.  Having thermodynamics as a favourite though. That is pretty much unheard of, you are probably quite alone in that ;)","human_ref_B":"Physics are broad. Likewise, I always loved thermodynamics, but I always sucked at it too hard. On the other hand, I didn't like mechanics particularly, but I was doing OK there. I thought I'd love optics, and ugh, it didn't turn out so well. Same with electricity. I had never been too fond on chemistry, yet at some point I really started to enjoy it (it was way too late then though).  Lately I've been really interested in astrophysics, but I'm struggling so much with the maths, I'm quite happy physics are now just a hobby!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6673.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"kvpw5l","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"I'm studying physics and barely getting any interest in mechanics and on the other hand I am loving thermodynamics. The title says it all... I just want to know if this is only me or is this thing common that people who say they love physics never actually love to study every branch of it but just some particular ones.. I don't know why but i never seem to understand mechanics and always find it to be super boring.  Does anyone has the same problem like that?","c_root_id_A":"gj12b14","c_root_id_B":"gj1bd4s","created_at_utc_A":1610478465,"created_at_utc_B":1610482588,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"See I had the exact opposite problem, but I graduated and you can too!  If it's ONLY thermodynamics that you like then you have a lot of options for degrees, not just physics, but if you want to also study quantum mechanics, atomic and molecular systems, solid state physics, and a variety of other subjects related to physics, then you should stick with physics.  If you are more interested in chemistry or engineering, give those a look as well.  Just do whatever makes you happy.","human_ref_B":"Of course all have their preferred paradigms of Physics.  Having thermodynamics as a favourite though. That is pretty much unheard of, you are probably quite alone in that ;)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4123.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"xjsj8c","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why was I born into a 3 dimensional universe and not a 4th dimensional or 500th dimensional one?","c_root_id_A":"ipa7p71","c_root_id_B":"ipa7jle","created_at_utc_A":1663729545,"created_at_utc_B":1663729472,"score_A":98,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Many of the structures that are stable in 3 spatial dimensions, like atoms and solar systems, are unstable if there are more (large) spatial dimensions. That is one possible explanation.","human_ref_B":"Just lucky, I guess.  If you had been born in a 7 dimensional universe you wouldn't be you.  You would be an entirely different creature who would be asking \"Why was I born into a 7 dimensional universe and not a 3 dimensional or 500 dimensional one?\"  You might find this interesting.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":73.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
{"post_id":"xjsj8c","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why was I born into a 3 dimensional universe and not a 4th dimensional or 500th dimensional one?","c_root_id_A":"ipa7jle","c_root_id_B":"ipab9ps","created_at_utc_A":1663729472,"created_at_utc_B":1663731333,"score_A":14,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Just lucky, I guess.  If you had been born in a 7 dimensional universe you wouldn't be you.  You would be an entirely different creature who would be asking \"Why was I born into a 7 dimensional universe and not a 3 dimensional or 500 dimensional one?\"  You might find this interesting.","human_ref_B":"I thought i read there are no stable orbits in 4+ dimensional space.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1861.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"xjsj8c","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why was I born into a 3 dimensional universe and not a 4th dimensional or 500th dimensional one?","c_root_id_A":"ipakf87","c_root_id_B":"ipavb8x","created_at_utc_A":1663736465,"created_at_utc_B":1663744002,"score_A":7,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Because you were, and at the same time, someone in a 500 dimensional universe is asking \"why wasn't I born in a 3 dimensional one?\"  Asking why you were born in this universe is like asking why you were born in China.  The answer is \"because that's what happened.\"","human_ref_B":"This article on the \"Privileged character of 3+1 spacetime\" should help answer your question.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7537.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571}
{"post_id":"xjsj8c","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why was I born into a 3 dimensional universe and not a 4th dimensional or 500th dimensional one?","c_root_id_A":"ipavb8x","c_root_id_B":"ipacoj6","created_at_utc_A":1663744002,"created_at_utc_B":1663732077,"score_A":13,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This article on the \"Privileged character of 3+1 spacetime\" should help answer your question.","human_ref_B":"Three dimensions is the minimum required to have a complex structure like a cell. Basically, given N distinct points, you can\u2019t arbitrarily connect them with non-crossing lines in 2d (or 1d). With 3d, things can go around other things.  Think of a knot with string\u2026 can\u2019t be done in 2d.   Why not 4? Not sure, but if you maybe consider that each additional dimension requires excess energy or something\u2026 then 3d would be the lowest energy configuration. I just made that last part up.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11925.0,"score_ratio":2.6}
{"post_id":"xjsj8c","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why was I born into a 3 dimensional universe and not a 4th dimensional or 500th dimensional one?","c_root_id_A":"ipavb8x","c_root_id_B":"ipadqo3","created_at_utc_A":1663744002,"created_at_utc_B":1663732640,"score_A":13,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"This article on the \"Privileged character of 3+1 spacetime\" should help answer your question.","human_ref_B":"Time is often considered the 4th dimension. There is also string theory that proposes that there are multiple dimensions all rolled up into points","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11362.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
{"post_id":"xjsj8c","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why was I born into a 3 dimensional universe and not a 4th dimensional or 500th dimensional one?","c_root_id_A":"ipavb8x","c_root_id_B":"ipaelu0","created_at_utc_A":1663744002,"created_at_utc_B":1663733108,"score_A":13,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"This article on the \"Privileged character of 3+1 spacetime\" should help answer your question.","human_ref_B":"This is the universe where you get born, live and then die. Because we need you here!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10894.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
{"post_id":"xjsj8c","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why was I born into a 3 dimensional universe and not a 4th dimensional or 500th dimensional one?","c_root_id_A":"ipaf8dh","c_root_id_B":"ipavb8x","created_at_utc_A":1663733446,"created_at_utc_B":1663744002,"score_A":2,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Maybe you weren't and you just can't see it.","human_ref_B":"This article on the \"Privileged character of 3+1 spacetime\" should help answer your question.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10556.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
{"post_id":"xjsj8c","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why was I born into a 3 dimensional universe and not a 4th dimensional or 500th dimensional one?","c_root_id_A":"ipakf87","c_root_id_B":"ipacoj6","created_at_utc_A":1663736465,"created_at_utc_B":1663732077,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Because you were, and at the same time, someone in a 500 dimensional universe is asking \"why wasn't I born in a 3 dimensional one?\"  Asking why you were born in this universe is like asking why you were born in China.  The answer is \"because that's what happened.\"","human_ref_B":"Three dimensions is the minimum required to have a complex structure like a cell. Basically, given N distinct points, you can\u2019t arbitrarily connect them with non-crossing lines in 2d (or 1d). With 3d, things can go around other things.  Think of a knot with string\u2026 can\u2019t be done in 2d.   Why not 4? Not sure, but if you maybe consider that each additional dimension requires excess energy or something\u2026 then 3d would be the lowest energy configuration. I just made that last part up.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4388.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"xjsj8c","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why was I born into a 3 dimensional universe and not a 4th dimensional or 500th dimensional one?","c_root_id_A":"ipakf87","c_root_id_B":"ipadqo3","created_at_utc_A":1663736465,"created_at_utc_B":1663732640,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Because you were, and at the same time, someone in a 500 dimensional universe is asking \"why wasn't I born in a 3 dimensional one?\"  Asking why you were born in this universe is like asking why you were born in China.  The answer is \"because that's what happened.\"","human_ref_B":"Time is often considered the 4th dimension. There is also string theory that proposes that there are multiple dimensions all rolled up into points","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3825.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
{"post_id":"xjsj8c","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why was I born into a 3 dimensional universe and not a 4th dimensional or 500th dimensional one?","c_root_id_A":"ipakf87","c_root_id_B":"ipaelu0","created_at_utc_A":1663736465,"created_at_utc_B":1663733108,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Because you were, and at the same time, someone in a 500 dimensional universe is asking \"why wasn't I born in a 3 dimensional one?\"  Asking why you were born in this universe is like asking why you were born in China.  The answer is \"because that's what happened.\"","human_ref_B":"This is the universe where you get born, live and then die. Because we need you here!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3357.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
{"post_id":"xjsj8c","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why was I born into a 3 dimensional universe and not a 4th dimensional or 500th dimensional one?","c_root_id_A":"ipaf8dh","c_root_id_B":"ipakf87","created_at_utc_A":1663733446,"created_at_utc_B":1663736465,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Maybe you weren't and you just can't see it.","human_ref_B":"Because you were, and at the same time, someone in a 500 dimensional universe is asking \"why wasn't I born in a 3 dimensional one?\"  Asking why you were born in this universe is like asking why you were born in China.  The answer is \"because that's what happened.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3019.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"xjsj8c","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why was I born into a 3 dimensional universe and not a 4th dimensional or 500th dimensional one?","c_root_id_A":"ipaf8dh","c_root_id_B":"ipaw0xi","created_at_utc_A":1663733446,"created_at_utc_B":1663744554,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Maybe you weren't and you just can't see it.","human_ref_B":"Just so you know, humans are physically incapable of perceiving 4 dimensions. If you want to get nitpicky, we can't even see 3d. We only see two 2D images and our minds interpolate depth from the differences.  So even if we were in a higher dimension, we'd still only see 3 dimensions.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11108.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"xjsj8c","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why was I born into a 3 dimensional universe and not a 4th dimensional or 500th dimensional one?","c_root_id_A":"ipbbgck","c_root_id_B":"ipaf8dh","created_at_utc_A":1663756995,"created_at_utc_B":1663733446,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You will soon be, xi jinping","human_ref_B":"Maybe you weren't and you just can't see it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23549.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"vfltzi","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Is our solar system relatively 2-dimensional? Do all the planets actually orbit the sun in a disk-like fashion as shown in most depictions of the solar system? I think it makes sense given how a gravitational well works like a funnel. However, what\u2019s to stop a planet from orbiting at an angle relative to the other planets\u2019 orbits?","c_root_id_A":"icwlxyx","c_root_id_B":"icwpm2n","created_at_utc_A":1655608500,"created_at_utc_B":1655610812,"score_A":2,"score_B":216,"human_ref_A":"Pluto doesn't orbit in the same plane as the planets.","human_ref_B":"Yes. The average plane of the planets is called the invariable plane\\*. Of the 8 planets, the most inclined to this plane is Mercury at about 6.3 degrees, which is fairly close to flat for analogy purposes.  There is no law of physics preventing a planet or other body from orbiting at a high angle. Many comets do, as does Pluto, and we have launched missions like Ulysses) to high inclination heliocentric orbits. The reason the planets are flat-ish is because of how they *formed* in the first place.  The solar system formed from a very large molecular cloud that became gravitationally unstable and collapsed (possibly from a nearby supernova shockwave or something). The angular momentum of all the constituent gas and dust particles add up to a **single angular momentum vector**, pointed in some arbitrary direction. For the solar system this was about 63 degrees relative to the Milky Way's galactic plane. The angular momentum had some random nonzero magnitude as well (the cloud having exactly zero angular momentum is technically possible but very very unlikely - you would need a perfect balance of particles spinning in opposite directions).  When the cloud collapsed, angular momentum was conserved (this is a law of physics). Angular momentum = mass\\*velocity\\*distance from center. So as particles fell in towards the center, the distance decreased and the velocity must increase to make up for it. You get a shrinking cloud that starts swirling around faster and faster. As particles collide into each other in this chaotic mess, they exchange momentum. Statistically most momentum is going around the **single angular momentum vector** from earlier. As these particles bump into others, they hold the advantage and slowly more and more particles start getting pushed along in that direction around the overall vector. The cloud is also getting pretty hot at this point from the collisions, causing it to radiate away a lot of the kinetic energy of the particles. This further causes more particles to swirl in the preferred direction; this is a low energy state.  So ultimately you end up with a thin disk swirling around a protostar. Over time this disk coalesces into the planets, and in this disk they remain. The invariable plane is defined to be perpendicular to the same angular momentum vector present from even before the cloud collapsed.  ​  Animation of the solar system forming: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=8Rg9v3J0IiU  \\* This is different from the ecliptic, which is the plane of *Earth's* orbit specifically.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2312.0,"score_ratio":108.0}
{"post_id":"vfltzi","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Is our solar system relatively 2-dimensional? Do all the planets actually orbit the sun in a disk-like fashion as shown in most depictions of the solar system? I think it makes sense given how a gravitational well works like a funnel. However, what\u2019s to stop a planet from orbiting at an angle relative to the other planets\u2019 orbits?","c_root_id_A":"icwtlwm","c_root_id_B":"icwlxyx","created_at_utc_A":1655613510,"created_at_utc_B":1655608500,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Does anyone know if the \u201cPlanet X\u201d thing is in a different \u201cplane\u201d","human_ref_B":"Pluto doesn't orbit in the same plane as the planets.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5010.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"vfltzi","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Is our solar system relatively 2-dimensional? Do all the planets actually orbit the sun in a disk-like fashion as shown in most depictions of the solar system? I think it makes sense given how a gravitational well works like a funnel. However, what\u2019s to stop a planet from orbiting at an angle relative to the other planets\u2019 orbits?","c_root_id_A":"icx1e9p","c_root_id_B":"icwlxyx","created_at_utc_A":1655619381,"created_at_utc_B":1655608500,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"just wanted to add that you may be misunderstanding the model of gravitation as a \"sheet\" where a mass is like a ball pushing down on the sheet and creating a funnel shape around which other masses can orbit. this is a 2d model of what is really a 4d fabric of spacetime, so it doesnt make sense to say that the orbits would be in a 2d plane in reality.","human_ref_B":"Pluto doesn't orbit in the same plane as the planets.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10881.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpdi7xb","c_root_id_B":"hpdo802","created_at_utc_A":1640053657,"created_at_utc_B":1640056433,"score_A":20,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"Physics is a hard way to make money. I have an undergrad degree in Physics, and in the long run I\u2019m doing just fine financially, but it took a long time to get there. Physics undergrad degrees aren\u2019t great financial investments. Even if you intend to get a PHD, that can still be a poor financial investment. So you\u2019ll always have that to consider.  Perhaps an undergrad Physics degree plus a masters in Education would be a good route for you?   Ultimately you gotta follow your heart. If you go through with college Physics you will be a better critical thinker than 98% of everybody. It\u2019s great training for your mind and teaches you to really know whether you know something. But you should keep a focus on how you are going to monetize it, if you don\u2019t have great financial security","human_ref_B":"Another route to consider would be some kind of optical engineering\/photonics track. This uses lots of physics really interesting but is really marketable. Many universities don't have designated optics\/photonics departments but do have many professors doing the same work in physics or electrical engineering departments. A physics degree with decent optics experience is probably more marketable than most.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2776.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpdkzhs","c_root_id_B":"hpdo802","created_at_utc_A":1640054942,"created_at_utc_B":1640056433,"score_A":14,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"You can always minor in physics, which might be enough to scratch your itch. As an engineering major your first two years of university will look similar to a physics degree anyways, physics just might require an extra chemistry course or two or something. Otherwise the math and lower division physics requirement should be the same. When you start taking your upper-division engineering courses, you can start taking upper-division physics courses as well, and if you really decide engineering is intolerable you could make the switch then. Or maybe you'll decide that you'll go ahead with engineering and just take some physics upper divs to learn the stuff you want to learn. You don't have to decide right away.","human_ref_B":"Another route to consider would be some kind of optical engineering\/photonics track. This uses lots of physics really interesting but is really marketable. Many universities don't have designated optics\/photonics departments but do have many professors doing the same work in physics or electrical engineering departments. A physics degree with decent optics experience is probably more marketable than most.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1491.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpdo802","c_root_id_B":"hpdlshc","created_at_utc_A":1640056433,"created_at_utc_B":1640055323,"score_A":35,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Another route to consider would be some kind of optical engineering\/photonics track. This uses lots of physics really interesting but is really marketable. Many universities don't have designated optics\/photonics departments but do have many professors doing the same work in physics or electrical engineering departments. A physics degree with decent optics experience is probably more marketable than most.","human_ref_B":"You can do that kind of work with engineering. Hell, in electrical engineering, semi-conductors are designed based on quantum mechanics. With Aerospace, you can go into orbital mechanics, material science, or chemically reacting flows just as some examples. Material science and chemically reacting flows both deal with atomic descriptions of what's going on. Chemically reacting fluids involve knowing some statistical and quantum mechanics to fully capture what's going on. One of my professors had a phd in physics and was teaching Aerospace, doing research on using lasers to measure flow properties.  There's room for it in engineering, especially at the graduate levels. I also know people who minored in physics while doing a BS in Aero","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1110.0,"score_ratio":4.375}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpdkzhs","c_root_id_B":"hpe5uez","created_at_utc_A":1640054942,"created_at_utc_B":1640065658,"score_A":14,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"You can always minor in physics, which might be enough to scratch your itch. As an engineering major your first two years of university will look similar to a physics degree anyways, physics just might require an extra chemistry course or two or something. Otherwise the math and lower division physics requirement should be the same. When you start taking your upper-division engineering courses, you can start taking upper-division physics courses as well, and if you really decide engineering is intolerable you could make the switch then. Or maybe you'll decide that you'll go ahead with engineering and just take some physics upper divs to learn the stuff you want to learn. You don't have to decide right away.","human_ref_B":"Any decently large experiment will require engineers in addition to physicists.  For example, the LHC and the associated experiments requires many (thousands?) of engineers to design, construct, and operate the collider and the detectors.  I think there's quite a bit of flexibility in how much engineering and how much physics you ended up doing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10716.0,"score_ratio":1.0714285714}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpe5uez","c_root_id_B":"hpdlshc","created_at_utc_A":1640065658,"created_at_utc_B":1640055323,"score_A":15,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Any decently large experiment will require engineers in addition to physicists.  For example, the LHC and the associated experiments requires many (thousands?) of engineers to design, construct, and operate the collider and the detectors.  I think there's quite a bit of flexibility in how much engineering and how much physics you ended up doing.","human_ref_B":"You can do that kind of work with engineering. Hell, in electrical engineering, semi-conductors are designed based on quantum mechanics. With Aerospace, you can go into orbital mechanics, material science, or chemically reacting flows just as some examples. Material science and chemically reacting flows both deal with atomic descriptions of what's going on. Chemically reacting fluids involve knowing some statistical and quantum mechanics to fully capture what's going on. One of my professors had a phd in physics and was teaching Aerospace, doing research on using lasers to measure flow properties.  There's room for it in engineering, especially at the graduate levels. I also know people who minored in physics while doing a BS in Aero","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10335.0,"score_ratio":1.875}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpe5uez","c_root_id_B":"hpdot1x","created_at_utc_A":1640065658,"created_at_utc_B":1640056703,"score_A":15,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Any decently large experiment will require engineers in addition to physicists.  For example, the LHC and the associated experiments requires many (thousands?) of engineers to design, construct, and operate the collider and the detectors.  I think there's quite a bit of flexibility in how much engineering and how much physics you ended up doing.","human_ref_B":"I meant in 2008. That would have been a really lucky find","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8955.0,"score_ratio":7.5}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpdot1x","c_root_id_B":"hpepz9a","created_at_utc_A":1640056703,"created_at_utc_B":1640081153,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I meant in 2008. That would have been a really lucky find","human_ref_B":"Engineering sucks if you don't wind up where you want to be.  There.  I said it.  Good pay and boredom.  I review designs to make sure they meet applicable construction codes, do  a few excel calcs and voila! I was an electrician in college and enjoyed it more.  DO WHAT INTERESTS YOU OR YOU WILL BE MEDIOCRE.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24450.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpdot1x","c_root_id_B":"hpf850v","created_at_utc_A":1640056703,"created_at_utc_B":1640093859,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I meant in 2008. That would have been a really lucky find","human_ref_B":"So, I have a bachelor's and master's degree in physics, and for reasons that still elude me, I am now a civil engineer. I actually started out as a mechanical and electrical engineering double major before switching to physics because I liked studying the fundamental nature of the sciences a bit more than engineering, but I took a lot of engineering courses too since I wanted to do semiconductor physics.  You can totally do engineering as a physicist, or physics as an engineer. The two lines can get pretty blurry, especially as you go higher up in academia. It can be tough to land an engineering job as a physics major, but it's not impossible and given all the cutting edge technology coming out nowadays, having a solid physics background can be an advantage in emerging fields like quantum computing or nanoscale manufacturing. On the other hand, you constantly see engineering positions at the national laboratories, which gives an option to work alongside scientists without needing to get a doctorate. The two disciplines compliment each other really well.  As a high school student, it can be tough to say no to your parents since you're probably dependent on them for finances. There's a number of options available to you. Lots of folks have pointed out engineering physics, which is a good compromise between the two subjects. If your parents do insist on an engineering degree, know that you can easily go into a physics master's or doctorate out of an engineering bachelor's later down the line when you have some more independence. I've had many a friend go that route when they started in engineering but decided they really wanted to do more fundamental research in their life. You can also minor in physics, which will also help if you decide to pursue graduate school.  Another option that's a bit unorthodox but might help reassure your parents is to apply for a professional engineering license as a physics major. A PE license is the premiere credential in the engineering profession, and most engineers don't even have one (because it's not necessary for most private sector work), but the benefit is if you have it, you are legally entitled to use the title of professional engineer in ways others even with engineering degrees can't. You'll have to check with your state's licensing board requirements to see how it's done since the process is different in each state, but most have a pathway for non-engineering majors to obtain their license. You will need to take a few engineering courses to qualify (I think NCEES wants like 45 semester hours), so plan on at least minoring in some kind of engineering and taking some engineering courses as electives in your degree if you go this route. That's ultimately what I ended up doing completely out of necessity for my own job, but it's an option I encourage any non-engineering STEM bachelor to consider if they're having trouble competing for engineering jobs. As a tip, take the FE Other Disciplines test, since it's really a general physics\/physical science test compared to the other FE specialized discipline tests.  Best of luck, and no matter what anyone else tells you, follow your passions and work towards the field you want. They don't have to live with the consequences of your own life choices and while they may mean the best for you, only you can decide what makes you happy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":37156.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpetvgw","c_root_id_B":"hpf850v","created_at_utc_A":1640084412,"created_at_utc_B":1640093859,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Move to a country which gives you free education.","human_ref_B":"So, I have a bachelor's and master's degree in physics, and for reasons that still elude me, I am now a civil engineer. I actually started out as a mechanical and electrical engineering double major before switching to physics because I liked studying the fundamental nature of the sciences a bit more than engineering, but I took a lot of engineering courses too since I wanted to do semiconductor physics.  You can totally do engineering as a physicist, or physics as an engineer. The two lines can get pretty blurry, especially as you go higher up in academia. It can be tough to land an engineering job as a physics major, but it's not impossible and given all the cutting edge technology coming out nowadays, having a solid physics background can be an advantage in emerging fields like quantum computing or nanoscale manufacturing. On the other hand, you constantly see engineering positions at the national laboratories, which gives an option to work alongside scientists without needing to get a doctorate. The two disciplines compliment each other really well.  As a high school student, it can be tough to say no to your parents since you're probably dependent on them for finances. There's a number of options available to you. Lots of folks have pointed out engineering physics, which is a good compromise between the two subjects. If your parents do insist on an engineering degree, know that you can easily go into a physics master's or doctorate out of an engineering bachelor's later down the line when you have some more independence. I've had many a friend go that route when they started in engineering but decided they really wanted to do more fundamental research in their life. You can also minor in physics, which will also help if you decide to pursue graduate school.  Another option that's a bit unorthodox but might help reassure your parents is to apply for a professional engineering license as a physics major. A PE license is the premiere credential in the engineering profession, and most engineers don't even have one (because it's not necessary for most private sector work), but the benefit is if you have it, you are legally entitled to use the title of professional engineer in ways others even with engineering degrees can't. You'll have to check with your state's licensing board requirements to see how it's done since the process is different in each state, but most have a pathway for non-engineering majors to obtain their license. You will need to take a few engineering courses to qualify (I think NCEES wants like 45 semester hours), so plan on at least minoring in some kind of engineering and taking some engineering courses as electives in your degree if you go this route. That's ultimately what I ended up doing completely out of necessity for my own job, but it's an option I encourage any non-engineering STEM bachelor to consider if they're having trouble competing for engineering jobs. As a tip, take the FE Other Disciplines test, since it's really a general physics\/physical science test compared to the other FE specialized discipline tests.  Best of luck, and no matter what anyone else tells you, follow your passions and work towards the field you want. They don't have to live with the consequences of your own life choices and while they may mean the best for you, only you can decide what makes you happy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9447.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpexis6","c_root_id_B":"hpf850v","created_at_utc_A":1640087267,"created_at_utc_B":1640093859,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Many of the recent developments in physics have come from electrical engineers. If you really enjoy physics and plan on doing a graduate degree, electrical engineering could get you into research for quantum computing, optics, superconductors, etc.","human_ref_B":"So, I have a bachelor's and master's degree in physics, and for reasons that still elude me, I am now a civil engineer. I actually started out as a mechanical and electrical engineering double major before switching to physics because I liked studying the fundamental nature of the sciences a bit more than engineering, but I took a lot of engineering courses too since I wanted to do semiconductor physics.  You can totally do engineering as a physicist, or physics as an engineer. The two lines can get pretty blurry, especially as you go higher up in academia. It can be tough to land an engineering job as a physics major, but it's not impossible and given all the cutting edge technology coming out nowadays, having a solid physics background can be an advantage in emerging fields like quantum computing or nanoscale manufacturing. On the other hand, you constantly see engineering positions at the national laboratories, which gives an option to work alongside scientists without needing to get a doctorate. The two disciplines compliment each other really well.  As a high school student, it can be tough to say no to your parents since you're probably dependent on them for finances. There's a number of options available to you. Lots of folks have pointed out engineering physics, which is a good compromise between the two subjects. If your parents do insist on an engineering degree, know that you can easily go into a physics master's or doctorate out of an engineering bachelor's later down the line when you have some more independence. I've had many a friend go that route when they started in engineering but decided they really wanted to do more fundamental research in their life. You can also minor in physics, which will also help if you decide to pursue graduate school.  Another option that's a bit unorthodox but might help reassure your parents is to apply for a professional engineering license as a physics major. A PE license is the premiere credential in the engineering profession, and most engineers don't even have one (because it's not necessary for most private sector work), but the benefit is if you have it, you are legally entitled to use the title of professional engineer in ways others even with engineering degrees can't. You'll have to check with your state's licensing board requirements to see how it's done since the process is different in each state, but most have a pathway for non-engineering majors to obtain their license. You will need to take a few engineering courses to qualify (I think NCEES wants like 45 semester hours), so plan on at least minoring in some kind of engineering and taking some engineering courses as electives in your degree if you go this route. That's ultimately what I ended up doing completely out of necessity for my own job, but it's an option I encourage any non-engineering STEM bachelor to consider if they're having trouble competing for engineering jobs. As a tip, take the FE Other Disciplines test, since it's really a general physics\/physical science test compared to the other FE specialized discipline tests.  Best of luck, and no matter what anyone else tells you, follow your passions and work towards the field you want. They don't have to live with the consequences of your own life choices and while they may mean the best for you, only you can decide what makes you happy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6592.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpf850v","c_root_id_B":"hpf395q","created_at_utc_A":1640093859,"created_at_utc_B":1640091058,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So, I have a bachelor's and master's degree in physics, and for reasons that still elude me, I am now a civil engineer. I actually started out as a mechanical and electrical engineering double major before switching to physics because I liked studying the fundamental nature of the sciences a bit more than engineering, but I took a lot of engineering courses too since I wanted to do semiconductor physics.  You can totally do engineering as a physicist, or physics as an engineer. The two lines can get pretty blurry, especially as you go higher up in academia. It can be tough to land an engineering job as a physics major, but it's not impossible and given all the cutting edge technology coming out nowadays, having a solid physics background can be an advantage in emerging fields like quantum computing or nanoscale manufacturing. On the other hand, you constantly see engineering positions at the national laboratories, which gives an option to work alongside scientists without needing to get a doctorate. The two disciplines compliment each other really well.  As a high school student, it can be tough to say no to your parents since you're probably dependent on them for finances. There's a number of options available to you. Lots of folks have pointed out engineering physics, which is a good compromise between the two subjects. If your parents do insist on an engineering degree, know that you can easily go into a physics master's or doctorate out of an engineering bachelor's later down the line when you have some more independence. I've had many a friend go that route when they started in engineering but decided they really wanted to do more fundamental research in their life. You can also minor in physics, which will also help if you decide to pursue graduate school.  Another option that's a bit unorthodox but might help reassure your parents is to apply for a professional engineering license as a physics major. A PE license is the premiere credential in the engineering profession, and most engineers don't even have one (because it's not necessary for most private sector work), but the benefit is if you have it, you are legally entitled to use the title of professional engineer in ways others even with engineering degrees can't. You'll have to check with your state's licensing board requirements to see how it's done since the process is different in each state, but most have a pathway for non-engineering majors to obtain their license. You will need to take a few engineering courses to qualify (I think NCEES wants like 45 semester hours), so plan on at least minoring in some kind of engineering and taking some engineering courses as electives in your degree if you go this route. That's ultimately what I ended up doing completely out of necessity for my own job, but it's an option I encourage any non-engineering STEM bachelor to consider if they're having trouble competing for engineering jobs. As a tip, take the FE Other Disciplines test, since it's really a general physics\/physical science test compared to the other FE specialized discipline tests.  Best of luck, and no matter what anyone else tells you, follow your passions and work towards the field you want. They don't have to live with the consequences of your own life choices and while they may mean the best for you, only you can decide what makes you happy.","human_ref_B":"I have a degree in **engineering physics**, in my university it was literally a normal physics undergrad with extra **electrical engineering** classes on the side. I am currently doing research in photonics, more geared torwards optical fiber sensors. Most people I know with this degree are well employed, even the ones that finished with poorer grades (most students actually, we are not graded on a curve here). I say this from an EU perspective, I don't know how things are in the US, but I have received a few job offers at around the \\~80.000$ mark from there straight out of my bachelor's degree, again I have no idea what the cost of living in the US is, so I don't know how good\/bad this is. Choosing something in telecommunications\/optics will give you *a lot* of money as a physicist, not even kidding. Electrical engineering is probably the *classical engineering* course with most physics, if that interests you.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2801.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpfz9de","c_root_id_B":"hpdot1x","created_at_utc_A":1640105879,"created_at_utc_B":1640056703,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"To be clear, IT is not engineering. Physicist and engineers tend to need more training and make more money than IT folk. Lastly, many physicists, if not most, tend to become engineers but it doesn't work the other way around. Do physics you can go anywhere. Do engineering at the same time (dual degree or an actual EP program) and you'll go anywhere faster. Do IT, you are stuck in IT. Do engineering you can probably do IT as well but not physics.","human_ref_B":"I meant in 2008. That would have been a really lucky find","labels":1,"seconds_difference":49176.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpfz9de","c_root_id_B":"hpetvgw","created_at_utc_A":1640105879,"created_at_utc_B":1640084412,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"To be clear, IT is not engineering. Physicist and engineers tend to need more training and make more money than IT folk. Lastly, many physicists, if not most, tend to become engineers but it doesn't work the other way around. Do physics you can go anywhere. Do engineering at the same time (dual degree or an actual EP program) and you'll go anywhere faster. Do IT, you are stuck in IT. Do engineering you can probably do IT as well but not physics.","human_ref_B":"Move to a country which gives you free education.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21467.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpfz9de","c_root_id_B":"hpexis6","created_at_utc_A":1640105879,"created_at_utc_B":1640087267,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"To be clear, IT is not engineering. Physicist and engineers tend to need more training and make more money than IT folk. Lastly, many physicists, if not most, tend to become engineers but it doesn't work the other way around. Do physics you can go anywhere. Do engineering at the same time (dual degree or an actual EP program) and you'll go anywhere faster. Do IT, you are stuck in IT. Do engineering you can probably do IT as well but not physics.","human_ref_B":"Many of the recent developments in physics have come from electrical engineers. If you really enjoy physics and plan on doing a graduate degree, electrical engineering could get you into research for quantum computing, optics, superconductors, etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18612.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"rl3mfw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"I don't want to be an engineer, I like physics. Hi there, im currently in high school and have some financial problems in the family, my parents are not satisfied with me doing physics (i mean get a degree and pursue higher studies in) as im also considering doing engineering as it has become a need. But i don't want to leave physics, i love atomic physics and cosmology so much.  I want to ask here, can i continue my passion for physics while I'm doing engineering (IT) , will there be time for my passion. Or else is there any scope to follow my passion and take out my family of this?","c_root_id_A":"hpfz9de","c_root_id_B":"hpf395q","created_at_utc_A":1640105879,"created_at_utc_B":1640091058,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"To be clear, IT is not engineering. Physicist and engineers tend to need more training and make more money than IT folk. Lastly, many physicists, if not most, tend to become engineers but it doesn't work the other way around. Do physics you can go anywhere. Do engineering at the same time (dual degree or an actual EP program) and you'll go anywhere faster. Do IT, you are stuck in IT. Do engineering you can probably do IT as well but not physics.","human_ref_B":"I have a degree in **engineering physics**, in my university it was literally a normal physics undergrad with extra **electrical engineering** classes on the side. I am currently doing research in photonics, more geared torwards optical fiber sensors. Most people I know with this degree are well employed, even the ones that finished with poorer grades (most students actually, we are not graded on a curve here). I say this from an EU perspective, I don't know how things are in the US, but I have received a few job offers at around the \\~80.000$ mark from there straight out of my bachelor's degree, again I have no idea what the cost of living in the US is, so I don't know how good\/bad this is. Choosing something in telecommunications\/optics will give you *a lot* of money as a physicist, not even kidding. Electrical engineering is probably the *classical engineering* course with most physics, if that interests you.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14821.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"otnl8e","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"My teen is interested in learning about physics! First time posting here, not sure if this is the right place to post? I want to encourage them to learn more; not necessarily as a career path but more to feed his curiosity in the subject. We just talked about the Schr\u00f6dinger's cat theory and my mind is blown! Where can I get books or educational materials for a teenager?","c_root_id_A":"h6wk9pw","c_root_id_B":"h6wko14","created_at_utc_A":1627522422,"created_at_utc_B":1627522615,"score_A":3,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"What age and level of education? Teenage can be everything from 13 to 19. A 19 year old might be ready to actually read the Griffith QM book. A 13 year old will find a wide variety of popsci written for him. Are there any topics of physics he's particularly interested in?","human_ref_B":"Brian Greene\u2019s book The Elegant Universe was what moved me from \u201cphysics is somewhat interesting\u201d to \u201coh damn, I didn\u2019t know what I don\u2019t know and now I want to understand it all\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":193.0,"score_ratio":16.0}
{"post_id":"otnl8e","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"My teen is interested in learning about physics! First time posting here, not sure if this is the right place to post? I want to encourage them to learn more; not necessarily as a career path but more to feed his curiosity in the subject. We just talked about the Schr\u00f6dinger's cat theory and my mind is blown! Where can I get books or educational materials for a teenager?","c_root_id_A":"h6xjipi","c_root_id_B":"h6x58m2","created_at_utc_A":1627544379,"created_at_utc_B":1627533642,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking is an awesome book.  On YouTube, pbs space time is amazing.  A little more advanced, but Sean Carroll makes a lot of really good content geared for every level, so you can find a ton from him.","human_ref_B":"I strongly recommend having them read \"Six Easy Pieces\" and \"Six Not-So-Easy Pieces\", both by Richard Feynman. They are both excerpts from his famous Feynman Lectures (which in its original form would be a bit dense for someone at their age and background). They're fairly thin and pretty cheap books that give a great overview of some interesting physics concepts, and shared with the always lovely voice and teaching style of Richard Feynman.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10737.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"otnl8e","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"My teen is interested in learning about physics! First time posting here, not sure if this is the right place to post? I want to encourage them to learn more; not necessarily as a career path but more to feed his curiosity in the subject. We just talked about the Schr\u00f6dinger's cat theory and my mind is blown! Where can I get books or educational materials for a teenager?","c_root_id_A":"h6xjipi","c_root_id_B":"h6wk9pw","created_at_utc_A":1627544379,"created_at_utc_B":1627522422,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking is an awesome book.  On YouTube, pbs space time is amazing.  A little more advanced, but Sean Carroll makes a lot of really good content geared for every level, so you can find a ton from him.","human_ref_B":"What age and level of education? Teenage can be everything from 13 to 19. A 19 year old might be ready to actually read the Griffith QM book. A 13 year old will find a wide variety of popsci written for him. Are there any topics of physics he's particularly interested in?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21957.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"otnl8e","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"My teen is interested in learning about physics! First time posting here, not sure if this is the right place to post? I want to encourage them to learn more; not necessarily as a career path but more to feed his curiosity in the subject. We just talked about the Schr\u00f6dinger's cat theory and my mind is blown! Where can I get books or educational materials for a teenager?","c_root_id_A":"h6wy2mo","c_root_id_B":"h6xjipi","created_at_utc_A":1627529402,"created_at_utc_B":1627544379,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Hinch hiker's guide to the universe is a pretty awesome read","human_ref_B":"A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking is an awesome book.  On YouTube, pbs space time is amazing.  A little more advanced, but Sean Carroll makes a lot of really good content geared for every level, so you can find a ton from him.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14977.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"otnl8e","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"My teen is interested in learning about physics! First time posting here, not sure if this is the right place to post? I want to encourage them to learn more; not necessarily as a career path but more to feed his curiosity in the subject. We just talked about the Schr\u00f6dinger's cat theory and my mind is blown! Where can I get books or educational materials for a teenager?","c_root_id_A":"h6xbxxh","c_root_id_B":"h6xjipi","created_at_utc_A":1627538252,"created_at_utc_B":1627544379,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I am a physicist. I didn't develop my interest in physics quite so early. I started to study chemical engineering at first when I came across one of the standard work books of physics: Tipler, Physics for scientists and engineers. I enjoyed it very much, and would like to recommend it to your son.  It is a work book and as such entirely different from many other books that are recommended here and which could be classified as popular science. I liked Tipler because it provided me with a structure, some historic context, famous phenomena and also lots of examples. Most of this was new to me, at least at that level.","human_ref_B":"A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking is an awesome book.  On YouTube, pbs space time is amazing.  A little more advanced, but Sean Carroll makes a lot of really good content geared for every level, so you can find a ton from him.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6127.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"otnl8e","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"My teen is interested in learning about physics! First time posting here, not sure if this is the right place to post? I want to encourage them to learn more; not necessarily as a career path but more to feed his curiosity in the subject. We just talked about the Schr\u00f6dinger's cat theory and my mind is blown! Where can I get books or educational materials for a teenager?","c_root_id_A":"h6x30g8","c_root_id_B":"h6wk9pw","created_at_utc_A":1627532259,"created_at_utc_B":1627522422,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I was really excited about physics when I was young. I now have a B.S. in physics (and am happy about that), but there was a long period in between where I was really turned off by science and education. I felt like they were teaching us useless physics in high school. Turns out I was completely wrong.  I hope your kid isn't a cranky punk like me and you shouldn't dissuade them from pursuing whatever they like about physics. However, if they really want to learn about it, they'll need to get to like math and classical mechanics.  It can be harder to find books that aren't just text books in those areas. For math, I recommend Fermat's Last Theorem (also called Fermat's Enigma) by Simon Sigh. I would actually recommend some of Randall Monroe's books (there is probably adult content I have forgotten about). He generally talks about silly and unreasonable things using stick figures, but uses ideas like estimation that are integral to all parts of real physics.  The biggest barrier between a young student and \"real\" physics is math. Einstein's (special) relativity can be explained with math that is technically covered by 10th or 11th, but it will be very confusing unless they really understood the math.","human_ref_B":"What age and level of education? Teenage can be everything from 13 to 19. A 19 year old might be ready to actually read the Griffith QM book. A 13 year old will find a wide variety of popsci written for him. Are there any topics of physics he's particularly interested in?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9837.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"otnl8e","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"My teen is interested in learning about physics! First time posting here, not sure if this is the right place to post? I want to encourage them to learn more; not necessarily as a career path but more to feed his curiosity in the subject. We just talked about the Schr\u00f6dinger's cat theory and my mind is blown! Where can I get books or educational materials for a teenager?","c_root_id_A":"h6wy2mo","c_root_id_B":"h6x30g8","created_at_utc_A":1627529402,"created_at_utc_B":1627532259,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Hinch hiker's guide to the universe is a pretty awesome read","human_ref_B":"I was really excited about physics when I was young. I now have a B.S. in physics (and am happy about that), but there was a long period in between where I was really turned off by science and education. I felt like they were teaching us useless physics in high school. Turns out I was completely wrong.  I hope your kid isn't a cranky punk like me and you shouldn't dissuade them from pursuing whatever they like about physics. However, if they really want to learn about it, they'll need to get to like math and classical mechanics.  It can be harder to find books that aren't just text books in those areas. For math, I recommend Fermat's Last Theorem (also called Fermat's Enigma) by Simon Sigh. I would actually recommend some of Randall Monroe's books (there is probably adult content I have forgotten about). He generally talks about silly and unreasonable things using stick figures, but uses ideas like estimation that are integral to all parts of real physics.  The biggest barrier between a young student and \"real\" physics is math. Einstein's (special) relativity can be explained with math that is technically covered by 10th or 11th, but it will be very confusing unless they really understood the math.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2857.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"otnl8e","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"My teen is interested in learning about physics! First time posting here, not sure if this is the right place to post? I want to encourage them to learn more; not necessarily as a career path but more to feed his curiosity in the subject. We just talked about the Schr\u00f6dinger's cat theory and my mind is blown! Where can I get books or educational materials for a teenager?","c_root_id_A":"h6wk9pw","c_root_id_B":"h6x58m2","created_at_utc_A":1627522422,"created_at_utc_B":1627533642,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What age and level of education? Teenage can be everything from 13 to 19. A 19 year old might be ready to actually read the Griffith QM book. A 13 year old will find a wide variety of popsci written for him. Are there any topics of physics he's particularly interested in?","human_ref_B":"I strongly recommend having them read \"Six Easy Pieces\" and \"Six Not-So-Easy Pieces\", both by Richard Feynman. They are both excerpts from his famous Feynman Lectures (which in its original form would be a bit dense for someone at their age and background). They're fairly thin and pretty cheap books that give a great overview of some interesting physics concepts, and shared with the always lovely voice and teaching style of Richard Feynman.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11220.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"otnl8e","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"My teen is interested in learning about physics! First time posting here, not sure if this is the right place to post? I want to encourage them to learn more; not necessarily as a career path but more to feed his curiosity in the subject. We just talked about the Schr\u00f6dinger's cat theory and my mind is blown! Where can I get books or educational materials for a teenager?","c_root_id_A":"h6x58m2","c_root_id_B":"h6wy2mo","created_at_utc_A":1627533642,"created_at_utc_B":1627529402,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I strongly recommend having them read \"Six Easy Pieces\" and \"Six Not-So-Easy Pieces\", both by Richard Feynman. They are both excerpts from his famous Feynman Lectures (which in its original form would be a bit dense for someone at their age and background). They're fairly thin and pretty cheap books that give a great overview of some interesting physics concepts, and shared with the always lovely voice and teaching style of Richard Feynman.","human_ref_B":"Hinch hiker's guide to the universe is a pretty awesome read","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4240.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"k08mq2","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What is the best explanation of Newton\u2019s laws your teacher or professor taught you?","c_root_id_A":"gdgr7mp","c_root_id_B":"gdgtowq","created_at_utc_A":1606240335,"created_at_utc_B":1606241467,"score_A":12,"score_B":78,"human_ref_A":"I had never really thought about it but in a grad mechanics class when going over some introductory formalism the prof framed newton\u2019s third law as arising from every (macroscopic) force being the sum of pairwise interactions. I mean I remember covering that in undergrad but something about the way he phrased it made it seem obvious","human_ref_B":"Third law I have a student smack a table, hard. But somehow their hand is in pain, even though it\u2019s the one doing the snacking. That\u2019s the Third Law right there: the table hits back.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1132.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
{"post_id":"k08mq2","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What is the best explanation of Newton\u2019s laws your teacher or professor taught you?","c_root_id_A":"gdgolbz","c_root_id_B":"gdgtowq","created_at_utc_A":1606239155,"created_at_utc_B":1606241467,"score_A":10,"score_B":78,"human_ref_A":"That they are just definitions, not laws. We pick momentum as a variable because it is convenient: it is conserved when the system is translation-invariant.","human_ref_B":"Third law I have a student smack a table, hard. But somehow their hand is in pain, even though it\u2019s the one doing the snacking. That\u2019s the Third Law right there: the table hits back.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2312.0,"score_ratio":7.8}
{"post_id":"k08mq2","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What is the best explanation of Newton\u2019s laws your teacher or professor taught you?","c_root_id_A":"gdgtowq","c_root_id_B":"gdgs11r","created_at_utc_A":1606241467,"created_at_utc_B":1606240703,"score_A":78,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Third law I have a student smack a table, hard. But somehow their hand is in pain, even though it\u2019s the one doing the snacking. That\u2019s the Third Law right there: the table hits back.","human_ref_B":"None of my teachers taught me Newton\u2019s laws well. But I learnt Newton\u2019s laws well while preparing to teach these laws to my students. I realized that first and third laws are natural consequence of second law.   F=dp\/dt which means in the absence of F, p is constant (can be 0 or nonzero) which is the first law. And if you start with p1+p2 = constant then the F1 and F2 are equal and opposite which is the the third law.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":764.0,"score_ratio":39.0}
{"post_id":"k08mq2","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What is the best explanation of Newton\u2019s laws your teacher or professor taught you?","c_root_id_A":"gdgr7mp","c_root_id_B":"gdgyjog","created_at_utc_A":1606240335,"created_at_utc_B":1606243720,"score_A":12,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"I had never really thought about it but in a grad mechanics class when going over some introductory formalism the prof framed newton\u2019s third law as arising from every (macroscopic) force being the sum of pairwise interactions. I mean I remember covering that in undergrad but something about the way he phrased it made it seem obvious","human_ref_B":"One famous question that often stumps folks new to this is:  \"What is the reaction force to gravity acting on an object sitting on a table?\"  To which they of course answer: \"Well, duh, the normal force.\"  And then we go on.  \"OK, same question, object is in freefall (in outer space if needed to ignore air resistance.)  What now?\"  I also like to ask people what specific force allows them to walk down the sidewalk.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3385.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
{"post_id":"k08mq2","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What is the best explanation of Newton\u2019s laws your teacher or professor taught you?","c_root_id_A":"gdgr7mp","c_root_id_B":"gdgolbz","created_at_utc_A":1606240335,"created_at_utc_B":1606239155,"score_A":12,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I had never really thought about it but in a grad mechanics class when going over some introductory formalism the prof framed newton\u2019s third law as arising from every (macroscopic) force being the sum of pairwise interactions. I mean I remember covering that in undergrad but something about the way he phrased it made it seem obvious","human_ref_B":"That they are just definitions, not laws. We pick momentum as a variable because it is convenient: it is conserved when the system is translation-invariant.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1180.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"k08mq2","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What is the best explanation of Newton\u2019s laws your teacher or professor taught you?","c_root_id_A":"gdgyjog","c_root_id_B":"gdgolbz","created_at_utc_A":1606243720,"created_at_utc_B":1606239155,"score_A":14,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"One famous question that often stumps folks new to this is:  \"What is the reaction force to gravity acting on an object sitting on a table?\"  To which they of course answer: \"Well, duh, the normal force.\"  And then we go on.  \"OK, same question, object is in freefall (in outer space if needed to ignore air resistance.)  What now?\"  I also like to ask people what specific force allows them to walk down the sidewalk.","human_ref_B":"That they are just definitions, not laws. We pick momentum as a variable because it is convenient: it is conserved when the system is translation-invariant.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4565.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"k08mq2","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What is the best explanation of Newton\u2019s laws your teacher or professor taught you?","c_root_id_A":"gdgyjog","c_root_id_B":"gdgy1p8","created_at_utc_A":1606243720,"created_at_utc_B":1606243488,"score_A":14,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"One famous question that often stumps folks new to this is:  \"What is the reaction force to gravity acting on an object sitting on a table?\"  To which they of course answer: \"Well, duh, the normal force.\"  And then we go on.  \"OK, same question, object is in freefall (in outer space if needed to ignore air resistance.)  What now?\"  I also like to ask people what specific force allows them to walk down the sidewalk.","human_ref_B":"2nd law (net\\_F = m\\*a): The left-hand side of the equation is all the interactions acting on your system. The right-hand side (acceleration) is the consequences of those interactions. The two are scaled by the mass.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":232.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
{"post_id":"k08mq2","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What is the best explanation of Newton\u2019s laws your teacher or professor taught you?","c_root_id_A":"gdgyjog","c_root_id_B":"gdgs11r","created_at_utc_A":1606243720,"created_at_utc_B":1606240703,"score_A":14,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"One famous question that often stumps folks new to this is:  \"What is the reaction force to gravity acting on an object sitting on a table?\"  To which they of course answer: \"Well, duh, the normal force.\"  And then we go on.  \"OK, same question, object is in freefall (in outer space if needed to ignore air resistance.)  What now?\"  I also like to ask people what specific force allows them to walk down the sidewalk.","human_ref_B":"None of my teachers taught me Newton\u2019s laws well. But I learnt Newton\u2019s laws well while preparing to teach these laws to my students. I realized that first and third laws are natural consequence of second law.   F=dp\/dt which means in the absence of F, p is constant (can be 0 or nonzero) which is the first law. And if you start with p1+p2 = constant then the F1 and F2 are equal and opposite which is the the third law.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3017.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
{"post_id":"k08mq2","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What is the best explanation of Newton\u2019s laws your teacher or professor taught you?","c_root_id_A":"gdgwr33","c_root_id_B":"gdgyjog","created_at_utc_A":1606242882,"created_at_utc_B":1606243720,"score_A":2,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Conservation laws (for instance, momentum, via N2):  If you don't change it,  then it stays the same.","human_ref_B":"One famous question that often stumps folks new to this is:  \"What is the reaction force to gravity acting on an object sitting on a table?\"  To which they of course answer: \"Well, duh, the normal force.\"  And then we go on.  \"OK, same question, object is in freefall (in outer space if needed to ignore air resistance.)  What now?\"  I also like to ask people what specific force allows them to walk down the sidewalk.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":838.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
{"post_id":"k08mq2","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What is the best explanation of Newton\u2019s laws your teacher or professor taught you?","c_root_id_A":"gdgs11r","c_root_id_B":"gdgy1p8","created_at_utc_A":1606240703,"created_at_utc_B":1606243488,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"None of my teachers taught me Newton\u2019s laws well. But I learnt Newton\u2019s laws well while preparing to teach these laws to my students. I realized that first and third laws are natural consequence of second law.   F=dp\/dt which means in the absence of F, p is constant (can be 0 or nonzero) which is the first law. And if you start with p1+p2 = constant then the F1 and F2 are equal and opposite which is the the third law.","human_ref_B":"2nd law (net\\_F = m\\*a): The left-hand side of the equation is all the interactions acting on your system. The right-hand side (acceleration) is the consequences of those interactions. The two are scaled by the mass.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2785.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"k08mq2","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What is the best explanation of Newton\u2019s laws your teacher or professor taught you?","c_root_id_A":"gdgwr33","c_root_id_B":"gdgy1p8","created_at_utc_A":1606242882,"created_at_utc_B":1606243488,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Conservation laws (for instance, momentum, via N2):  If you don't change it,  then it stays the same.","human_ref_B":"2nd law (net\\_F = m\\*a): The left-hand side of the equation is all the interactions acting on your system. The right-hand side (acceleration) is the consequences of those interactions. The two are scaled by the mass.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":606.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"k08mq2","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What is the best explanation of Newton\u2019s laws your teacher or professor taught you?","c_root_id_A":"gdh2z6n","c_root_id_B":"gdgs11r","created_at_utc_A":1606245766,"created_at_utc_B":1606240703,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"For Newton's Third Law, it was helpful to reframe the idea of forces. A force isn't something that one object does to another; forces arise when objects interact. Especially when introducing forces to begin with, you **always** need two objects when identifying forces. Forces are how objects interact with each other.  So, when talking about NIII, we can go back to interactions. When two objects interact, the interaction is not one-way. When drawing interaction diagrams, the connecting lines don't have arrows or a direction. The lines represent the forces involved between two objects.  This helps build up the idea that when an object exerts a force on another object, it receives a force at the same time; this also helps reject the idea that some forces are actions and some are reactions. Both forces happen at the same time and neither is *slightly* delayed, which the action-reaction phrasing implies to some students.  It's not a big leap to then assert that the forces both objects feel are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. I think it's 100% the right idea to never use the \"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction\" phrasing in a classroom because it's vague and unhelpful at best, and can imply bad conceptions at worst.","human_ref_B":"None of my teachers taught me Newton\u2019s laws well. But I learnt Newton\u2019s laws well while preparing to teach these laws to my students. I realized that first and third laws are natural consequence of second law.   F=dp\/dt which means in the absence of F, p is constant (can be 0 or nonzero) which is the first law. And if you start with p1+p2 = constant then the F1 and F2 are equal and opposite which is the the third law.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5063.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"k08mq2","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What is the best explanation of Newton\u2019s laws your teacher or professor taught you?","c_root_id_A":"gdgwr33","c_root_id_B":"gdh2z6n","created_at_utc_A":1606242882,"created_at_utc_B":1606245766,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Conservation laws (for instance, momentum, via N2):  If you don't change it,  then it stays the same.","human_ref_B":"For Newton's Third Law, it was helpful to reframe the idea of forces. A force isn't something that one object does to another; forces arise when objects interact. Especially when introducing forces to begin with, you **always** need two objects when identifying forces. Forces are how objects interact with each other.  So, when talking about NIII, we can go back to interactions. When two objects interact, the interaction is not one-way. When drawing interaction diagrams, the connecting lines don't have arrows or a direction. The lines represent the forces involved between two objects.  This helps build up the idea that when an object exerts a force on another object, it receives a force at the same time; this also helps reject the idea that some forces are actions and some are reactions. Both forces happen at the same time and neither is *slightly* delayed, which the action-reaction phrasing implies to some students.  It's not a big leap to then assert that the forces both objects feel are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. I think it's 100% the right idea to never use the \"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction\" phrasing in a classroom because it's vague and unhelpful at best, and can imply bad conceptions at worst.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2884.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"mmtkph","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Questions to ask a particle physicist? My high-school physics teacher is a particle physicist who has worked at both nuclear fission and fusion reactors. He offered us to gather some questions to discuss whatever we are interested in regarding this topic.   What are questions that could start an interesting discussion?  I appreciate any help you can provide. :)","c_root_id_A":"gtttmwm","c_root_id_B":"gttpwwr","created_at_utc_A":1617900073,"created_at_utc_B":1617898522,"score_A":28,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Ask what kind of particle a moron is","human_ref_B":"Ask him about this possible new fifth force of nature that has been observed with regards to the muons.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1551.0,"score_ratio":1.2727272727}
{"post_id":"jpu924","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"If the Earth suddenly disappeared (via Vogon or something), would the moon continue a stable orbit around the Sun? Title pretty much says it all. I would imagine that if the moon was traveling tangent to Earth's orbit, then it would definitely continue in an Earth-like orbit around the Sun. But what if it was moving radially inward, towards the sun? Away from it? What about if its velocity was the negation of Earth's orbit's tangent vector?","c_root_id_A":"gbhkftr","c_root_id_B":"gbicsl2","created_at_utc_A":1604780323,"created_at_utc_B":1604789637,"score_A":3,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I wonder if this would also create a small gravitational wave.","human_ref_B":"Follow-up to my earlier answer: while the disappearing Earth won't have big consequences for the Moon, it'd be an interesting time to be on the International Space Station.  Because of its high orbital velocity (7.5 km\/s instead of 1 km\/s), it could reach either Mars or Venus, depending on the timing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9314.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"b4d08n","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Not a question normally asked, but: what's the best way to get new physics news without it being distorted by the \"pop science\" articles?","c_root_id_A":"ej677mx","c_root_id_B":"ej67taw","created_at_utc_A":1553312350,"created_at_utc_B":1553312916,"score_A":9,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"In addition to Physics Today and Physics World, you can keep an eye on reputable blogs run by professors in your field of interest. Of course, they all have different target audiences, so they range from suitable for \"professional physicists with a different specialty\" all the way down to the general public.","human_ref_B":"Stay away from phys.org","labels":0,"seconds_difference":566.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh3b59","c_root_id_B":"ieh8mn9","created_at_utc_A":1656695556,"created_at_utc_B":1656697700,"score_A":89,"score_B":91,"human_ref_A":"Mostly wondering why the fuck I am missing a factor of 2.","human_ref_B":"why the fuck isnt my code working","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2144.0,"score_ratio":1.0224719101}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh8mn9","c_root_id_B":"iefwctz","created_at_utc_A":1656697700,"created_at_utc_B":1656676532,"score_A":91,"score_B":71,"human_ref_A":"why the fuck isnt my code working","human_ref_B":"I am not a physicist but i love reading and learning stuff, so here are a few of my shower thoughts:  - The Theory of Everything isn\u2019t as exciting as it sounds  - The Simulation Theory is the modern alternative to God, and ultimately means nothing  - Long distance\/time space travel seems improbable for humans.  - the fact that things work is absolutely mind blowing. We simply understood certain phenomena and now we have GPS and airplanes and computers and everything.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21168.0,"score_ratio":1.2816901408}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh8mn9","c_root_id_B":"ieg87b1","created_at_utc_A":1656697700,"created_at_utc_B":1656682681,"score_A":91,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"why the fuck isnt my code working","human_ref_B":"Does the water work better (i.e. have more energy) higher up right out of the shower head, or lower down after it's fallen for a while?  With a shower head it's pretty clear it seems that the water hast the most velocity (and therefore energy) right out of the head at full pressure. As it falls it gains some kinetic energy as it loses potential energy, yeah, but air resistance seems to be a huge factor.  But with a *sink faucet* and those fancy aerators meant to churn up the water, I do wonder where I should hold my toothbrush for maximum effect.  Anyway I think about that often.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15019.0,"score_ratio":2.4594594595}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegijwu","c_root_id_B":"ieh8mn9","created_at_utc_A":1656687147,"created_at_utc_B":1656697700,"score_A":15,"score_B":91,"human_ref_A":"I like to hum in the shower and gradually increase my pitch until I hit a resonance frequency. When I took a laser course I realized it\u2019s a good analogy to understanding the mechanisms of a VCSEL","human_ref_B":"why the fuck isnt my code working","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10553.0,"score_ratio":6.0666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh6fpl","c_root_id_B":"ieh8mn9","created_at_utc_A":1656696815,"created_at_utc_B":1656697700,"score_A":16,"score_B":91,"human_ref_A":"I'm trapped in this monkey like body which continuously generates oily grease & sweat, interacting & reacting to my environment","human_ref_B":"why the fuck isnt my code working","labels":0,"seconds_difference":885.0,"score_ratio":5.6875}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh5676","c_root_id_B":"ieh8mn9","created_at_utc_A":1656696304,"created_at_utc_B":1656697700,"score_A":13,"score_B":91,"human_ref_A":"\u201cDid I forget the minus sign on my midterm?\u201d","human_ref_B":"why the fuck isnt my code working","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1396.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieg9gsx","c_root_id_B":"ieh8mn9","created_at_utc_A":1656683255,"created_at_utc_B":1656697700,"score_A":9,"score_B":91,"human_ref_A":"I think a lot about entropy, and how is gonna kill us all eventually...  I was reading about entropy and how there is a probabilistic model, to getting to undestand things like how a broken cup of coffee could assemble itself but it is very unlikely to happen.  That leads me to, what is our universe was a broken cup? And it reassemble itself in a very unlikely sceneario after trillions of years waiting to happen  Those are my thought on physics in the daily basics, i don't know if i am right about entropy or if i get it at all","human_ref_B":"why the fuck isnt my code working","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14445.0,"score_ratio":10.1111111111}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh8mn9","c_root_id_B":"iegmql7","created_at_utc_A":1656697700,"created_at_utc_B":1656688869,"score_A":91,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"why the fuck isnt my code working","human_ref_B":"Leaves being blown off in the wind is similar to stimulated emission in a quantum system. Elevated energy level that drops to a ground state when perturbed. Normal air flow can be thought of as quantum vacuum fluctuations in this case. Also, we have been unreasonably successful at science stuff. We easily could have spent another hundred generations trying to find the ether or some other theory. Maybe we are doing that now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8831.0,"score_ratio":13.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh8mn9","c_root_id_B":"iegxwn1","created_at_utc_A":1656697700,"created_at_utc_B":1656693341,"score_A":91,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"why the fuck isnt my code working","human_ref_B":"Is the fact that laws only ever depend on 2nd derivatives or lower, never 3rd derivatives, like one of the deepest principles in all of physics? Is it just an assumption? Or can it be derived from something else?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4359.0,"score_ratio":11.375}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh8mn9","c_root_id_B":"iege8ha","created_at_utc_A":1656697700,"created_at_utc_B":1656685345,"score_A":91,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"why the fuck isnt my code working","human_ref_B":"I mostly think about density operators lately..  What's the exponentiation of a density operator? The log of a density operator of a thermal equilibrium system is - H * beta , so an exponential would be a double exponential of its hamiltonian, (any consequences of that?) meanwhile, a pure state of a density operator is also a projection operator, so powers of a density operator will collapse, leaving us with rho * e^x - rho + 1 = rho (e^x -1) + 1 which is sort of like a decay function if you use minus x instead, leaving everything but the original pure state.  What happens if you make it a complex exponential instead? rho (e^-ix -1) + 1 = rho * sin x\/2 * complex factor + 1, but rho isn't unitary so this is a weird broken thing that adds and subtracts a state, maybe you can normalise it in some way using the determinant of the operator?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12355.0,"score_ratio":11.375}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh8mn9","c_root_id_B":"iege9k4","created_at_utc_A":1656697700,"created_at_utc_B":1656685357,"score_A":91,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"why the fuck isnt my code working","human_ref_B":"Is a toroidal planet possible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12343.0,"score_ratio":15.1666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh8mn9","c_root_id_B":"ieh18dc","created_at_utc_A":1656697700,"created_at_utc_B":1656694718,"score_A":91,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"why the fuck isnt my code working","human_ref_B":"Does existence need to exist for things to exist","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2982.0,"score_ratio":18.2}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh7tq8","c_root_id_B":"ieh8mn9","created_at_utc_A":1656697379,"created_at_utc_B":1656697700,"score_A":6,"score_B":91,"human_ref_A":"These days I just think about overcoming challenges in research, mainly figuring out how to code up a thing most quickly.","human_ref_B":"why the fuck isnt my code working","labels":0,"seconds_difference":321.0,"score_ratio":15.1666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh8mn9","c_root_id_B":"iefo1pl","created_at_utc_A":1656697700,"created_at_utc_B":1656670892,"score_A":91,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"why the fuck isnt my code working","human_ref_B":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26808.0,"score_ratio":30.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegcxig","c_root_id_B":"ieh8mn9","created_at_utc_A":1656684784,"created_at_utc_B":1656697700,"score_A":3,"score_B":91,"human_ref_A":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","human_ref_B":"why the fuck isnt my code working","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12916.0,"score_ratio":30.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh3b59","c_root_id_B":"iefwctz","created_at_utc_A":1656695556,"created_at_utc_B":1656676532,"score_A":89,"score_B":71,"human_ref_A":"Mostly wondering why the fuck I am missing a factor of 2.","human_ref_B":"I am not a physicist but i love reading and learning stuff, so here are a few of my shower thoughts:  - The Theory of Everything isn\u2019t as exciting as it sounds  - The Simulation Theory is the modern alternative to God, and ultimately means nothing  - Long distance\/time space travel seems improbable for humans.  - the fact that things work is absolutely mind blowing. We simply understood certain phenomena and now we have GPS and airplanes and computers and everything.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19024.0,"score_ratio":1.2535211268}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh3b59","c_root_id_B":"ieg87b1","created_at_utc_A":1656695556,"created_at_utc_B":1656682681,"score_A":89,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"Mostly wondering why the fuck I am missing a factor of 2.","human_ref_B":"Does the water work better (i.e. have more energy) higher up right out of the shower head, or lower down after it's fallen for a while?  With a shower head it's pretty clear it seems that the water hast the most velocity (and therefore energy) right out of the head at full pressure. As it falls it gains some kinetic energy as it loses potential energy, yeah, but air resistance seems to be a huge factor.  But with a *sink faucet* and those fancy aerators meant to churn up the water, I do wonder where I should hold my toothbrush for maximum effect.  Anyway I think about that often.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12875.0,"score_ratio":2.4054054054}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh3b59","c_root_id_B":"iegijwu","created_at_utc_A":1656695556,"created_at_utc_B":1656687147,"score_A":89,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Mostly wondering why the fuck I am missing a factor of 2.","human_ref_B":"I like to hum in the shower and gradually increase my pitch until I hit a resonance frequency. When I took a laser course I realized it\u2019s a good analogy to understanding the mechanisms of a VCSEL","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8409.0,"score_ratio":5.9333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieg9gsx","c_root_id_B":"ieh3b59","created_at_utc_A":1656683255,"created_at_utc_B":1656695556,"score_A":9,"score_B":89,"human_ref_A":"I think a lot about entropy, and how is gonna kill us all eventually...  I was reading about entropy and how there is a probabilistic model, to getting to undestand things like how a broken cup of coffee could assemble itself but it is very unlikely to happen.  That leads me to, what is our universe was a broken cup? And it reassemble itself in a very unlikely sceneario after trillions of years waiting to happen  Those are my thought on physics in the daily basics, i don't know if i am right about entropy or if i get it at all","human_ref_B":"Mostly wondering why the fuck I am missing a factor of 2.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12301.0,"score_ratio":9.8888888889}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegmql7","c_root_id_B":"ieh3b59","created_at_utc_A":1656688869,"created_at_utc_B":1656695556,"score_A":7,"score_B":89,"human_ref_A":"Leaves being blown off in the wind is similar to stimulated emission in a quantum system. Elevated energy level that drops to a ground state when perturbed. Normal air flow can be thought of as quantum vacuum fluctuations in this case. Also, we have been unreasonably successful at science stuff. We easily could have spent another hundred generations trying to find the ether or some other theory. Maybe we are doing that now.","human_ref_B":"Mostly wondering why the fuck I am missing a factor of 2.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6687.0,"score_ratio":12.7142857143}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh3b59","c_root_id_B":"iegxwn1","created_at_utc_A":1656695556,"created_at_utc_B":1656693341,"score_A":89,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Mostly wondering why the fuck I am missing a factor of 2.","human_ref_B":"Is the fact that laws only ever depend on 2nd derivatives or lower, never 3rd derivatives, like one of the deepest principles in all of physics? Is it just an assumption? Or can it be derived from something else?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2215.0,"score_ratio":11.125}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iege8ha","c_root_id_B":"ieh3b59","created_at_utc_A":1656685345,"created_at_utc_B":1656695556,"score_A":8,"score_B":89,"human_ref_A":"I mostly think about density operators lately..  What's the exponentiation of a density operator? The log of a density operator of a thermal equilibrium system is - H * beta , so an exponential would be a double exponential of its hamiltonian, (any consequences of that?) meanwhile, a pure state of a density operator is also a projection operator, so powers of a density operator will collapse, leaving us with rho * e^x - rho + 1 = rho (e^x -1) + 1 which is sort of like a decay function if you use minus x instead, leaving everything but the original pure state.  What happens if you make it a complex exponential instead? rho (e^-ix -1) + 1 = rho * sin x\/2 * complex factor + 1, but rho isn't unitary so this is a weird broken thing that adds and subtracts a state, maybe you can normalise it in some way using the determinant of the operator?","human_ref_B":"Mostly wondering why the fuck I am missing a factor of 2.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10211.0,"score_ratio":11.125}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iege9k4","c_root_id_B":"ieh3b59","created_at_utc_A":1656685357,"created_at_utc_B":1656695556,"score_A":6,"score_B":89,"human_ref_A":"Is a toroidal planet possible?","human_ref_B":"Mostly wondering why the fuck I am missing a factor of 2.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10199.0,"score_ratio":14.8333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh3b59","c_root_id_B":"ieh18dc","created_at_utc_A":1656695556,"created_at_utc_B":1656694718,"score_A":89,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Mostly wondering why the fuck I am missing a factor of 2.","human_ref_B":"Does existence need to exist for things to exist","labels":1,"seconds_difference":838.0,"score_ratio":17.8}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh3b59","c_root_id_B":"iefo1pl","created_at_utc_A":1656695556,"created_at_utc_B":1656670892,"score_A":89,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Mostly wondering why the fuck I am missing a factor of 2.","human_ref_B":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24664.0,"score_ratio":29.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegcxig","c_root_id_B":"ieh3b59","created_at_utc_A":1656684784,"created_at_utc_B":1656695556,"score_A":3,"score_B":89,"human_ref_A":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","human_ref_B":"Mostly wondering why the fuck I am missing a factor of 2.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10772.0,"score_ratio":29.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iefwctz","c_root_id_B":"iefo1pl","created_at_utc_A":1656676532,"created_at_utc_B":1656670892,"score_A":71,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I am not a physicist but i love reading and learning stuff, so here are a few of my shower thoughts:  - The Theory of Everything isn\u2019t as exciting as it sounds  - The Simulation Theory is the modern alternative to God, and ultimately means nothing  - Long distance\/time space travel seems improbable for humans.  - the fact that things work is absolutely mind blowing. We simply understood certain phenomena and now we have GPS and airplanes and computers and everything.","human_ref_B":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5640.0,"score_ratio":23.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieg87b1","c_root_id_B":"iefo1pl","created_at_utc_A":1656682681,"created_at_utc_B":1656670892,"score_A":37,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Does the water work better (i.e. have more energy) higher up right out of the shower head, or lower down after it's fallen for a while?  With a shower head it's pretty clear it seems that the water hast the most velocity (and therefore energy) right out of the head at full pressure. As it falls it gains some kinetic energy as it loses potential energy, yeah, but air resistance seems to be a huge factor.  But with a *sink faucet* and those fancy aerators meant to churn up the water, I do wonder where I should hold my toothbrush for maximum effect.  Anyway I think about that often.","human_ref_B":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11789.0,"score_ratio":12.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh9u94","c_root_id_B":"iegijwu","created_at_utc_A":1656698184,"created_at_utc_B":1656687147,"score_A":21,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"why does symmetry need to exist at all?","human_ref_B":"I like to hum in the shower and gradually increase my pitch until I hit a resonance frequency. When I took a laser course I realized it\u2019s a good analogy to understanding the mechanisms of a VCSEL","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11037.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh9u94","c_root_id_B":"ieh6fpl","created_at_utc_A":1656698184,"created_at_utc_B":1656696815,"score_A":21,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"why does symmetry need to exist at all?","human_ref_B":"I'm trapped in this monkey like body which continuously generates oily grease & sweat, interacting & reacting to my environment","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1369.0,"score_ratio":1.3125}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh5676","c_root_id_B":"ieh9u94","created_at_utc_A":1656696304,"created_at_utc_B":1656698184,"score_A":13,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"\u201cDid I forget the minus sign on my midterm?\u201d","human_ref_B":"why does symmetry need to exist at all?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1880.0,"score_ratio":1.6153846154}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh9u94","c_root_id_B":"ieg9gsx","created_at_utc_A":1656698184,"created_at_utc_B":1656683255,"score_A":21,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"why does symmetry need to exist at all?","human_ref_B":"I think a lot about entropy, and how is gonna kill us all eventually...  I was reading about entropy and how there is a probabilistic model, to getting to undestand things like how a broken cup of coffee could assemble itself but it is very unlikely to happen.  That leads me to, what is our universe was a broken cup? And it reassemble itself in a very unlikely sceneario after trillions of years waiting to happen  Those are my thought on physics in the daily basics, i don't know if i am right about entropy or if i get it at all","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14929.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh9u94","c_root_id_B":"iegmql7","created_at_utc_A":1656698184,"created_at_utc_B":1656688869,"score_A":21,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"why does symmetry need to exist at all?","human_ref_B":"Leaves being blown off in the wind is similar to stimulated emission in a quantum system. Elevated energy level that drops to a ground state when perturbed. Normal air flow can be thought of as quantum vacuum fluctuations in this case. Also, we have been unreasonably successful at science stuff. We easily could have spent another hundred generations trying to find the ether or some other theory. Maybe we are doing that now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9315.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh9u94","c_root_id_B":"iegxwn1","created_at_utc_A":1656698184,"created_at_utc_B":1656693341,"score_A":21,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"why does symmetry need to exist at all?","human_ref_B":"Is the fact that laws only ever depend on 2nd derivatives or lower, never 3rd derivatives, like one of the deepest principles in all of physics? Is it just an assumption? Or can it be derived from something else?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4843.0,"score_ratio":2.625}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iege8ha","c_root_id_B":"ieh9u94","created_at_utc_A":1656685345,"created_at_utc_B":1656698184,"score_A":8,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I mostly think about density operators lately..  What's the exponentiation of a density operator? The log of a density operator of a thermal equilibrium system is - H * beta , so an exponential would be a double exponential of its hamiltonian, (any consequences of that?) meanwhile, a pure state of a density operator is also a projection operator, so powers of a density operator will collapse, leaving us with rho * e^x - rho + 1 = rho (e^x -1) + 1 which is sort of like a decay function if you use minus x instead, leaving everything but the original pure state.  What happens if you make it a complex exponential instead? rho (e^-ix -1) + 1 = rho * sin x\/2 * complex factor + 1, but rho isn't unitary so this is a weird broken thing that adds and subtracts a state, maybe you can normalise it in some way using the determinant of the operator?","human_ref_B":"why does symmetry need to exist at all?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12839.0,"score_ratio":2.625}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh9u94","c_root_id_B":"iege9k4","created_at_utc_A":1656698184,"created_at_utc_B":1656685357,"score_A":21,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"why does symmetry need to exist at all?","human_ref_B":"Is a toroidal planet possible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12827.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh9u94","c_root_id_B":"ieh18dc","created_at_utc_A":1656698184,"created_at_utc_B":1656694718,"score_A":21,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"why does symmetry need to exist at all?","human_ref_B":"Does existence need to exist for things to exist","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3466.0,"score_ratio":4.2}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh9u94","c_root_id_B":"ieh7tq8","created_at_utc_A":1656698184,"created_at_utc_B":1656697379,"score_A":21,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"why does symmetry need to exist at all?","human_ref_B":"These days I just think about overcoming challenges in research, mainly figuring out how to code up a thing most quickly.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":805.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iefo1pl","c_root_id_B":"ieh9u94","created_at_utc_A":1656670892,"created_at_utc_B":1656698184,"score_A":3,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","human_ref_B":"why does symmetry need to exist at all?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27292.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegcxig","c_root_id_B":"ieh9u94","created_at_utc_A":1656684784,"created_at_utc_B":1656698184,"score_A":3,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","human_ref_B":"why does symmetry need to exist at all?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13400.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh6fpl","c_root_id_B":"iegijwu","created_at_utc_A":1656696815,"created_at_utc_B":1656687147,"score_A":16,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I'm trapped in this monkey like body which continuously generates oily grease & sweat, interacting & reacting to my environment","human_ref_B":"I like to hum in the shower and gradually increase my pitch until I hit a resonance frequency. When I took a laser course I realized it\u2019s a good analogy to understanding the mechanisms of a VCSEL","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9668.0,"score_ratio":1.0666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieg9gsx","c_root_id_B":"iegijwu","created_at_utc_A":1656683255,"created_at_utc_B":1656687147,"score_A":9,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I think a lot about entropy, and how is gonna kill us all eventually...  I was reading about entropy and how there is a probabilistic model, to getting to undestand things like how a broken cup of coffee could assemble itself but it is very unlikely to happen.  That leads me to, what is our universe was a broken cup? And it reassemble itself in a very unlikely sceneario after trillions of years waiting to happen  Those are my thought on physics in the daily basics, i don't know if i am right about entropy or if i get it at all","human_ref_B":"I like to hum in the shower and gradually increase my pitch until I hit a resonance frequency. When I took a laser course I realized it\u2019s a good analogy to understanding the mechanisms of a VCSEL","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3892.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iege8ha","c_root_id_B":"iegijwu","created_at_utc_A":1656685345,"created_at_utc_B":1656687147,"score_A":8,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I mostly think about density operators lately..  What's the exponentiation of a density operator? The log of a density operator of a thermal equilibrium system is - H * beta , so an exponential would be a double exponential of its hamiltonian, (any consequences of that?) meanwhile, a pure state of a density operator is also a projection operator, so powers of a density operator will collapse, leaving us with rho * e^x - rho + 1 = rho (e^x -1) + 1 which is sort of like a decay function if you use minus x instead, leaving everything but the original pure state.  What happens if you make it a complex exponential instead? rho (e^-ix -1) + 1 = rho * sin x\/2 * complex factor + 1, but rho isn't unitary so this is a weird broken thing that adds and subtracts a state, maybe you can normalise it in some way using the determinant of the operator?","human_ref_B":"I like to hum in the shower and gradually increase my pitch until I hit a resonance frequency. When I took a laser course I realized it\u2019s a good analogy to understanding the mechanisms of a VCSEL","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1802.0,"score_ratio":1.875}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iege9k4","c_root_id_B":"iegijwu","created_at_utc_A":1656685357,"created_at_utc_B":1656687147,"score_A":6,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Is a toroidal planet possible?","human_ref_B":"I like to hum in the shower and gradually increase my pitch until I hit a resonance frequency. When I took a laser course I realized it\u2019s a good analogy to understanding the mechanisms of a VCSEL","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1790.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iefo1pl","c_root_id_B":"iegijwu","created_at_utc_A":1656670892,"created_at_utc_B":1656687147,"score_A":3,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","human_ref_B":"I like to hum in the shower and gradually increase my pitch until I hit a resonance frequency. When I took a laser course I realized it\u2019s a good analogy to understanding the mechanisms of a VCSEL","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16255.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegcxig","c_root_id_B":"iegijwu","created_at_utc_A":1656684784,"created_at_utc_B":1656687147,"score_A":3,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","human_ref_B":"I like to hum in the shower and gradually increase my pitch until I hit a resonance frequency. When I took a laser course I realized it\u2019s a good analogy to understanding the mechanisms of a VCSEL","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2363.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh5676","c_root_id_B":"ieh6fpl","created_at_utc_A":1656696304,"created_at_utc_B":1656696815,"score_A":13,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"\u201cDid I forget the minus sign on my midterm?\u201d","human_ref_B":"I'm trapped in this monkey like body which continuously generates oily grease & sweat, interacting & reacting to my environment","labels":0,"seconds_difference":511.0,"score_ratio":1.2307692308}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieg9gsx","c_root_id_B":"ieh6fpl","created_at_utc_A":1656683255,"created_at_utc_B":1656696815,"score_A":9,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"I think a lot about entropy, and how is gonna kill us all eventually...  I was reading about entropy and how there is a probabilistic model, to getting to undestand things like how a broken cup of coffee could assemble itself but it is very unlikely to happen.  That leads me to, what is our universe was a broken cup? And it reassemble itself in a very unlikely sceneario after trillions of years waiting to happen  Those are my thought on physics in the daily basics, i don't know if i am right about entropy or if i get it at all","human_ref_B":"I'm trapped in this monkey like body which continuously generates oily grease & sweat, interacting & reacting to my environment","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13560.0,"score_ratio":1.7777777778}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh6fpl","c_root_id_B":"iegmql7","created_at_utc_A":1656696815,"created_at_utc_B":1656688869,"score_A":16,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I'm trapped in this monkey like body which continuously generates oily grease & sweat, interacting & reacting to my environment","human_ref_B":"Leaves being blown off in the wind is similar to stimulated emission in a quantum system. Elevated energy level that drops to a ground state when perturbed. Normal air flow can be thought of as quantum vacuum fluctuations in this case. Also, we have been unreasonably successful at science stuff. We easily could have spent another hundred generations trying to find the ether or some other theory. Maybe we are doing that now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7946.0,"score_ratio":2.2857142857}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegxwn1","c_root_id_B":"ieh6fpl","created_at_utc_A":1656693341,"created_at_utc_B":1656696815,"score_A":8,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Is the fact that laws only ever depend on 2nd derivatives or lower, never 3rd derivatives, like one of the deepest principles in all of physics? Is it just an assumption? Or can it be derived from something else?","human_ref_B":"I'm trapped in this monkey like body which continuously generates oily grease & sweat, interacting & reacting to my environment","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3474.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh6fpl","c_root_id_B":"iege8ha","created_at_utc_A":1656696815,"created_at_utc_B":1656685345,"score_A":16,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I'm trapped in this monkey like body which continuously generates oily grease & sweat, interacting & reacting to my environment","human_ref_B":"I mostly think about density operators lately..  What's the exponentiation of a density operator? The log of a density operator of a thermal equilibrium system is - H * beta , so an exponential would be a double exponential of its hamiltonian, (any consequences of that?) meanwhile, a pure state of a density operator is also a projection operator, so powers of a density operator will collapse, leaving us with rho * e^x - rho + 1 = rho (e^x -1) + 1 which is sort of like a decay function if you use minus x instead, leaving everything but the original pure state.  What happens if you make it a complex exponential instead? rho (e^-ix -1) + 1 = rho * sin x\/2 * complex factor + 1, but rho isn't unitary so this is a weird broken thing that adds and subtracts a state, maybe you can normalise it in some way using the determinant of the operator?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11470.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh6fpl","c_root_id_B":"iege9k4","created_at_utc_A":1656696815,"created_at_utc_B":1656685357,"score_A":16,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I'm trapped in this monkey like body which continuously generates oily grease & sweat, interacting & reacting to my environment","human_ref_B":"Is a toroidal planet possible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11458.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh18dc","c_root_id_B":"ieh6fpl","created_at_utc_A":1656694718,"created_at_utc_B":1656696815,"score_A":5,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Does existence need to exist for things to exist","human_ref_B":"I'm trapped in this monkey like body which continuously generates oily grease & sweat, interacting & reacting to my environment","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2097.0,"score_ratio":3.2}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iefo1pl","c_root_id_B":"ieh6fpl","created_at_utc_A":1656670892,"created_at_utc_B":1656696815,"score_A":3,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","human_ref_B":"I'm trapped in this monkey like body which continuously generates oily grease & sweat, interacting & reacting to my environment","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25923.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegcxig","c_root_id_B":"ieh6fpl","created_at_utc_A":1656684784,"created_at_utc_B":1656696815,"score_A":3,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","human_ref_B":"I'm trapped in this monkey like body which continuously generates oily grease & sweat, interacting & reacting to my environment","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12031.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieg9gsx","c_root_id_B":"ieh5676","created_at_utc_A":1656683255,"created_at_utc_B":1656696304,"score_A":9,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I think a lot about entropy, and how is gonna kill us all eventually...  I was reading about entropy and how there is a probabilistic model, to getting to undestand things like how a broken cup of coffee could assemble itself but it is very unlikely to happen.  That leads me to, what is our universe was a broken cup? And it reassemble itself in a very unlikely sceneario after trillions of years waiting to happen  Those are my thought on physics in the daily basics, i don't know if i am right about entropy or if i get it at all","human_ref_B":"\u201cDid I forget the minus sign on my midterm?\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13049.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh5676","c_root_id_B":"iegmql7","created_at_utc_A":1656696304,"created_at_utc_B":1656688869,"score_A":13,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"\u201cDid I forget the minus sign on my midterm?\u201d","human_ref_B":"Leaves being blown off in the wind is similar to stimulated emission in a quantum system. Elevated energy level that drops to a ground state when perturbed. Normal air flow can be thought of as quantum vacuum fluctuations in this case. Also, we have been unreasonably successful at science stuff. We easily could have spent another hundred generations trying to find the ether or some other theory. Maybe we are doing that now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7435.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegxwn1","c_root_id_B":"ieh5676","created_at_utc_A":1656693341,"created_at_utc_B":1656696304,"score_A":8,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Is the fact that laws only ever depend on 2nd derivatives or lower, never 3rd derivatives, like one of the deepest principles in all of physics? Is it just an assumption? Or can it be derived from something else?","human_ref_B":"\u201cDid I forget the minus sign on my midterm?\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2963.0,"score_ratio":1.625}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh5676","c_root_id_B":"iege8ha","created_at_utc_A":1656696304,"created_at_utc_B":1656685345,"score_A":13,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"\u201cDid I forget the minus sign on my midterm?\u201d","human_ref_B":"I mostly think about density operators lately..  What's the exponentiation of a density operator? The log of a density operator of a thermal equilibrium system is - H * beta , so an exponential would be a double exponential of its hamiltonian, (any consequences of that?) meanwhile, a pure state of a density operator is also a projection operator, so powers of a density operator will collapse, leaving us with rho * e^x - rho + 1 = rho (e^x -1) + 1 which is sort of like a decay function if you use minus x instead, leaving everything but the original pure state.  What happens if you make it a complex exponential instead? rho (e^-ix -1) + 1 = rho * sin x\/2 * complex factor + 1, but rho isn't unitary so this is a weird broken thing that adds and subtracts a state, maybe you can normalise it in some way using the determinant of the operator?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10959.0,"score_ratio":1.625}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh5676","c_root_id_B":"iege9k4","created_at_utc_A":1656696304,"created_at_utc_B":1656685357,"score_A":13,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"\u201cDid I forget the minus sign on my midterm?\u201d","human_ref_B":"Is a toroidal planet possible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10947.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh5676","c_root_id_B":"ieh18dc","created_at_utc_A":1656696304,"created_at_utc_B":1656694718,"score_A":13,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"\u201cDid I forget the minus sign on my midterm?\u201d","human_ref_B":"Does existence need to exist for things to exist","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1586.0,"score_ratio":2.6}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh5676","c_root_id_B":"iefo1pl","created_at_utc_A":1656696304,"created_at_utc_B":1656670892,"score_A":13,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"\u201cDid I forget the minus sign on my midterm?\u201d","human_ref_B":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25412.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegcxig","c_root_id_B":"ieh5676","created_at_utc_A":1656684784,"created_at_utc_B":1656696304,"score_A":3,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","human_ref_B":"\u201cDid I forget the minus sign on my midterm?\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11520.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iefo1pl","c_root_id_B":"ieg9gsx","created_at_utc_A":1656670892,"created_at_utc_B":1656683255,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","human_ref_B":"I think a lot about entropy, and how is gonna kill us all eventually...  I was reading about entropy and how there is a probabilistic model, to getting to undestand things like how a broken cup of coffee could assemble itself but it is very unlikely to happen.  That leads me to, what is our universe was a broken cup? And it reassemble itself in a very unlikely sceneario after trillions of years waiting to happen  Those are my thought on physics in the daily basics, i don't know if i am right about entropy or if i get it at all","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12363.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegmql7","c_root_id_B":"iegxwn1","created_at_utc_A":1656688869,"created_at_utc_B":1656693341,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Leaves being blown off in the wind is similar to stimulated emission in a quantum system. Elevated energy level that drops to a ground state when perturbed. Normal air flow can be thought of as quantum vacuum fluctuations in this case. Also, we have been unreasonably successful at science stuff. We easily could have spent another hundred generations trying to find the ether or some other theory. Maybe we are doing that now.","human_ref_B":"Is the fact that laws only ever depend on 2nd derivatives or lower, never 3rd derivatives, like one of the deepest principles in all of physics? Is it just an assumption? Or can it be derived from something else?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4472.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegmql7","c_root_id_B":"iege9k4","created_at_utc_A":1656688869,"created_at_utc_B":1656685357,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Leaves being blown off in the wind is similar to stimulated emission in a quantum system. Elevated energy level that drops to a ground state when perturbed. Normal air flow can be thought of as quantum vacuum fluctuations in this case. Also, we have been unreasonably successful at science stuff. We easily could have spent another hundred generations trying to find the ether or some other theory. Maybe we are doing that now.","human_ref_B":"Is a toroidal planet possible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3512.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iefo1pl","c_root_id_B":"iegmql7","created_at_utc_A":1656670892,"created_at_utc_B":1656688869,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","human_ref_B":"Leaves being blown off in the wind is similar to stimulated emission in a quantum system. Elevated energy level that drops to a ground state when perturbed. Normal air flow can be thought of as quantum vacuum fluctuations in this case. Also, we have been unreasonably successful at science stuff. We easily could have spent another hundred generations trying to find the ether or some other theory. Maybe we are doing that now.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17977.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegcxig","c_root_id_B":"iegmql7","created_at_utc_A":1656684784,"created_at_utc_B":1656688869,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","human_ref_B":"Leaves being blown off in the wind is similar to stimulated emission in a quantum system. Elevated energy level that drops to a ground state when perturbed. Normal air flow can be thought of as quantum vacuum fluctuations in this case. Also, we have been unreasonably successful at science stuff. We easily could have spent another hundred generations trying to find the ether or some other theory. Maybe we are doing that now.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4085.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegxwn1","c_root_id_B":"iege9k4","created_at_utc_A":1656693341,"created_at_utc_B":1656685357,"score_A":8,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Is the fact that laws only ever depend on 2nd derivatives or lower, never 3rd derivatives, like one of the deepest principles in all of physics? Is it just an assumption? Or can it be derived from something else?","human_ref_B":"Is a toroidal planet possible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7984.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iefo1pl","c_root_id_B":"iegxwn1","created_at_utc_A":1656670892,"created_at_utc_B":1656693341,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","human_ref_B":"Is the fact that laws only ever depend on 2nd derivatives or lower, never 3rd derivatives, like one of the deepest principles in all of physics? Is it just an assumption? Or can it be derived from something else?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22449.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegcxig","c_root_id_B":"iegxwn1","created_at_utc_A":1656684784,"created_at_utc_B":1656693341,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","human_ref_B":"Is the fact that laws only ever depend on 2nd derivatives or lower, never 3rd derivatives, like one of the deepest principles in all of physics? Is it just an assumption? Or can it be derived from something else?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8557.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iefo1pl","c_root_id_B":"iege8ha","created_at_utc_A":1656670892,"created_at_utc_B":1656685345,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","human_ref_B":"I mostly think about density operators lately..  What's the exponentiation of a density operator? The log of a density operator of a thermal equilibrium system is - H * beta , so an exponential would be a double exponential of its hamiltonian, (any consequences of that?) meanwhile, a pure state of a density operator is also a projection operator, so powers of a density operator will collapse, leaving us with rho * e^x - rho + 1 = rho (e^x -1) + 1 which is sort of like a decay function if you use minus x instead, leaving everything but the original pure state.  What happens if you make it a complex exponential instead? rho (e^-ix -1) + 1 = rho * sin x\/2 * complex factor + 1, but rho isn't unitary so this is a weird broken thing that adds and subtracts a state, maybe you can normalise it in some way using the determinant of the operator?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14453.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iege8ha","c_root_id_B":"iegcxig","created_at_utc_A":1656685345,"created_at_utc_B":1656684784,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I mostly think about density operators lately..  What's the exponentiation of a density operator? The log of a density operator of a thermal equilibrium system is - H * beta , so an exponential would be a double exponential of its hamiltonian, (any consequences of that?) meanwhile, a pure state of a density operator is also a projection operator, so powers of a density operator will collapse, leaving us with rho * e^x - rho + 1 = rho (e^x -1) + 1 which is sort of like a decay function if you use minus x instead, leaving everything but the original pure state.  What happens if you make it a complex exponential instead? rho (e^-ix -1) + 1 = rho * sin x\/2 * complex factor + 1, but rho isn't unitary so this is a weird broken thing that adds and subtracts a state, maybe you can normalise it in some way using the determinant of the operator?","human_ref_B":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":561.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iege9k4","c_root_id_B":"ieht7qx","created_at_utc_A":1656685357,"created_at_utc_B":1656706209,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Is a toroidal planet possible?","human_ref_B":"It's mostly probability and statistics stuff. Such as, what's the probability that LaTeX will corrupt my fucking files after finishing half the homework **GOD DAMNIT.**","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20852.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieht7qx","c_root_id_B":"ieh18dc","created_at_utc_A":1656706209,"created_at_utc_B":1656694718,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"It's mostly probability and statistics stuff. Such as, what's the probability that LaTeX will corrupt my fucking files after finishing half the homework **GOD DAMNIT.**","human_ref_B":"Does existence need to exist for things to exist","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11491.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh7tq8","c_root_id_B":"ieht7qx","created_at_utc_A":1656697379,"created_at_utc_B":1656706209,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"These days I just think about overcoming challenges in research, mainly figuring out how to code up a thing most quickly.","human_ref_B":"It's mostly probability and statistics stuff. Such as, what's the probability that LaTeX will corrupt my fucking files after finishing half the homework **GOD DAMNIT.**","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8830.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieht7qx","c_root_id_B":"iehgm0d","created_at_utc_A":1656706209,"created_at_utc_B":1656700966,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"It's mostly probability and statistics stuff. Such as, what's the probability that LaTeX will corrupt my fucking files after finishing half the homework **GOD DAMNIT.**","human_ref_B":"Thoughts on my code, never anything groundbreaking or cool pop science thoughts","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5243.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iehj93p","c_root_id_B":"ieht7qx","created_at_utc_A":1656702060,"created_at_utc_B":1656706209,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Is the growth mindset really going to help me through my bachelors, or is it possible ill simply not have what it takes and fail for years before realizing I simply can't finish the degree?","human_ref_B":"It's mostly probability and statistics stuff. Such as, what's the probability that LaTeX will corrupt my fucking files after finishing half the homework **GOD DAMNIT.**","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4149.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieht7qx","c_root_id_B":"iefo1pl","created_at_utc_A":1656706209,"created_at_utc_B":1656670892,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It's mostly probability and statistics stuff. Such as, what's the probability that LaTeX will corrupt my fucking files after finishing half the homework **GOD DAMNIT.**","human_ref_B":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35317.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieht7qx","c_root_id_B":"iegcxig","created_at_utc_A":1656706209,"created_at_utc_B":1656684784,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It's mostly probability and statistics stuff. Such as, what's the probability that LaTeX will corrupt my fucking files after finishing half the homework **GOD DAMNIT.**","human_ref_B":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21425.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iege9k4","c_root_id_B":"iefo1pl","created_at_utc_A":1656685357,"created_at_utc_B":1656670892,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Is a toroidal planet possible?","human_ref_B":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14465.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegcxig","c_root_id_B":"iege9k4","created_at_utc_A":1656684784,"created_at_utc_B":1656685357,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","human_ref_B":"Is a toroidal planet possible?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":573.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh7tq8","c_root_id_B":"ieh18dc","created_at_utc_A":1656697379,"created_at_utc_B":1656694718,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"These days I just think about overcoming challenges in research, mainly figuring out how to code up a thing most quickly.","human_ref_B":"Does existence need to exist for things to exist","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2661.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh18dc","c_root_id_B":"iehgm0d","created_at_utc_A":1656694718,"created_at_utc_B":1656700966,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Does existence need to exist for things to exist","human_ref_B":"Thoughts on my code, never anything groundbreaking or cool pop science thoughts","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6248.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh18dc","c_root_id_B":"iefo1pl","created_at_utc_A":1656694718,"created_at_utc_B":1656670892,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Does existence need to exist for things to exist","human_ref_B":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23826.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh18dc","c_root_id_B":"iegcxig","created_at_utc_A":1656694718,"created_at_utc_B":1656684784,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Does existence need to exist for things to exist","human_ref_B":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9934.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iefo1pl","c_root_id_B":"ieh7tq8","created_at_utc_A":1656670892,"created_at_utc_B":1656697379,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","human_ref_B":"These days I just think about overcoming challenges in research, mainly figuring out how to code up a thing most quickly.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26487.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieh7tq8","c_root_id_B":"iegcxig","created_at_utc_A":1656697379,"created_at_utc_B":1656684784,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"These days I just think about overcoming challenges in research, mainly figuring out how to code up a thing most quickly.","human_ref_B":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12595.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iehgm0d","c_root_id_B":"iefo1pl","created_at_utc_A":1656700966,"created_at_utc_B":1656670892,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Thoughts on my code, never anything groundbreaking or cool pop science thoughts","human_ref_B":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30074.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iehgm0d","c_root_id_B":"iegcxig","created_at_utc_A":1656700966,"created_at_utc_B":1656684784,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Thoughts on my code, never anything groundbreaking or cool pop science thoughts","human_ref_B":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16182.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iehj93p","c_root_id_B":"iefo1pl","created_at_utc_A":1656702060,"created_at_utc_B":1656670892,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Is the growth mindset really going to help me through my bachelors, or is it possible ill simply not have what it takes and fail for years before realizing I simply can't finish the degree?","human_ref_B":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":31168.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegcxig","c_root_id_B":"iehj93p","created_at_utc_A":1656684784,"created_at_utc_B":1656702060,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","human_ref_B":"Is the growth mindset really going to help me through my bachelors, or is it possible ill simply not have what it takes and fail for years before realizing I simply can't finish the degree?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17276.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieiek5n","c_root_id_B":"iehxgg9","created_at_utc_A":1656715539,"created_at_utc_B":1656707984,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"If you laid down on a very soft mattress, and then it instantly turned into stone in the exact same shape, would you still be comfortable?","human_ref_B":"my life hasn't been the same since i found out that positive and negative charges are arbitrary and we don't actually know much about the origin of charges. everything i know is a lie","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7555.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieiek5n","c_root_id_B":"ieie2j8","created_at_utc_A":1656715539,"created_at_utc_B":1656715313,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"If you laid down on a very soft mattress, and then it instantly turned into stone in the exact same shape, would you still be comfortable?","human_ref_B":"Wtf is dark matter? will we ever detect it before I die?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":226.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieiek5n","c_root_id_B":"iefo1pl","created_at_utc_A":1656715539,"created_at_utc_B":1656670892,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"If you laid down on a very soft mattress, and then it instantly turned into stone in the exact same shape, would you still be comfortable?","human_ref_B":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":44647.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iegcxig","c_root_id_B":"ieiek5n","created_at_utc_A":1656684784,"created_at_utc_B":1656715539,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","human_ref_B":"If you laid down on a very soft mattress, and then it instantly turned into stone in the exact same shape, would you still be comfortable?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":30755.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iehxgg9","c_root_id_B":"ieie2j8","created_at_utc_A":1656707984,"created_at_utc_B":1656715313,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"my life hasn't been the same since i found out that positive and negative charges are arbitrary and we don't actually know much about the origin of charges. everything i know is a lie","human_ref_B":"Wtf is dark matter? will we ever detect it before I die?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7329.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieigf60","c_root_id_B":"iehxgg9","created_at_utc_A":1656716410,"created_at_utc_B":1656707984,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"How the fuck did the universe start? The deeper I dig the more questions I have.","human_ref_B":"my life hasn't been the same since i found out that positive and negative charges are arbitrary and we don't actually know much about the origin of charges. everything i know is a lie","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8426.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"iefo1pl","c_root_id_B":"ieie2j8","created_at_utc_A":1656670892,"created_at_utc_B":1656715313,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","human_ref_B":"Wtf is dark matter? will we ever detect it before I die?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":44421.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieie2j8","c_root_id_B":"iegcxig","created_at_utc_A":1656715313,"created_at_utc_B":1656684784,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Wtf is dark matter? will we ever detect it before I die?","human_ref_B":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30529.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieigf60","c_root_id_B":"iefo1pl","created_at_utc_A":1656716410,"created_at_utc_B":1656670892,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"How the fuck did the universe start? The deeper I dig the more questions I have.","human_ref_B":"I think alot about the alcubierre warp drive and also how long in human history before we can make something comparable to a replicator. I expect that a thousand years into our future 3D printers will have progressed significantly and be more akin to replication like in Star Trek.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":45518.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"voxg1a","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What are your physics shower thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"ieigf60","c_root_id_B":"iegcxig","created_at_utc_A":1656716410,"created_at_utc_B":1656684784,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"How the fuck did the universe start? The deeper I dig the more questions I have.","human_ref_B":"I think that quasars are sort of recycling unit to blast and scatter fresh elements across the universe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":31626.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"ij1wfh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Why is salt still not deadly even though you dissolve with water, breaking it into individual sodium and chlorine atoms?","c_root_id_A":"g3bewo5","c_root_id_B":"g3b5pne","created_at_utc_A":1598757584,"created_at_utc_B":1598751996,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It doesn't break up into the atoms, it breaks into Na+ cations and Cl- anions, and these are essential for a lot of biomechanical processes. The difference between the ions of these two elements and their elemental form is their reactivity. Cl desperately wants to gain an electron while Na desperately wants to lose one, and often destroy other molecules to achieve this, hence why they are harmful.","human_ref_B":"Sodium and chlorine on their own as atoms are highly reactive they are both free radicals with an unpaired valence electron and will readily react with other molecules in the body to become their ionized form. This could mean the different bio molecules of your cells such as the proteins that make up them potentially damaging them. However as ions they have achieved a full octet valence electronic configuration. in this state they are relatively stable and less reactive","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5588.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"ij1wfh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Why is salt still not deadly even though you dissolve with water, breaking it into individual sodium and chlorine atoms?","c_root_id_A":"g3b8yqh","c_root_id_B":"g3bewo5","created_at_utc_A":1598753948,"created_at_utc_B":1598757584,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The interaction between Na and your body and the interaction between Na+ and your body comes down to chemistry. Basically, chemistry is all about the interactions that arise due to the fact that electrons are bound to atoms. An ionized atom has a different electron structure by virtue of the fact that it\u2019s missing an electron (or has an extra one), meaning it can react completely differently as far as chemistry is concerned.","human_ref_B":"It doesn't break up into the atoms, it breaks into Na+ cations and Cl- anions, and these are essential for a lot of biomechanical processes. The difference between the ions of these two elements and their elemental form is their reactivity. Cl desperately wants to gain an electron while Na desperately wants to lose one, and often destroy other molecules to achieve this, hence why they are harmful.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3636.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"g7oit4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Why, 11 days after the Chernobyl accident, did the daily release rate of radioactive material sharply fall to almost 0EBq\/d? Here's a link if it's easier, I do not understand this at all. https:\/\/drive.google.com\/file\/d\/1SveczzSg0LZiQqFBEByvea2RMcrWQn_P\/view?usp=drivesdk  Why so sudden?","c_root_id_A":"foism9j","c_root_id_B":"foiraac","created_at_utc_A":1587795685,"created_at_utc_B":1587794484,"score_A":27,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"\"A Study of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident Process\" by Ishikawa, Michio offers an explanation: https:\/\/imgur.com\/b2YT3bx","human_ref_B":"I like learning by being wrong and being corrected.  So I'm going to throw out a guess that there was a reaction that burned itself out in the first ten days when it ran out of whatever fuel it was running on, possibly something unstable thrown up on the roof next to the graphite.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1201.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"oo28wt","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What would happen if a hole suddenly opened all the way through the crust to the mantle? This is obviously a thought experiment (not really, it's for DnD) so ignore the practicality of the question please! Cows are spherical.  Imagine a ten-foot-diameter, perfectly round hole suddenly opened all the way through the crust to reach the mantle. The intervening solid matter is completely removed and replaced at once with the same volume of air.  Would the pressure of the molten rock and metal in the mantle be strong enough to force it all the way through the hole to the surface before it cooled too much or the hole collapsed? If so, how much of a geyser would it make? If not, how wide does the hole need to be for that to happen?  What would happen?","c_root_id_A":"h5vh6xj","c_root_id_B":"h5vhn10","created_at_utc_A":1626788684,"created_at_utc_B":1626788901,"score_A":28,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"You have created a volcano. Though without a high preaure volume build up it might not be explosive.  My first thought was that the near by ground water would be evaporated as the magma rose so you would get a plume of super heated steam ahead of whatever lava flow.   My actual more boring guess answer is just that you'd get a collapse in the area and nothing more exciting that a little sink hole.  For dnd you have a lot of burrowing creatures though so something like the underdark bight be uncovered, or a sleeping beast","human_ref_B":"The Earth is not a gigantic pressurized vessel with the crust acting as a container.  It's just a blob of stuff held together by it's own gravity, and the crust is floating on it since it's less dense.  The overall effect of removing something that's floating on a liquid, or poking a hole into it, is... nothing, really.  My thought is that as soon as your hole appears, if it doesn't immediately collapse under the lateral pressure, the magma surface exposed to air will rapidly start cooling.  You may get some steam out of the hole but the mantle is a loooooong way down, so that probably wouldn't even make it to the surface.  I'm sure this isn't nearly as spectacular as what you want\/expect, but as you said, you're in a fantasy setting.  Real rules don't apply.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":217.0,"score_ratio":1.3214285714}
{"post_id":"oo28wt","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What would happen if a hole suddenly opened all the way through the crust to the mantle? This is obviously a thought experiment (not really, it's for DnD) so ignore the practicality of the question please! Cows are spherical.  Imagine a ten-foot-diameter, perfectly round hole suddenly opened all the way through the crust to reach the mantle. The intervening solid matter is completely removed and replaced at once with the same volume of air.  Would the pressure of the molten rock and metal in the mantle be strong enough to force it all the way through the hole to the surface before it cooled too much or the hole collapsed? If so, how much of a geyser would it make? If not, how wide does the hole need to be for that to happen?  What would happen?","c_root_id_A":"h5wloyp","c_root_id_B":"h5wug6s","created_at_utc_A":1626805917,"created_at_utc_B":1626809627,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Wait! Let\u2019s get back to cows being spherical\u2026 \ud83d\udc04","human_ref_B":"Contrary to popular belief and many in this thread, the vast majority of the mantle is NOT made of magma. It is made of **solid rock** that can creep on *geologic* timescales. It\u2019s viscosity is greater than that if glass *at room temperature*. Unless your hole is strategically placed over a magma pocket, like those that occasionally occur at a hotspot or subduction zone, your hole really won\u2019t do much besides be uncomfortably hot (about 200 C) and quickly collapse if not reinforced well.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3710.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"oo28wt","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What would happen if a hole suddenly opened all the way through the crust to the mantle? This is obviously a thought experiment (not really, it's for DnD) so ignore the practicality of the question please! Cows are spherical.  Imagine a ten-foot-diameter, perfectly round hole suddenly opened all the way through the crust to reach the mantle. The intervening solid matter is completely removed and replaced at once with the same volume of air.  Would the pressure of the molten rock and metal in the mantle be strong enough to force it all the way through the hole to the surface before it cooled too much or the hole collapsed? If so, how much of a geyser would it make? If not, how wide does the hole need to be for that to happen?  What would happen?","c_root_id_A":"h5y0c5c","c_root_id_B":"h5xacr8","created_at_utc_A":1626828732,"created_at_utc_B":1626816405,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There's a common misconception here that impacts your proposal. Contrary to what we are taught in grade school, the mantle is not liquid, but is an amorphous solid. In the upper mantle, the pressure is only a few kbar and 2-300 degrees Celsius. This is too cool to melt the constituent rocks (typically greater than 1000C is needed at 1 bar, the melting point further increases with pressure).  1 kbar is not a very high pressure either, so it is insufficient to push a significant amount of material up your borehole. There are pockets of liquid material in the mantle and if you hit one you could create a small volcano.","human_ref_B":"The pressure would certainly be enough to cause volcanism\\*!   The thing preventing magma from travelling upward under incredible pressure is the incredible weight of the crust and lithosphere pushing down from above. With that gone, lava would begin to flow up.   **\\*What other factors need to be accounted for to know whether you created a volcano that would reach the surface?**  As magma is exposed to air (becoming lava!), it cools rapidly and would freeze (harden into stone). As it hardens, its viscosity (resistance to flow) would increase tremendously, causing it to slow down. Magma can push lava, but it struggles to push rock.  Would there be enough pressure to push it up all the way?  This depends on the following:   * The temperature of the air (but only barely, since its heat capacity is so low!) * The temperature of the surrounding rock. Hotter surrounding rock lets the lava reach higher before cooling down.  * The diameter of the hole. Narrower holes would inhibit upward flow.   I lean towards saying it wouldn't...but I'm not sure! I'm half tempted to write a model for this!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12327.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ig2ybu","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Does the observable universe have a non-zero net angular momentum?","c_root_id_A":"g2ria0r","c_root_id_B":"g2rb0i7","created_at_utc_A":1598324948,"created_at_utc_B":1598320885,"score_A":26,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"How do define that rotation? Relative to what?","human_ref_B":"I read somewhere that the clusters and super-clusters of our observable universe are moving towards some \"great attractor\" that's outside of our bubble.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4063.0,"score_ratio":13.0}
{"post_id":"ig2ybu","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Does the observable universe have a non-zero net angular momentum?","c_root_id_A":"g2rlbn4","c_root_id_B":"g2rb0i7","created_at_utc_A":1598326800,"created_at_utc_B":1598320885,"score_A":23,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I would think only a compact (finite) Universe could have a net angular momentum.   But as my boss used to say, \u201cbeyond the horizon, there be dragons.*\u201d  *data limits what we can say about physics beyond the Observable Universe.","human_ref_B":"I read somewhere that the clusters and super-clusters of our observable universe are moving towards some \"great attractor\" that's outside of our bubble.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5915.0,"score_ratio":11.5}
{"post_id":"ig2ybu","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Does the observable universe have a non-zero net angular momentum?","c_root_id_A":"g2satgq","c_root_id_B":"g2rsq9r","created_at_utc_A":1598350129,"created_at_utc_B":1598332078,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I'm not a cosmologist so hopefully someone more knowledgeable might chime in.  That said, last time I paid attention, the standard cosmological model assumes that the rate of hubble expansion is uniform and isotropic.  Meaning that no matter what direction you look, space is expanding at the same rate.  I think that if there was a net rotation about some point we would see one part of the sky receding at a faster rate than another.    Anyway I think that would prove false the principle that no point in the universe is more special than any other.","human_ref_B":"With respect to what?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18051.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"ig2ybu","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Does the observable universe have a non-zero net angular momentum?","c_root_id_A":"g2rb0i7","c_root_id_B":"g2satgq","created_at_utc_A":1598320885,"created_at_utc_B":1598350129,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I read somewhere that the clusters and super-clusters of our observable universe are moving towards some \"great attractor\" that's outside of our bubble.","human_ref_B":"I'm not a cosmologist so hopefully someone more knowledgeable might chime in.  That said, last time I paid attention, the standard cosmological model assumes that the rate of hubble expansion is uniform and isotropic.  Meaning that no matter what direction you look, space is expanding at the same rate.  I think that if there was a net rotation about some point we would see one part of the sky receding at a faster rate than another.    Anyway I think that would prove false the principle that no point in the universe is more special than any other.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29244.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"ig2ybu","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Does the observable universe have a non-zero net angular momentum?","c_root_id_A":"g2rsq9r","c_root_id_B":"g2rb0i7","created_at_utc_A":1598332078,"created_at_utc_B":1598320885,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"With respect to what?","human_ref_B":"I read somewhere that the clusters and super-clusters of our observable universe are moving towards some \"great attractor\" that's outside of our bubble.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11193.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"qxi4q1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Does light have momentum? In order to have momentum you need mass, right? Since light does not have mass it also does not have momentum, right? I was reading something online and saw this: \"*Since photons (particles of light) have no mass, they must obey E = pc and therefore get all of their energy from their momentum.*\" But in this equation P(momentum)= m(mass) x v(velocity), right? How is this possible?","c_root_id_A":"hlacg6a","c_root_id_B":"hl9m1d3","created_at_utc_A":1637347326,"created_at_utc_B":1637337030,"score_A":11,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Maxwell's equations tell you that light imparts momentum, you don't need to invoke quantum mechanics.","human_ref_B":"yes, p = E\/c = hf\/c = h\/lambda  >In order to have momentum you need mass, right?  wrong","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10296.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333}
{"post_id":"qxi4q1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Does light have momentum? In order to have momentum you need mass, right? Since light does not have mass it also does not have momentum, right? I was reading something online and saw this: \"*Since photons (particles of light) have no mass, they must obey E = pc and therefore get all of their energy from their momentum.*\" But in this equation P(momentum)= m(mass) x v(velocity), right? How is this possible?","c_root_id_A":"hla2en1","c_root_id_B":"hlacg6a","created_at_utc_A":1637343483,"created_at_utc_B":1637347326,"score_A":5,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Here\u2019s how I remember this when taking quantum physics. In order for a photon to be absorbed, it has to hit a charged particle (let\u2019s say an electron). The electrical field of the photon accelerates the charged particle (sinusoidally) which then generates a counteracting electrical field and thus destroying the photon. But remember that the changing electrical field was caused by and causes a changing orthogonal magnetic field. When you accelerate the electron, it\u2019s now moving horizontally through the magnetic field which induces a force on the electron that is perpendicular to both the direction of motion and the magnetic field direction; therefore the acceleration is in the direction of propagation of the photon. So basically you can equate that to a momentum value. This all comes out of solving the wave equations using Maxwell\u2019s equations.","human_ref_B":"Maxwell's equations tell you that light imparts momentum, you don't need to invoke quantum mechanics.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3843.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"grzum9p","c_root_id_B":"grzoatx","created_at_utc_A":1616546398,"created_at_utc_B":1616543184,"score_A":55,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Betelgeuse going supernova.","human_ref_B":"We'll find out in about 5 billion years when the Sun, in its death throes, expands into a red giant and swallows up the Earth.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3214.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs0320c","c_root_id_B":"gs046zf","created_at_utc_A":1616550792,"created_at_utc_B":1616551391,"score_A":18,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"Gamma ray burst either hitting us or we see the effects of it hitting another planet in our solar system. Talk about out of nowhere and intense. It's an irrational fear of mine.","human_ref_B":"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/False_vacuum_decay  Basically Thanos' snap on everything.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":599.0,"score_ratio":1.7222222222}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs046zf","c_root_id_B":"grzoatx","created_at_utc_A":1616551391,"created_at_utc_B":1616543184,"score_A":31,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/False_vacuum_decay  Basically Thanos' snap on everything.","human_ref_B":"We'll find out in about 5 billion years when the Sun, in its death throes, expands into a red giant and swallows up the Earth.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8207.0,"score_ratio":3.1}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs046zf","c_root_id_B":"gs00350","created_at_utc_A":1616551391,"created_at_utc_B":1616549246,"score_A":31,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/False_vacuum_decay  Basically Thanos' snap on everything.","human_ref_B":"Extinction level impact event. Possibly a GRB if it's pointed at us.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2145.0,"score_ratio":3.1}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs046zf","c_root_id_B":"gs00qly","created_at_utc_A":1616551391,"created_at_utc_B":1616549588,"score_A":31,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/False_vacuum_decay  Basically Thanos' snap on everything.","human_ref_B":"Referencing your intergalactic, stray black hole, there's a Neal Stephenson book, Seveneves, where a small stray black hole intersects with the moon. Best first line of any book: \"The moon exploded suddenly, and for no apparent reason.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1803.0,"score_ratio":4.4285714286}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs046zf","c_root_id_B":"gs013bx","created_at_utc_A":1616551391,"created_at_utc_B":1616549772,"score_A":31,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/False_vacuum_decay  Basically Thanos' snap on everything.","human_ref_B":"Meteorite wiping us out is the most likely, unfortunately :P But probably not what you mean.  Another one that's gonna affect us: Solar flares.  The most likely one that's not going to affect us? Yeah maybe Betelguese. But low odds on that one within our lifetimes :(","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1619.0,"score_ratio":4.4285714286}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs046zf","c_root_id_B":"gs03sk1","created_at_utc_A":1616551391,"created_at_utc_B":1616551179,"score_A":31,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/False_vacuum_decay  Basically Thanos' snap on everything.","human_ref_B":"If you want to read about all of the things that might happen, read Death from the Skies by Phil Plait.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":212.0,"score_ratio":6.2}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs046zf","c_root_id_B":"gs006aq","created_at_utc_A":1616551391,"created_at_utc_B":1616549291,"score_A":31,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/False_vacuum_decay  Basically Thanos' snap on everything.","human_ref_B":"This one I think, https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Coronal\\_mass\\_ejection","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2100.0,"score_ratio":10.3333333333}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"grzoatx","c_root_id_B":"gs0320c","created_at_utc_A":1616543184,"created_at_utc_B":1616550792,"score_A":10,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"We'll find out in about 5 billion years when the Sun, in its death throes, expands into a red giant and swallows up the Earth.","human_ref_B":"Gamma ray burst either hitting us or we see the effects of it hitting another planet in our solar system. Talk about out of nowhere and intense. It's an irrational fear of mine.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7608.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs0320c","c_root_id_B":"gs00350","created_at_utc_A":1616550792,"created_at_utc_B":1616549246,"score_A":18,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Gamma ray burst either hitting us or we see the effects of it hitting another planet in our solar system. Talk about out of nowhere and intense. It's an irrational fear of mine.","human_ref_B":"Extinction level impact event. Possibly a GRB if it's pointed at us.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1546.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs00qly","c_root_id_B":"gs0320c","created_at_utc_A":1616549588,"created_at_utc_B":1616550792,"score_A":7,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Referencing your intergalactic, stray black hole, there's a Neal Stephenson book, Seveneves, where a small stray black hole intersects with the moon. Best first line of any book: \"The moon exploded suddenly, and for no apparent reason.\"","human_ref_B":"Gamma ray burst either hitting us or we see the effects of it hitting another planet in our solar system. Talk about out of nowhere and intense. It's an irrational fear of mine.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1204.0,"score_ratio":2.5714285714}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs013bx","c_root_id_B":"gs0320c","created_at_utc_A":1616549772,"created_at_utc_B":1616550792,"score_A":7,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Meteorite wiping us out is the most likely, unfortunately :P But probably not what you mean.  Another one that's gonna affect us: Solar flares.  The most likely one that's not going to affect us? Yeah maybe Betelguese. But low odds on that one within our lifetimes :(","human_ref_B":"Gamma ray burst either hitting us or we see the effects of it hitting another planet in our solar system. Talk about out of nowhere and intense. It's an irrational fear of mine.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1020.0,"score_ratio":2.5714285714}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs0320c","c_root_id_B":"gs006aq","created_at_utc_A":1616550792,"created_at_utc_B":1616549291,"score_A":18,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Gamma ray burst either hitting us or we see the effects of it hitting another planet in our solar system. Talk about out of nowhere and intense. It's an irrational fear of mine.","human_ref_B":"This one I think, https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Coronal\\_mass\\_ejection","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1501.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs006aq","c_root_id_B":"gs00qly","created_at_utc_A":1616549291,"created_at_utc_B":1616549588,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"This one I think, https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Coronal\\_mass\\_ejection","human_ref_B":"Referencing your intergalactic, stray black hole, there's a Neal Stephenson book, Seveneves, where a small stray black hole intersects with the moon. Best first line of any book: \"The moon exploded suddenly, and for no apparent reason.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":297.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs006aq","c_root_id_B":"gs013bx","created_at_utc_A":1616549291,"created_at_utc_B":1616549772,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"This one I think, https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Coronal\\_mass\\_ejection","human_ref_B":"Meteorite wiping us out is the most likely, unfortunately :P But probably not what you mean.  Another one that's gonna affect us: Solar flares.  The most likely one that's not going to affect us? Yeah maybe Betelguese. But low odds on that one within our lifetimes :(","labels":0,"seconds_difference":481.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs03sk1","c_root_id_B":"gs0pfnq","created_at_utc_A":1616551179,"created_at_utc_B":1616564976,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"If you want to read about all of the things that might happen, read Death from the Skies by Phil Plait.","human_ref_B":"A rogue planet entering the solar system would suck.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13797.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs0pfnq","c_root_id_B":"gs006aq","created_at_utc_A":1616564976,"created_at_utc_B":1616549291,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"A rogue planet entering the solar system would suck.","human_ref_B":"This one I think, https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Coronal\\_mass\\_ejection","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15685.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs006aq","c_root_id_B":"gs03sk1","created_at_utc_A":1616549291,"created_at_utc_B":1616551179,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This one I think, https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Coronal\\_mass\\_ejection","human_ref_B":"If you want to read about all of the things that might happen, read Death from the Skies by Phil Plait.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1888.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs12aux","c_root_id_B":"gs006aq","created_at_utc_A":1616576989,"created_at_utc_B":1616549291,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I learned from Star Trek II that planets sometimes randomly explode. That would be something to behold.\ud83d\ude0b","human_ref_B":"This one I think, https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Coronal\\_mass\\_ejection","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27698.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs12aux","c_root_id_B":"gs0xnpm","created_at_utc_A":1616576989,"created_at_utc_B":1616572459,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I learned from Star Trek II that planets sometimes randomly explode. That would be something to behold.\ud83d\ude0b","human_ref_B":"Eta Carina going off as a supernova","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4530.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs18an1","c_root_id_B":"gs0xnpm","created_at_utc_A":1616582724,"created_at_utc_B":1616572459,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Well, the by far most extreme event would be the start of a vacuume decay. A bubble of \u201ctrue vacuume\u201c would expand through the universe with the speed of light destroying EVERYTHING.  Or someone unplugging the computer that runs the simulation we call \u201cuniverse\u201c","human_ref_B":"Eta Carina going off as a supernova","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10265.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs18an1","c_root_id_B":"gs12s00","created_at_utc_A":1616582724,"created_at_utc_B":1616577468,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Well, the by far most extreme event would be the start of a vacuume decay. A bubble of \u201ctrue vacuume\u201c would expand through the universe with the speed of light destroying EVERYTHING.  Or someone unplugging the computer that runs the simulation we call \u201cuniverse\u201c","human_ref_B":"betelgeuse going supernova","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5256.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"mbrnjh","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What is the craziest most extreme astronomical event we could experience?  I was watching a video about super massive blackholes and they mentioned that its possible for 2 galaxies to collide and one of the black holes winds up just flying through space by itself.   If it got close enough to us, the sun would just start morphing and peeling away into a black hole, which I thought would be an interesting experience to say the least. Its super unlikely, and we would notice this prolly before it got close at all, but it led me to a question, what is the craziest most extreme astronomical event that could actually happen here that we could experience?","c_root_id_A":"gs18an1","c_root_id_B":"gs17e53","created_at_utc_A":1616582724,"created_at_utc_B":1616581929,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Well, the by far most extreme event would be the start of a vacuume decay. A bubble of \u201ctrue vacuume\u201c would expand through the universe with the speed of light destroying EVERYTHING.  Or someone unplugging the computer that runs the simulation we call \u201cuniverse\u201c","human_ref_B":"I don't think an SMBH can be reasonably stripped of all the millions of stars in close orbits around it, I think if one were to be ejected from a merger it would look like a large globular cluster with an SMBH inside or a dwarf galaxy of some sort.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":795.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"kuhia4","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"\"Funny\" patterns inside a block of ice Photos of the block of ice     I took this block of ice from the freezer and got fascinated by these patterns. I am also very curious about their formation so I'd like to ask the community for some hints regarding what might have happened here. Thanks in advance for any help :)   Some info that might be relevant:   \\- What I put in the freezer was just a transparent plastic bag filled with tap water   \\- It was a new plastic bag from those plastic bag rolls bought at the grocery   \\- The tap water is from the Norwegian water supply system, which is usually very clean. (I'm wondering about the brownish spot at the core of these patterns).","c_root_id_A":"gisjap8","c_root_id_B":"giskdd2","created_at_utc_A":1610308388,"created_at_utc_B":1610308919,"score_A":4,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"Gas bubbles would be my guess.  No idea what the brown stuff is, but it might have also produced some gas when it froze.","human_ref_B":"Water, even clean tap water, always has dissolved gases and solids. As a volume of water starts to slowly freeze, the dissolved materials will generally be forced out of the \"ice\" portion and remain in the \"water\" portion, becoming more and more concentrated. If the concentration rises high enough, the dissolved materials eventually come out of solution.  In this case you put a bag of water in the freezer, probably freshly filled so containing lots of dissolved air. It froze from the outside in, so there was no escape path for any dissolved materials. What you see is the concentration of any solids near the centre; and the small trails of bubbles left as the dissolved air came out of solution. If you want ice without bubbles, you need to freeze slowly from the bottom up, allowing the air to escape.  https:\/\/engineering.purdue.edu\/MSE\/aboutus\/gotmaterials\/Other\/yoder.html  As to what exactly the solids are, generally there are some dissolved inorganic minerals in tap water (in fact it tastes rather strange if there aren't). The slight brown colour probably suggests iron compounds, which are very common. Typical dissolved solid levels in drinkable fresh water are a few hundred mg \/ L (compare to >35,000 mg \/ L in sea water).  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Total_dissolved_solids","labels":0,"seconds_difference":531.0,"score_ratio":8.75}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4uy0yo","c_root_id_B":"f4upn0t","created_at_utc_A":1571832915,"created_at_utc_B":1571822938,"score_A":76,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Just reading and watching vids won't do much. You need to actually do exercises and solve problems over and over and over again.   I'd advice you to only try to learn the very basics for now until your business takes off, so classical mechanics, special relativity, linear algebra, complex and real numbers, and integral and differential calculus. That should keep you busy for a very long time if you're only doing this as a hobby.   Most \"recreational physicists\" immediately want to jump to the juicy parts like astrophysics and cosmology, but I guarantee you that that's gonna be a massive waste of time if you actually want to understand something beyond the very surface.","human_ref_B":"Try PBS Space Time channel on YouTube.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9977.0,"score_ratio":25.3333333333}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4uy0yo","c_root_id_B":"f4uqin7","created_at_utc_A":1571832915,"created_at_utc_B":1571824297,"score_A":76,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Just reading and watching vids won't do much. You need to actually do exercises and solve problems over and over and over again.   I'd advice you to only try to learn the very basics for now until your business takes off, so classical mechanics, special relativity, linear algebra, complex and real numbers, and integral and differential calculus. That should keep you busy for a very long time if you're only doing this as a hobby.   Most \"recreational physicists\" immediately want to jump to the juicy parts like astrophysics and cosmology, but I guarantee you that that's gonna be a massive waste of time if you actually want to understand something beyond the very surface.","human_ref_B":"Finish the degree you started or directly apply you another degree.  Do you just want learn physics primarily because of an intrinsic interest, or are you interested in working in a related field?   If you plan to work in the field, you definitely have to get a degree. If your don't want to do work in the field, you still should finish your other degree (and take whatever advice the other people her can give you on how to learn math and physics)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8618.0,"score_ratio":25.3333333333}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4upn0t","c_root_id_B":"f4v1p4w","created_at_utc_A":1571822938,"created_at_utc_B":1571834951,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Try PBS Space Time channel on YouTube.","human_ref_B":"Physics and pure math are two separate disciplines. Your Stewart, Tall book goes into abstract math which will won't be as directly helpful as applied math will be. Pure math is of course relevant but not absolutely required for the fundamentals of physics.   It just seems that math and physics is a lot on your plate. If you were to just focus on physics, I would recommend you take Calculus instead of Mathematical Thinking and replace the Stewart, Tall book with \"Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences\" by Boas. Get a short calculus based first year physics textbook such as \"Essential University Physics\" by Wolfson (you need both volumes). I know that book won't be highly recommended but if you don't know how deep you're going, getting a tome such as Halliday, Resnick, Walker is going to daunting. By the time you get to the end of Walker, you'll know if you want to get serious or not. And if not, you'll at least have an understanding of some of the ideas in physics. Supplement that book with the Feynman lectures.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12013.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4uqin7","c_root_id_B":"f4v1p4w","created_at_utc_A":1571824297,"created_at_utc_B":1571834951,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Finish the degree you started or directly apply you another degree.  Do you just want learn physics primarily because of an intrinsic interest, or are you interested in working in a related field?   If you plan to work in the field, you definitely have to get a degree. If your don't want to do work in the field, you still should finish your other degree (and take whatever advice the other people her can give you on how to learn math and physics)","human_ref_B":"Physics and pure math are two separate disciplines. Your Stewart, Tall book goes into abstract math which will won't be as directly helpful as applied math will be. Pure math is of course relevant but not absolutely required for the fundamentals of physics.   It just seems that math and physics is a lot on your plate. If you were to just focus on physics, I would recommend you take Calculus instead of Mathematical Thinking and replace the Stewart, Tall book with \"Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences\" by Boas. Get a short calculus based first year physics textbook such as \"Essential University Physics\" by Wolfson (you need both volumes). I know that book won't be highly recommended but if you don't know how deep you're going, getting a tome such as Halliday, Resnick, Walker is going to daunting. By the time you get to the end of Walker, you'll know if you want to get serious or not. And if not, you'll at least have an understanding of some of the ideas in physics. Supplement that book with the Feynman lectures.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10654.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4upn0t","c_root_id_B":"f4v64rn","created_at_utc_A":1571822938,"created_at_utc_B":1571837198,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Try PBS Space Time channel on YouTube.","human_ref_B":"Start with khan academy.  Honestly you won't get much better than that until you hit higher level match\/physics","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14260.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4uqin7","c_root_id_B":"f4v64rn","created_at_utc_A":1571824297,"created_at_utc_B":1571837198,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Finish the degree you started or directly apply you another degree.  Do you just want learn physics primarily because of an intrinsic interest, or are you interested in working in a related field?   If you plan to work in the field, you definitely have to get a degree. If your don't want to do work in the field, you still should finish your other degree (and take whatever advice the other people her can give you on how to learn math and physics)","human_ref_B":"Start with khan academy.  Honestly you won't get much better than that until you hit higher level match\/physics","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12901.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4vt5q5","c_root_id_B":"f4upn0t","created_at_utc_A":1571847427,"created_at_utc_B":1571822938,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Since alot of people said pretty much exactly what I wanted to, I'll add to their responses. A lot of people are stressing practice problems and I can't agree with them more. Sure you read the sentence \"Energy is always conserved\", and you convince yourself \"yea that makes sense, where else would it go if it wasn't\". Now you're inclined to go the next section, but WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE in reality for energy to be conserved? How is this a useful law? Only practice problems will show you the answers to these questions.   While pure math and physics are two separate disciplines, they often overlap especially in \"juicy\" parts of physics like quantum mechanics where it might as well be a study of pure math since you can't physically see any of the things happening in quantum. Take the time to really understand the math being presented to you. To start, I'd recommend differential\/integral calculus, multvariable calculus, vector calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations. This should lay the mathematical foundations for you to explore classical mechanics, electricity and magnetism, optics, special relativity, and intro quantum mechanics.   Finally, don't give up. Every single time you solve a problem wrong, you've just found another way NOT to do the problem. As silly as that sounds, I've found it to be incredibly useful throughout my studies in physics. You're going to drop negative signs, add numbers wrong, and completely miss the point of the question. Don't be discouraged. Even the best physicists to this kind of stuff. Hold out and keep studying and you'll get it. Good luck!","human_ref_B":"Try PBS Space Time channel on YouTube.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24489.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4w1com","c_root_id_B":"f4upn0t","created_at_utc_A":1571850623,"created_at_utc_B":1571822938,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Get the math out of the way.  Calculus, vector calculus, differential Equations  Knock that out so everything new in Physics you learn doesn't require you to backtrack just to learn the math to it.  Get the Arfken and Webber math book for physicists and engineers too.","human_ref_B":"Try PBS Space Time channel on YouTube.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27685.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4upn0t","c_root_id_B":"f4wyhoi","created_at_utc_A":1571822938,"created_at_utc_B":1571860857,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Try PBS Space Time channel on YouTube.","human_ref_B":"There are a ton of roadblocks in self studying physics. Look up a university or a community college with a physics course and check their syllabuses. latter courses will draw upon knowledge from previous ones, so before you read Griffiths you should know a metric fuck ton of linear algebra and at least have a good base in mathematical analysis, because pretty early on you will encounter tensors and distributions\/Green functions in there and it's okay to be confused by those but you're going to have a really bad time with no basis. I'm not sure which english books are good for linear algebra, but for analysis the Princeton lectures are great. Student's guides to tensors\/maxwell equations\/everything are awesome for intuition and simplicity and of course Feynman lectures are great and freely available. And don't forget, libgen.is is your friend.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":37919.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4vt5q5","c_root_id_B":"f4uqin7","created_at_utc_A":1571847427,"created_at_utc_B":1571824297,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Since alot of people said pretty much exactly what I wanted to, I'll add to their responses. A lot of people are stressing practice problems and I can't agree with them more. Sure you read the sentence \"Energy is always conserved\", and you convince yourself \"yea that makes sense, where else would it go if it wasn't\". Now you're inclined to go the next section, but WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE in reality for energy to be conserved? How is this a useful law? Only practice problems will show you the answers to these questions.   While pure math and physics are two separate disciplines, they often overlap especially in \"juicy\" parts of physics like quantum mechanics where it might as well be a study of pure math since you can't physically see any of the things happening in quantum. Take the time to really understand the math being presented to you. To start, I'd recommend differential\/integral calculus, multvariable calculus, vector calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations. This should lay the mathematical foundations for you to explore classical mechanics, electricity and magnetism, optics, special relativity, and intro quantum mechanics.   Finally, don't give up. Every single time you solve a problem wrong, you've just found another way NOT to do the problem. As silly as that sounds, I've found it to be incredibly useful throughout my studies in physics. You're going to drop negative signs, add numbers wrong, and completely miss the point of the question. Don't be discouraged. Even the best physicists to this kind of stuff. Hold out and keep studying and you'll get it. Good luck!","human_ref_B":"Finish the degree you started or directly apply you another degree.  Do you just want learn physics primarily because of an intrinsic interest, or are you interested in working in a related field?   If you plan to work in the field, you definitely have to get a degree. If your don't want to do work in the field, you still should finish your other degree (and take whatever advice the other people her can give you on how to learn math and physics)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23130.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4w1com","c_root_id_B":"f4uqin7","created_at_utc_A":1571850623,"created_at_utc_B":1571824297,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Get the math out of the way.  Calculus, vector calculus, differential Equations  Knock that out so everything new in Physics you learn doesn't require you to backtrack just to learn the math to it.  Get the Arfken and Webber math book for physicists and engineers too.","human_ref_B":"Finish the degree you started or directly apply you another degree.  Do you just want learn physics primarily because of an intrinsic interest, or are you interested in working in a related field?   If you plan to work in the field, you definitely have to get a degree. If your don't want to do work in the field, you still should finish your other degree (and take whatever advice the other people her can give you on how to learn math and physics)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26326.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4uqin7","c_root_id_B":"f4wyhoi","created_at_utc_A":1571824297,"created_at_utc_B":1571860857,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Finish the degree you started or directly apply you another degree.  Do you just want learn physics primarily because of an intrinsic interest, or are you interested in working in a related field?   If you plan to work in the field, you definitely have to get a degree. If your don't want to do work in the field, you still should finish your other degree (and take whatever advice the other people her can give you on how to learn math and physics)","human_ref_B":"There are a ton of roadblocks in self studying physics. Look up a university or a community college with a physics course and check their syllabuses. latter courses will draw upon knowledge from previous ones, so before you read Griffiths you should know a metric fuck ton of linear algebra and at least have a good base in mathematical analysis, because pretty early on you will encounter tensors and distributions\/Green functions in there and it's okay to be confused by those but you're going to have a really bad time with no basis. I'm not sure which english books are good for linear algebra, but for analysis the Princeton lectures are great. Student's guides to tensors\/maxwell equations\/everything are awesome for intuition and simplicity and of course Feynman lectures are great and freely available. And don't forget, libgen.is is your friend.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":36560.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4vglqa","c_root_id_B":"f4vt5q5","created_at_utc_A":1571842152,"created_at_utc_B":1571847427,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Try the AQA a level physics book for both years.","human_ref_B":"Since alot of people said pretty much exactly what I wanted to, I'll add to their responses. A lot of people are stressing practice problems and I can't agree with them more. Sure you read the sentence \"Energy is always conserved\", and you convince yourself \"yea that makes sense, where else would it go if it wasn't\". Now you're inclined to go the next section, but WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE in reality for energy to be conserved? How is this a useful law? Only practice problems will show you the answers to these questions.   While pure math and physics are two separate disciplines, they often overlap especially in \"juicy\" parts of physics like quantum mechanics where it might as well be a study of pure math since you can't physically see any of the things happening in quantum. Take the time to really understand the math being presented to you. To start, I'd recommend differential\/integral calculus, multvariable calculus, vector calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations. This should lay the mathematical foundations for you to explore classical mechanics, electricity and magnetism, optics, special relativity, and intro quantum mechanics.   Finally, don't give up. Every single time you solve a problem wrong, you've just found another way NOT to do the problem. As silly as that sounds, I've found it to be incredibly useful throughout my studies in physics. You're going to drop negative signs, add numbers wrong, and completely miss the point of the question. Don't be discouraged. Even the best physicists to this kind of stuff. Hold out and keep studying and you'll get it. Good luck!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5275.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4vtmeb","c_root_id_B":"f4w1com","created_at_utc_A":1571847609,"created_at_utc_B":1571850623,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"there's plenty of open courses online, but i couldn't vouch for any of them. definitely check out MIT's open courses they have a shit load of resources.  alex flournoy has great lectures on youtube. so does leonard susskind, but a lot of his are less detailed or rigorous. they're just designed to get concepts across. i've watched a few, but not many of thobias osborne's, but they seem pretty good. although they're probably higher level than what you're after so maybe don't start with them.. i'm sure there's plenty more free online lectures, but those are the ones i've watched and they're great. ive got an undergraduate degree in physics but i watch some of that stuff for fun, to learn about stuff i never got to when i was at uni.  if you find some lecture series you like online, wouldn't hurt to just find an email address on the university's website and email the professor doing the lectures, asking for the homework questions so you can get your teeth into it a bit more. they probably wouldnt mind sending you some stuff, within reason.","human_ref_B":"Get the math out of the way.  Calculus, vector calculus, differential Equations  Knock that out so everything new in Physics you learn doesn't require you to backtrack just to learn the math to it.  Get the Arfken and Webber math book for physicists and engineers too.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3014.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4w1com","c_root_id_B":"f4vglqa","created_at_utc_A":1571850623,"created_at_utc_B":1571842152,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Get the math out of the way.  Calculus, vector calculus, differential Equations  Knock that out so everything new in Physics you learn doesn't require you to backtrack just to learn the math to it.  Get the Arfken and Webber math book for physicists and engineers too.","human_ref_B":"Try the AQA a level physics book for both years.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8471.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4w1com","c_root_id_B":"f4vvrha","created_at_utc_A":1571850623,"created_at_utc_B":1571848512,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Get the math out of the way.  Calculus, vector calculus, differential Equations  Knock that out so everything new in Physics you learn doesn't require you to backtrack just to learn the math to it.  Get the Arfken and Webber math book for physicists and engineers too.","human_ref_B":"I've always thought of the Feynman Lectures as something to read after you go through the content in a textbook with exercises. The book is great, but I found it much more helpful for closing together ideas, instead of bringing light to a new concept. But with any book or lecture, you need to supplement those with exercises.  If you live near a university and have the free time available, you should consider emailing a professor and ask to sit in on their lectures. At least in my school, the professors would be kind enough to allow that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2111.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4vtmeb","c_root_id_B":"f4wyhoi","created_at_utc_A":1571847609,"created_at_utc_B":1571860857,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"there's plenty of open courses online, but i couldn't vouch for any of them. definitely check out MIT's open courses they have a shit load of resources.  alex flournoy has great lectures on youtube. so does leonard susskind, but a lot of his are less detailed or rigorous. they're just designed to get concepts across. i've watched a few, but not many of thobias osborne's, but they seem pretty good. although they're probably higher level than what you're after so maybe don't start with them.. i'm sure there's plenty more free online lectures, but those are the ones i've watched and they're great. ive got an undergraduate degree in physics but i watch some of that stuff for fun, to learn about stuff i never got to when i was at uni.  if you find some lecture series you like online, wouldn't hurt to just find an email address on the university's website and email the professor doing the lectures, asking for the homework questions so you can get your teeth into it a bit more. they probably wouldnt mind sending you some stuff, within reason.","human_ref_B":"There are a ton of roadblocks in self studying physics. Look up a university or a community college with a physics course and check their syllabuses. latter courses will draw upon knowledge from previous ones, so before you read Griffiths you should know a metric fuck ton of linear algebra and at least have a good base in mathematical analysis, because pretty early on you will encounter tensors and distributions\/Green functions in there and it's okay to be confused by those but you're going to have a really bad time with no basis. I'm not sure which english books are good for linear algebra, but for analysis the Princeton lectures are great. Student's guides to tensors\/maxwell equations\/everything are awesome for intuition and simplicity and of course Feynman lectures are great and freely available. And don't forget, libgen.is is your friend.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13248.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4vglqa","c_root_id_B":"f4wyhoi","created_at_utc_A":1571842152,"created_at_utc_B":1571860857,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Try the AQA a level physics book for both years.","human_ref_B":"There are a ton of roadblocks in self studying physics. Look up a university or a community college with a physics course and check their syllabuses. latter courses will draw upon knowledge from previous ones, so before you read Griffiths you should know a metric fuck ton of linear algebra and at least have a good base in mathematical analysis, because pretty early on you will encounter tensors and distributions\/Green functions in there and it's okay to be confused by those but you're going to have a really bad time with no basis. I'm not sure which english books are good for linear algebra, but for analysis the Princeton lectures are great. Student's guides to tensors\/maxwell equations\/everything are awesome for intuition and simplicity and of course Feynman lectures are great and freely available. And don't forget, libgen.is is your friend.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18705.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4wyhoi","c_root_id_B":"f4vvrha","created_at_utc_A":1571860857,"created_at_utc_B":1571848512,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There are a ton of roadblocks in self studying physics. Look up a university or a community college with a physics course and check their syllabuses. latter courses will draw upon knowledge from previous ones, so before you read Griffiths you should know a metric fuck ton of linear algebra and at least have a good base in mathematical analysis, because pretty early on you will encounter tensors and distributions\/Green functions in there and it's okay to be confused by those but you're going to have a really bad time with no basis. I'm not sure which english books are good for linear algebra, but for analysis the Princeton lectures are great. Student's guides to tensors\/maxwell equations\/everything are awesome for intuition and simplicity and of course Feynman lectures are great and freely available. And don't forget, libgen.is is your friend.","human_ref_B":"I've always thought of the Feynman Lectures as something to read after you go through the content in a textbook with exercises. The book is great, but I found it much more helpful for closing together ideas, instead of bringing light to a new concept. But with any book or lecture, you need to supplement those with exercises.  If you live near a university and have the free time available, you should consider emailing a professor and ask to sit in on their lectures. At least in my school, the professors would be kind enough to allow that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12345.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4wyhoi","c_root_id_B":"f4wfhf2","created_at_utc_A":1571860857,"created_at_utc_B":1571855385,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There are a ton of roadblocks in self studying physics. Look up a university or a community college with a physics course and check their syllabuses. latter courses will draw upon knowledge from previous ones, so before you read Griffiths you should know a metric fuck ton of linear algebra and at least have a good base in mathematical analysis, because pretty early on you will encounter tensors and distributions\/Green functions in there and it's okay to be confused by those but you're going to have a really bad time with no basis. I'm not sure which english books are good for linear algebra, but for analysis the Princeton lectures are great. Student's guides to tensors\/maxwell equations\/everything are awesome for intuition and simplicity and of course Feynman lectures are great and freely available. And don't forget, libgen.is is your friend.","human_ref_B":"Do everything on khan academy as a starting point. Then, do everything on OpenStax, at that point you should be sufficiently versed through all undergraduate lower level base STEM classes. (This is what I\u2019m working on) After that you\u2019d want to take more specialized classes in specific fields of interest in math and physics. You can do this by taking free classes from Harvard or MIT or other places online either through their websites or sites like Alison.com , Coursera.com , and Edx.com . All of them offer class style learning environments online and most have others taking the class you can talk with if you want.   Best of luck!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5472.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4wsokk","c_root_id_B":"f4wyhoi","created_at_utc_A":1571859390,"created_at_utc_B":1571860857,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I don't think Feynman's lectures are great for a first textbook. You're gonna often wonder like wtf is going on, especially given your math background. I'd recommend a more typical intro physics textbook like Physics for scientists and engineers by Giancoli or by Jewett & Serway.   Feynman is more appreciated as second textbook.","human_ref_B":"There are a ton of roadblocks in self studying physics. Look up a university or a community college with a physics course and check their syllabuses. latter courses will draw upon knowledge from previous ones, so before you read Griffiths you should know a metric fuck ton of linear algebra and at least have a good base in mathematical analysis, because pretty early on you will encounter tensors and distributions\/Green functions in there and it's okay to be confused by those but you're going to have a really bad time with no basis. I'm not sure which english books are good for linear algebra, but for analysis the Princeton lectures are great. Student's guides to tensors\/maxwell equations\/everything are awesome for intuition and simplicity and of course Feynman lectures are great and freely available. And don't forget, libgen.is is your friend.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1467.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4vtmeb","c_root_id_B":"f4vglqa","created_at_utc_A":1571847609,"created_at_utc_B":1571842152,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"there's plenty of open courses online, but i couldn't vouch for any of them. definitely check out MIT's open courses they have a shit load of resources.  alex flournoy has great lectures on youtube. so does leonard susskind, but a lot of his are less detailed or rigorous. they're just designed to get concepts across. i've watched a few, but not many of thobias osborne's, but they seem pretty good. although they're probably higher level than what you're after so maybe don't start with them.. i'm sure there's plenty more free online lectures, but those are the ones i've watched and they're great. ive got an undergraduate degree in physics but i watch some of that stuff for fun, to learn about stuff i never got to when i was at uni.  if you find some lecture series you like online, wouldn't hurt to just find an email address on the university's website and email the professor doing the lectures, asking for the homework questions so you can get your teeth into it a bit more. they probably wouldnt mind sending you some stuff, within reason.","human_ref_B":"Try the AQA a level physics book for both years.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5457.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4vglqa","c_root_id_B":"f4xmxq5","created_at_utc_A":1571842152,"created_at_utc_B":1571867051,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Try the AQA a level physics book for both years.","human_ref_B":"How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist by physics Nobel Prize laureate Gerard 't Hooft has tons of great recommendations.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24899.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4vvrha","c_root_id_B":"f4xmxq5","created_at_utc_A":1571848512,"created_at_utc_B":1571867051,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I've always thought of the Feynman Lectures as something to read after you go through the content in a textbook with exercises. The book is great, but I found it much more helpful for closing together ideas, instead of bringing light to a new concept. But with any book or lecture, you need to supplement those with exercises.  If you live near a university and have the free time available, you should consider emailing a professor and ask to sit in on their lectures. At least in my school, the professors would be kind enough to allow that.","human_ref_B":"How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist by physics Nobel Prize laureate Gerard 't Hooft has tons of great recommendations.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18539.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4wfhf2","c_root_id_B":"f4xmxq5","created_at_utc_A":1571855385,"created_at_utc_B":1571867051,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Do everything on khan academy as a starting point. Then, do everything on OpenStax, at that point you should be sufficiently versed through all undergraduate lower level base STEM classes. (This is what I\u2019m working on) After that you\u2019d want to take more specialized classes in specific fields of interest in math and physics. You can do this by taking free classes from Harvard or MIT or other places online either through their websites or sites like Alison.com , Coursera.com , and Edx.com . All of them offer class style learning environments online and most have others taking the class you can talk with if you want.   Best of luck!","human_ref_B":"How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist by physics Nobel Prize laureate Gerard 't Hooft has tons of great recommendations.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11666.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4wsokk","c_root_id_B":"f4xmxq5","created_at_utc_A":1571859390,"created_at_utc_B":1571867051,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I don't think Feynman's lectures are great for a first textbook. You're gonna often wonder like wtf is going on, especially given your math background. I'd recommend a more typical intro physics textbook like Physics for scientists and engineers by Giancoli or by Jewett & Serway.   Feynman is more appreciated as second textbook.","human_ref_B":"How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist by physics Nobel Prize laureate Gerard 't Hooft has tons of great recommendations.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7661.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"dlwgah","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"I'm 23, self-learning Math\/Physics - any advice? Hey everyone. I don't use Reddit a whole lot, but the more I get into self-learning, the more I'd love to have people to discuss topics with.  Quick background info: I'm 23, went to a private university for 4 years to get a degree in music education, ended up double majoring in Japanese studies, took too many classes outside both majors and couldn't graduate in time, so I decided to drop out.  I have a lot of interests, most of them in creative fields, so I'm grateful for what I got out of college, and I'm currently pursuing a career as a creative entrepreneur.  Creating and Learning are two primary things in my life that I never want to stop doing. I've always been a self-learner and recently i started spending more time pushing myself to read regularly.  This past month, I read Stephen Hawking's \"A Brief History of Time\" and it was super interesting. I've always had an interest in Physics, but only took one class in high school. I also took AP Calculus in high school, but it wasn't something I was particularly good at (I passed the class with a C+, but didn't pass the AP Exam). Either way, I'd love to have a deeper understanding in Physics and Math, so I'm starting a self-study project.  Obviously, I need to have the foundations down first, before I try to get into anything complicated.  I'm currently going through:  \\- A Stanford course on Coursera by Dr. Keith Delvin called \"Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.\" I just finished up Week 1.  \\- \"The Foundations of Mathematics\" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. I'm finishing up Chapter 2 on Number Systems.  \\- \"The Feynman Lectures on Physics.\" I read Chapter 1 earlier.  \\- I'll probably take the \"Single Variable Calculus\" course on MIT's website after I finish \"Intro to Mathematical Thinking.\"  I have a ton of interests, so I have no idea where this will take me or how deep I'll be able to go, but I'd love some kind of feedback\/advice on self-studying Math\/Physics - am I picking up good beginner material? Is there a way that I can use this subreddit to further my study? Anything like that would be great - Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"f4x6dot","c_root_id_B":"f4xmxq5","created_at_utc_A":1571862835,"created_at_utc_B":1571867051,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Grab the Tiller Mosca book for some first level physics to get starrted.","human_ref_B":"How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist by physics Nobel Prize laureate Gerard 't Hooft has tons of great recommendations.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4216.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"xhfnbv","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"is it possible for a planet to have life, but lack the resources for achieving space flight? I am looking to write a sci fi story. The premise is a civilisation has become advanced enough to build large telescopes, allowing them to fuel their curiosity about space. They know that they could theoretically leave their planet to explore the cosmos, but they cannot find the correct resources to build a rocket.  Is this scenario feasible? Or would such a civilisation possess the chemical abilities to create the necessary chemicals?","c_root_id_A":"iox76jr","c_root_id_B":"ioxbyr0","created_at_utc_A":1663506072,"created_at_utc_B":1663508386,"score_A":16,"score_B":76,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019re essentially asking about a planet with intelligent life but no fossil fuels. That seems somewhat plausible. We had built (small) telescopes and were curious about space long before we were using fossil fuels to do much apart from heat our homes.  They\u2019d probably need to eventually get very good at making electric vehicles, including electric planes. Before that they\u2019d be stuck with alien-horse-equivalent drawn carriages (but maybe with electric lights, radios, computers - that could be interesting).  I don\u2019t know much about metallurgy but it\u2019s definitely something worth thinking about - needs high temperatures which may only be achievable with fossil fuels.  Silicon-based life, as opposed to the carbon based life of earth, is a stock sci fi trope that could help explain the lack of fossil fuels and lack of ability to synthesise them.","human_ref_B":"Materials aside, you can deepen the gravitational potential well. A planet whose potential well was four times as deep would require rockets about 10 times as large as ours to get into orbit, assuming use of the same rocket motor designs and fuels. Generally you can do this by making the planet denser or larger, although in terms of density and surface gravity (probably the most relevant parameters to a story), the potential depth scales as (surface gravity)^(2)\/density.  For example, Neptune has 4 times the potential depth of earth, mostly due to its lower density (its surface gravity is almost the same as earth's).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2314.0,"score_ratio":4.75}
{"post_id":"xhfnbv","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"is it possible for a planet to have life, but lack the resources for achieving space flight? I am looking to write a sci fi story. The premise is a civilisation has become advanced enough to build large telescopes, allowing them to fuel their curiosity about space. They know that they could theoretically leave their planet to explore the cosmos, but they cannot find the correct resources to build a rocket.  Is this scenario feasible? Or would such a civilisation possess the chemical abilities to create the necessary chemicals?","c_root_id_A":"iox7a1r","c_root_id_B":"ioxbyr0","created_at_utc_A":1663506121,"created_at_utc_B":1663508386,"score_A":17,"score_B":76,"human_ref_A":"People keep saying that you can have highly intelligent beings living on ocean worlds that can never develop metal working(And thus space travel) because they can't have fire.   I think that's interesting but maybe not the full picture","human_ref_B":"Materials aside, you can deepen the gravitational potential well. A planet whose potential well was four times as deep would require rockets about 10 times as large as ours to get into orbit, assuming use of the same rocket motor designs and fuels. Generally you can do this by making the planet denser or larger, although in terms of density and surface gravity (probably the most relevant parameters to a story), the potential depth scales as (surface gravity)^(2)\/density.  For example, Neptune has 4 times the potential depth of earth, mostly due to its lower density (its surface gravity is almost the same as earth's).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2265.0,"score_ratio":4.4705882353}
{"post_id":"xhfnbv","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"is it possible for a planet to have life, but lack the resources for achieving space flight? I am looking to write a sci fi story. The premise is a civilisation has become advanced enough to build large telescopes, allowing them to fuel their curiosity about space. They know that they could theoretically leave their planet to explore the cosmos, but they cannot find the correct resources to build a rocket.  Is this scenario feasible? Or would such a civilisation possess the chemical abilities to create the necessary chemicals?","c_root_id_A":"iox76jr","c_root_id_B":"iox7a1r","created_at_utc_A":1663506072,"created_at_utc_B":1663506121,"score_A":16,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019re essentially asking about a planet with intelligent life but no fossil fuels. That seems somewhat plausible. We had built (small) telescopes and were curious about space long before we were using fossil fuels to do much apart from heat our homes.  They\u2019d probably need to eventually get very good at making electric vehicles, including electric planes. Before that they\u2019d be stuck with alien-horse-equivalent drawn carriages (but maybe with electric lights, radios, computers - that could be interesting).  I don\u2019t know much about metallurgy but it\u2019s definitely something worth thinking about - needs high temperatures which may only be achievable with fossil fuels.  Silicon-based life, as opposed to the carbon based life of earth, is a stock sci fi trope that could help explain the lack of fossil fuels and lack of ability to synthesise them.","human_ref_B":"People keep saying that you can have highly intelligent beings living on ocean worlds that can never develop metal working(And thus space travel) because they can't have fire.   I think that's interesting but maybe not the full picture","labels":0,"seconds_difference":49.0,"score_ratio":1.0625}
{"post_id":"xhfnbv","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"is it possible for a planet to have life, but lack the resources for achieving space flight? I am looking to write a sci fi story. The premise is a civilisation has become advanced enough to build large telescopes, allowing them to fuel their curiosity about space. They know that they could theoretically leave their planet to explore the cosmos, but they cannot find the correct resources to build a rocket.  Is this scenario feasible? Or would such a civilisation possess the chemical abilities to create the necessary chemicals?","c_root_id_A":"iozs4ds","c_root_id_B":"ioz4wut","created_at_utc_A":1663542637,"created_at_utc_B":1663533455,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Go ameba go .","human_ref_B":"I think most likely if this civilization was able to discover a way to make fire, then they have the resources necessary to build rockets. My best advice would be to instead say that something \"happened\" to this planet which rendered these types of resources inaccessible, while also somehow not obliterating all life. Maybe said resources still technically exist, allowing some small holdouts of the former civilization to exist, but too sparsely to facilitate the large industrial processes needed to build a rocket big enough to reach orbit.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9182.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"xhfnbv","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"is it possible for a planet to have life, but lack the resources for achieving space flight? I am looking to write a sci fi story. The premise is a civilisation has become advanced enough to build large telescopes, allowing them to fuel their curiosity about space. They know that they could theoretically leave their planet to explore the cosmos, but they cannot find the correct resources to build a rocket.  Is this scenario feasible? Or would such a civilisation possess the chemical abilities to create the necessary chemicals?","c_root_id_A":"iozs4ds","c_root_id_B":"ioz7a7g","created_at_utc_A":1663542637,"created_at_utc_B":1663534321,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Go ameba go .","human_ref_B":"Gravity could keep them unable to reach space.  It doesn\u2019t take much more gravity than earth before you could be trapped on your planet.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8316.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"js0oqa","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How to read and understand scientific papers? I've just finished my third year of physics at uni, and I've now just started a summer internship in the department. I've been given several papers that are meant to \"get me up to speed\" on the stuff I'll be doing, but I can barely understand what I'm reading.  Is there an efficient way to comprehend what I need to know from these papers?  Feeling very frustrated and slightly overwhelmed.  Thanks.","c_root_id_A":"gbx69ie","c_root_id_B":"gbxc0o0","created_at_utc_A":1605087102,"created_at_utc_B":1605093442,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"There are some suggestions to understand the evolution of the field, that's a good approach.  What I'd say is make it an active or interactive reading by questioning the material you read. Like what it is, what are the keywords used, how is it they are doing the experiment, what is the conclusion, why this thing and not that, what are the limitations, what are the main ideas, can you explain it to yourself in a few sentences what they're trying to do in the paper (summarise) etc etc. but don't get too bogged down with the details, maintain both the holistic top level\/big picture view as well as some level of details (unless you're trying to repeat\/reproduce the paper in some way).  Then connect it with the timeline evolution of the field, like X paper from 2002, Y paper from 1979, Z paper from 2019. Can you get a review paper up until certain point, say upto 2015, which explains major milestones in one place rather than you piecing it together?","human_ref_B":"My strategy is to read it quickly multiple times. Often skipping bits of it. Each time I will focus on a particular point I did not understood and look for more details on this point.  It works well especially if you have a lot a material to read as you can jump from one to the other and let them give you different perspective on the subject you are studying.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6340.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
{"post_id":"js0oqa","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How to read and understand scientific papers? I've just finished my third year of physics at uni, and I've now just started a summer internship in the department. I've been given several papers that are meant to \"get me up to speed\" on the stuff I'll be doing, but I can barely understand what I'm reading.  Is there an efficient way to comprehend what I need to know from these papers?  Feeling very frustrated and slightly overwhelmed.  Thanks.","c_root_id_A":"gbxfpr7","c_root_id_B":"gbxeacn","created_at_utc_A":1605097051,"created_at_utc_B":1605095721,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Read the abstract then the conclusion. Google every unfamiliar term (if they\u2019re not in your textbooks) as you go, including YouTube and lecture videos. Focus on understanding the gist in broad terms moreso than details.","human_ref_B":"Along with the other comments; I find reviewing the cited references really valuable as well. Depending on your field of study, there are other websites such as Taylor Francis or DOE information bridge (google both) that may provide a slightly different perspective or additional information on what you\u2019re reviewing.  It could be an exercise as well to where you set up a meeting with your advisors to talk through what you\u2019re learning from the papers and what you\u2019d like to discuss or clarify your understanding - to be sure you\u2019re getting what they intended out of the papers rather than spinning your wheels and wasting time reviewing the wrong things. You want to be sure you\u2019re understanding the important parts of the papers so you can apply it in your internship.  By the way, it\u2019s kind of a lazy approach on their part to just dump papers on you like this.  I would encourage you to drive the sort of engagement you\u2019ll need to be successful here.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1330.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"js0oqa","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How to read and understand scientific papers? I've just finished my third year of physics at uni, and I've now just started a summer internship in the department. I've been given several papers that are meant to \"get me up to speed\" on the stuff I'll be doing, but I can barely understand what I'm reading.  Is there an efficient way to comprehend what I need to know from these papers?  Feeling very frustrated and slightly overwhelmed.  Thanks.","c_root_id_A":"gbxeacn","c_root_id_B":"gbxhi56","created_at_utc_A":1605095721,"created_at_utc_B":1605098566,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Along with the other comments; I find reviewing the cited references really valuable as well. Depending on your field of study, there are other websites such as Taylor Francis or DOE information bridge (google both) that may provide a slightly different perspective or additional information on what you\u2019re reviewing.  It could be an exercise as well to where you set up a meeting with your advisors to talk through what you\u2019re learning from the papers and what you\u2019d like to discuss or clarify your understanding - to be sure you\u2019re getting what they intended out of the papers rather than spinning your wheels and wasting time reviewing the wrong things. You want to be sure you\u2019re understanding the important parts of the papers so you can apply it in your internship.  By the way, it\u2019s kind of a lazy approach on their part to just dump papers on you like this.  I would encourage you to drive the sort of engagement you\u2019ll need to be successful here.","human_ref_B":"I'm going to copy-paste a comment I made about the difficulty in reading papers in undergrad from when the topic came up before:  The general reading process outlined by everyone else here is obviously spot on: abstract -> conclusion -> introduction -> figures -> other stuff. I wanted to add a bit of context about academic papers (at least in the sciences) in general and why they're so hard to read.   First off, they're dry. Very dry. The goal of a paper is to define a problem, provide context for it, list what work related to it already exists, and then lay out what they did and why they did it. Remember that scientific work is pretty close to irrelevant if it can't be validated, so the paper's authors have to include enough detail that their results can be recreated. That's why so much time is spent carefully describing every. single. detail. of their process.  Secondly, the details in most papers are only going to make sense to people in that particular field (or very limited sub-field, more realistically). If you want to understand every detail of a paper, you're probably going to be reading dozens of other papers that go back decades. And most of the time that just isn't really worth it. You can get the idea of a paper very quickly. You can understand the general process with a reasonable amount of work and focus. To understand every detail probably requires graduate work in that field.  For a small example: my dissertation research was on electron-ion collisions and would be classified as theoretical atomic physics. When I would talk to friends who were doing experimental atomic work, we'd be able to understand about half of what the other was doing. i.e. We'd understand the physics behind the other's research, but they had no context for why I chose my specific technique for approaching my calculations and I didn't have the context to understand the strengths \/ limitations of their equipment or how they structured their experiment. And this is in the same general sub-field (atomic physics).  The biggest take-away is this: you frequently don't need to read large chunks of a paper. If you just want to understand the idea of the paper read the abstract and the introduction. If you want to have some details about their results, read the conclusion and the figures. Skim the rest if you want to, but there's no reason to expect that you will understand much of it and, importantly, there's no reason you really need to if all you want is a general understanding.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2845.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iajmuzf","c_root_id_B":"iajunjg","created_at_utc_A":1653919158,"created_at_utc_B":1653922901,"score_A":8,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"I think it really depends on where you are, what kind of research you are aiming for, the domain ...  As an example, in France, it will be between 1600 and 2000 in public labs, and can go way more than that in private labs","human_ref_B":"I know a few PhD physics phd graduates  130k University professor, hes a magnet guy. I don't get it.  90k space force\/astrophysics  111k for... uh. Idk. Works at either Los Alamos or Sandia national labs... also an astrophysics guy  24k grocery store cashier  68k dude works at a dog food manufacturer trying to make sure kibble bits... \"sheer\" correctly  ~75k at a community College. That guy was over qualified but they let him do what he wanted and he was sort of between projects, and working on emigrating and getting his wife. Also <3   These are all persons in the US. And I knew a masters student in physics who was making 80k because his research was VERY defense specific and someone showed up at his door, offering to make it classified, generously. Which is the same thing that happened to grocery store guy, but their research, answers and outcomes were all different.   Also. All my answers are really... \"defense\" specific. Its the school I went to, and the location, and then once you meet 2, 3 then you just kinda collect them...  Oh yeah! I want to tell you ABOUT them. They all have that... enthusiasm? Charm? They are all appealing outgoing people(except magnet guy and grocery guy) and I think that makes a BIG difference.   Look at where alumni for your school end up. Ask program directors and career services. And remember networking is not at networking events. Its ehen and where you show up.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3743.0,"score_ratio":6.875}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iajzko7","c_root_id_B":"iajmuzf","created_at_utc_A":1653925152,"created_at_utc_B":1653919158,"score_A":25,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I graduated after my masters (didn\u2019t finish the PhD) and I\u2019m now doing software engineering and am making $130k. If you find that pure research isn\u2019t for you either during or after your program you can apply your skills and knowledge to plenty of high-paying jobs.   Other PhDs I know are making $60k, 95k, 120k. Keep in mind that pure research jobs will Almost always pay lower than \u201cData Scientist\u201d or things like that.","human_ref_B":"I think it really depends on where you are, what kind of research you are aiming for, the domain ...  As an example, in France, it will be between 1600 and 2000 in public labs, and can go way more than that in private labs","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5994.0,"score_ratio":3.125}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iajzko7","c_root_id_B":"iajz0vh","created_at_utc_A":1653925152,"created_at_utc_B":1653924903,"score_A":25,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I graduated after my masters (didn\u2019t finish the PhD) and I\u2019m now doing software engineering and am making $130k. If you find that pure research isn\u2019t for you either during or after your program you can apply your skills and knowledge to plenty of high-paying jobs.   Other PhDs I know are making $60k, 95k, 120k. Keep in mind that pure research jobs will Almost always pay lower than \u201cData Scientist\u201d or things like that.","human_ref_B":"I'm in my second year of post-doc, and my salary is \u00a332,344 a year (roughly $41k). In my first year, fresh out of PhD, it was \u00a330,942.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":249.0,"score_ratio":3.125}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iajzko7","c_root_id_B":"iajyfcm","created_at_utc_A":1653925152,"created_at_utc_B":1653924633,"score_A":25,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I graduated after my masters (didn\u2019t finish the PhD) and I\u2019m now doing software engineering and am making $130k. If you find that pure research isn\u2019t for you either during or after your program you can apply your skills and knowledge to plenty of high-paying jobs.   Other PhDs I know are making $60k, 95k, 120k. Keep in mind that pure research jobs will Almost always pay lower than \u201cData Scientist\u201d or things like that.","human_ref_B":"post doc at $40k  bringing in your own research money (writing proposals and getting selected) gives you a big bump in pay, like 15k raise one year.   Gets up to ~$110k as a salary.  It's possible to earn much more.  If you own your own research business for instance. A very small company (less that 20 people) can 'profit' another 50k per year.   A president of a small research company earns $250k.   One somewhat unique way to get more money is that the researcher can get the \"fee\" or profit of a grant as a bonus.  Some funding agencies allow for this \"profit\" on their grant as an incentive to get the best proposals.  These are obviously very competitive (like 80% of proposals get rejected).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":519.0,"score_ratio":8.3333333333}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iajmuzf","c_root_id_B":"ial52ov","created_at_utc_A":1653919158,"created_at_utc_B":1653944058,"score_A":8,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I think it really depends on where you are, what kind of research you are aiming for, the domain ...  As an example, in France, it will be between 1600 and 2000 in public labs, and can go way more than that in private labs","human_ref_B":"Replying on an alt here to try to preserve some anonymity.   I have a MS and a BS in physics with some high profile publication credits that I only barely deserve.   First job ~$65k 3.5 years \u201cSupport Scientist\u201d at a small research facility in a location with zero competition.   Second job ~$85k at a facility of national interest, in an expensive state. 3.5 years. \u201cScientist\u201d and \u201cMechanical Engineer\u201d titles  Current job ~$125k at a National lab, as a \u201cPhysicist\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24900.0,"score_ratio":1.625}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iajz0vh","c_root_id_B":"ial52ov","created_at_utc_A":1653924903,"created_at_utc_B":1653944058,"score_A":8,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I'm in my second year of post-doc, and my salary is \u00a332,344 a year (roughly $41k). In my first year, fresh out of PhD, it was \u00a330,942.","human_ref_B":"Replying on an alt here to try to preserve some anonymity.   I have a MS and a BS in physics with some high profile publication credits that I only barely deserve.   First job ~$65k 3.5 years \u201cSupport Scientist\u201d at a small research facility in a location with zero competition.   Second job ~$85k at a facility of national interest, in an expensive state. 3.5 years. \u201cScientist\u201d and \u201cMechanical Engineer\u201d titles  Current job ~$125k at a National lab, as a \u201cPhysicist\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19155.0,"score_ratio":1.625}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iak0103","c_root_id_B":"ial52ov","created_at_utc_A":1653925354,"created_at_utc_B":1653944058,"score_A":7,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"For the US aip has excellent data on this. Google something like physics phd job placement\/outcomes","human_ref_B":"Replying on an alt here to try to preserve some anonymity.   I have a MS and a BS in physics with some high profile publication credits that I only barely deserve.   First job ~$65k 3.5 years \u201cSupport Scientist\u201d at a small research facility in a location with zero competition.   Second job ~$85k at a facility of national interest, in an expensive state. 3.5 years. \u201cScientist\u201d and \u201cMechanical Engineer\u201d titles  Current job ~$125k at a National lab, as a \u201cPhysicist\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18704.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"ial52ov","c_root_id_B":"iak602c","created_at_utc_A":1653944058,"created_at_utc_B":1653927998,"score_A":13,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Replying on an alt here to try to preserve some anonymity.   I have a MS and a BS in physics with some high profile publication credits that I only barely deserve.   First job ~$65k 3.5 years \u201cSupport Scientist\u201d at a small research facility in a location with zero competition.   Second job ~$85k at a facility of national interest, in an expensive state. 3.5 years. \u201cScientist\u201d and \u201cMechanical Engineer\u201d titles  Current job ~$125k at a National lab, as a \u201cPhysicist\u201d","human_ref_B":"Physics PhDs that work for the government make ~ $100k to start, after the post doc. The highest paid ones at my company make over $200k\/year. Physics PhDs that go in the finance or film or video game industries make way more.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16060.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iak78nn","c_root_id_B":"ial52ov","created_at_utc_A":1653928538,"created_at_utc_B":1653944058,"score_A":7,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Very country and job specific.  A post-doc in the UK is \u00a328-32\/year, in Germany \u20ac40-60k is possible.  In industry, particularly defence or finance, you can be making anything from \u00a330k\/year to \u00a3100k\/year.","human_ref_B":"Replying on an alt here to try to preserve some anonymity.   I have a MS and a BS in physics with some high profile publication credits that I only barely deserve.   First job ~$65k 3.5 years \u201cSupport Scientist\u201d at a small research facility in a location with zero competition.   Second job ~$85k at a facility of national interest, in an expensive state. 3.5 years. \u201cScientist\u201d and \u201cMechanical Engineer\u201d titles  Current job ~$125k at a National lab, as a \u201cPhysicist\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15520.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"ial52ov","c_root_id_B":"iajyfcm","created_at_utc_A":1653944058,"created_at_utc_B":1653924633,"score_A":13,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Replying on an alt here to try to preserve some anonymity.   I have a MS and a BS in physics with some high profile publication credits that I only barely deserve.   First job ~$65k 3.5 years \u201cSupport Scientist\u201d at a small research facility in a location with zero competition.   Second job ~$85k at a facility of national interest, in an expensive state. 3.5 years. \u201cScientist\u201d and \u201cMechanical Engineer\u201d titles  Current job ~$125k at a National lab, as a \u201cPhysicist\u201d","human_ref_B":"post doc at $40k  bringing in your own research money (writing proposals and getting selected) gives you a big bump in pay, like 15k raise one year.   Gets up to ~$110k as a salary.  It's possible to earn much more.  If you own your own research business for instance. A very small company (less that 20 people) can 'profit' another 50k per year.   A president of a small research company earns $250k.   One somewhat unique way to get more money is that the researcher can get the \"fee\" or profit of a grant as a bonus.  Some funding agencies allow for this \"profit\" on their grant as an incentive to get the best proposals.  These are obviously very competitive (like 80% of proposals get rejected).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19425.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"ial52ov","c_root_id_B":"iakqfd6","created_at_utc_A":1653944058,"created_at_utc_B":1653937134,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Replying on an alt here to try to preserve some anonymity.   I have a MS and a BS in physics with some high profile publication credits that I only barely deserve.   First job ~$65k 3.5 years \u201cSupport Scientist\u201d at a small research facility in a location with zero competition.   Second job ~$85k at a facility of national interest, in an expensive state. 3.5 years. \u201cScientist\u201d and \u201cMechanical Engineer\u201d titles  Current job ~$125k at a National lab, as a \u201cPhysicist\u201d","human_ref_B":"I made about $45k\/yr as a postdoc \u2014 but that was a long time ago.  Works out to about $90k now.  I know physicists making $300k+ doing fundamental research, 20 years post degree.  I do not make that much.  Physics is a great career that offers a \u201ccomfortable\u201d lifestyle but is not the most lucrative path for someone with enough raw talent to make the grade.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6924.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iajz0vh","c_root_id_B":"iajyfcm","created_at_utc_A":1653924903,"created_at_utc_B":1653924633,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm in my second year of post-doc, and my salary is \u00a332,344 a year (roughly $41k). In my first year, fresh out of PhD, it was \u00a330,942.","human_ref_B":"post doc at $40k  bringing in your own research money (writing proposals and getting selected) gives you a big bump in pay, like 15k raise one year.   Gets up to ~$110k as a salary.  It's possible to earn much more.  If you own your own research business for instance. A very small company (less that 20 people) can 'profit' another 50k per year.   A president of a small research company earns $250k.   One somewhat unique way to get more money is that the researcher can get the \"fee\" or profit of a grant as a bonus.  Some funding agencies allow for this \"profit\" on their grant as an incentive to get the best proposals.  These are obviously very competitive (like 80% of proposals get rejected).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":270.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iajyfcm","c_root_id_B":"iak0103","created_at_utc_A":1653924633,"created_at_utc_B":1653925354,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"post doc at $40k  bringing in your own research money (writing proposals and getting selected) gives you a big bump in pay, like 15k raise one year.   Gets up to ~$110k as a salary.  It's possible to earn much more.  If you own your own research business for instance. A very small company (less that 20 people) can 'profit' another 50k per year.   A president of a small research company earns $250k.   One somewhat unique way to get more money is that the researcher can get the \"fee\" or profit of a grant as a bonus.  Some funding agencies allow for this \"profit\" on their grant as an incentive to get the best proposals.  These are obviously very competitive (like 80% of proposals get rejected).","human_ref_B":"For the US aip has excellent data on this. Google something like physics phd job placement\/outcomes","labels":0,"seconds_difference":721.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iajyfcm","c_root_id_B":"iak602c","created_at_utc_A":1653924633,"created_at_utc_B":1653927998,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"post doc at $40k  bringing in your own research money (writing proposals and getting selected) gives you a big bump in pay, like 15k raise one year.   Gets up to ~$110k as a salary.  It's possible to earn much more.  If you own your own research business for instance. A very small company (less that 20 people) can 'profit' another 50k per year.   A president of a small research company earns $250k.   One somewhat unique way to get more money is that the researcher can get the \"fee\" or profit of a grant as a bonus.  Some funding agencies allow for this \"profit\" on their grant as an incentive to get the best proposals.  These are obviously very competitive (like 80% of proposals get rejected).","human_ref_B":"Physics PhDs that work for the government make ~ $100k to start, after the post doc. The highest paid ones at my company make over $200k\/year. Physics PhDs that go in the finance or film or video game industries make way more.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3365.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iajyfcm","c_root_id_B":"iak78nn","created_at_utc_A":1653924633,"created_at_utc_B":1653928538,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"post doc at $40k  bringing in your own research money (writing proposals and getting selected) gives you a big bump in pay, like 15k raise one year.   Gets up to ~$110k as a salary.  It's possible to earn much more.  If you own your own research business for instance. A very small company (less that 20 people) can 'profit' another 50k per year.   A president of a small research company earns $250k.   One somewhat unique way to get more money is that the researcher can get the \"fee\" or profit of a grant as a bonus.  Some funding agencies allow for this \"profit\" on their grant as an incentive to get the best proposals.  These are obviously very competitive (like 80% of proposals get rejected).","human_ref_B":"Very country and job specific.  A post-doc in the UK is \u00a328-32\/year, in Germany \u20ac40-60k is possible.  In industry, particularly defence or finance, you can be making anything from \u00a330k\/year to \u00a3100k\/year.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3905.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iam95la","c_root_id_B":"iajyfcm","created_at_utc_A":1653964411,"created_at_utc_B":1653924633,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"A friend just last week turned down a professorship paying $70k for the academic year at a place (in the US) where the cheapest house on Zillow is over $600k. They did not offer housing assistance. When they were a post doc in the Bay Area they made like $60k.  I have a bachelors in physics. I dropped out of grad school to go make money and within 3 years was earning $400k at my day job (embedded computer vision engineer and real time programmer at big tech).   I suggest you don't stay with physics if you value financial security.","human_ref_B":"post doc at $40k  bringing in your own research money (writing proposals and getting selected) gives you a big bump in pay, like 15k raise one year.   Gets up to ~$110k as a salary.  It's possible to earn much more.  If you own your own research business for instance. A very small company (less that 20 people) can 'profit' another 50k per year.   A president of a small research company earns $250k.   One somewhat unique way to get more money is that the researcher can get the \"fee\" or profit of a grant as a bonus.  Some funding agencies allow for this \"profit\" on their grant as an incentive to get the best proposals.  These are obviously very competitive (like 80% of proposals get rejected).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":39778.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iakqfd6","c_root_id_B":"iam95la","created_at_utc_A":1653937134,"created_at_utc_B":1653964411,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I made about $45k\/yr as a postdoc \u2014 but that was a long time ago.  Works out to about $90k now.  I know physicists making $300k+ doing fundamental research, 20 years post degree.  I do not make that much.  Physics is a great career that offers a \u201ccomfortable\u201d lifestyle but is not the most lucrative path for someone with enough raw talent to make the grade.","human_ref_B":"A friend just last week turned down a professorship paying $70k for the academic year at a place (in the US) where the cheapest house on Zillow is over $600k. They did not offer housing assistance. When they were a post doc in the Bay Area they made like $60k.  I have a bachelors in physics. I dropped out of grad school to go make money and within 3 years was earning $400k at my day job (embedded computer vision engineer and real time programmer at big tech).   I suggest you don't stay with physics if you value financial security.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27277.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"ial9mee","c_root_id_B":"iam95la","created_at_utc_A":1653946257,"created_at_utc_B":1653964411,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"less than I \"earned\" as a PhD student (much, much, les hours of work though), but doing slightly better now.","human_ref_B":"A friend just last week turned down a professorship paying $70k for the academic year at a place (in the US) where the cheapest house on Zillow is over $600k. They did not offer housing assistance. When they were a post doc in the Bay Area they made like $60k.  I have a bachelors in physics. I dropped out of grad school to go make money and within 3 years was earning $400k at my day job (embedded computer vision engineer and real time programmer at big tech).   I suggest you don't stay with physics if you value financial security.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18154.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iam95la","c_root_id_B":"iali7p5","created_at_utc_A":1653964411,"created_at_utc_B":1653950538,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A friend just last week turned down a professorship paying $70k for the academic year at a place (in the US) where the cheapest house on Zillow is over $600k. They did not offer housing assistance. When they were a post doc in the Bay Area they made like $60k.  I have a bachelors in physics. I dropped out of grad school to go make money and within 3 years was earning $400k at my day job (embedded computer vision engineer and real time programmer at big tech).   I suggest you don't stay with physics if you value financial security.","human_ref_B":"My son was a Chem PhD grad recently. It was computational P Chem so that is pretty close to Physics.  He made $60k as a post doc for his PhD advisor for less than a year and then got a job at Lawrence Livermore National Labs making a bit over $100K.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13873.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iajyfcm","c_root_id_B":"iamfl1e","created_at_utc_A":1653924633,"created_at_utc_B":1653967981,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"post doc at $40k  bringing in your own research money (writing proposals and getting selected) gives you a big bump in pay, like 15k raise one year.   Gets up to ~$110k as a salary.  It's possible to earn much more.  If you own your own research business for instance. A very small company (less that 20 people) can 'profit' another 50k per year.   A president of a small research company earns $250k.   One somewhat unique way to get more money is that the researcher can get the \"fee\" or profit of a grant as a bonus.  Some funding agencies allow for this \"profit\" on their grant as an incentive to get the best proposals.  These are obviously very competitive (like 80% of proposals get rejected).","human_ref_B":"It took about a year to find a job; wife got a job first, so we moved to a place where I had almost no connections. I'm also pretty shit at networking.  $87k for space systems engineering (this is underpaid for someone with a PhD).  Within a year, making $110k at same company (pushed for not being underpaid).  Four years later I make $134k. Different company, though my original company had offered me a position for the same pay. I didn't much like their culture, though.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":43348.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iamfl1e","c_root_id_B":"iakqfd6","created_at_utc_A":1653967981,"created_at_utc_B":1653937134,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It took about a year to find a job; wife got a job first, so we moved to a place where I had almost no connections. I'm also pretty shit at networking.  $87k for space systems engineering (this is underpaid for someone with a PhD).  Within a year, making $110k at same company (pushed for not being underpaid).  Four years later I make $134k. Different company, though my original company had offered me a position for the same pay. I didn't much like their culture, though.","human_ref_B":"I made about $45k\/yr as a postdoc \u2014 but that was a long time ago.  Works out to about $90k now.  I know physicists making $300k+ doing fundamental research, 20 years post degree.  I do not make that much.  Physics is a great career that offers a \u201ccomfortable\u201d lifestyle but is not the most lucrative path for someone with enough raw talent to make the grade.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30847.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iamfl1e","c_root_id_B":"ial9mee","created_at_utc_A":1653967981,"created_at_utc_B":1653946257,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It took about a year to find a job; wife got a job first, so we moved to a place where I had almost no connections. I'm also pretty shit at networking.  $87k for space systems engineering (this is underpaid for someone with a PhD).  Within a year, making $110k at same company (pushed for not being underpaid).  Four years later I make $134k. Different company, though my original company had offered me a position for the same pay. I didn't much like their culture, though.","human_ref_B":"less than I \"earned\" as a PhD student (much, much, les hours of work though), but doing slightly better now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21724.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"v10hro","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How much did you make as a fresh Physics PhD graduate? How much do you make now? Reposting here as I was told by the AutoMod on r\/Physics not to post these types of questions","c_root_id_A":"iali7p5","c_root_id_B":"iamfl1e","created_at_utc_A":1653950538,"created_at_utc_B":1653967981,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"My son was a Chem PhD grad recently. It was computational P Chem so that is pretty close to Physics.  He made $60k as a post doc for his PhD advisor for less than a year and then got a job at Lawrence Livermore National Labs making a bit over $100K.","human_ref_B":"It took about a year to find a job; wife got a job first, so we moved to a place where I had almost no connections. I'm also pretty shit at networking.  $87k for space systems engineering (this is underpaid for someone with a PhD).  Within a year, making $110k at same company (pushed for not being underpaid).  Four years later I make $134k. Different company, though my original company had offered me a position for the same pay. I didn't much like their culture, though.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17443.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"pb4w28","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"is there a universal limit on acceleration? or jerk? liek the speed of light, is there an upper limit of how fast something can accelerate? or how fast the acceleration can d\/dx accelerate?","c_root_id_A":"ha9j9tj","c_root_id_B":"ha9jky6","created_at_utc_A":1629874860,"created_at_utc_B":1629875107,"score_A":13,"score_B":77,"human_ref_A":"4-acceleration in special relativity is the derivative of 4-velocity with respect to proper time along a world in some coordinate system. The \u03b3 factor of course varies with time in 4-acceleration, and the formula is somewhat more complicated than 4-velocity. But, as long as you can keep supplying energy, you can keep accelerating. Obviously those energy requirements will exceed your ability to supply them at some point short of the speed of light.","human_ref_B":"As discussed here:  https:\/\/physics.stackexchange.com\/questions\/3334\/is-there-a-maximum-possible-acceleration     No kinematical restriction exists in general relativity for the magnitude of the acceleration.  However taking into account Unruh radiation, an accelerated objects see's a thermal bath of particles whose temperature is proportional to the acceleration.  So if the acceleration is such that the temperature reaches the Hagedorn temperature (temperature which matter is not stable) then the object will disolve.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":247.0,"score_ratio":5.9230769231}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzxh5k7","c_root_id_B":"hzwo466","created_at_utc_A":1646797424,"created_at_utc_B":1646784162,"score_A":30,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Before I really knew much about physics, I liked Sabine and thought she was \u201cspeaking truth to power\u201d in a way. Now that I know quite a bit more, I find that the majority of her audience is more of the \u201cpop-sci\u201d crowd who aren\u2019t really able to form their own opinions and therefore just believe what she says unquestioningly. Among this crowd, she has positioned herself to be an authority, which she really is not. I find her to be extremely opinionated in a way that does not allow for other opinions to exist, meaning that she sees other opinions as being \u201cunable to accept the truth\u201d (where \u201cthe truth\u201d here is really just her opinion). One instance of this is how she hates anything related to naturalness and acts like people who want to use naturalness as a motivation for physics are simply \u201clost in math\u201d (the literal title for her book), but she conveniently leaves out that naturalness has historically been a very good motivator and has found huge success. She also rails against any future colliders, saying they are a waste of money because no one can guarantee any new discoveries will be made at these higher energies, but this is so antithetical to how science works and human exploration in general, not to mention that if you want to complain about wasted money in society, there are WAY bigger fish to fry (like the inflated military budget for instance, which spends more money in 2 days than the entire LHC cost to build over a decade). I am also a bit turned off by the fact that her new role as a \u201cscience communicator\u201d (meaning her YouTube channel) comes across as being a bit of a money making ploy, but then again I guess everyone has to pay the bills somehow.","human_ref_B":"I like her. She seem very realistic and to her, everything must be either experimentally confirmed and solid, and she doesnt shy away from stating the limitation of the method and result of studies, but she does often disregard any speculation that is outside the norm.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13262.0,"score_ratio":3.75}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzxh5k7","c_root_id_B":"hzwocee","created_at_utc_A":1646797424,"created_at_utc_B":1646784262,"score_A":30,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Before I really knew much about physics, I liked Sabine and thought she was \u201cspeaking truth to power\u201d in a way. Now that I know quite a bit more, I find that the majority of her audience is more of the \u201cpop-sci\u201d crowd who aren\u2019t really able to form their own opinions and therefore just believe what she says unquestioningly. Among this crowd, she has positioned herself to be an authority, which she really is not. I find her to be extremely opinionated in a way that does not allow for other opinions to exist, meaning that she sees other opinions as being \u201cunable to accept the truth\u201d (where \u201cthe truth\u201d here is really just her opinion). One instance of this is how she hates anything related to naturalness and acts like people who want to use naturalness as a motivation for physics are simply \u201clost in math\u201d (the literal title for her book), but she conveniently leaves out that naturalness has historically been a very good motivator and has found huge success. She also rails against any future colliders, saying they are a waste of money because no one can guarantee any new discoveries will be made at these higher energies, but this is so antithetical to how science works and human exploration in general, not to mention that if you want to complain about wasted money in society, there are WAY bigger fish to fry (like the inflated military budget for instance, which spends more money in 2 days than the entire LHC cost to build over a decade). I am also a bit turned off by the fact that her new role as a \u201cscience communicator\u201d (meaning her YouTube channel) comes across as being a bit of a money making ploy, but then again I guess everyone has to pay the bills somehow.","human_ref_B":"I really like Sabine\u2019s channel","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13162.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzxh5k7","c_root_id_B":"hzwme6t","created_at_utc_A":1646797424,"created_at_utc_B":1646783386,"score_A":30,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Before I really knew much about physics, I liked Sabine and thought she was \u201cspeaking truth to power\u201d in a way. Now that I know quite a bit more, I find that the majority of her audience is more of the \u201cpop-sci\u201d crowd who aren\u2019t really able to form their own opinions and therefore just believe what she says unquestioningly. Among this crowd, she has positioned herself to be an authority, which she really is not. I find her to be extremely opinionated in a way that does not allow for other opinions to exist, meaning that she sees other opinions as being \u201cunable to accept the truth\u201d (where \u201cthe truth\u201d here is really just her opinion). One instance of this is how she hates anything related to naturalness and acts like people who want to use naturalness as a motivation for physics are simply \u201clost in math\u201d (the literal title for her book), but she conveniently leaves out that naturalness has historically been a very good motivator and has found huge success. She also rails against any future colliders, saying they are a waste of money because no one can guarantee any new discoveries will be made at these higher energies, but this is so antithetical to how science works and human exploration in general, not to mention that if you want to complain about wasted money in society, there are WAY bigger fish to fry (like the inflated military budget for instance, which spends more money in 2 days than the entire LHC cost to build over a decade). I am also a bit turned off by the fact that her new role as a \u201cscience communicator\u201d (meaning her YouTube channel) comes across as being a bit of a money making ploy, but then again I guess everyone has to pay the bills somehow.","human_ref_B":"I love Sabine!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14038.0,"score_ratio":15.0}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzyhp44","c_root_id_B":"hzxihae","created_at_utc_A":1646822689,"created_at_utc_B":1646798067,"score_A":19,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I'm a PhD student in a string theory adjacent area so that's an interest to declare at the start of this.  I think Sabine does good work in generally explaining science to a popular audience, and this is definitely something that's needed and more people should be in this area.  The reason she is something of a controversial figure in the physics community, is that she has very definite opinions - and they are just opinions - about how science should be done.  She presents these in an extremely authoritative way, as if her understanding of philosophy of science is both all encompassing and absolute, when in fact she is not an expert in philosophy of science, and the field is not understood in such an absolute way that views cannot be challenged anyway.  Because her audience is pretty wide, and she may be the only, or one of the few people they listen to on these topics, her opinions can be taken as received wisdom. This has an actual effect on both the popular perception of fields she decides to target (e.g. String theory), even of the perception of these fields by scientists in other areas who haven't studied them, and consequently on  the funding that these fields receive.  It's hard to articulate a strong response to what she does, because she's very dismissive. See her recent extremely rude and dismissive twitter thread against a physicist Arttu Rajantie for an example. Arttu argued clearly on historical and scientific basis that an experiment was worth doing and Sabine dismissed him in a horribly disrespectful way, see her replies at the end of his thread. It's hard to see what more could have been done to convince her.  Another reason it's hard to respond to her is that the reasons for thinking string theory is a productive thing to investigate are quite technical sometimes, and although I'm sure some very talented person could make a convincing counterpoint in the popular science sphere, such a person isn't really out there, or if they are they don't have the same platform as Sabine, or people who follow Sabine take it that when she angrily dismisses someone, that's because their point doesn't make sense. This is not the case, her angry dismissals are an effective tactic to convince people to ignore the argument of her adversary.  There are good reasons to think that string theory is a productive field to study. It's not just 'being lost in the math'. Scientists aren't just cynically studying it for the grant money, it represents a possibly huge leap in our understanding of the natural world. When people say it's not testible, well that's a good argument, but you have to keep in mind that the theory is extremely complicated and still quite poorly understood. It is not at all unlikely that continued study will uncover new aspects of the theory which are accessible to experiment. The only way we ensure that this possible resolution to some of the deepest questions about the universe remains forever untested is to cut funding, and stop exploring it, and that's what Sabine wants us to do.","human_ref_B":"I had Brian Keating as a professor and he was absolutely terrible, possibly the worst professor I had across all disciplines including my 2 years of community College, so I am biased.  I do like Sabine though. As with anything try and do the derivations yourself afterwards... Then you'll see how much you really learned and how good the lectures really were.   I prefer Spacetime on PBS channel and the straight up Suskind lectures for real topics though.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24622.0,"score_ratio":1.4615384615}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzyhp44","c_root_id_B":"hzwo466","created_at_utc_A":1646822689,"created_at_utc_B":1646784162,"score_A":19,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I'm a PhD student in a string theory adjacent area so that's an interest to declare at the start of this.  I think Sabine does good work in generally explaining science to a popular audience, and this is definitely something that's needed and more people should be in this area.  The reason she is something of a controversial figure in the physics community, is that she has very definite opinions - and they are just opinions - about how science should be done.  She presents these in an extremely authoritative way, as if her understanding of philosophy of science is both all encompassing and absolute, when in fact she is not an expert in philosophy of science, and the field is not understood in such an absolute way that views cannot be challenged anyway.  Because her audience is pretty wide, and she may be the only, or one of the few people they listen to on these topics, her opinions can be taken as received wisdom. This has an actual effect on both the popular perception of fields she decides to target (e.g. String theory), even of the perception of these fields by scientists in other areas who haven't studied them, and consequently on  the funding that these fields receive.  It's hard to articulate a strong response to what she does, because she's very dismissive. See her recent extremely rude and dismissive twitter thread against a physicist Arttu Rajantie for an example. Arttu argued clearly on historical and scientific basis that an experiment was worth doing and Sabine dismissed him in a horribly disrespectful way, see her replies at the end of his thread. It's hard to see what more could have been done to convince her.  Another reason it's hard to respond to her is that the reasons for thinking string theory is a productive thing to investigate are quite technical sometimes, and although I'm sure some very talented person could make a convincing counterpoint in the popular science sphere, such a person isn't really out there, or if they are they don't have the same platform as Sabine, or people who follow Sabine take it that when she angrily dismisses someone, that's because their point doesn't make sense. This is not the case, her angry dismissals are an effective tactic to convince people to ignore the argument of her adversary.  There are good reasons to think that string theory is a productive field to study. It's not just 'being lost in the math'. Scientists aren't just cynically studying it for the grant money, it represents a possibly huge leap in our understanding of the natural world. When people say it's not testible, well that's a good argument, but you have to keep in mind that the theory is extremely complicated and still quite poorly understood. It is not at all unlikely that continued study will uncover new aspects of the theory which are accessible to experiment. The only way we ensure that this possible resolution to some of the deepest questions about the universe remains forever untested is to cut funding, and stop exploring it, and that's what Sabine wants us to do.","human_ref_B":"I like her. She seem very realistic and to her, everything must be either experimentally confirmed and solid, and she doesnt shy away from stating the limitation of the method and result of studies, but she does often disregard any speculation that is outside the norm.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":38527.0,"score_ratio":2.375}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzyhp44","c_root_id_B":"hzwocee","created_at_utc_A":1646822689,"created_at_utc_B":1646784262,"score_A":19,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I'm a PhD student in a string theory adjacent area so that's an interest to declare at the start of this.  I think Sabine does good work in generally explaining science to a popular audience, and this is definitely something that's needed and more people should be in this area.  The reason she is something of a controversial figure in the physics community, is that she has very definite opinions - and they are just opinions - about how science should be done.  She presents these in an extremely authoritative way, as if her understanding of philosophy of science is both all encompassing and absolute, when in fact she is not an expert in philosophy of science, and the field is not understood in such an absolute way that views cannot be challenged anyway.  Because her audience is pretty wide, and she may be the only, or one of the few people they listen to on these topics, her opinions can be taken as received wisdom. This has an actual effect on both the popular perception of fields she decides to target (e.g. String theory), even of the perception of these fields by scientists in other areas who haven't studied them, and consequently on  the funding that these fields receive.  It's hard to articulate a strong response to what she does, because she's very dismissive. See her recent extremely rude and dismissive twitter thread against a physicist Arttu Rajantie for an example. Arttu argued clearly on historical and scientific basis that an experiment was worth doing and Sabine dismissed him in a horribly disrespectful way, see her replies at the end of his thread. It's hard to see what more could have been done to convince her.  Another reason it's hard to respond to her is that the reasons for thinking string theory is a productive thing to investigate are quite technical sometimes, and although I'm sure some very talented person could make a convincing counterpoint in the popular science sphere, such a person isn't really out there, or if they are they don't have the same platform as Sabine, or people who follow Sabine take it that when she angrily dismisses someone, that's because their point doesn't make sense. This is not the case, her angry dismissals are an effective tactic to convince people to ignore the argument of her adversary.  There are good reasons to think that string theory is a productive field to study. It's not just 'being lost in the math'. Scientists aren't just cynically studying it for the grant money, it represents a possibly huge leap in our understanding of the natural world. When people say it's not testible, well that's a good argument, but you have to keep in mind that the theory is extremely complicated and still quite poorly understood. It is not at all unlikely that continued study will uncover new aspects of the theory which are accessible to experiment. The only way we ensure that this possible resolution to some of the deepest questions about the universe remains forever untested is to cut funding, and stop exploring it, and that's what Sabine wants us to do.","human_ref_B":"I really like Sabine\u2019s channel","labels":1,"seconds_difference":38427.0,"score_ratio":3.1666666667}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzy84q1","c_root_id_B":"hzyhp44","created_at_utc_A":1646814591,"created_at_utc_B":1646822689,"score_A":4,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"(not a physicist, also this post plays into problematic stereotypes)     Hossenfelder is extremely German and it doesn't really translate well into the English speaking world. Like that's based on some extreme stereotypes, most Germans aren't anywhere near so frank, but at the same time, she's the kind of person that gave rise to the stereotype.  &#x200B;  But Germans can be, at times, ridiculously frank (the Franks were even Germanic and while the ones in France switched to a kind of Latin the ones in Germany built cities like Frankfurt am Main or Frankfurt an der Oder and subsumed into Germany). The stereotypical ones are also generally prepared to spar (win or lose) over any opinion, which is why they speak with such frankness. But they also expect that out of other people. Like for some families in the English speaking world, no one thinks to say please or thank you, not because it isn't felt, but because it's felt to be implicit and it shows (kinda) that if you had to bark orders at them you can trust they'd follow through. China can also be a little bit this way, especially mainlanders, so you get similar cultural miscommunications that way too, and played a bit of a role in e.g. Dr Chien-Shiung Wu's command of her lab and the reputation she earned but also to a degree her ability to assert and defend herself in a man's world.   &#x200B;  And like, Hossenfelder really is strongly opinionated even if you cut underneath that. It's not all culture. It probably isn't even mostly culture.   &#x200B;  But I fear it comes off like a certain guy throwing tantrums and yelling over people about controlling the SETI program, more so than it would without the cultural gap. She can be rude about colleagues, I mean, but I don't think it's \\*meant\\* to be \\*personal\\*, although sometimes she does make personal insults. She thinks certain theories are foolish but I think it's really more of a \"put up or shut up\" kind of issue. It's like good sportsmanship means not holding back, because you recognize your opponent as an equal. It's something of a game and she's daring them to make a move.     Like I guess if I'm going off ridiculous and extreme stereotypes, it's like saying she's from a proud warrior race guy culture - like a decent Klingon like Worf.   &#x200B;  And to be frank I kind of find that refreshing. I still prefer hedging my bets but it's a bit like Carroll trying to get people past the Copenhagen interpretation. I wish she'd be more careful with words that could be interpreted personally, and better understand that her presentation style turns off most English speakers, but I like it when a communicator tells us what they think is right, because I think it also contextualizes their arguments as a whole (I don't really believe in neutrality per se, though I do believe in neutral tone and that good arguments involve considering both positive and negative evidence for alternative arguments). It's kind of like noting you might have a bias.","human_ref_B":"I'm a PhD student in a string theory adjacent area so that's an interest to declare at the start of this.  I think Sabine does good work in generally explaining science to a popular audience, and this is definitely something that's needed and more people should be in this area.  The reason she is something of a controversial figure in the physics community, is that she has very definite opinions - and they are just opinions - about how science should be done.  She presents these in an extremely authoritative way, as if her understanding of philosophy of science is both all encompassing and absolute, when in fact she is not an expert in philosophy of science, and the field is not understood in such an absolute way that views cannot be challenged anyway.  Because her audience is pretty wide, and she may be the only, or one of the few people they listen to on these topics, her opinions can be taken as received wisdom. This has an actual effect on both the popular perception of fields she decides to target (e.g. String theory), even of the perception of these fields by scientists in other areas who haven't studied them, and consequently on  the funding that these fields receive.  It's hard to articulate a strong response to what she does, because she's very dismissive. See her recent extremely rude and dismissive twitter thread against a physicist Arttu Rajantie for an example. Arttu argued clearly on historical and scientific basis that an experiment was worth doing and Sabine dismissed him in a horribly disrespectful way, see her replies at the end of his thread. It's hard to see what more could have been done to convince her.  Another reason it's hard to respond to her is that the reasons for thinking string theory is a productive thing to investigate are quite technical sometimes, and although I'm sure some very talented person could make a convincing counterpoint in the popular science sphere, such a person isn't really out there, or if they are they don't have the same platform as Sabine, or people who follow Sabine take it that when she angrily dismisses someone, that's because their point doesn't make sense. This is not the case, her angry dismissals are an effective tactic to convince people to ignore the argument of her adversary.  There are good reasons to think that string theory is a productive field to study. It's not just 'being lost in the math'. Scientists aren't just cynically studying it for the grant money, it represents a possibly huge leap in our understanding of the natural world. When people say it's not testible, well that's a good argument, but you have to keep in mind that the theory is extremely complicated and still quite poorly understood. It is not at all unlikely that continued study will uncover new aspects of the theory which are accessible to experiment. The only way we ensure that this possible resolution to some of the deepest questions about the universe remains forever untested is to cut funding, and stop exploring it, and that's what Sabine wants us to do.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8098.0,"score_ratio":4.75}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzyhp44","c_root_id_B":"hzxtsgp","created_at_utc_A":1646822689,"created_at_utc_B":1646804266,"score_A":19,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm a PhD student in a string theory adjacent area so that's an interest to declare at the start of this.  I think Sabine does good work in generally explaining science to a popular audience, and this is definitely something that's needed and more people should be in this area.  The reason she is something of a controversial figure in the physics community, is that she has very definite opinions - and they are just opinions - about how science should be done.  She presents these in an extremely authoritative way, as if her understanding of philosophy of science is both all encompassing and absolute, when in fact she is not an expert in philosophy of science, and the field is not understood in such an absolute way that views cannot be challenged anyway.  Because her audience is pretty wide, and she may be the only, or one of the few people they listen to on these topics, her opinions can be taken as received wisdom. This has an actual effect on both the popular perception of fields she decides to target (e.g. String theory), even of the perception of these fields by scientists in other areas who haven't studied them, and consequently on  the funding that these fields receive.  It's hard to articulate a strong response to what she does, because she's very dismissive. See her recent extremely rude and dismissive twitter thread against a physicist Arttu Rajantie for an example. Arttu argued clearly on historical and scientific basis that an experiment was worth doing and Sabine dismissed him in a horribly disrespectful way, see her replies at the end of his thread. It's hard to see what more could have been done to convince her.  Another reason it's hard to respond to her is that the reasons for thinking string theory is a productive thing to investigate are quite technical sometimes, and although I'm sure some very talented person could make a convincing counterpoint in the popular science sphere, such a person isn't really out there, or if they are they don't have the same platform as Sabine, or people who follow Sabine take it that when she angrily dismisses someone, that's because their point doesn't make sense. This is not the case, her angry dismissals are an effective tactic to convince people to ignore the argument of her adversary.  There are good reasons to think that string theory is a productive field to study. It's not just 'being lost in the math'. Scientists aren't just cynically studying it for the grant money, it represents a possibly huge leap in our understanding of the natural world. When people say it's not testible, well that's a good argument, but you have to keep in mind that the theory is extremely complicated and still quite poorly understood. It is not at all unlikely that continued study will uncover new aspects of the theory which are accessible to experiment. The only way we ensure that this possible resolution to some of the deepest questions about the universe remains forever untested is to cut funding, and stop exploring it, and that's what Sabine wants us to do.","human_ref_B":"I only know Sabine...  ... and she's *mostly fine*.  *Most* of her content is very good. She is very, very, good at explaining scientific content and concepts.  However she has *some* videos where she delves into philosophy (like phil. of mind) even if she is disguising it as \"science^(TM)\" and she really peddles some idea in an area she does not really understand or she tries to peddle her own ideas with far more conviction than warranted (like super-determinism)... and in these videos she is less the intellectually honest and pulls the wool over the viewer's eyes and most will buy her narrative because they do not know better.  Overall, however, I would heartily recommend her channel. Overall, in spite of my criticism, it's awesome content, but as in everything, remember everyone has their own agenda, because in some topics she is clearly very biased.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18423.0,"score_ratio":6.3333333333}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzyhp44","c_root_id_B":"hzwme6t","created_at_utc_A":1646822689,"created_at_utc_B":1646783386,"score_A":19,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm a PhD student in a string theory adjacent area so that's an interest to declare at the start of this.  I think Sabine does good work in generally explaining science to a popular audience, and this is definitely something that's needed and more people should be in this area.  The reason she is something of a controversial figure in the physics community, is that she has very definite opinions - and they are just opinions - about how science should be done.  She presents these in an extremely authoritative way, as if her understanding of philosophy of science is both all encompassing and absolute, when in fact she is not an expert in philosophy of science, and the field is not understood in such an absolute way that views cannot be challenged anyway.  Because her audience is pretty wide, and she may be the only, or one of the few people they listen to on these topics, her opinions can be taken as received wisdom. This has an actual effect on both the popular perception of fields she decides to target (e.g. String theory), even of the perception of these fields by scientists in other areas who haven't studied them, and consequently on  the funding that these fields receive.  It's hard to articulate a strong response to what she does, because she's very dismissive. See her recent extremely rude and dismissive twitter thread against a physicist Arttu Rajantie for an example. Arttu argued clearly on historical and scientific basis that an experiment was worth doing and Sabine dismissed him in a horribly disrespectful way, see her replies at the end of his thread. It's hard to see what more could have been done to convince her.  Another reason it's hard to respond to her is that the reasons for thinking string theory is a productive thing to investigate are quite technical sometimes, and although I'm sure some very talented person could make a convincing counterpoint in the popular science sphere, such a person isn't really out there, or if they are they don't have the same platform as Sabine, or people who follow Sabine take it that when she angrily dismisses someone, that's because their point doesn't make sense. This is not the case, her angry dismissals are an effective tactic to convince people to ignore the argument of her adversary.  There are good reasons to think that string theory is a productive field to study. It's not just 'being lost in the math'. Scientists aren't just cynically studying it for the grant money, it represents a possibly huge leap in our understanding of the natural world. When people say it's not testible, well that's a good argument, but you have to keep in mind that the theory is extremely complicated and still quite poorly understood. It is not at all unlikely that continued study will uncover new aspects of the theory which are accessible to experiment. The only way we ensure that this possible resolution to some of the deepest questions about the universe remains forever untested is to cut funding, and stop exploring it, and that's what Sabine wants us to do.","human_ref_B":"I love Sabine!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":39303.0,"score_ratio":9.5}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzwo466","c_root_id_B":"hzxihae","created_at_utc_A":1646784162,"created_at_utc_B":1646798067,"score_A":8,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I like her. She seem very realistic and to her, everything must be either experimentally confirmed and solid, and she doesnt shy away from stating the limitation of the method and result of studies, but she does often disregard any speculation that is outside the norm.","human_ref_B":"I had Brian Keating as a professor and he was absolutely terrible, possibly the worst professor I had across all disciplines including my 2 years of community College, so I am biased.  I do like Sabine though. As with anything try and do the derivations yourself afterwards... Then you'll see how much you really learned and how good the lectures really were.   I prefer Spacetime on PBS channel and the straight up Suskind lectures for real topics though.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13905.0,"score_ratio":1.625}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzxihae","c_root_id_B":"hzwocee","created_at_utc_A":1646798067,"created_at_utc_B":1646784262,"score_A":13,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I had Brian Keating as a professor and he was absolutely terrible, possibly the worst professor I had across all disciplines including my 2 years of community College, so I am biased.  I do like Sabine though. As with anything try and do the derivations yourself afterwards... Then you'll see how much you really learned and how good the lectures really were.   I prefer Spacetime on PBS channel and the straight up Suskind lectures for real topics though.","human_ref_B":"I really like Sabine\u2019s channel","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13805.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzxihae","c_root_id_B":"hzwme6t","created_at_utc_A":1646798067,"created_at_utc_B":1646783386,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I had Brian Keating as a professor and he was absolutely terrible, possibly the worst professor I had across all disciplines including my 2 years of community College, so I am biased.  I do like Sabine though. As with anything try and do the derivations yourself afterwards... Then you'll see how much you really learned and how good the lectures really were.   I prefer Spacetime on PBS channel and the straight up Suskind lectures for real topics though.","human_ref_B":"I love Sabine!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14681.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzwo466","c_root_id_B":"hzwme6t","created_at_utc_A":1646784162,"created_at_utc_B":1646783386,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I like her. She seem very realistic and to her, everything must be either experimentally confirmed and solid, and she doesnt shy away from stating the limitation of the method and result of studies, but she does often disregard any speculation that is outside the norm.","human_ref_B":"I love Sabine!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":776.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzwme6t","c_root_id_B":"hzwocee","created_at_utc_A":1646783386,"created_at_utc_B":1646784262,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I love Sabine!","human_ref_B":"I really like Sabine\u2019s channel","labels":0,"seconds_difference":876.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzxtsgp","c_root_id_B":"hzy84q1","created_at_utc_A":1646804266,"created_at_utc_B":1646814591,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I only know Sabine...  ... and she's *mostly fine*.  *Most* of her content is very good. She is very, very, good at explaining scientific content and concepts.  However she has *some* videos where she delves into philosophy (like phil. of mind) even if she is disguising it as \"science^(TM)\" and she really peddles some idea in an area she does not really understand or she tries to peddle her own ideas with far more conviction than warranted (like super-determinism)... and in these videos she is less the intellectually honest and pulls the wool over the viewer's eyes and most will buy her narrative because they do not know better.  Overall, however, I would heartily recommend her channel. Overall, in spite of my criticism, it's awesome content, but as in everything, remember everyone has their own agenda, because in some topics she is clearly very biased.","human_ref_B":"(not a physicist, also this post plays into problematic stereotypes)     Hossenfelder is extremely German and it doesn't really translate well into the English speaking world. Like that's based on some extreme stereotypes, most Germans aren't anywhere near so frank, but at the same time, she's the kind of person that gave rise to the stereotype.  &#x200B;  But Germans can be, at times, ridiculously frank (the Franks were even Germanic and while the ones in France switched to a kind of Latin the ones in Germany built cities like Frankfurt am Main or Frankfurt an der Oder and subsumed into Germany). The stereotypical ones are also generally prepared to spar (win or lose) over any opinion, which is why they speak with such frankness. But they also expect that out of other people. Like for some families in the English speaking world, no one thinks to say please or thank you, not because it isn't felt, but because it's felt to be implicit and it shows (kinda) that if you had to bark orders at them you can trust they'd follow through. China can also be a little bit this way, especially mainlanders, so you get similar cultural miscommunications that way too, and played a bit of a role in e.g. Dr Chien-Shiung Wu's command of her lab and the reputation she earned but also to a degree her ability to assert and defend herself in a man's world.   &#x200B;  And like, Hossenfelder really is strongly opinionated even if you cut underneath that. It's not all culture. It probably isn't even mostly culture.   &#x200B;  But I fear it comes off like a certain guy throwing tantrums and yelling over people about controlling the SETI program, more so than it would without the cultural gap. She can be rude about colleagues, I mean, but I don't think it's \\*meant\\* to be \\*personal\\*, although sometimes she does make personal insults. She thinks certain theories are foolish but I think it's really more of a \"put up or shut up\" kind of issue. It's like good sportsmanship means not holding back, because you recognize your opponent as an equal. It's something of a game and she's daring them to make a move.     Like I guess if I'm going off ridiculous and extreme stereotypes, it's like saying she's from a proud warrior race guy culture - like a decent Klingon like Worf.   &#x200B;  And to be frank I kind of find that refreshing. I still prefer hedging my bets but it's a bit like Carroll trying to get people past the Copenhagen interpretation. I wish she'd be more careful with words that could be interpreted personally, and better understand that her presentation style turns off most English speakers, but I like it when a communicator tells us what they think is right, because I think it also contextualizes their arguments as a whole (I don't really believe in neutrality per se, though I do believe in neutral tone and that good arguments involve considering both positive and negative evidence for alternative arguments). It's kind of like noting you might have a bias.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10325.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzwme6t","c_root_id_B":"hzy84q1","created_at_utc_A":1646783386,"created_at_utc_B":1646814591,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I love Sabine!","human_ref_B":"(not a physicist, also this post plays into problematic stereotypes)     Hossenfelder is extremely German and it doesn't really translate well into the English speaking world. Like that's based on some extreme stereotypes, most Germans aren't anywhere near so frank, but at the same time, she's the kind of person that gave rise to the stereotype.  &#x200B;  But Germans can be, at times, ridiculously frank (the Franks were even Germanic and while the ones in France switched to a kind of Latin the ones in Germany built cities like Frankfurt am Main or Frankfurt an der Oder and subsumed into Germany). The stereotypical ones are also generally prepared to spar (win or lose) over any opinion, which is why they speak with such frankness. But they also expect that out of other people. Like for some families in the English speaking world, no one thinks to say please or thank you, not because it isn't felt, but because it's felt to be implicit and it shows (kinda) that if you had to bark orders at them you can trust they'd follow through. China can also be a little bit this way, especially mainlanders, so you get similar cultural miscommunications that way too, and played a bit of a role in e.g. Dr Chien-Shiung Wu's command of her lab and the reputation she earned but also to a degree her ability to assert and defend herself in a man's world.   &#x200B;  And like, Hossenfelder really is strongly opinionated even if you cut underneath that. It's not all culture. It probably isn't even mostly culture.   &#x200B;  But I fear it comes off like a certain guy throwing tantrums and yelling over people about controlling the SETI program, more so than it would without the cultural gap. She can be rude about colleagues, I mean, but I don't think it's \\*meant\\* to be \\*personal\\*, although sometimes she does make personal insults. She thinks certain theories are foolish but I think it's really more of a \"put up or shut up\" kind of issue. It's like good sportsmanship means not holding back, because you recognize your opponent as an equal. It's something of a game and she's daring them to make a move.     Like I guess if I'm going off ridiculous and extreme stereotypes, it's like saying she's from a proud warrior race guy culture - like a decent Klingon like Worf.   &#x200B;  And to be frank I kind of find that refreshing. I still prefer hedging my bets but it's a bit like Carroll trying to get people past the Copenhagen interpretation. I wish she'd be more careful with words that could be interpreted personally, and better understand that her presentation style turns off most English speakers, but I like it when a communicator tells us what they think is right, because I think it also contextualizes their arguments as a whole (I don't really believe in neutrality per se, though I do believe in neutral tone and that good arguments involve considering both positive and negative evidence for alternative arguments). It's kind of like noting you might have a bias.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":31205.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzyvmdm","c_root_id_B":"hzwme6t","created_at_utc_A":1646831940,"created_at_utc_B":1646783386,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I like Sabine\u2019s philosophy of science and broad metaphysical outlook. Too many \u201cscience educators\u201d \u2014 even good ones \u2014) are too eager to mythologize quantum mechanics in general and experiments like the \u201cdelayed choice quantum eraser\u201d and the double slit in particular while obscuring the more mundane reality, engage as scientists with non-scientific ideas that happen to be \u201ccool\u201d and others are willing to torture our empirical data regarding the nature of the universe in order to conform with their presupposed philosophical ideas eg that free will exists and that the future is undetermined.   I\u2019ve never watched Brian Keating\u2019s videos.    On YouTube the physics oriented and physics adjacent channels that I think are valuable in addition to Sabine\u2019s are PBS Spacetime, Sixty Symbols (made by the same guy who makes Numberphile and Periodic Videos), Andrew Dotson, 3Blue1Brown, ScienceClic English (for amazing graphics), Unzicker\u2019s Real Physics, the Fermilab channel, and for children Arvin Ash and Professor Dave Explains.   Avoid Up and Atom, Veritasium, Physics Girl, The Science Asylum, Spark, Eric Weinstein, any channel that seems to have a fixation with Nikola Tesla, or any video featuring the unholy trinity of nonsense physicists \u2014 Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox and Michio Kaku like the plague.","human_ref_B":"I love Sabine!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":48554.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"t9t4kc","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are your guys' thoughts on Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Keating? If you have never heard of them they tend to talk about the discrepancies seen in the real world and the world of physics. They both run fairly large youtube channels   Sabine's  Brian's","c_root_id_A":"hzwme6t","c_root_id_B":"hzxtsgp","created_at_utc_A":1646783386,"created_at_utc_B":1646804266,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I love Sabine!","human_ref_B":"I only know Sabine...  ... and she's *mostly fine*.  *Most* of her content is very good. She is very, very, good at explaining scientific content and concepts.  However she has *some* videos where she delves into philosophy (like phil. of mind) even if she is disguising it as \"science^(TM)\" and she really peddles some idea in an area she does not really understand or she tries to peddle her own ideas with far more conviction than warranted (like super-determinism)... and in these videos she is less the intellectually honest and pulls the wool over the viewer's eyes and most will buy her narrative because they do not know better.  Overall, however, I would heartily recommend her channel. Overall, in spite of my criticism, it's awesome content, but as in everything, remember everyone has their own agenda, because in some topics she is clearly very biased.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20880.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ys402o","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"It is very well known that an \u201dobserver\u201d in quantum physics does not refer to only humans but does it refer to anything else besides organisms and machines? Are there \u201dobservers\u201d outside our solar system?","c_root_id_A":"ivxqzxw","c_root_id_B":"ivxax7s","created_at_utc_A":1668168072,"created_at_utc_B":1668154570,"score_A":87,"score_B":64,"human_ref_A":"May the day when \"interaction\" was replaced by \"observation\" be cursed. This is really confusing for people who don't do physics, giving it a kind of mystic aspect it shouldn't have.","human_ref_B":"An \"observation\" is an interaction that carries away some information about the system. It should be clear that any measurement apparatus you'd want to use in a lab is an observation of this sort, but I think it's also clear that this is a broader category. For example, random noise in the environment can interact with your quantum system and \"measure\" it, carrying away information. This process leads to decoherence, and is the main reason you don't see quantum mechanical effects on large scales. Most quantum experiments need to be very well isolated from their environments in order to avoid these accidental environmental measurements.  So, given that, yes, there are \"observers\" outside out solar system. Any stray photon can be an observer, for example, and those guys are everywhere.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13502.0,"score_ratio":1.359375}
{"post_id":"on4efg","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Einstein's Twin Paradox I am having trouble understanding the explanation for why the travelling twin would have aged less. The explanation says that because the travelling twin goes through two reference frames, one going towards the other planet and one returning, the planet twin's frame of reference is at rest, and thus they should measure relativistic time and proper length.  However, from the travelling twin's perspective, isn't it the Earth's frame of reference that is moving away, and then returning, experiencing acceleration (so not uniform motion) and so going through 2 different frames of reference?  Please can you explain where my reasoning is wrong (I am new to relativity so please point out any errors in anything I have said)","c_root_id_A":"h5prej3","c_root_id_B":"h5q8jay","created_at_utc_A":1626667410,"created_at_utc_B":1626680252,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Other people have said great explanations, but I want to give a different perspective as well. Imagine we have two rockets leaving the earth at the same speed. One turns around and is the one you're thinking about: the second keeps going away forever. Consider the trip from the perspective of the SECOND rocket. In a spacetime diagram, it will look like some kind of triangle. You can compute all the proper times by taking the invariant intervals in this picture. The fact that the returning rocket is moving from the perspective of the (inertial) frame of the second rocket is why weird things happen.","human_ref_B":"There is no need to take acceleration into account.  The key insight is that there are three reference frames involved, not two.  The first is the earth. The second is the outbound rocket. The third is the inbound rocket.  The switch from outbound to inbound doesn't require acceleration. You can see that as two different rockets that pass each other at the \"turning point\". That means they can compare their times as they are at the same place.  Now, if you use any one of these reference systems as yours, the time dilation of the two others will be consistent.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12842.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"yj4ppw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"How do we know that gravity should be added to quantum physics? For example I often hear that we need a quantum version of gravity to explain singularities in black holes and like that gravity was the first force to be separated from the other three. But how do we know that if we ever have a quantum model for gravity, we can explain singularities in black holes? Basically my thought is, for example if we haven't reached the energy levels in our colliders where all four forces are merged, how do we know that all forces are indeed one before. Is it indicated in our current understanding of physics that research on these fields are the proper next steps or are we just hoping for the best that our hunch is right or that we stumble upon new physics?","c_root_id_A":"ium9isn","c_root_id_B":"iulwqqp","created_at_utc_A":1667306484,"created_at_utc_B":1667298240,"score_A":70,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Having a quantum theory of gravity is not the same as unifying all forces. For example, in the Standard Model we have the electroweak and strong interactions, both quantum, but they are not unified. We expect that gravity should have a quantum description because matter produces gravity, and matter is quantum.","human_ref_B":"Disclaimer that I am under qualified to give a real good assessment but I think I can point you to some results that have a lot of people thinking that gravity can be described with a quantum field theory. In quantum field theory there are excitations in a field that gives rise to particles mediated by a force carrying particle called a boson. For example, in electromagnetism the force carrying particles are photons. A characteristic and defining quantity for these particles is their spin, which is a quantity concerned with what kinds of transformations on the particle preserves symmetry. All bosons have integer valued spin. A result that we came to about 20 years ago or so was that a massless spin 2 particle would give rise to a force that is indistinguishable from gravity and would essentially confirm that gravity is quantized in this way, thats what we call a graviton.  Theres undoubtedly many subtle reasons why people believe that gravity can be described like a quantum field theory but thats a key result that I think is a good starting point for learning about the subject.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8244.0,"score_ratio":7.7777777778}
{"post_id":"yj4ppw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"How do we know that gravity should be added to quantum physics? For example I often hear that we need a quantum version of gravity to explain singularities in black holes and like that gravity was the first force to be separated from the other three. But how do we know that if we ever have a quantum model for gravity, we can explain singularities in black holes? Basically my thought is, for example if we haven't reached the energy levels in our colliders where all four forces are merged, how do we know that all forces are indeed one before. Is it indicated in our current understanding of physics that research on these fields are the proper next steps or are we just hoping for the best that our hunch is right or that we stumble upon new physics?","c_root_id_A":"iulyadr","c_root_id_B":"ium9isn","created_at_utc_A":1667299447,"created_at_utc_B":1667306484,"score_A":4,"score_B":70,"human_ref_A":"Basically, the way we develop our physics model is usually iterative. We get a model that works very well and make it better.  Sometimes, depending of how we are making it better (or better for what), we end up with models going on their separate ways. This is where we're at now, we've got two models (the standard model with QFT and General Relativity) that work really really well in their own areas of expertise.  But we do see these areas overlap and in these cases neither models give good predictions. It feels somewhat natural to want to bind these two models together and try to unify then hoping that gives us a better model than either alone.  We don't know that a theory combining GR and QFT fully will completely explain singularities. But we hope it'll bring us closer to what we currently have. In the end, we don't know what we don't know...","human_ref_B":"Having a quantum theory of gravity is not the same as unifying all forces. For example, in the Standard Model we have the electroweak and strong interactions, both quantum, but they are not unified. We expect that gravity should have a quantum description because matter produces gravity, and matter is quantum.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7037.0,"score_ratio":17.5}
{"post_id":"yj4ppw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"How do we know that gravity should be added to quantum physics? For example I often hear that we need a quantum version of gravity to explain singularities in black holes and like that gravity was the first force to be separated from the other three. But how do we know that if we ever have a quantum model for gravity, we can explain singularities in black holes? Basically my thought is, for example if we haven't reached the energy levels in our colliders where all four forces are merged, how do we know that all forces are indeed one before. Is it indicated in our current understanding of physics that research on these fields are the proper next steps or are we just hoping for the best that our hunch is right or that we stumble upon new physics?","c_root_id_A":"iulyadr","c_root_id_B":"iumc54b","created_at_utc_A":1667299447,"created_at_utc_B":1667307809,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Basically, the way we develop our physics model is usually iterative. We get a model that works very well and make it better.  Sometimes, depending of how we are making it better (or better for what), we end up with models going on their separate ways. This is where we're at now, we've got two models (the standard model with QFT and General Relativity) that work really really well in their own areas of expertise.  But we do see these areas overlap and in these cases neither models give good predictions. It feels somewhat natural to want to bind these two models together and try to unify then hoping that gives us a better model than either alone.  We don't know that a theory combining GR and QFT fully will completely explain singularities. But we hope it'll bring us closer to what we currently have. In the end, we don't know what we don't know...","human_ref_B":"There's a few different questions here.  First, we need quantum gravity because the source of gravity is the stress energy tensor of matter and other fields, and if that's quantum, then we would expect that the geometry it produces is also quantum.  Like simplest version; we know a particle is in a superposition of two states, inside one box or another. Does it have two gravity wells, one superposed gravity well?  Or if we have an excitation of a conductor, adjusting its energy distribution, but we can also localise that energy under some experimental setup. Before that point, does it give us a uniform contribution to the stress energy tensor, or is there some state basis for the metric of space that is dependent on each place it could be localised?  Seen as we seem to be able to do lots of experiments ignoring it, and due to basic arguments about interaction strengths, the quantum nature of gravity only starts to become significant when you're working with lots of energy compared to your length scales, the sort of thing you'd have with a singularity, and historically, quantum mechanics has done a good job of taking things we thought were points and smearing them out.  It is possible that a quantum theory of gravity won't be enough to understand black holes, but it will tell us more, and it's the sort of thing we probably need to know because it's natural to expect quantum effects would start to become more significant.  As to grand unification stuff, I think that's just hope, based on how well everything has gone on that front so far.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8362.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
{"post_id":"yj4ppw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"How do we know that gravity should be added to quantum physics? For example I often hear that we need a quantum version of gravity to explain singularities in black holes and like that gravity was the first force to be separated from the other three. But how do we know that if we ever have a quantum model for gravity, we can explain singularities in black holes? Basically my thought is, for example if we haven't reached the energy levels in our colliders where all four forces are merged, how do we know that all forces are indeed one before. Is it indicated in our current understanding of physics that research on these fields are the proper next steps or are we just hoping for the best that our hunch is right or that we stumble upon new physics?","c_root_id_A":"iunu0sv","c_root_id_B":"iumpzrm","created_at_utc_A":1667329405,"created_at_utc_B":1667313940,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"We have two inconsistent theories that describe nature. Nature is not inconsistent","human_ref_B":"We don't know it, but it sure seems like it. General relatively breaks down at very small scales (e.g. black hole singularities), where quantum theory gives accurate predictions. So we know that we're looking for a theory of gravity which is consistent with quantum theory. This consistency entails some form of quantization.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15465.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"yj4ppw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"How do we know that gravity should be added to quantum physics? For example I often hear that we need a quantum version of gravity to explain singularities in black holes and like that gravity was the first force to be separated from the other three. But how do we know that if we ever have a quantum model for gravity, we can explain singularities in black holes? Basically my thought is, for example if we haven't reached the energy levels in our colliders where all four forces are merged, how do we know that all forces are indeed one before. Is it indicated in our current understanding of physics that research on these fields are the proper next steps or are we just hoping for the best that our hunch is right or that we stumble upon new physics?","c_root_id_A":"iumsrd1","c_root_id_B":"iunu0sv","created_at_utc_A":1667315082,"created_at_utc_B":1667329405,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">How do we know that gravity should be added to quantum physics?  If a massive particle can be in a superposition of being at two physical locations, then so too must its gravitational field be. The moment you want to talk about fields that are quantum and should respect relativity, you're talking about the need for relativistic quantum field theory.  >But how do we know that if we ever have a quantum model for gravity, we can explain singularities in black holes?  I guess by the fact that a coherent and complete model of quantum gravity that does not resolve the singularities of black holes is by definition not a coherent and complete model of quantum gravity.","human_ref_B":"We have two inconsistent theories that describe nature. Nature is not inconsistent","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14323.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"yj4ppw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"How do we know that gravity should be added to quantum physics? For example I often hear that we need a quantum version of gravity to explain singularities in black holes and like that gravity was the first force to be separated from the other three. But how do we know that if we ever have a quantum model for gravity, we can explain singularities in black holes? Basically my thought is, for example if we haven't reached the energy levels in our colliders where all four forces are merged, how do we know that all forces are indeed one before. Is it indicated in our current understanding of physics that research on these fields are the proper next steps or are we just hoping for the best that our hunch is right or that we stumble upon new physics?","c_root_id_A":"iunu0sv","c_root_id_B":"iun9k72","created_at_utc_A":1667329405,"created_at_utc_B":1667321715,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"We have two inconsistent theories that describe nature. Nature is not inconsistent","human_ref_B":"General Relativity works really well. It stops working at a really tiny scale. We want to describe the way it works at a very tiny scale just like we do with the other fundamental forces. The difference in behavior between a quantum and classical scale is what implies there is a quantum theory of gravity we have not put together yet that will describe how it works at a quantum level.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7690.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"o1s04s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Why does a simple pendulum only conform to T=2\u03c0\u221a(L\/g) for a certain range of small angles? I know that mathematically, this is due to the small-angle approximation - the model assumes that sin(\u03b8) \u2248 \u03b8.  But what's the physics behind this? How and why does the behavior of a pendulum change for large angles?  I'd appreciate your input!","c_root_id_A":"h22ezj7","c_root_id_B":"h22fz55","created_at_utc_A":1623917984,"created_at_utc_B":1623918940,"score_A":25,"score_B":57,"human_ref_A":"As you say, it's because of the small-angle approximation.  >But what's the physics behind this?  You can write the full equation of motion without the small-angle approximation using Newton's second law. There are more details here#Arbitrary-amplitude_period), see especially Fig. 5 for the phase space picture.","human_ref_B":"Other posters explain in detail but I think it's worth it to address a conceptual incongruity. The behavior of the pendulum does not change for large angles. the behavior of the pendulum is just the behavior of the pendulum. You must remember that the mathematics we use to describe and predict the motion of real objects is always an approximation of one form or another to make it easy for us to understand. What is really going on here is that, for small angles, the motion of a pendulum is relatively easy for us to describe with basic mathematics. If the angle of motion is larger then nothing about the pendulum has changed, it simply becomes a bit harder for us to describe mathematically. Does that make sense?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":956.0,"score_ratio":2.28}
{"post_id":"o1s04s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Why does a simple pendulum only conform to T=2\u03c0\u221a(L\/g) for a certain range of small angles? I know that mathematically, this is due to the small-angle approximation - the model assumes that sin(\u03b8) \u2248 \u03b8.  But what's the physics behind this? How and why does the behavior of a pendulum change for large angles?  I'd appreciate your input!","c_root_id_A":"h22f84t","c_root_id_B":"h22fz55","created_at_utc_A":1623918213,"created_at_utc_B":1623918940,"score_A":4,"score_B":57,"human_ref_A":"To elaborate on the other comment. The differential equation used to solve the pendulums motion has a sinusoidal term in it 'by definition'. To make it easier to solve, you get rid of it by assuming sin(x) =x, which only works for small angles.  If you wanted to determine the pendulums motion for all angles, then you'd need to keep the sinusoidal term and not approximate. Of course, this makes the diff eq harder to solve","human_ref_B":"Other posters explain in detail but I think it's worth it to address a conceptual incongruity. The behavior of the pendulum does not change for large angles. the behavior of the pendulum is just the behavior of the pendulum. You must remember that the mathematics we use to describe and predict the motion of real objects is always an approximation of one form or another to make it easy for us to understand. What is really going on here is that, for small angles, the motion of a pendulum is relatively easy for us to describe with basic mathematics. If the angle of motion is larger then nothing about the pendulum has changed, it simply becomes a bit harder for us to describe mathematically. Does that make sense?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":727.0,"score_ratio":14.25}
{"post_id":"o1s04s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Why does a simple pendulum only conform to T=2\u03c0\u221a(L\/g) for a certain range of small angles? I know that mathematically, this is due to the small-angle approximation - the model assumes that sin(\u03b8) \u2248 \u03b8.  But what's the physics behind this? How and why does the behavior of a pendulum change for large angles?  I'd appreciate your input!","c_root_id_A":"h233db0","c_root_id_B":"h22ezj7","created_at_utc_A":1623935676,"created_at_utc_B":1623917984,"score_A":26,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"The physics about why the period of the pendulum changes as the angle gets bigger is because the restoring force is not linear. This is unlike an idealised mass-spring system, in which case the restoring force is due to the force that the spring exerts on the mass. The force F due to a spring is F = kx, where k is the spring constant and x is the distance from equilibrium. Since it has just x and no powers or other functions of x, it is considered linear.  Of course, physically, we cannot stretch\/press the spring as far as we want. But this is more of a practical issue, rather than a fundamental one. In the case of the pendulum, the problem is due to the geometry of the pendulum, which I think is more of a fundamental reason.  For the pendulum, the restoring force is F = mg sin(theta), which is not linear in theta (it's not just theta, it is the sine of theta, which is not a linear function). Therefore, the force doesn't become twice as large as the angle does. In fact, the restoring force for theta = 90 degrees is mg, whereas if the force would be linear, it would be mg\\*pi\/2.  So physically: The restoring force increases with increasing angle, but less so than in a linear system. Therefore, the time for the pendulum to swing down depends on the angle of inclination.  In the small angle approximation we say mg sin(theta) \\~= mg theta, which is linear in theta. This never holds perfectly, but you can determine a precision to which you want your answer to hold. That will be the precision that your approximation has to be.","human_ref_B":"As you say, it's because of the small-angle approximation.  >But what's the physics behind this?  You can write the full equation of motion without the small-angle approximation using Newton's second law. There are more details here#Arbitrary-amplitude_period), see especially Fig. 5 for the phase space picture.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17692.0,"score_ratio":1.04}
{"post_id":"o1s04s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Why does a simple pendulum only conform to T=2\u03c0\u221a(L\/g) for a certain range of small angles? I know that mathematically, this is due to the small-angle approximation - the model assumes that sin(\u03b8) \u2248 \u03b8.  But what's the physics behind this? How and why does the behavior of a pendulum change for large angles?  I'd appreciate your input!","c_root_id_A":"h233db0","c_root_id_B":"h22gheo","created_at_utc_A":1623935676,"created_at_utc_B":1623919368,"score_A":26,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The physics about why the period of the pendulum changes as the angle gets bigger is because the restoring force is not linear. This is unlike an idealised mass-spring system, in which case the restoring force is due to the force that the spring exerts on the mass. The force F due to a spring is F = kx, where k is the spring constant and x is the distance from equilibrium. Since it has just x and no powers or other functions of x, it is considered linear.  Of course, physically, we cannot stretch\/press the spring as far as we want. But this is more of a practical issue, rather than a fundamental one. In the case of the pendulum, the problem is due to the geometry of the pendulum, which I think is more of a fundamental reason.  For the pendulum, the restoring force is F = mg sin(theta), which is not linear in theta (it's not just theta, it is the sine of theta, which is not a linear function). Therefore, the force doesn't become twice as large as the angle does. In fact, the restoring force for theta = 90 degrees is mg, whereas if the force would be linear, it would be mg\\*pi\/2.  So physically: The restoring force increases with increasing angle, but less so than in a linear system. Therefore, the time for the pendulum to swing down depends on the angle of inclination.  In the small angle approximation we say mg sin(theta) \\~= mg theta, which is linear in theta. This never holds perfectly, but you can determine a precision to which you want your answer to hold. That will be the precision that your approximation has to be.","human_ref_B":"The complete formula for the period is in the wiki article:  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Pendulum#Period_of_oscillation   The period is only independent of the amplitude if the potential energy is purely quadratic with the angle. A circular arc is not parabolic.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16308.0,"score_ratio":5.2}
{"post_id":"o1s04s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Why does a simple pendulum only conform to T=2\u03c0\u221a(L\/g) for a certain range of small angles? I know that mathematically, this is due to the small-angle approximation - the model assumes that sin(\u03b8) \u2248 \u03b8.  But what's the physics behind this? How and why does the behavior of a pendulum change for large angles?  I'd appreciate your input!","c_root_id_A":"h233db0","c_root_id_B":"h22f84t","created_at_utc_A":1623935676,"created_at_utc_B":1623918213,"score_A":26,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The physics about why the period of the pendulum changes as the angle gets bigger is because the restoring force is not linear. This is unlike an idealised mass-spring system, in which case the restoring force is due to the force that the spring exerts on the mass. The force F due to a spring is F = kx, where k is the spring constant and x is the distance from equilibrium. Since it has just x and no powers or other functions of x, it is considered linear.  Of course, physically, we cannot stretch\/press the spring as far as we want. But this is more of a practical issue, rather than a fundamental one. In the case of the pendulum, the problem is due to the geometry of the pendulum, which I think is more of a fundamental reason.  For the pendulum, the restoring force is F = mg sin(theta), which is not linear in theta (it's not just theta, it is the sine of theta, which is not a linear function). Therefore, the force doesn't become twice as large as the angle does. In fact, the restoring force for theta = 90 degrees is mg, whereas if the force would be linear, it would be mg\\*pi\/2.  So physically: The restoring force increases with increasing angle, but less so than in a linear system. Therefore, the time for the pendulum to swing down depends on the angle of inclination.  In the small angle approximation we say mg sin(theta) \\~= mg theta, which is linear in theta. This never holds perfectly, but you can determine a precision to which you want your answer to hold. That will be the precision that your approximation has to be.","human_ref_B":"To elaborate on the other comment. The differential equation used to solve the pendulums motion has a sinusoidal term in it 'by definition'. To make it easier to solve, you get rid of it by assuming sin(x) =x, which only works for small angles.  If you wanted to determine the pendulums motion for all angles, then you'd need to keep the sinusoidal term and not approximate. Of course, this makes the diff eq harder to solve","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17463.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
{"post_id":"o1s04s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Why does a simple pendulum only conform to T=2\u03c0\u221a(L\/g) for a certain range of small angles? I know that mathematically, this is due to the small-angle approximation - the model assumes that sin(\u03b8) \u2248 \u03b8.  But what's the physics behind this? How and why does the behavior of a pendulum change for large angles?  I'd appreciate your input!","c_root_id_A":"h233db0","c_root_id_B":"h22slfn","created_at_utc_A":1623935676,"created_at_utc_B":1623928962,"score_A":26,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The physics about why the period of the pendulum changes as the angle gets bigger is because the restoring force is not linear. This is unlike an idealised mass-spring system, in which case the restoring force is due to the force that the spring exerts on the mass. The force F due to a spring is F = kx, where k is the spring constant and x is the distance from equilibrium. Since it has just x and no powers or other functions of x, it is considered linear.  Of course, physically, we cannot stretch\/press the spring as far as we want. But this is more of a practical issue, rather than a fundamental one. In the case of the pendulum, the problem is due to the geometry of the pendulum, which I think is more of a fundamental reason.  For the pendulum, the restoring force is F = mg sin(theta), which is not linear in theta (it's not just theta, it is the sine of theta, which is not a linear function). Therefore, the force doesn't become twice as large as the angle does. In fact, the restoring force for theta = 90 degrees is mg, whereas if the force would be linear, it would be mg\\*pi\/2.  So physically: The restoring force increases with increasing angle, but less so than in a linear system. Therefore, the time for the pendulum to swing down depends on the angle of inclination.  In the small angle approximation we say mg sin(theta) \\~= mg theta, which is linear in theta. This never holds perfectly, but you can determine a precision to which you want your answer to hold. That will be the precision that your approximation has to be.","human_ref_B":"> How and why does the behavior of a pendulum change for large angles?  I would think of it differently. The full solution without the small-angle approx is what the pendulum does for all angles including small angles (as mentioned by other commenters). The pendulum's behavior doesn't change, it's just that the approx is no longer accurate for large angles.  Edit: rip in piece gramar","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6714.0,"score_ratio":8.6666666667}
{"post_id":"o1s04s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Why does a simple pendulum only conform to T=2\u03c0\u221a(L\/g) for a certain range of small angles? I know that mathematically, this is due to the small-angle approximation - the model assumes that sin(\u03b8) \u2248 \u03b8.  But what's the physics behind this? How and why does the behavior of a pendulum change for large angles?  I'd appreciate your input!","c_root_id_A":"h22hztv","c_root_id_B":"h233db0","created_at_utc_A":1623920466,"created_at_utc_B":1623935676,"score_A":2,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"The shortest answer would be in infinite series expansion you only need that order term. It really isnt physics. For the real physics you are interested in you need to understand what type of differentialequation it is and why ppl (students) dont like that.","human_ref_B":"The physics about why the period of the pendulum changes as the angle gets bigger is because the restoring force is not linear. This is unlike an idealised mass-spring system, in which case the restoring force is due to the force that the spring exerts on the mass. The force F due to a spring is F = kx, where k is the spring constant and x is the distance from equilibrium. Since it has just x and no powers or other functions of x, it is considered linear.  Of course, physically, we cannot stretch\/press the spring as far as we want. But this is more of a practical issue, rather than a fundamental one. In the case of the pendulum, the problem is due to the geometry of the pendulum, which I think is more of a fundamental reason.  For the pendulum, the restoring force is F = mg sin(theta), which is not linear in theta (it's not just theta, it is the sine of theta, which is not a linear function). Therefore, the force doesn't become twice as large as the angle does. In fact, the restoring force for theta = 90 degrees is mg, whereas if the force would be linear, it would be mg\\*pi\/2.  So physically: The restoring force increases with increasing angle, but less so than in a linear system. Therefore, the time for the pendulum to swing down depends on the angle of inclination.  In the small angle approximation we say mg sin(theta) \\~= mg theta, which is linear in theta. This never holds perfectly, but you can determine a precision to which you want your answer to hold. That will be the precision that your approximation has to be.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15210.0,"score_ratio":13.0}
{"post_id":"o1s04s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Why does a simple pendulum only conform to T=2\u03c0\u221a(L\/g) for a certain range of small angles? I know that mathematically, this is due to the small-angle approximation - the model assumes that sin(\u03b8) \u2248 \u03b8.  But what's the physics behind this? How and why does the behavior of a pendulum change for large angles?  I'd appreciate your input!","c_root_id_A":"h22gheo","c_root_id_B":"h22f84t","created_at_utc_A":1623919368,"created_at_utc_B":1623918213,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The complete formula for the period is in the wiki article:  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Pendulum#Period_of_oscillation   The period is only independent of the amplitude if the potential energy is purely quadratic with the angle. A circular arc is not parabolic.","human_ref_B":"To elaborate on the other comment. The differential equation used to solve the pendulums motion has a sinusoidal term in it 'by definition'. To make it easier to solve, you get rid of it by assuming sin(x) =x, which only works for small angles.  If you wanted to determine the pendulums motion for all angles, then you'd need to keep the sinusoidal term and not approximate. Of course, this makes the diff eq harder to solve","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1155.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"o1s04s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Why does a simple pendulum only conform to T=2\u03c0\u221a(L\/g) for a certain range of small angles? I know that mathematically, this is due to the small-angle approximation - the model assumes that sin(\u03b8) \u2248 \u03b8.  But what's the physics behind this? How and why does the behavior of a pendulum change for large angles?  I'd appreciate your input!","c_root_id_A":"h22hztv","c_root_id_B":"h22slfn","created_at_utc_A":1623920466,"created_at_utc_B":1623928962,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The shortest answer would be in infinite series expansion you only need that order term. It really isnt physics. For the real physics you are interested in you need to understand what type of differentialequation it is and why ppl (students) dont like that.","human_ref_B":"> How and why does the behavior of a pendulum change for large angles?  I would think of it differently. The full solution without the small-angle approx is what the pendulum does for all angles including small angles (as mentioned by other commenters). The pendulum's behavior doesn't change, it's just that the approx is no longer accurate for large angles.  Edit: rip in piece gramar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8496.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"o1s04s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Why does a simple pendulum only conform to T=2\u03c0\u221a(L\/g) for a certain range of small angles? I know that mathematically, this is due to the small-angle approximation - the model assumes that sin(\u03b8) \u2248 \u03b8.  But what's the physics behind this? How and why does the behavior of a pendulum change for large angles?  I'd appreciate your input!","c_root_id_A":"h23o8bo","c_root_id_B":"h22hztv","created_at_utc_A":1623944994,"created_at_utc_B":1623920466,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Simple harmonic motion is caused by a linear restoring force. For small angles, the restoring force is approximately linear.","human_ref_B":"The shortest answer would be in infinite series expansion you only need that order term. It really isnt physics. For the real physics you are interested in you need to understand what type of differentialequation it is and why ppl (students) dont like that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24528.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"o1s04s","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Why does a simple pendulum only conform to T=2\u03c0\u221a(L\/g) for a certain range of small angles? I know that mathematically, this is due to the small-angle approximation - the model assumes that sin(\u03b8) \u2248 \u03b8.  But what's the physics behind this? How and why does the behavior of a pendulum change for large angles?  I'd appreciate your input!","c_root_id_A":"h23zw46","c_root_id_B":"h22hztv","created_at_utc_A":1623949953,"created_at_utc_B":1623920466,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You already described the physics behind it, ie the small angle approximation.  You can\u2019t just divorce the concepts from the math or answer the \u201cconceptual\u201d questions without looking at the math; that\u2019s the entire crux of physics. You really can\u2019t answer a physics question like this agnostic of the math, even more so when you ask about a result that comes from the math (the period equation you wrote).  Any reply someone can give you on this thread will just end up being someone word-ifying some mathematical concept.  Eg people are describing it in terms of whether a restoring force is linear or nonlinear; this is quite literally the same as the linear approximation of sine","human_ref_B":"The shortest answer would be in infinite series expansion you only need that order term. It really isnt physics. For the real physics you are interested in you need to understand what type of differentialequation it is and why ppl (students) dont like that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":29487.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"z2nji3","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Hypothetically If we Wanted To create a blackhole, What would we need? Ok so my neighbour\u2019s kid \ud83d\udc80 asked me this question ofc i am not a physicist or something so i thought i will ask yall reddit fellas so what would we need to create a blackhole ignoring the human limitations","c_root_id_A":"ixh8ldz","c_root_id_B":"ixh53x3","created_at_utc_A":1669207959,"created_at_utc_B":1669205789,"score_A":54,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"All you need to concentrate a mass so that it lies within its own Schwarzschild radius (Kip Thorne's hoop conjecture). This can be a relatively small amount of mass, but in that case the radius you need to concentrate it inside will be very small. Hawking argued that any black hole that is smaller than the Planck mass (about 22 micrograms) is no longer really a black hole, so best not make it too small.","human_ref_B":"mass","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2170.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"z2nji3","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Hypothetically If we Wanted To create a blackhole, What would we need? Ok so my neighbour\u2019s kid \ud83d\udc80 asked me this question ofc i am not a physicist or something so i thought i will ask yall reddit fellas so what would we need to create a blackhole ignoring the human limitations","c_root_id_A":"ixhpyx6","c_root_id_B":"ixhfze0","created_at_utc_A":1669216285,"created_at_utc_B":1669211899,"score_A":13,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"While it would certainly take a ridiculous amount of energy to create a black hole that would be of sufficient size to not instantaneously decay, your best bet for doing so would probably be creating a kugelblitz by focusing intense lasers to a single point.","human_ref_B":"How to Build a Black Hole","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4386.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444}
{"post_id":"z2nji3","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Hypothetically If we Wanted To create a blackhole, What would we need? Ok so my neighbour\u2019s kid \ud83d\udc80 asked me this question ofc i am not a physicist or something so i thought i will ask yall reddit fellas so what would we need to create a blackhole ignoring the human limitations","c_root_id_A":"ixhpyx6","c_root_id_B":"ixh9d3v","created_at_utc_A":1669216285,"created_at_utc_B":1669208404,"score_A":13,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"While it would certainly take a ridiculous amount of energy to create a black hole that would be of sufficient size to not instantaneously decay, your best bet for doing so would probably be creating a kugelblitz by focusing intense lasers to a single point.","human_ref_B":"for sure you needed a lot of energy, and I really mean \"loads of\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7881.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667}
{"post_id":"z2nji3","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Hypothetically If we Wanted To create a blackhole, What would we need? Ok so my neighbour\u2019s kid \ud83d\udc80 asked me this question ofc i am not a physicist or something so i thought i will ask yall reddit fellas so what would we need to create a blackhole ignoring the human limitations","c_root_id_A":"ixhfze0","c_root_id_B":"ixh9d3v","created_at_utc_A":1669211899,"created_at_utc_B":1669208404,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"How to Build a Black Hole","human_ref_B":"for sure you needed a lot of energy, and I really mean \"loads of\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3495.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"bpddqw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Physicists, mind if you share which field of Physics you find the hardest yet enjoy the most? As stated by the title.  &#x200B;  I really want to say Quantum Physics myself but... I'm just a humble grade 9 student so there isn't much for me to say.","c_root_id_A":"enry4if","c_root_id_B":"ens0zrn","created_at_utc_A":1558021679,"created_at_utc_B":1558022764,"score_A":7,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"I would say, Electrodynamics is a frikken hard subject. Of all the core courses in Physics (which includes Classical Mechanics, Electrodynamics, Statistical Mechanics, and Quantum Mechanics), I think Electrodynamics is the hardest.  I always had a hard time understanding what Field means, dealing with the vector calculus, learning maths which I didn't know I'll need in Electrodynamics.  However, I really think that once you master Electrodynamics, you'll be able to appreciate Modern Physics, as Electrodynamics compatible with Modern Physics and is the template for many subjects in Physics.","human_ref_B":"Statistical mechanics.  It combines the difficulty of probability and statistics, of quantum mechanics and path integrals, with the beauty and simplicity of thermodynamics.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1085.0,"score_ratio":3.5714285714}
{"post_id":"bpddqw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Physicists, mind if you share which field of Physics you find the hardest yet enjoy the most? As stated by the title.  &#x200B;  I really want to say Quantum Physics myself but... I'm just a humble grade 9 student so there isn't much for me to say.","c_root_id_A":"enry4if","c_root_id_B":"ens5s34","created_at_utc_A":1558021679,"created_at_utc_B":1558024608,"score_A":7,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I would say, Electrodynamics is a frikken hard subject. Of all the core courses in Physics (which includes Classical Mechanics, Electrodynamics, Statistical Mechanics, and Quantum Mechanics), I think Electrodynamics is the hardest.  I always had a hard time understanding what Field means, dealing with the vector calculus, learning maths which I didn't know I'll need in Electrodynamics.  However, I really think that once you master Electrodynamics, you'll be able to appreciate Modern Physics, as Electrodynamics compatible with Modern Physics and is the template for many subjects in Physics.","human_ref_B":"Ultra-low energy physics. Everything gets kind of \"magical\" if you go near the absolute zero of temperature. You can actually \"see\" quantum mechanical behavior on a macroscopic level (for example Bose-Einstein-condensation, where you condense many particles into one quantum state, making it possible to describe it as one single wave-function, which is actually measurable) or super conducting material and super fluidity. Its really hard to model a theory for those phenomena and new solutions\/explanations for those could have a huge impact on our technology. Our professor once said that the person who finds a superconducting material at high temperatures will definitely get a Nobel prize","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2929.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
{"post_id":"bpddqw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Physicists, mind if you share which field of Physics you find the hardest yet enjoy the most? As stated by the title.  &#x200B;  I really want to say Quantum Physics myself but... I'm just a humble grade 9 student so there isn't much for me to say.","c_root_id_A":"enshtw9","c_root_id_B":"enry4if","created_at_utc_A":1558029011,"created_at_utc_B":1558021679,"score_A":9,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"QFT is undoubtably the hardest topic I have touched. It has so many downsides from a student\u2019s perspective: quantum nature makes it weird right off the bat, it\u2019s fairly abstract, it has heaps of mathematical complexity, it\u2019s a relativistic theory, renormalisation always feels a bit like black magic, and so on. Those \u201cstudent downsides\u201d are precisely what make it a powerful theory though, so persist we must.  I wasn\u2019t a huge fan of statistical thermodynamics either, but at least the principles of stat thermo were a bit more tangible (in my eyes at least) than QFT.","human_ref_B":"I would say, Electrodynamics is a frikken hard subject. Of all the core courses in Physics (which includes Classical Mechanics, Electrodynamics, Statistical Mechanics, and Quantum Mechanics), I think Electrodynamics is the hardest.  I always had a hard time understanding what Field means, dealing with the vector calculus, learning maths which I didn't know I'll need in Electrodynamics.  However, I really think that once you master Electrodynamics, you'll be able to appreciate Modern Physics, as Electrodynamics compatible with Modern Physics and is the template for many subjects in Physics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7332.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
{"post_id":"bpddqw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Physicists, mind if you share which field of Physics you find the hardest yet enjoy the most? As stated by the title.  &#x200B;  I really want to say Quantum Physics myself but... I'm just a humble grade 9 student so there isn't much for me to say.","c_root_id_A":"enshtw9","c_root_id_B":"enseqrv","created_at_utc_A":1558029011,"created_at_utc_B":1558027889,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"QFT is undoubtably the hardest topic I have touched. It has so many downsides from a student\u2019s perspective: quantum nature makes it weird right off the bat, it\u2019s fairly abstract, it has heaps of mathematical complexity, it\u2019s a relativistic theory, renormalisation always feels a bit like black magic, and so on. Those \u201cstudent downsides\u201d are precisely what make it a powerful theory though, so persist we must.  I wasn\u2019t a huge fan of statistical thermodynamics either, but at least the principles of stat thermo were a bit more tangible (in my eyes at least) than QFT.","human_ref_B":"Conceptually, quantum and stat mech. Math-wise? General relativity was a bitch (but maybe because that was my first introduction to tensor calculus?) and electrodynamics was a pain too.  unrelated but what age does 'grade 9' equate to? I was 14 in grade 9 definitely not ready to be learning quantum lmao","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1122.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"bpddqw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Physicists, mind if you share which field of Physics you find the hardest yet enjoy the most? As stated by the title.  &#x200B;  I really want to say Quantum Physics myself but... I'm just a humble grade 9 student so there isn't much for me to say.","c_root_id_A":"enstdj8","c_root_id_B":"enseqrv","created_at_utc_A":1558033215,"created_at_utc_B":1558027889,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Gauge theory, geometry, topology and lie theory. So seductively beautiful.","human_ref_B":"Conceptually, quantum and stat mech. Math-wise? General relativity was a bitch (but maybe because that was my first introduction to tensor calculus?) and electrodynamics was a pain too.  unrelated but what age does 'grade 9' equate to? I was 14 in grade 9 definitely not ready to be learning quantum lmao","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5326.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"bpddqw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Physicists, mind if you share which field of Physics you find the hardest yet enjoy the most? As stated by the title.  &#x200B;  I really want to say Quantum Physics myself but... I'm just a humble grade 9 student so there isn't much for me to say.","c_root_id_A":"ensjh4p","c_root_id_B":"enstdj8","created_at_utc_A":1558029617,"created_at_utc_B":1558033215,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"fluid dynamics was the hardest when i was doing my undergraduate degree. since graduating, i've recently been learning quantum field theory in my spare time for fun. i guess those are my two answers in respective order.","human_ref_B":"Gauge theory, geometry, topology and lie theory. So seductively beautiful.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3598.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"bpddqw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Physicists, mind if you share which field of Physics you find the hardest yet enjoy the most? As stated by the title.  &#x200B;  I really want to say Quantum Physics myself but... I'm just a humble grade 9 student so there isn't much for me to say.","c_root_id_A":"ensjh4p","c_root_id_B":"enupqdw","created_at_utc_A":1558029617,"created_at_utc_B":1558060822,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"fluid dynamics was the hardest when i was doing my undergraduate degree. since graduating, i've recently been learning quantum field theory in my spare time for fun. i guess those are my two answers in respective order.","human_ref_B":"Right now for me its General Relativity. That shit is absolutely fucked to me right now. I'd also say Supersymmetry, but that's only extremely hard for me at the moment because I'm currently learning QFT alongside it haha. And QFT\/Standard Model Physics isn't any easier tbh.  &#x200B;  I'd also add that the field I found the hardest and hated the most was Quantum Information Theory. All the terrible parts of Linear Algebra all over again.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":31205.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"bpddqw","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Physicists, mind if you share which field of Physics you find the hardest yet enjoy the most? As stated by the title.  &#x200B;  I really want to say Quantum Physics myself but... I'm just a humble grade 9 student so there isn't much for me to say.","c_root_id_A":"enth8f6","c_root_id_B":"enupqdw","created_at_utc_A":1558042038,"created_at_utc_B":1558060822,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"High Energy Physics. Symmetry, symmetry everywhere(ish).","human_ref_B":"Right now for me its General Relativity. That shit is absolutely fucked to me right now. I'd also say Supersymmetry, but that's only extremely hard for me at the moment because I'm currently learning QFT alongside it haha. And QFT\/Standard Model Physics isn't any easier tbh.  &#x200B;  I'd also add that the field I found the hardest and hated the most was Quantum Information Theory. All the terrible parts of Linear Algebra all over again.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18784.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"tiuqri","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"why do light atomic nuclei release energy when they fuse and why do heavier atomic nuclei release energy when they fission? &#x200B;  why do light atomic nuclei release energy when they fuse and why do heavier atomic nuclei release energy when they fission?  This graph to explain:  https:\/\/imgur.com\/9SU7XPA  I know that the amount of energy released during fusion and fission is based on the difference in mass. I also know that the cores at the top of the graph have the highest average binding energy per nuclei. I'm guessing the lighter nuclei need to fuse and heavier need to fission to move up the graph but I don't know why.  My very best guess here is that the nuclear forces' range doesn't reach the outer parts of the nuclei so their average binding energy is a bit lower, and the reason light nuclei release less is because the radius of the nuclear force isn't completely filled yet. but I don't think this answers the question even if it is correct which I'm not even sure of.","c_root_id_A":"i1go5ft","c_root_id_B":"i1gtka9","created_at_utc_A":1647817189,"created_at_utc_B":1647819624,"score_A":3,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"If two particles join and become bound, there is energy released (or absorbed) equal to the difference in binding energy. So, two deuterons, which are weakly bound, join to make a He4 which is much more tightly bound. This reaction releases an energetic gamma ray. The peak or most bound nucleus is iron. If one splits something heavier than iron into fragments, the fragments will tend to be more bound than what you start with. So energy is released.","human_ref_B":"The effect is because the strong nuclear force is very short range, compared to the electrostatic force.  The electrostatic force follows an inverse-square law and makes all the protons in a nucleus repel each other quite strongly.  The nuclear binding force between nucleons is a van-der-Waals type perturbation force and varies as a high inverse power of radius, times a decaying exponential in radius.    For small nuclei (think helium or beryllium) the electrostatic force is totally overwhelmed by the strong force.  As you add more protons to the nucleus, it becomes larger and the repulsive force on each new proton is proportionally more important than it was for the last one.  That effect shifts the balance of neutrons and protons for optimal binding:  the strong force works best with equal numbers of protons and neutrons (think helium) but the protons repel one another while neutrons don't.    For small nuclei, the two effects (electrostatic and strong nuclear) are pretty close in effect, but the electrostatic repulsion grows faster.  Eventually (at 26 protons, iron) the electrostatic repulsion begins to overwhelm the strong nuclear force, so subsequent protons and neutrons aren't bound as tightly.  That means iron is just about the ideal condition for a nucleus, optimally balancing electrostatics and strong binding.  Anything much lighter can fuse to be more like iron; and anything much heavier can break apart to be more like iron.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2435.0,"score_ratio":12.3333333333}
{"post_id":"tiuqri","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"why do light atomic nuclei release energy when they fuse and why do heavier atomic nuclei release energy when they fission? &#x200B;  why do light atomic nuclei release energy when they fuse and why do heavier atomic nuclei release energy when they fission?  This graph to explain:  https:\/\/imgur.com\/9SU7XPA  I know that the amount of energy released during fusion and fission is based on the difference in mass. I also know that the cores at the top of the graph have the highest average binding energy per nuclei. I'm guessing the lighter nuclei need to fuse and heavier need to fission to move up the graph but I don't know why.  My very best guess here is that the nuclear forces' range doesn't reach the outer parts of the nuclei so their average binding energy is a bit lower, and the reason light nuclei release less is because the radius of the nuclear force isn't completely filled yet. but I don't think this answers the question even if it is correct which I'm not even sure of.","c_root_id_A":"i1hzl3g","c_root_id_B":"i1go5ft","created_at_utc_A":1647842204,"created_at_utc_B":1647817189,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Others have already explained qualitatively, but take a look at the SEMF: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Semi-empirical_mass_formula?wprov=sfla1  The SEMF has five terms that contribute to the binding energy. Each of them has a separate explanation (eg coulomb forces, or the strong force) that is also listed in the article.","human_ref_B":"If two particles join and become bound, there is energy released (or absorbed) equal to the difference in binding energy. So, two deuterons, which are weakly bound, join to make a He4 which is much more tightly bound. This reaction releases an energetic gamma ray. The peak or most bound nucleus is iron. If one splits something heavier than iron into fragments, the fragments will tend to be more bound than what you start with. So energy is released.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25015.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3b90d8","c_root_id_B":"i3b75sp","created_at_utc_A":1649045119,"created_at_utc_B":1649044120,"score_A":19,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Everyone here is right that it does get much harder in college, but there are a couple things that helps make it much more manageable than the harder material would make it appear.  First, you build the basics with easier material, but you're learning that earlier material with less knowledge about the subject. You build your understanding and toolkit as you learn more, so while the material you learn in college may get much, much more complicated and challenging, you will be far better prepared to learn it than you were when you first started. You build up to harder and harder material one step at a time.  Second, there's much more focus in college. In high school I was taking something like eight different classes concurrently. In college it was usually just three, and a large portion of the classes you take in college are in your major. So instead of like eight completely different classes to all be learning in and splitting your focus, in college, you're just taking a couple classes often all in the same field. It's much easier to direct more of your energy and thought towards physics in college if you're a physics major than it is in high school if it's just one of your classes.  Lastly, pretty much anything in the sciences (and many majors outside the sciences, too) are labors of love first and foremost. Science is very useful, but if you choose to do it, it's because you love it. If you want to make a ton of money, there are more lucrative and easier paths. This isn't to say that science majors don't have job prospects (they have *tons*.  We have a shortage of people in most of the sciences, and you can apply the skills learned in getting a degree in science to all kinds of non-science things), but that you're doing something you actually love with most of your time in college. And when you get to the really hard upper level classes, pretty much everyone else in them does, too. It's a very different and much more supportive environment than high school classes usually are.  In other words, yeah, it gets *way* harder, but don't let that scare you. If you're deeply interested in physics and are persistent, you absolutely have what it takes to be successful as a physics major.","human_ref_B":"I mean if you\u2019re already okay with calculus based physics then you probably won\u2019t have that hard of a time at least in introductory physics. Once you get to waves\/heat and electromagnetism, things will get significantly more challenging, but that\u2019s just how it goes. That at least covers roughly the first half of your degree, but of course that\u2019s not including more math like differential equations, linear algebra etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":999.0,"score_ratio":9.5}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3bg784","c_root_id_B":"i3b97l7","created_at_utc_A":1649049530,"created_at_utc_B":1649045232,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"In conceptual and mathematical form? Harder.  However, I believe learning becomes much easier in undergraduate.  In Undergraduate you have the tools to follow along, to derive the formulae yourself, to actually understand where they come from and why.  I could never really do well in HS for both ochem and a bunch of physics. It was all regugirate this and that formula, solve this problem 1000 times with little variation.  In university? We set down mathematical axioms, played around with them for a few days. We set up constrains, systems, influences.  We found properties emerging from these considerations. We found ourselves deriving formulae from the foundational axioms.  It made sense.  Now, I'm a physical chemist in training (Enzyme kinetics using quantum mechanics).","human_ref_B":"Nothing will prepare you for the cliff you'll hit in year 3 in my experience, but it's utterly worth it. You also get smarter and more resilient, so in the end it doesn't end up feeling that different even though you're working tons of hours. Take a CS or engineering minor alongside and you'll be very employable in industry.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4298.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3bg784","c_root_id_B":"i3bbisn","created_at_utc_A":1649049530,"created_at_utc_B":1649046582,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"In conceptual and mathematical form? Harder.  However, I believe learning becomes much easier in undergraduate.  In Undergraduate you have the tools to follow along, to derive the formulae yourself, to actually understand where they come from and why.  I could never really do well in HS for both ochem and a bunch of physics. It was all regugirate this and that formula, solve this problem 1000 times with little variation.  In university? We set down mathematical axioms, played around with them for a few days. We set up constrains, systems, influences.  We found properties emerging from these considerations. We found ourselves deriving formulae from the foundational axioms.  It made sense.  Now, I'm a physical chemist in training (Enzyme kinetics using quantum mechanics).","human_ref_B":"The physics will be considerably harder to learn. In my experience introductory physics courses have a lot of work (quiz, tests, lots of problem sets, labs) but advanced physics classes have less assigned work. So the hours you have to put in will be the roughly the same.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2948.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3bg784","c_root_id_B":"i3bbtry","created_at_utc_A":1649049530,"created_at_utc_B":1649046767,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"In conceptual and mathematical form? Harder.  However, I believe learning becomes much easier in undergraduate.  In Undergraduate you have the tools to follow along, to derive the formulae yourself, to actually understand where they come from and why.  I could never really do well in HS for both ochem and a bunch of physics. It was all regugirate this and that formula, solve this problem 1000 times with little variation.  In university? We set down mathematical axioms, played around with them for a few days. We set up constrains, systems, influences.  We found properties emerging from these considerations. We found ourselves deriving formulae from the foundational axioms.  It made sense.  Now, I'm a physical chemist in training (Enzyme kinetics using quantum mechanics).","human_ref_B":"It\u2019s not really comparable. AP Physics (assuming it\u2019s Calculus based) would give you a taste of first year physics, but at a significantly slower pace. Beyond that, it\u2019s a completely different ball game.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2763.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3bg784","c_root_id_B":"i3beywm","created_at_utc_A":1649049530,"created_at_utc_B":1649048724,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"In conceptual and mathematical form? Harder.  However, I believe learning becomes much easier in undergraduate.  In Undergraduate you have the tools to follow along, to derive the formulae yourself, to actually understand where they come from and why.  I could never really do well in HS for both ochem and a bunch of physics. It was all regugirate this and that formula, solve this problem 1000 times with little variation.  In university? We set down mathematical axioms, played around with them for a few days. We set up constrains, systems, influences.  We found properties emerging from these considerations. We found ourselves deriving formulae from the foundational axioms.  It made sense.  Now, I'm a physical chemist in training (Enzyme kinetics using quantum mechanics).","human_ref_B":"Don't choose based on how hard a subject is, or even how the contents you've seen so far, translate to college. In college in just a few years you will learn a lot of math that will provide with the tools needed to understand really interesting topics.  To decide, see what does a physicist (or any other major) does at work, be it industry or academia related. What kind of companies? What kind of projects? See current science news o  ArsTecnica or similar websites. Which topic sparks interest in you?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":806.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3bg784","c_root_id_B":"i3b75sp","created_at_utc_A":1649049530,"created_at_utc_B":1649044120,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In conceptual and mathematical form? Harder.  However, I believe learning becomes much easier in undergraduate.  In Undergraduate you have the tools to follow along, to derive the formulae yourself, to actually understand where they come from and why.  I could never really do well in HS for both ochem and a bunch of physics. It was all regugirate this and that formula, solve this problem 1000 times with little variation.  In university? We set down mathematical axioms, played around with them for a few days. We set up constrains, systems, influences.  We found properties emerging from these considerations. We found ourselves deriving formulae from the foundational axioms.  It made sense.  Now, I'm a physical chemist in training (Enzyme kinetics using quantum mechanics).","human_ref_B":"I mean if you\u2019re already okay with calculus based physics then you probably won\u2019t have that hard of a time at least in introductory physics. Once you get to waves\/heat and electromagnetism, things will get significantly more challenging, but that\u2019s just how it goes. That at least covers roughly the first half of your degree, but of course that\u2019s not including more math like differential equations, linear algebra etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5410.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3b97l7","c_root_id_B":"i3bbisn","created_at_utc_A":1649045232,"created_at_utc_B":1649046582,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Nothing will prepare you for the cliff you'll hit in year 3 in my experience, but it's utterly worth it. You also get smarter and more resilient, so in the end it doesn't end up feeling that different even though you're working tons of hours. Take a CS or engineering minor alongside and you'll be very employable in industry.","human_ref_B":"The physics will be considerably harder to learn. In my experience introductory physics courses have a lot of work (quiz, tests, lots of problem sets, labs) but advanced physics classes have less assigned work. So the hours you have to put in will be the roughly the same.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1350.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3bbtry","c_root_id_B":"i3b97l7","created_at_utc_A":1649046767,"created_at_utc_B":1649045232,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s not really comparable. AP Physics (assuming it\u2019s Calculus based) would give you a taste of first year physics, but at a significantly slower pace. Beyond that, it\u2019s a completely different ball game.","human_ref_B":"Nothing will prepare you for the cliff you'll hit in year 3 in my experience, but it's utterly worth it. You also get smarter and more resilient, so in the end it doesn't end up feeling that different even though you're working tons of hours. Take a CS or engineering minor alongside and you'll be very employable in industry.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1535.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3b97l7","c_root_id_B":"i3beywm","created_at_utc_A":1649045232,"created_at_utc_B":1649048724,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Nothing will prepare you for the cliff you'll hit in year 3 in my experience, but it's utterly worth it. You also get smarter and more resilient, so in the end it doesn't end up feeling that different even though you're working tons of hours. Take a CS or engineering minor alongside and you'll be very employable in industry.","human_ref_B":"Don't choose based on how hard a subject is, or even how the contents you've seen so far, translate to college. In college in just a few years you will learn a lot of math that will provide with the tools needed to understand really interesting topics.  To decide, see what does a physicist (or any other major) does at work, be it industry or academia related. What kind of companies? What kind of projects? See current science news o  ArsTecnica or similar websites. Which topic sparks interest in you?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3492.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3b75sp","c_root_id_B":"i3b97l7","created_at_utc_A":1649044120,"created_at_utc_B":1649045232,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I mean if you\u2019re already okay with calculus based physics then you probably won\u2019t have that hard of a time at least in introductory physics. Once you get to waves\/heat and electromagnetism, things will get significantly more challenging, but that\u2019s just how it goes. That at least covers roughly the first half of your degree, but of course that\u2019s not including more math like differential equations, linear algebra etc.","human_ref_B":"Nothing will prepare you for the cliff you'll hit in year 3 in my experience, but it's utterly worth it. You also get smarter and more resilient, so in the end it doesn't end up feeling that different even though you're working tons of hours. Take a CS or engineering minor alongside and you'll be very employable in industry.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1112.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3bbtry","c_root_id_B":"i3bbisn","created_at_utc_A":1649046767,"created_at_utc_B":1649046582,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s not really comparable. AP Physics (assuming it\u2019s Calculus based) would give you a taste of first year physics, but at a significantly slower pace. Beyond that, it\u2019s a completely different ball game.","human_ref_B":"The physics will be considerably harder to learn. In my experience introductory physics courses have a lot of work (quiz, tests, lots of problem sets, labs) but advanced physics classes have less assigned work. So the hours you have to put in will be the roughly the same.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":185.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3b75sp","c_root_id_B":"i3bbisn","created_at_utc_A":1649044120,"created_at_utc_B":1649046582,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I mean if you\u2019re already okay with calculus based physics then you probably won\u2019t have that hard of a time at least in introductory physics. Once you get to waves\/heat and electromagnetism, things will get significantly more challenging, but that\u2019s just how it goes. That at least covers roughly the first half of your degree, but of course that\u2019s not including more math like differential equations, linear algebra etc.","human_ref_B":"The physics will be considerably harder to learn. In my experience introductory physics courses have a lot of work (quiz, tests, lots of problem sets, labs) but advanced physics classes have less assigned work. So the hours you have to put in will be the roughly the same.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2462.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3bbtry","c_root_id_B":"i3b75sp","created_at_utc_A":1649046767,"created_at_utc_B":1649044120,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s not really comparable. AP Physics (assuming it\u2019s Calculus based) would give you a taste of first year physics, but at a significantly slower pace. Beyond that, it\u2019s a completely different ball game.","human_ref_B":"I mean if you\u2019re already okay with calculus based physics then you probably won\u2019t have that hard of a time at least in introductory physics. Once you get to waves\/heat and electromagnetism, things will get significantly more challenging, but that\u2019s just how it goes. That at least covers roughly the first half of your degree, but of course that\u2019s not including more math like differential equations, linear algebra etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2647.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3beywm","c_root_id_B":"i3b75sp","created_at_utc_A":1649048724,"created_at_utc_B":1649044120,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Don't choose based on how hard a subject is, or even how the contents you've seen so far, translate to college. In college in just a few years you will learn a lot of math that will provide with the tools needed to understand really interesting topics.  To decide, see what does a physicist (or any other major) does at work, be it industry or academia related. What kind of companies? What kind of projects? See current science news o  ArsTecnica or similar websites. Which topic sparks interest in you?","human_ref_B":"I mean if you\u2019re already okay with calculus based physics then you probably won\u2019t have that hard of a time at least in introductory physics. Once you get to waves\/heat and electromagnetism, things will get significantly more challenging, but that\u2019s just how it goes. That at least covers roughly the first half of your degree, but of course that\u2019s not including more math like differential equations, linear algebra etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4604.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3cryr0","c_root_id_B":"i3b75sp","created_at_utc_A":1649081713,"created_at_utc_B":1649044120,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"College physics has 3 distinct sections in my experience.  1st year, which is really only moderately harder than high school. You'll see derivatives, but probably no integrals.  2nd year is where you begin using integrals and stuff gets more challenging. If you are good at math, you'll have no real problems though.  3rd and 4th year is where you're now sometimes solving differential equations and using linear algebra techniques. These are the years that separate those who are capable of actually studying physics from those who can't. You can pass the courses while being in the latter group, but these are the ones that will inform your professors on if they can write a letter of recommendation for you for grad school (where everything is very quickly much harder).","human_ref_B":"I mean if you\u2019re already okay with calculus based physics then you probably won\u2019t have that hard of a time at least in introductory physics. Once you get to waves\/heat and electromagnetism, things will get significantly more challenging, but that\u2019s just how it goes. That at least covers roughly the first half of your degree, but of course that\u2019s not including more math like differential equations, linear algebra etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":37593.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3cuydx","c_root_id_B":"i3b75sp","created_at_utc_A":1649082970,"created_at_utc_B":1649044120,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If the subject were a river:  In high school it\u2019s 10m wide and a cm deep.  In college Freshman Physics is a km and a meter deep.  By the time you\u2019re a senior it\u2019s 10m wide and 100m deep  In graduate school it\u2019s a meter wide and a km deep.","human_ref_B":"I mean if you\u2019re already okay with calculus based physics then you probably won\u2019t have that hard of a time at least in introductory physics. Once you get to waves\/heat and electromagnetism, things will get significantly more challenging, but that\u2019s just how it goes. That at least covers roughly the first half of your degree, but of course that\u2019s not including more math like differential equations, linear algebra etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":38850.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3bosxh","c_root_id_B":"i3cryr0","created_at_utc_A":1649055860,"created_at_utc_B":1649081713,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It gets much harder in college for sure especially once you get to upper division I feel like there\u2019s a significant difficulty spike. But I think that\u2019s true for all majors. The dual sounds like a good option.","human_ref_B":"College physics has 3 distinct sections in my experience.  1st year, which is really only moderately harder than high school. You'll see derivatives, but probably no integrals.  2nd year is where you begin using integrals and stuff gets more challenging. If you are good at math, you'll have no real problems though.  3rd and 4th year is where you're now sometimes solving differential equations and using linear algebra techniques. These are the years that separate those who are capable of actually studying physics from those who can't. You can pass the courses while being in the latter group, but these are the ones that will inform your professors on if they can write a letter of recommendation for you for grad school (where everything is very quickly much harder).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25853.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3brpud","c_root_id_B":"i3cryr0","created_at_utc_A":1649058278,"created_at_utc_B":1649081713,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Much, much harder, but it's extremely interesting and imo worth it.","human_ref_B":"College physics has 3 distinct sections in my experience.  1st year, which is really only moderately harder than high school. You'll see derivatives, but probably no integrals.  2nd year is where you begin using integrals and stuff gets more challenging. If you are good at math, you'll have no real problems though.  3rd and 4th year is where you're now sometimes solving differential equations and using linear algebra techniques. These are the years that separate those who are capable of actually studying physics from those who can't. You can pass the courses while being in the latter group, but these are the ones that will inform your professors on if they can write a letter of recommendation for you for grad school (where everything is very quickly much harder).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23435.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3cryr0","c_root_id_B":"i3brtpy","created_at_utc_A":1649081713,"created_at_utc_B":1649058371,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"College physics has 3 distinct sections in my experience.  1st year, which is really only moderately harder than high school. You'll see derivatives, but probably no integrals.  2nd year is where you begin using integrals and stuff gets more challenging. If you are good at math, you'll have no real problems though.  3rd and 4th year is where you're now sometimes solving differential equations and using linear algebra techniques. These are the years that separate those who are capable of actually studying physics from those who can't. You can pass the courses while being in the latter group, but these are the ones that will inform your professors on if they can write a letter of recommendation for you for grad school (where everything is very quickly much harder).","human_ref_B":"It obviously gets harder but you keep taking classes that go over the same fundamentals. you get used to it and you get better. College in a sense makes it easier to do physics because you get more practice and more of a challenge. just stick with it, it gets worse, but better. if that makes sense","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23342.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3bzunk","c_root_id_B":"i3cryr0","created_at_utc_A":1649065282,"created_at_utc_B":1649081713,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Let's put it this way: physics in high school is jut another class; in college it is THE class. The only other thing you'll be doing is math, and perhaps some electives.","human_ref_B":"College physics has 3 distinct sections in my experience.  1st year, which is really only moderately harder than high school. You'll see derivatives, but probably no integrals.  2nd year is where you begin using integrals and stuff gets more challenging. If you are good at math, you'll have no real problems though.  3rd and 4th year is where you're now sometimes solving differential equations and using linear algebra techniques. These are the years that separate those who are capable of actually studying physics from those who can't. You can pass the courses while being in the latter group, but these are the ones that will inform your professors on if they can write a letter of recommendation for you for grad school (where everything is very quickly much harder).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16431.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3bosxh","c_root_id_B":"i3cuydx","created_at_utc_A":1649055860,"created_at_utc_B":1649082970,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It gets much harder in college for sure especially once you get to upper division I feel like there\u2019s a significant difficulty spike. But I think that\u2019s true for all majors. The dual sounds like a good option.","human_ref_B":"If the subject were a river:  In high school it\u2019s 10m wide and a cm deep.  In college Freshman Physics is a km and a meter deep.  By the time you\u2019re a senior it\u2019s 10m wide and 100m deep  In graduate school it\u2019s a meter wide and a km deep.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27110.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3cuydx","c_root_id_B":"i3brpud","created_at_utc_A":1649082970,"created_at_utc_B":1649058278,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If the subject were a river:  In high school it\u2019s 10m wide and a cm deep.  In college Freshman Physics is a km and a meter deep.  By the time you\u2019re a senior it\u2019s 10m wide and 100m deep  In graduate school it\u2019s a meter wide and a km deep.","human_ref_B":"Much, much harder, but it's extremely interesting and imo worth it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24692.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3brtpy","c_root_id_B":"i3cuydx","created_at_utc_A":1649058371,"created_at_utc_B":1649082970,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It obviously gets harder but you keep taking classes that go over the same fundamentals. you get used to it and you get better. College in a sense makes it easier to do physics because you get more practice and more of a challenge. just stick with it, it gets worse, but better. if that makes sense","human_ref_B":"If the subject were a river:  In high school it\u2019s 10m wide and a cm deep.  In college Freshman Physics is a km and a meter deep.  By the time you\u2019re a senior it\u2019s 10m wide and 100m deep  In graduate school it\u2019s a meter wide and a km deep.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24599.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"tvsbdk","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"How much harder do physics get in undergrad than high school? I wonder why many people take physics as hardest subject in my class.  Physics in high school is just finding upon what the required variable is proportional upon and adding a experimental constant to satisfy the equation and then few calculus and concept. And whole chapter we will be playing with that equation.  I am really conflicted which major should i choose in undergrad. Low salary as a physicist here in my country  is pushing me away from physics and towards CE.Money is not a problem for me but for my family i need to think of that as well :(   I wanted to how harder does physics get in high level.  Sometimes I think mixing up CE and physics as a dual degree.","c_root_id_A":"i3cuydx","c_root_id_B":"i3bzunk","created_at_utc_A":1649082970,"created_at_utc_B":1649065282,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If the subject were a river:  In high school it\u2019s 10m wide and a cm deep.  In college Freshman Physics is a km and a meter deep.  By the time you\u2019re a senior it\u2019s 10m wide and 100m deep  In graduate school it\u2019s a meter wide and a km deep.","human_ref_B":"Let's put it this way: physics in high school is jut another class; in college it is THE class. The only other thing you'll be doing is math, and perhaps some electives.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17688.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ydj2jb","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Can gravitational waves be cancelled out?","c_root_id_A":"itsi44v","c_root_id_B":"itsms8a","created_at_utc_A":1666741700,"created_at_utc_B":1666743820,"score_A":5,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Yes","human_ref_B":"Like all waves, yes!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2120.0,"score_ratio":4.2}
{"post_id":"ydj2jb","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Can gravitational waves be cancelled out?","c_root_id_A":"ittq3ci","c_root_id_B":"itsi44v","created_at_utc_A":1666765534,"created_at_utc_B":1666741700,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Could you construct an interference pattern of gravity waves that would emulate negative gravity?","human_ref_B":"Yes","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23834.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"ydj2jb","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Can gravitational waves be cancelled out?","c_root_id_A":"ittq3ci","c_root_id_B":"ittn2ko","created_at_utc_A":1666765534,"created_at_utc_B":1666763197,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Could you construct an interference pattern of gravity waves that would emulate negative gravity?","human_ref_B":"Presumably,  yes, although I don't think we've ever observed it, and I imagine it would be sheer luck if we ever do, and we can't ever muster the energy required to create them in measurable strength to test it in a lab setting.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2337.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"t6zn4n","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"By the most accepted theories of the Big Bang, is there a (possibly empty) space beyond the universe? I was rewatching some episodes of Ben 10, and in an episode of Ultimate Alien, the characters go out of universe. The character who takes the others there calls the place the space beyond, and even points to our universe (which looks like a beige stain), and also points to the nearest universe, which was a blue stain with \"strange laws of physics\".  I would like to know, please, how scientifically accurate this representation is.","c_root_id_A":"hzejtif","c_root_id_B":"hzekxrc","created_at_utc_A":1646448579,"created_at_utc_B":1646449102,"score_A":8,"score_B":50,"human_ref_A":"It's science fiction","human_ref_B":"Scientifically speaking, the universe can be divided into the observable universe and the unobservable universe; if we can observe a thing, that thing is in the observable universe; if we cannot observe a thing, that thing is in the unobservable universe. We cannot have any evidence of any thing that is not observable, so there is no scientific reason to distinguish \u201cthings that exist in the universe but are not observable\u201d (for which we have no evidence)  from \u201cthings that don\u2019t exist in the universe but do exist\u201d (for which we have no evidence)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":523.0,"score_ratio":6.25}
{"post_id":"t6zn4n","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"By the most accepted theories of the Big Bang, is there a (possibly empty) space beyond the universe? I was rewatching some episodes of Ben 10, and in an episode of Ultimate Alien, the characters go out of universe. The character who takes the others there calls the place the space beyond, and even points to our universe (which looks like a beige stain), and also points to the nearest universe, which was a blue stain with \"strange laws of physics\".  I would like to know, please, how scientifically accurate this representation is.","c_root_id_A":"hzf8263","c_root_id_B":"hzejtif","created_at_utc_A":1646461461,"created_at_utc_B":1646448579,"score_A":24,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"No, by definition.  The definition of universe is that it contains everything. If there is something \"beyond the universe\", it's inside the universe since the universe contains everything. By definition, \"beyond the universe\" doesn't make sense.","human_ref_B":"It's science fiction","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12882.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"srb07u","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Is it impossible for an object to be in perfect orbit? So for an object to be in orbit, the gravitational force and centrifugal force have to perfectly balance out. Because it is virtually impossible for the two values to be *exactly* the same, does that mean that any objects in orbit will eventually drift away or collide (disregarding other causes of this)? If not, how is it possible for the forces to perfectly balance out so often?","c_root_id_A":"hwqswd4","c_root_id_B":"hwqss3e","created_at_utc_A":1644730569,"created_at_utc_B":1644730498,"score_A":45,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"When an object is in orbit, there is only one force, the gravitational force. The centrifugal force you mentioned is a fictitious force that appears in a rotating reference frame. The centripetal force is not some additional force, it\u2019s just an additional name for whatever set of forces are causing the circular motion, so in this case gravity.   In any case, what do you mean by \u201cperfect\u201d orbit? Circular? Perfectly circular orbits are not really possible, in the same way that balancing a \u201cperfectly pointy\u201d pencil on its tip on a \u201cperfectly flat\u201d surface is not possible. Theory allows it, but it\u2019s unstable and also objects don\u2019t actually have well defined edges anyway.","human_ref_B":"Circular orbits are a special case of an elliptical orbit where the centrifugal forces is exaclty equal to the gravitational force always. Elliptical orbits are more general where the forces are sometimes unbalanced, however they are also stable and periodic","labels":1,"seconds_difference":71.0,"score_ratio":15.0}
{"post_id":"srb07u","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Is it impossible for an object to be in perfect orbit? So for an object to be in orbit, the gravitational force and centrifugal force have to perfectly balance out. Because it is virtually impossible for the two values to be *exactly* the same, does that mean that any objects in orbit will eventually drift away or collide (disregarding other causes of this)? If not, how is it possible for the forces to perfectly balance out so often?","c_root_id_A":"hwqu0i0","c_root_id_B":"hwqtu5h","created_at_utc_A":1644731262,"created_at_utc_B":1644731158,"score_A":15,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I see where you\u2019re coming from, but the idea that the centrifugal and gravitational force must be balanced isn\u2019t a good description of an orbit in general.  It\u2019s  because the centrifugal force is a sort of bookkeeping notation, a made-up pseudoforce that we can use to describe orbital motion if the reference frame we choose is itself rotating. I guess the best explanatory example I can think of is:   imagine you\u2019re looking up from your street at night and can see a geostationary satellite. From your perspective there, it\u2019s just as unmoving as you are, and since you feel like you\u2019re not moving, and the satellite seems like it\u2019s not moving, you say \u201cah! Gravity must be pulling the satellite straight down, but it isn\u2019t getting closer. There must be another thing called centrifugal force propping it up!\u201d  When we choose another frame, maybe the one where the sun is stationary and we can see the earth turning and the satellite moving around in a big circle we can say \u201cah! The satellite tends to travel in a straight line, BUT the (single) force of gravity keeps pulling it down a bit so it curves around into a circle.\u201d   In this frame, there\u2019s no need to invoke a centrifugal force (that\u2019s what people mean when they say the centrifugal force isn\u2019t real, if you\u2019ve ever heard that).    Besides all that and to answer your question more directly, it\u2019s perfectly possible to be in non-circular orbits, for which you couldn\u2019t pick a frame and be able to say that gravity and the centrifugal force are balanced. Those orbits are ellipse shaped, and are totally ordinary and commonplace. In general these orbits are also perfectly capable of being stable and not decaying over billions of years. Orbit instability comes about more due to interactions between other additional masses in the system, or due to bumpiness and sloshy-ness of the bodies involved. For example, the earth is spinning under the moon and the flexing of the tides and the interior of the earth is making the planet \u201cgive away\u201d some of its rotation speed to the moon, causing the moon to go faster in its orbit and therefore get farther away over time.","human_ref_B":"If centrifugal force overcomes gravity, yes the object will drift away. However, the object will    slow down as it does so because it is gaining potential energy as it sacrifices its kinetic energy. As it slows down, centrifugal force drops. So gravity will once again become dominant and the object drops back down, gaining kinetic energy \/ speed, and the cycle will repeat again. The effect of this is that the object follows an elliptical orbit.   Another way to say this is that the specific orbital energy of an object is conserved.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":104.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"srb07u","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Is it impossible for an object to be in perfect orbit? So for an object to be in orbit, the gravitational force and centrifugal force have to perfectly balance out. Because it is virtually impossible for the two values to be *exactly* the same, does that mean that any objects in orbit will eventually drift away or collide (disregarding other causes of this)? If not, how is it possible for the forces to perfectly balance out so often?","c_root_id_A":"hwqss3e","c_root_id_B":"hwqu0i0","created_at_utc_A":1644730498,"created_at_utc_B":1644731262,"score_A":3,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Circular orbits are a special case of an elliptical orbit where the centrifugal forces is exaclty equal to the gravitational force always. Elliptical orbits are more general where the forces are sometimes unbalanced, however they are also stable and periodic","human_ref_B":"I see where you\u2019re coming from, but the idea that the centrifugal and gravitational force must be balanced isn\u2019t a good description of an orbit in general.  It\u2019s  because the centrifugal force is a sort of bookkeeping notation, a made-up pseudoforce that we can use to describe orbital motion if the reference frame we choose is itself rotating. I guess the best explanatory example I can think of is:   imagine you\u2019re looking up from your street at night and can see a geostationary satellite. From your perspective there, it\u2019s just as unmoving as you are, and since you feel like you\u2019re not moving, and the satellite seems like it\u2019s not moving, you say \u201cah! Gravity must be pulling the satellite straight down, but it isn\u2019t getting closer. There must be another thing called centrifugal force propping it up!\u201d  When we choose another frame, maybe the one where the sun is stationary and we can see the earth turning and the satellite moving around in a big circle we can say \u201cah! The satellite tends to travel in a straight line, BUT the (single) force of gravity keeps pulling it down a bit so it curves around into a circle.\u201d   In this frame, there\u2019s no need to invoke a centrifugal force (that\u2019s what people mean when they say the centrifugal force isn\u2019t real, if you\u2019ve ever heard that).    Besides all that and to answer your question more directly, it\u2019s perfectly possible to be in non-circular orbits, for which you couldn\u2019t pick a frame and be able to say that gravity and the centrifugal force are balanced. Those orbits are ellipse shaped, and are totally ordinary and commonplace. In general these orbits are also perfectly capable of being stable and not decaying over billions of years. Orbit instability comes about more due to interactions between other additional masses in the system, or due to bumpiness and sloshy-ness of the bodies involved. For example, the earth is spinning under the moon and the flexing of the tides and the interior of the earth is making the planet \u201cgive away\u201d some of its rotation speed to the moon, causing the moon to go faster in its orbit and therefore get farther away over time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":764.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"srb07u","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Is it impossible for an object to be in perfect orbit? So for an object to be in orbit, the gravitational force and centrifugal force have to perfectly balance out. Because it is virtually impossible for the two values to be *exactly* the same, does that mean that any objects in orbit will eventually drift away or collide (disregarding other causes of this)? If not, how is it possible for the forces to perfectly balance out so often?","c_root_id_A":"hwqss3e","c_root_id_B":"hwqtu5h","created_at_utc_A":1644730498,"created_at_utc_B":1644731158,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Circular orbits are a special case of an elliptical orbit where the centrifugal forces is exaclty equal to the gravitational force always. Elliptical orbits are more general where the forces are sometimes unbalanced, however they are also stable and periodic","human_ref_B":"If centrifugal force overcomes gravity, yes the object will drift away. However, the object will    slow down as it does so because it is gaining potential energy as it sacrifices its kinetic energy. As it slows down, centrifugal force drops. So gravity will once again become dominant and the object drops back down, gaining kinetic energy \/ speed, and the cycle will repeat again. The effect of this is that the object follows an elliptical orbit.   Another way to say this is that the specific orbital energy of an object is conserved.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":660.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"yfdtl0","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"If space is expanding, what is happening to the space between the atoms in my body? Is it also expanding, and the other forces simply compensate for the expansion too fast to be perceptible? Question in title.   We made a bit of progress here...  https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Physics\/comments\/yf1oha\/if_space_is_expanding_what_is_happening_to_the\/","c_root_id_A":"iu37ytm","c_root_id_B":"iu33l4r","created_at_utc_A":1666935935,"created_at_utc_B":1666932907,"score_A":32,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Space doesn't expand where gravity is strong enough up to the scale of galaxy groups. The space inside your body isn't expanding at all, neither is the space between the earth and sun, or between Andromeda and the Milky Way (regardless of the fact that Andromeda is going towards us)  Edit: https:\/\/youtu.be\/bUHZ2k9DYHY skip to 0:49","human_ref_B":"The expansion rate is extremely small at close distances,it is like 10^-18 meters per second per meter.  So objects have to be a trillion meters apart to be perceptible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3028.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
{"post_id":"yfdtl0","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"If space is expanding, what is happening to the space between the atoms in my body? Is it also expanding, and the other forces simply compensate for the expansion too fast to be perceptible? Question in title.   We made a bit of progress here...  https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Physics\/comments\/yf1oha\/if_space_is_expanding_what_is_happening_to_the\/","c_root_id_A":"iu37ytm","c_root_id_B":"iu32mfa","created_at_utc_A":1666935935,"created_at_utc_B":1666932283,"score_A":32,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Space doesn't expand where gravity is strong enough up to the scale of galaxy groups. The space inside your body isn't expanding at all, neither is the space between the earth and sun, or between Andromeda and the Milky Way (regardless of the fact that Andromeda is going towards us)  Edit: https:\/\/youtu.be\/bUHZ2k9DYHY skip to 0:49","human_ref_B":"You can\u2019t measure space itself, you measure stuff in space. When we say \u201cspace is expanding\u201d we mean, stuff that\u2019s far apart is getting even farther apart. And since this is happening for ALL stuff that\u2019s far apart, it\u2019s not the same thing as stuff just moving \u201cin\u201d space.   The atoms in your body aren\u2019t getting farther apart. Thus, there\u2019s not really any practical reason to say that space is expanding in your body.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3652.0,"score_ratio":3.2}
{"post_id":"yfdtl0","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"If space is expanding, what is happening to the space between the atoms in my body? Is it also expanding, and the other forces simply compensate for the expansion too fast to be perceptible? Question in title.   We made a bit of progress here...  https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Physics\/comments\/yf1oha\/if_space_is_expanding_what_is_happening_to_the\/","c_root_id_A":"iu32mfa","c_root_id_B":"iu33l4r","created_at_utc_A":1666932283,"created_at_utc_B":1666932907,"score_A":10,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"You can\u2019t measure space itself, you measure stuff in space. When we say \u201cspace is expanding\u201d we mean, stuff that\u2019s far apart is getting even farther apart. And since this is happening for ALL stuff that\u2019s far apart, it\u2019s not the same thing as stuff just moving \u201cin\u201d space.   The atoms in your body aren\u2019t getting farther apart. Thus, there\u2019s not really any practical reason to say that space is expanding in your body.","human_ref_B":"The expansion rate is extremely small at close distances,it is like 10^-18 meters per second per meter.  So objects have to be a trillion meters apart to be perceptible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":624.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"rexh4l","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Can someone tell me why electrons do not fall into the atom? Hi, I have a problem that I can't solve, can someone tell me why the electrons do not fall into the nucleus? The answer is probably easy but I can't find it :(","c_root_id_A":"hoatgeh","c_root_id_B":"hoay9jy","created_at_utc_A":1639345806,"created_at_utc_B":1639347806,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"There are decay scenarios where proton rich isotopes capture an electron, reducing the atomic number by 1  https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Electron_capture","human_ref_B":"Essentially the same question was asked here: https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskPhysics\/comments\/revyik\/in_a_hydrogen_atom_what_determines_the_distance\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2000.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i79k835","c_root_id_B":"i79hx2e","created_at_utc_A":1651648875,"created_at_utc_B":1651647010,"score_A":99,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"To get nuclear fission you just need to assemble enough uranium and a moderator. Making a functional reactor is a bit more complicated than that, but getting a chain reaction running is relatively easy.  To get relevant amounts of nuclear fusion you need to heat the fuel to about 100 million degrees (Celsius or Kelvin, same thing on that scale). That's complicated, and it's far above the boiling point of any material, so you need to confine the plasma with magnets. That is complicated. Getting more energy out than you put in (for heating, running the magnets and so on) is very challenging.","human_ref_B":"Nuclear fusion power has 100 million problems","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1865.0,"score_ratio":2.75}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i79r659","c_root_id_B":"i79s5vi","created_at_utc_A":1651654926,"created_at_utc_B":1651655851,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Basically: with nuclear fusion you can use isotopes of hydrogen, which you can get from seawater through hydrolysis (which is basically just pumping electricity through water). So the main material you will need is seawater. In fission, you need radioactive uranium-235 which is rare and by itself toxic, which is why a reactor meltdown would be so dangerous compared to isotopes of hydrogen.  The only real reason against nuclear fusion power is that current efforts still require way more energy to fuse hydrogen to helium than the actual energy that is released. It is an extremely expensive gamble on limitless clean energy. I guess one could bring up the argument that with limitless clean energy, the energy market will be impacted in the way that energy companies wouldn't be able to charge as much if there is seemingly infinite supply for consumers. But that's not really a science argument against nuclear fusion.","human_ref_B":"Nuclear fusion for power generation is about as close as you can get to the holy grail of power generation. The issue is that our level of technology is not yet advanced enough to produce nuclear fusion with a net power gain. Eg, it costs more electricity than it produces, at least right now. There is very much a race going on though between world governments, venture capital firms, and researchers, to produce the first net power gain from fusion. Every month there is news about it.  To answer your question, the drawback is primarily the cost to develop the technology to research and develop fusion power to the point where it is viable, something we are not even entirely sure is possible, let alone practical. Once we meet that milestone, if we do, it's another topic on how to optimize it and deploy it, something that is going to cost easily hundreds of billions of dollars to do.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":925.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i79rat9","c_root_id_B":"i79s5vi","created_at_utc_A":1651655041,"created_at_utc_B":1651655851,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"You should check out The B1M on youtube, they have a video on a big fusion reactor being built south of France.","human_ref_B":"Nuclear fusion for power generation is about as close as you can get to the holy grail of power generation. The issue is that our level of technology is not yet advanced enough to produce nuclear fusion with a net power gain. Eg, it costs more electricity than it produces, at least right now. There is very much a race going on though between world governments, venture capital firms, and researchers, to produce the first net power gain from fusion. Every month there is news about it.  To answer your question, the drawback is primarily the cost to develop the technology to research and develop fusion power to the point where it is viable, something we are not even entirely sure is possible, let alone practical. Once we meet that milestone, if we do, it's another topic on how to optimize it and deploy it, something that is going to cost easily hundreds of billions of dollars to do.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":810.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i79s5vi","c_root_id_B":"i79rybk","created_at_utc_A":1651655851,"created_at_utc_B":1651655659,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Nuclear fusion for power generation is about as close as you can get to the holy grail of power generation. The issue is that our level of technology is not yet advanced enough to produce nuclear fusion with a net power gain. Eg, it costs more electricity than it produces, at least right now. There is very much a race going on though between world governments, venture capital firms, and researchers, to produce the first net power gain from fusion. Every month there is news about it.  To answer your question, the drawback is primarily the cost to develop the technology to research and develop fusion power to the point where it is viable, something we are not even entirely sure is possible, let alone practical. Once we meet that milestone, if we do, it's another topic on how to optimize it and deploy it, something that is going to cost easily hundreds of billions of dollars to do.","human_ref_B":"Its because we are limited by the technology of our time with respect to fusion.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":192.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i79s5vi","c_root_id_B":"i79nbwc","created_at_utc_A":1651655851,"created_at_utc_B":1651651538,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Nuclear fusion for power generation is about as close as you can get to the holy grail of power generation. The issue is that our level of technology is not yet advanced enough to produce nuclear fusion with a net power gain. Eg, it costs more electricity than it produces, at least right now. There is very much a race going on though between world governments, venture capital firms, and researchers, to produce the first net power gain from fusion. Every month there is news about it.  To answer your question, the drawback is primarily the cost to develop the technology to research and develop fusion power to the point where it is viable, something we are not even entirely sure is possible, let alone practical. Once we meet that milestone, if we do, it's another topic on how to optimize it and deploy it, something that is going to cost easily hundreds of billions of dollars to do.","human_ref_B":"You need a lot, and I mean a LOT of heat and pressure to actually fuse an atom, we don't have that kind of technology, and plus, it would cost a lot to make such technologies (currently).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4313.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i79r659","c_root_id_B":"i7bjker","created_at_utc_A":1651654926,"created_at_utc_B":1651687099,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Basically: with nuclear fusion you can use isotopes of hydrogen, which you can get from seawater through hydrolysis (which is basically just pumping electricity through water). So the main material you will need is seawater. In fission, you need radioactive uranium-235 which is rare and by itself toxic, which is why a reactor meltdown would be so dangerous compared to isotopes of hydrogen.  The only real reason against nuclear fusion power is that current efforts still require way more energy to fuse hydrogen to helium than the actual energy that is released. It is an extremely expensive gamble on limitless clean energy. I guess one could bring up the argument that with limitless clean energy, the energy market will be impacted in the way that energy companies wouldn't be able to charge as much if there is seemingly infinite supply for consumers. But that's not really a science argument against nuclear fusion.","human_ref_B":"Nuclear fusion is everywhere. Go outside and look up, there's more examples during the night but the daytime one is closer.  Doing it on earth is the hard part.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32173.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i79rat9","c_root_id_B":"i7bjker","created_at_utc_A":1651655041,"created_at_utc_B":1651687099,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"You should check out The B1M on youtube, they have a video on a big fusion reactor being built south of France.","human_ref_B":"Nuclear fusion is everywhere. Go outside and look up, there's more examples during the night but the daytime one is closer.  Doing it on earth is the hard part.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32058.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i7bjker","c_root_id_B":"i79rybk","created_at_utc_A":1651687099,"created_at_utc_B":1651655659,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Nuclear fusion is everywhere. Go outside and look up, there's more examples during the night but the daytime one is closer.  Doing it on earth is the hard part.","human_ref_B":"Its because we are limited by the technology of our time with respect to fusion.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":31440.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i7bjker","c_root_id_B":"i7ateul","created_at_utc_A":1651687099,"created_at_utc_B":1651676671,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Nuclear fusion is everywhere. Go outside and look up, there's more examples during the night but the daytime one is closer.  Doing it on earth is the hard part.","human_ref_B":"Fusion, even if it could be made to work for power production, is cleaner than fission, though not nearly as clean as advertised. The14 MeV neutrons from DT fusion activate the vessel materials, which poses a material handling challenge (among other things--you also have to breed at least one tritium per reaction from the neutrons produced in order to keep this cycle going, which requires a tritium processing capability and the associated radiological risks).  There are aneutronic fusion reactions\\* (e.g., P + 11B -> 3 alphas) but these are vastly more challenging to make work in a reactor context. If we can't make DT fusion work for power on the grid (and we've yet to produce such a reactor, though there have been promising developments in the past year), these other reactions are pretty much non-starters.  \\*D-3He is also advertised as an aneutronic fuel chain, but this is a bit misleading. Any fusion reactor that can burn D-He3 also produces DD fusion reactions, which have two reaction chains that lead to neutron production: DD->T+p, where the T burns up in a DT reaction, making 14 MeV neutrons; and DD->He3+n, which makes 2.45 MeV neutrons. The latter are less troublesome to deal with, granted, though still can induce radioactivity through neutron capture reactions in the vessel.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10428.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i7bjker","c_root_id_B":"i79nbwc","created_at_utc_A":1651687099,"created_at_utc_B":1651651538,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Nuclear fusion is everywhere. Go outside and look up, there's more examples during the night but the daytime one is closer.  Doing it on earth is the hard part.","human_ref_B":"You need a lot, and I mean a LOT of heat and pressure to actually fuse an atom, we don't have that kind of technology, and plus, it would cost a lot to make such technologies (currently).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35561.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i7bjker","c_root_id_B":"i7aekkp","created_at_utc_A":1651687099,"created_at_utc_B":1651670344,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Nuclear fusion is everywhere. Go outside and look up, there's more examples during the night but the daytime one is closer.  Doing it on earth is the hard part.","human_ref_B":"Nuclear fusion is much harder to handle and we are currently unable to create a meaningful net gain in energy in reactors. Also try to work on formulating questions.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16755.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i79r659","c_root_id_B":"i79nbwc","created_at_utc_A":1651654926,"created_at_utc_B":1651651538,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Basically: with nuclear fusion you can use isotopes of hydrogen, which you can get from seawater through hydrolysis (which is basically just pumping electricity through water). So the main material you will need is seawater. In fission, you need radioactive uranium-235 which is rare and by itself toxic, which is why a reactor meltdown would be so dangerous compared to isotopes of hydrogen.  The only real reason against nuclear fusion power is that current efforts still require way more energy to fuse hydrogen to helium than the actual energy that is released. It is an extremely expensive gamble on limitless clean energy. I guess one could bring up the argument that with limitless clean energy, the energy market will be impacted in the way that energy companies wouldn't be able to charge as much if there is seemingly infinite supply for consumers. But that's not really a science argument against nuclear fusion.","human_ref_B":"You need a lot, and I mean a LOT of heat and pressure to actually fuse an atom, we don't have that kind of technology, and plus, it would cost a lot to make such technologies (currently).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3388.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i79rat9","c_root_id_B":"i79nbwc","created_at_utc_A":1651655041,"created_at_utc_B":1651651538,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You should check out The B1M on youtube, they have a video on a big fusion reactor being built south of France.","human_ref_B":"You need a lot, and I mean a LOT of heat and pressure to actually fuse an atom, we don't have that kind of technology, and plus, it would cost a lot to make such technologies (currently).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3503.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i79rybk","c_root_id_B":"i79nbwc","created_at_utc_A":1651655659,"created_at_utc_B":1651651538,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Its because we are limited by the technology of our time with respect to fusion.","human_ref_B":"You need a lot, and I mean a LOT of heat and pressure to actually fuse an atom, we don't have that kind of technology, and plus, it would cost a lot to make such technologies (currently).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4121.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i7ateul","c_root_id_B":"i79nbwc","created_at_utc_A":1651676671,"created_at_utc_B":1651651538,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Fusion, even if it could be made to work for power production, is cleaner than fission, though not nearly as clean as advertised. The14 MeV neutrons from DT fusion activate the vessel materials, which poses a material handling challenge (among other things--you also have to breed at least one tritium per reaction from the neutrons produced in order to keep this cycle going, which requires a tritium processing capability and the associated radiological risks).  There are aneutronic fusion reactions\\* (e.g., P + 11B -> 3 alphas) but these are vastly more challenging to make work in a reactor context. If we can't make DT fusion work for power on the grid (and we've yet to produce such a reactor, though there have been promising developments in the past year), these other reactions are pretty much non-starters.  \\*D-3He is also advertised as an aneutronic fuel chain, but this is a bit misleading. Any fusion reactor that can burn D-He3 also produces DD fusion reactions, which have two reaction chains that lead to neutron production: DD->T+p, where the T burns up in a DT reaction, making 14 MeV neutrons; and DD->He3+n, which makes 2.45 MeV neutrons. The latter are less troublesome to deal with, granted, though still can induce radioactivity through neutron capture reactions in the vessel.","human_ref_B":"You need a lot, and I mean a LOT of heat and pressure to actually fuse an atom, we don't have that kind of technology, and plus, it would cost a lot to make such technologies (currently).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25133.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ui0kgf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"I wonder why nuclear fusion produces less nuclear waste than nuclear fission and the materials are easier to obtain. Why not nuclear fusion then?","c_root_id_A":"i7aekkp","c_root_id_B":"i7ateul","created_at_utc_A":1651670344,"created_at_utc_B":1651676671,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Nuclear fusion is much harder to handle and we are currently unable to create a meaningful net gain in energy in reactors. Also try to work on formulating questions.","human_ref_B":"Fusion, even if it could be made to work for power production, is cleaner than fission, though not nearly as clean as advertised. The14 MeV neutrons from DT fusion activate the vessel materials, which poses a material handling challenge (among other things--you also have to breed at least one tritium per reaction from the neutrons produced in order to keep this cycle going, which requires a tritium processing capability and the associated radiological risks).  There are aneutronic fusion reactions\\* (e.g., P + 11B -> 3 alphas) but these are vastly more challenging to make work in a reactor context. If we can't make DT fusion work for power on the grid (and we've yet to produce such a reactor, though there have been promising developments in the past year), these other reactions are pretty much non-starters.  \\*D-3He is also advertised as an aneutronic fuel chain, but this is a bit misleading. Any fusion reactor that can burn D-He3 also produces DD fusion reactions, which have two reaction chains that lead to neutron production: DD->T+p, where the T burns up in a DT reaction, making 14 MeV neutrons; and DD->He3+n, which makes 2.45 MeV neutrons. The latter are less troublesome to deal with, granted, though still can induce radioactivity through neutron capture reactions in the vessel.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6327.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ujuzwo","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is anyone here just studying physics with no real expectations of doing any significant research in their life? The statistics of those getting into physics and ultimately doing research seem quite dismal from what I've heard. Is anyone here studying physics for other reasons and wouldn't mind sharing? I'd imagine going into industry is a common one. Or perhaps teaching?  Any snowflakes out there trying to create a youtube channel, or trying to become a \"gentle(wo)man scientist\" and do their own research self funded, or perhaps a software engineer that's trying to understand more and contribute on the side, or a medical researcher who wants to learn more about radiology for medical imaging?  It's a lot of fun for me personally and I'm genuinely curious enough to have math and physics fill my time. But as a 33 y\/o dude, it's only been a hobby. I've been fortunate enough to become more financially independent through my software career but feeling like it's a bit unrealistic for me to get involved, esp. if it's getting a another bachelors in physics for $100k, then strive for a PhD for 5-7 years, then trying to get long term research positions. Seems like it would be a decade of sacrifice with very very low likelihoods of success throughout.   So what if there was another way to contribute meaningfully? Research would have been the holy grail for me and likely everyone else though. But maybe I could wrap my mind around it. Maybe it's like not being able to get in the NBA, but being able to work as a the fitness expert for a team. Sounds entirely different actually that I wonder what's the point.","c_root_id_A":"i7lf4gq","c_root_id_B":"i7mf255","created_at_utc_A":1651867243,"created_at_utc_B":1651884355,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I studied physics as an undergraduate and became an engineer. I had originally intended to continue on to postgraduate studies but in my work as a research assistant I realized that a career in academia \u2014 even in STEM \u2014 is a very unstable life, and even if by some chance one does find a themselves in secure position at a good institution, *as opposed to the more likely scenario of being an adjunct at a community college in the Southwest Kansas or the San Joaquin Valley making as much as an assistant manager at Target and being unable to advance because you have no means of doing research and thus publishing* you\u2019ll find yourself constantly navigating complex university politics and having to scheme and maneuver for funding, and on top of that you have to teach. Working in industry or for a research institute or laboratory can be a lot better than academia but those are dream jobs, getting your doctorate with the intention of working at IAS or Fermilab or SRI or Bell Labs or the Max Planck Institute or Ames is like studying acting with the goal of going on to get the leading role in a Scorsese film. It\u2019s what everyone wants, but getting a job like that is not just tough in the sense that if you\u2019re intelligent enough and put in the work it\u2019s feasible, you have to ge exceptional and the stars have to align just right.    On the basis of all that, I decided to go into electrical engineering. I design analogue integrated circuits. Is it exactly what I dreamed of as a little girl? No it is not, but that\u2019s the case for most people\u2019s jobs. The work is enjoyable and stable, I\u2019m able to afford a decent life in a city that I like and pursue my other hobbies and interests. Perhaps when I\u2019m retired I\u2019ll go back for my PhD, just to do the research that I\u2019ve always wanted to do without having to worry about making a living.","human_ref_B":"I'm in a similar situation. I am just reading through textbooks on my own. But I don't want to contribute to any research or go back to school. I think it is okay to just learn something for its own sake. People read academic history books just to know it, or learn sophisticated cooking without going to culinary school, etc.  I think it is healthier than one's entire non-professional intellectual life being politics and cultural opinion\/analysis.  The hard part with solo physics is when the math confuses you and there is no teacher or peers to ask.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17112.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"ujuzwo","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is anyone here just studying physics with no real expectations of doing any significant research in their life? The statistics of those getting into physics and ultimately doing research seem quite dismal from what I've heard. Is anyone here studying physics for other reasons and wouldn't mind sharing? I'd imagine going into industry is a common one. Or perhaps teaching?  Any snowflakes out there trying to create a youtube channel, or trying to become a \"gentle(wo)man scientist\" and do their own research self funded, or perhaps a software engineer that's trying to understand more and contribute on the side, or a medical researcher who wants to learn more about radiology for medical imaging?  It's a lot of fun for me personally and I'm genuinely curious enough to have math and physics fill my time. But as a 33 y\/o dude, it's only been a hobby. I've been fortunate enough to become more financially independent through my software career but feeling like it's a bit unrealistic for me to get involved, esp. if it's getting a another bachelors in physics for $100k, then strive for a PhD for 5-7 years, then trying to get long term research positions. Seems like it would be a decade of sacrifice with very very low likelihoods of success throughout.   So what if there was another way to contribute meaningfully? Research would have been the holy grail for me and likely everyone else though. But maybe I could wrap my mind around it. Maybe it's like not being able to get in the NBA, but being able to work as a the fitness expert for a team. Sounds entirely different actually that I wonder what's the point.","c_root_id_A":"i7ldmim","c_root_id_B":"i7mf255","created_at_utc_A":1651866542,"created_at_utc_B":1651884355,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I'm mostly interested in the more nuanced details of physics as a passing interest. But, long term I want to get a MD-PhD and do medical research in neurology\/psychiatry. It'll hinge on chemistry and biology concepts more but the physics I learn on electricity, fluid mechanics, etc will have some application as well from my understanding (as a sophomore in my undergrad, so take it with a grain of salt)","human_ref_B":"I'm in a similar situation. I am just reading through textbooks on my own. But I don't want to contribute to any research or go back to school. I think it is okay to just learn something for its own sake. People read academic history books just to know it, or learn sophisticated cooking without going to culinary school, etc.  I think it is healthier than one's entire non-professional intellectual life being politics and cultural opinion\/analysis.  The hard part with solo physics is when the math confuses you and there is no teacher or peers to ask.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17813.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"ujuzwo","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is anyone here just studying physics with no real expectations of doing any significant research in their life? The statistics of those getting into physics and ultimately doing research seem quite dismal from what I've heard. Is anyone here studying physics for other reasons and wouldn't mind sharing? I'd imagine going into industry is a common one. Or perhaps teaching?  Any snowflakes out there trying to create a youtube channel, or trying to become a \"gentle(wo)man scientist\" and do their own research self funded, or perhaps a software engineer that's trying to understand more and contribute on the side, or a medical researcher who wants to learn more about radiology for medical imaging?  It's a lot of fun for me personally and I'm genuinely curious enough to have math and physics fill my time. But as a 33 y\/o dude, it's only been a hobby. I've been fortunate enough to become more financially independent through my software career but feeling like it's a bit unrealistic for me to get involved, esp. if it's getting a another bachelors in physics for $100k, then strive for a PhD for 5-7 years, then trying to get long term research positions. Seems like it would be a decade of sacrifice with very very low likelihoods of success throughout.   So what if there was another way to contribute meaningfully? Research would have been the holy grail for me and likely everyone else though. But maybe I could wrap my mind around it. Maybe it's like not being able to get in the NBA, but being able to work as a the fitness expert for a team. Sounds entirely different actually that I wonder what's the point.","c_root_id_A":"i7mf255","c_root_id_B":"i7mbfyq","created_at_utc_A":1651884355,"created_at_utc_B":1651882538,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I'm in a similar situation. I am just reading through textbooks on my own. But I don't want to contribute to any research or go back to school. I think it is okay to just learn something for its own sake. People read academic history books just to know it, or learn sophisticated cooking without going to culinary school, etc.  I think it is healthier than one's entire non-professional intellectual life being politics and cultural opinion\/analysis.  The hard part with solo physics is when the math confuses you and there is no teacher or peers to ask.","human_ref_B":"As a counterxample to balance out all the people going into industry: M. Sc. Student here doing full time research in theoretical physics!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1817.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"ujuzwo","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is anyone here just studying physics with no real expectations of doing any significant research in their life? The statistics of those getting into physics and ultimately doing research seem quite dismal from what I've heard. Is anyone here studying physics for other reasons and wouldn't mind sharing? I'd imagine going into industry is a common one. Or perhaps teaching?  Any snowflakes out there trying to create a youtube channel, or trying to become a \"gentle(wo)man scientist\" and do their own research self funded, or perhaps a software engineer that's trying to understand more and contribute on the side, or a medical researcher who wants to learn more about radiology for medical imaging?  It's a lot of fun for me personally and I'm genuinely curious enough to have math and physics fill my time. But as a 33 y\/o dude, it's only been a hobby. I've been fortunate enough to become more financially independent through my software career but feeling like it's a bit unrealistic for me to get involved, esp. if it's getting a another bachelors in physics for $100k, then strive for a PhD for 5-7 years, then trying to get long term research positions. Seems like it would be a decade of sacrifice with very very low likelihoods of success throughout.   So what if there was another way to contribute meaningfully? Research would have been the holy grail for me and likely everyone else though. But maybe I could wrap my mind around it. Maybe it's like not being able to get in the NBA, but being able to work as a the fitness expert for a team. Sounds entirely different actually that I wonder what's the point.","c_root_id_A":"i7lf4gq","c_root_id_B":"i7m0uh6","created_at_utc_A":1651867243,"created_at_utc_B":1651877360,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I studied physics as an undergraduate and became an engineer. I had originally intended to continue on to postgraduate studies but in my work as a research assistant I realized that a career in academia \u2014 even in STEM \u2014 is a very unstable life, and even if by some chance one does find a themselves in secure position at a good institution, *as opposed to the more likely scenario of being an adjunct at a community college in the Southwest Kansas or the San Joaquin Valley making as much as an assistant manager at Target and being unable to advance because you have no means of doing research and thus publishing* you\u2019ll find yourself constantly navigating complex university politics and having to scheme and maneuver for funding, and on top of that you have to teach. Working in industry or for a research institute or laboratory can be a lot better than academia but those are dream jobs, getting your doctorate with the intention of working at IAS or Fermilab or SRI or Bell Labs or the Max Planck Institute or Ames is like studying acting with the goal of going on to get the leading role in a Scorsese film. It\u2019s what everyone wants, but getting a job like that is not just tough in the sense that if you\u2019re intelligent enough and put in the work it\u2019s feasible, you have to ge exceptional and the stars have to align just right.    On the basis of all that, I decided to go into electrical engineering. I design analogue integrated circuits. Is it exactly what I dreamed of as a little girl? No it is not, but that\u2019s the case for most people\u2019s jobs. The work is enjoyable and stable, I\u2019m able to afford a decent life in a city that I like and pursue my other hobbies and interests. Perhaps when I\u2019m retired I\u2019ll go back for my PhD, just to do the research that I\u2019ve always wanted to do without having to worry about making a living.","human_ref_B":"Well, most people that study physics don't go into academia and didn't ever plan to. Instead they work in industrial research, medical physics, teaching, aerospace\/defence, data science, software engineering, and so on. The point of a physics degree is not really to learn physics, it's to learn transferable analytical and problem-solving skills.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10117.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"ujuzwo","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is anyone here just studying physics with no real expectations of doing any significant research in their life? The statistics of those getting into physics and ultimately doing research seem quite dismal from what I've heard. Is anyone here studying physics for other reasons and wouldn't mind sharing? I'd imagine going into industry is a common one. Or perhaps teaching?  Any snowflakes out there trying to create a youtube channel, or trying to become a \"gentle(wo)man scientist\" and do their own research self funded, or perhaps a software engineer that's trying to understand more and contribute on the side, or a medical researcher who wants to learn more about radiology for medical imaging?  It's a lot of fun for me personally and I'm genuinely curious enough to have math and physics fill my time. But as a 33 y\/o dude, it's only been a hobby. I've been fortunate enough to become more financially independent through my software career but feeling like it's a bit unrealistic for me to get involved, esp. if it's getting a another bachelors in physics for $100k, then strive for a PhD for 5-7 years, then trying to get long term research positions. Seems like it would be a decade of sacrifice with very very low likelihoods of success throughout.   So what if there was another way to contribute meaningfully? Research would have been the holy grail for me and likely everyone else though. But maybe I could wrap my mind around it. Maybe it's like not being able to get in the NBA, but being able to work as a the fitness expert for a team. Sounds entirely different actually that I wonder what's the point.","c_root_id_A":"i7ldmim","c_root_id_B":"i7m0uh6","created_at_utc_A":1651866542,"created_at_utc_B":1651877360,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I'm mostly interested in the more nuanced details of physics as a passing interest. But, long term I want to get a MD-PhD and do medical research in neurology\/psychiatry. It'll hinge on chemistry and biology concepts more but the physics I learn on electricity, fluid mechanics, etc will have some application as well from my understanding (as a sophomore in my undergrad, so take it with a grain of salt)","human_ref_B":"Well, most people that study physics don't go into academia and didn't ever plan to. Instead they work in industrial research, medical physics, teaching, aerospace\/defence, data science, software engineering, and so on. The point of a physics degree is not really to learn physics, it's to learn transferable analytical and problem-solving skills.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10818.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"ujuzwo","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is anyone here just studying physics with no real expectations of doing any significant research in their life? The statistics of those getting into physics and ultimately doing research seem quite dismal from what I've heard. Is anyone here studying physics for other reasons and wouldn't mind sharing? I'd imagine going into industry is a common one. Or perhaps teaching?  Any snowflakes out there trying to create a youtube channel, or trying to become a \"gentle(wo)man scientist\" and do their own research self funded, or perhaps a software engineer that's trying to understand more and contribute on the side, or a medical researcher who wants to learn more about radiology for medical imaging?  It's a lot of fun for me personally and I'm genuinely curious enough to have math and physics fill my time. But as a 33 y\/o dude, it's only been a hobby. I've been fortunate enough to become more financially independent through my software career but feeling like it's a bit unrealistic for me to get involved, esp. if it's getting a another bachelors in physics for $100k, then strive for a PhD for 5-7 years, then trying to get long term research positions. Seems like it would be a decade of sacrifice with very very low likelihoods of success throughout.   So what if there was another way to contribute meaningfully? Research would have been the holy grail for me and likely everyone else though. But maybe I could wrap my mind around it. Maybe it's like not being able to get in the NBA, but being able to work as a the fitness expert for a team. Sounds entirely different actually that I wonder what's the point.","c_root_id_A":"i7ldmim","c_root_id_B":"i7lf4gq","created_at_utc_A":1651866542,"created_at_utc_B":1651867243,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I'm mostly interested in the more nuanced details of physics as a passing interest. But, long term I want to get a MD-PhD and do medical research in neurology\/psychiatry. It'll hinge on chemistry and biology concepts more but the physics I learn on electricity, fluid mechanics, etc will have some application as well from my understanding (as a sophomore in my undergrad, so take it with a grain of salt)","human_ref_B":"I studied physics as an undergraduate and became an engineer. I had originally intended to continue on to postgraduate studies but in my work as a research assistant I realized that a career in academia \u2014 even in STEM \u2014 is a very unstable life, and even if by some chance one does find a themselves in secure position at a good institution, *as opposed to the more likely scenario of being an adjunct at a community college in the Southwest Kansas or the San Joaquin Valley making as much as an assistant manager at Target and being unable to advance because you have no means of doing research and thus publishing* you\u2019ll find yourself constantly navigating complex university politics and having to scheme and maneuver for funding, and on top of that you have to teach. Working in industry or for a research institute or laboratory can be a lot better than academia but those are dream jobs, getting your doctorate with the intention of working at IAS or Fermilab or SRI or Bell Labs or the Max Planck Institute or Ames is like studying acting with the goal of going on to get the leading role in a Scorsese film. It\u2019s what everyone wants, but getting a job like that is not just tough in the sense that if you\u2019re intelligent enough and put in the work it\u2019s feasible, you have to ge exceptional and the stars have to align just right.    On the basis of all that, I decided to go into electrical engineering. I design analogue integrated circuits. Is it exactly what I dreamed of as a little girl? No it is not, but that\u2019s the case for most people\u2019s jobs. The work is enjoyable and stable, I\u2019m able to afford a decent life in a city that I like and pursue my other hobbies and interests. Perhaps when I\u2019m retired I\u2019ll go back for my PhD, just to do the research that I\u2019ve always wanted to do without having to worry about making a living.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":701.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"ujuzwo","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is anyone here just studying physics with no real expectations of doing any significant research in their life? The statistics of those getting into physics and ultimately doing research seem quite dismal from what I've heard. Is anyone here studying physics for other reasons and wouldn't mind sharing? I'd imagine going into industry is a common one. Or perhaps teaching?  Any snowflakes out there trying to create a youtube channel, or trying to become a \"gentle(wo)man scientist\" and do their own research self funded, or perhaps a software engineer that's trying to understand more and contribute on the side, or a medical researcher who wants to learn more about radiology for medical imaging?  It's a lot of fun for me personally and I'm genuinely curious enough to have math and physics fill my time. But as a 33 y\/o dude, it's only been a hobby. I've been fortunate enough to become more financially independent through my software career but feeling like it's a bit unrealistic for me to get involved, esp. if it's getting a another bachelors in physics for $100k, then strive for a PhD for 5-7 years, then trying to get long term research positions. Seems like it would be a decade of sacrifice with very very low likelihoods of success throughout.   So what if there was another way to contribute meaningfully? Research would have been the holy grail for me and likely everyone else though. But maybe I could wrap my mind around it. Maybe it's like not being able to get in the NBA, but being able to work as a the fitness expert for a team. Sounds entirely different actually that I wonder what's the point.","c_root_id_A":"i7mbfyq","c_root_id_B":"i7ldmim","created_at_utc_A":1651882538,"created_at_utc_B":1651866542,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"As a counterxample to balance out all the people going into industry: M. Sc. Student here doing full time research in theoretical physics!","human_ref_B":"I'm mostly interested in the more nuanced details of physics as a passing interest. But, long term I want to get a MD-PhD and do medical research in neurology\/psychiatry. It'll hinge on chemistry and biology concepts more but the physics I learn on electricity, fluid mechanics, etc will have some application as well from my understanding (as a sophomore in my undergrad, so take it with a grain of salt)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15996.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"ujuzwo","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is anyone here just studying physics with no real expectations of doing any significant research in their life? The statistics of those getting into physics and ultimately doing research seem quite dismal from what I've heard. Is anyone here studying physics for other reasons and wouldn't mind sharing? I'd imagine going into industry is a common one. Or perhaps teaching?  Any snowflakes out there trying to create a youtube channel, or trying to become a \"gentle(wo)man scientist\" and do their own research self funded, or perhaps a software engineer that's trying to understand more and contribute on the side, or a medical researcher who wants to learn more about radiology for medical imaging?  It's a lot of fun for me personally and I'm genuinely curious enough to have math and physics fill my time. But as a 33 y\/o dude, it's only been a hobby. I've been fortunate enough to become more financially independent through my software career but feeling like it's a bit unrealistic for me to get involved, esp. if it's getting a another bachelors in physics for $100k, then strive for a PhD for 5-7 years, then trying to get long term research positions. Seems like it would be a decade of sacrifice with very very low likelihoods of success throughout.   So what if there was another way to contribute meaningfully? Research would have been the holy grail for me and likely everyone else though. But maybe I could wrap my mind around it. Maybe it's like not being able to get in the NBA, but being able to work as a the fitness expert for a team. Sounds entirely different actually that I wonder what's the point.","c_root_id_A":"i7o8p6a","c_root_id_B":"i7mw5un","created_at_utc_A":1651928650,"created_at_utc_B":1651893059,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Don\u2019t have anything to add as far as how you might contribute, but I\u2019m a late-thirties ex-software engineer and I\u2019m back in school taking physics classes (looking at this thread, sounds like this is a thing, lol) and hoping to apply for grad school in a year or two. 99% of my reason for doing this is because physics is awesome, with a twinkle of a hope that it might end up in a career.  Of course what I tell people is how influential physics is going to be in the next century with quantum computing and fusion and space travel and how this is the most exciting field to be in. I truly believe that, but that\u2019s not why I\u2019m studying it\u2026 I\u2019m just in it for the enlightenment","human_ref_B":"I\u2019ve studied physics for the last 25 years on my own time. It\u2019s been a fantastic ride and a great hobby for me. I\u2019ve written papers and developed my own pet theories.  I feel like\u2026if this were my career I would actually lose my \u201clove of the game\u201d. I\u2019m a software engineer too, btw!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35591.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"8wdya1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"For those that went for their PhD in physics, were you able to support yourself financially through grad school? Without the help of parents? Did you make enough to live comfortably? (I\u2019m in USA) Also, did you work somewhere after your undergraduate before entering grad school? If so, what kind of job and why did you choose to work before grad school?","c_root_id_A":"e1usjqs","c_root_id_B":"e1usji8","created_at_utc_A":1530825590,"created_at_utc_B":1530825585,"score_A":16,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Yes, my school paid a reasonable stipend that allowed for an OK standard of living in the city I was in, no parents required. My PhD was in Trieste, Italy.","human_ref_B":"I know this isn't what you asked for, but if you know some French (or willing to learn), maybe try to apply for a Ph.D. in France, the compensation usually is enough on its own and you won't need any financial help.  May I ask what field are going for?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5.0,"score_ratio":3.2}
{"post_id":"8wdya1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"For those that went for their PhD in physics, were you able to support yourself financially through grad school? Without the help of parents? Did you make enough to live comfortably? (I\u2019m in USA) Also, did you work somewhere after your undergraduate before entering grad school? If so, what kind of job and why did you choose to work before grad school?","c_root_id_A":"e1usji8","c_root_id_B":"e1uwxe4","created_at_utc_A":1530825585,"created_at_utc_B":1530829623,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I know this isn't what you asked for, but if you know some French (or willing to learn), maybe try to apply for a Ph.D. in France, the compensation usually is enough on its own and you won't need any financial help.  May I ask what field are going for?","human_ref_B":"Pick a grad school with a livable stipend (\\~20k) in a place with a reasonable cost of living and learn how to budget and stuff and you should be fine.  The most important thing is to look at apartment rents in the area and if you can't find decent places within short driving distance of the school that are under 1\/3 of your monthly income, it may be too expensive.  Unless of course you're willing to live with a roommate or four.  I understand that this is what Stanford, Harvard, etc. students have to do.  But pick a school in flyover country and you'll have less problems.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4038.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"8wdya1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"For those that went for their PhD in physics, were you able to support yourself financially through grad school? Without the help of parents? Did you make enough to live comfortably? (I\u2019m in USA) Also, did you work somewhere after your undergraduate before entering grad school? If so, what kind of job and why did you choose to work before grad school?","c_root_id_A":"e1uv0mv","c_root_id_B":"e1uwxe4","created_at_utc_A":1530827826,"created_at_utc_B":1530829623,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Yes, yes, yes \u2014 initially was offered a teaching assistantship but was offered a research assistantship (experimental plasma physics) before my first year began and kept for the duration (through masters and then PhD)","human_ref_B":"Pick a grad school with a livable stipend (\\~20k) in a place with a reasonable cost of living and learn how to budget and stuff and you should be fine.  The most important thing is to look at apartment rents in the area and if you can't find decent places within short driving distance of the school that are under 1\/3 of your monthly income, it may be too expensive.  Unless of course you're willing to live with a roommate or four.  I understand that this is what Stanford, Harvard, etc. students have to do.  But pick a school in flyover country and you'll have less problems.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1797.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
{"post_id":"8wdya1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"For those that went for their PhD in physics, were you able to support yourself financially through grad school? Without the help of parents? Did you make enough to live comfortably? (I\u2019m in USA) Also, did you work somewhere after your undergraduate before entering grad school? If so, what kind of job and why did you choose to work before grad school?","c_root_id_A":"e1uu4iu","c_root_id_B":"e1uwxe4","created_at_utc_A":1530827017,"created_at_utc_B":1530829623,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Yes, although I had an NSF fellowship, which helped.","human_ref_B":"Pick a grad school with a livable stipend (\\~20k) in a place with a reasonable cost of living and learn how to budget and stuff and you should be fine.  The most important thing is to look at apartment rents in the area and if you can't find decent places within short driving distance of the school that are under 1\/3 of your monthly income, it may be too expensive.  Unless of course you're willing to live with a roommate or four.  I understand that this is what Stanford, Harvard, etc. students have to do.  But pick a school in flyover country and you'll have less problems.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2606.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"8wdya1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"For those that went for their PhD in physics, were you able to support yourself financially through grad school? Without the help of parents? Did you make enough to live comfortably? (I\u2019m in USA) Also, did you work somewhere after your undergraduate before entering grad school? If so, what kind of job and why did you choose to work before grad school?","c_root_id_A":"e1uwxe4","c_root_id_B":"e1utmbk","created_at_utc_A":1530829623,"created_at_utc_B":1530826556,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Pick a grad school with a livable stipend (\\~20k) in a place with a reasonable cost of living and learn how to budget and stuff and you should be fine.  The most important thing is to look at apartment rents in the area and if you can't find decent places within short driving distance of the school that are under 1\/3 of your monthly income, it may be too expensive.  Unless of course you're willing to live with a roommate or four.  I understand that this is what Stanford, Harvard, etc. students have to do.  But pick a school in flyover country and you'll have less problems.","human_ref_B":"yes, yes, yes and yes.  I had worked at a factory for a couple summers (great pay).  I worked at a mall during the school year.  I was on a scholarship (woo hoo, rich grad student).  Got a job in research offered before I graduated.  Been there ever since (though it is soft money so things can be stressful from time to time)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3067.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"8wdya1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"For those that went for their PhD in physics, were you able to support yourself financially through grad school? Without the help of parents? Did you make enough to live comfortably? (I\u2019m in USA) Also, did you work somewhere after your undergraduate before entering grad school? If so, what kind of job and why did you choose to work before grad school?","c_root_id_A":"e1uxbu1","c_root_id_B":"e1uu4iu","created_at_utc_A":1530830002,"created_at_utc_B":1530827017,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Stipends are listed here:   https:\/\/www.gradschoolshopper.com\/gradschool\/  When I was applying, I picked schools that paid at least in the mid 20k range.   In some cities that might be tough to live on, but in a medium-sized midwestern city I live fairly comfortably (have my own place, a car, strip-club money etc...)  Most places will offer you a TA position initially, and within a year or two you'll start as an RA (occasionally people start research right away, but usually because you have a professor who really wants you to get started).","human_ref_B":"Yes, although I had an NSF fellowship, which helped.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2985.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"8wdya1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"For those that went for their PhD in physics, were you able to support yourself financially through grad school? Without the help of parents? Did you make enough to live comfortably? (I\u2019m in USA) Also, did you work somewhere after your undergraduate before entering grad school? If so, what kind of job and why did you choose to work before grad school?","c_root_id_A":"e1uxbu1","c_root_id_B":"e1utmbk","created_at_utc_A":1530830002,"created_at_utc_B":1530826556,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Stipends are listed here:   https:\/\/www.gradschoolshopper.com\/gradschool\/  When I was applying, I picked schools that paid at least in the mid 20k range.   In some cities that might be tough to live on, but in a medium-sized midwestern city I live fairly comfortably (have my own place, a car, strip-club money etc...)  Most places will offer you a TA position initially, and within a year or two you'll start as an RA (occasionally people start research right away, but usually because you have a professor who really wants you to get started).","human_ref_B":"yes, yes, yes and yes.  I had worked at a factory for a couple summers (great pay).  I worked at a mall during the school year.  I was on a scholarship (woo hoo, rich grad student).  Got a job in research offered before I graduated.  Been there ever since (though it is soft money so things can be stressful from time to time)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3446.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"8wdya1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"For those that went for their PhD in physics, were you able to support yourself financially through grad school? Without the help of parents? Did you make enough to live comfortably? (I\u2019m in USA) Also, did you work somewhere after your undergraduate before entering grad school? If so, what kind of job and why did you choose to work before grad school?","c_root_id_A":"e1uu4iu","c_root_id_B":"e1uv0mv","created_at_utc_A":1530827017,"created_at_utc_B":1530827826,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Yes, although I had an NSF fellowship, which helped.","human_ref_B":"Yes, yes, yes \u2014 initially was offered a teaching assistantship but was offered a research assistantship (experimental plasma physics) before my first year began and kept for the duration (through masters and then PhD)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":809.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"8wdya1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"For those that went for their PhD in physics, were you able to support yourself financially through grad school? Without the help of parents? Did you make enough to live comfortably? (I\u2019m in USA) Also, did you work somewhere after your undergraduate before entering grad school? If so, what kind of job and why did you choose to work before grad school?","c_root_id_A":"e1utmbk","c_root_id_B":"e1uv0mv","created_at_utc_A":1530826556,"created_at_utc_B":1530827826,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"yes, yes, yes and yes.  I had worked at a factory for a couple summers (great pay).  I worked at a mall during the school year.  I was on a scholarship (woo hoo, rich grad student).  Got a job in research offered before I graduated.  Been there ever since (though it is soft money so things can be stressful from time to time)","human_ref_B":"Yes, yes, yes \u2014 initially was offered a teaching assistantship but was offered a research assistantship (experimental plasma physics) before my first year began and kept for the duration (through masters and then PhD)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1270.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"8wdya1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"For those that went for their PhD in physics, were you able to support yourself financially through grad school? Without the help of parents? Did you make enough to live comfortably? (I\u2019m in USA) Also, did you work somewhere after your undergraduate before entering grad school? If so, what kind of job and why did you choose to work before grad school?","c_root_id_A":"e1uu4iu","c_root_id_B":"e1uyix1","created_at_utc_A":1530827017,"created_at_utc_B":1530831133,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Yes, although I had an NSF fellowship, which helped.","human_ref_B":"Almost all PhD programs are funded. So they are only going to accept as many students as they can fund. you will get a stipend which should be enough to live on. You will likely have to TA some classes for some of the years (how many depends on the university)  How having enough to live comfortable AFTER gradschool is a whole different story.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4116.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"8wdya1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"For those that went for their PhD in physics, were you able to support yourself financially through grad school? Without the help of parents? Did you make enough to live comfortably? (I\u2019m in USA) Also, did you work somewhere after your undergraduate before entering grad school? If so, what kind of job and why did you choose to work before grad school?","c_root_id_A":"e1utmbk","c_root_id_B":"e1uyix1","created_at_utc_A":1530826556,"created_at_utc_B":1530831133,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"yes, yes, yes and yes.  I had worked at a factory for a couple summers (great pay).  I worked at a mall during the school year.  I was on a scholarship (woo hoo, rich grad student).  Got a job in research offered before I graduated.  Been there ever since (though it is soft money so things can be stressful from time to time)","human_ref_B":"Almost all PhD programs are funded. So they are only going to accept as many students as they can fund. you will get a stipend which should be enough to live on. You will likely have to TA some classes for some of the years (how many depends on the university)  How having enough to live comfortable AFTER gradschool is a whole different story.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4577.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"8wdya1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"For those that went for their PhD in physics, were you able to support yourself financially through grad school? Without the help of parents? Did you make enough to live comfortably? (I\u2019m in USA) Also, did you work somewhere after your undergraduate before entering grad school? If so, what kind of job and why did you choose to work before grad school?","c_root_id_A":"e1v2gpr","c_root_id_B":"e1utmbk","created_at_utc_A":1530835129,"created_at_utc_B":1530826556,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I am supported by my parents and am very grateful for their continuing support at this stage in my life (I'm 25 and live in Australia).","human_ref_B":"yes, yes, yes and yes.  I had worked at a factory for a couple summers (great pay).  I worked at a mall during the school year.  I was on a scholarship (woo hoo, rich grad student).  Got a job in research offered before I graduated.  Been there ever since (though it is soft money so things can be stressful from time to time)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8573.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"8wdya1","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"For those that went for their PhD in physics, were you able to support yourself financially through grad school? Without the help of parents? Did you make enough to live comfortably? (I\u2019m in USA) Also, did you work somewhere after your undergraduate before entering grad school? If so, what kind of job and why did you choose to work before grad school?","c_root_id_A":"e1uu4iu","c_root_id_B":"e1utmbk","created_at_utc_A":1530827017,"created_at_utc_B":1530826556,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Yes, although I had an NSF fellowship, which helped.","human_ref_B":"yes, yes, yes and yes.  I had worked at a factory for a couple summers (great pay).  I worked at a mall during the school year.  I was on a scholarship (woo hoo, rich grad student).  Got a job in research offered before I graduated.  Been there ever since (though it is soft money so things can be stressful from time to time)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":461.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"vfaex3","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What are common simple quantum mechanical models? By simple I mean well understood. I have weakness in quantum mechanics and I want to train on some excercises.  Some of the excercises the come to mind are:  Particle in a box  Harmonic oscilator  Hydrogen atom  Uniform magnetic field  What other good models are there?","c_root_id_A":"icuoqwq","c_root_id_B":"icv6qrm","created_at_utc_A":1655572980,"created_at_utc_B":1655581668,"score_A":4,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"A couple I found interesting when taking the course were the finite square well and top hat potential. I remember my professor made the step potential a homework problem and it was pretty fun.","human_ref_B":"The Dirac delta potential has a bound state and interesting scattering behavior, definitely something you should check out. V(x) = |x| is another potential that hasn't been mentioned yet.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8688.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
{"post_id":"vfaex3","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What are common simple quantum mechanical models? By simple I mean well understood. I have weakness in quantum mechanics and I want to train on some excercises.  Some of the excercises the come to mind are:  Particle in a box  Harmonic oscilator  Hydrogen atom  Uniform magnetic field  What other good models are there?","c_root_id_A":"icv6qrm","c_root_id_B":"icuvi3s","created_at_utc_A":1655581668,"created_at_utc_B":1655576187,"score_A":13,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The Dirac delta potential has a bound state and interesting scattering behavior, definitely something you should check out. V(x) = |x| is another potential that hasn't been mentioned yet.","human_ref_B":"There's also the 1-D triangular well, although the resulting differential equation is a bit advanced (the solutions are Airy functions).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5481.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333}
{"post_id":"vfaex3","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What are common simple quantum mechanical models? By simple I mean well understood. I have weakness in quantum mechanics and I want to train on some excercises.  Some of the excercises the come to mind are:  Particle in a box  Harmonic oscilator  Hydrogen atom  Uniform magnetic field  What other good models are there?","c_root_id_A":"icvabo6","c_root_id_B":"icuoqwq","created_at_utc_A":1655583410,"created_at_utc_B":1655572980,"score_A":10,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"You're missing models with finite dimensional Hilbert spaces.  Two level models, spin, etc.","human_ref_B":"A couple I found interesting when taking the course were the finite square well and top hat potential. I remember my professor made the step potential a homework problem and it was pretty fun.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10430.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"vfaex3","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What are common simple quantum mechanical models? By simple I mean well understood. I have weakness in quantum mechanics and I want to train on some excercises.  Some of the excercises the come to mind are:  Particle in a box  Harmonic oscilator  Hydrogen atom  Uniform magnetic field  What other good models are there?","c_root_id_A":"icvabo6","c_root_id_B":"icuvi3s","created_at_utc_A":1655583410,"created_at_utc_B":1655576187,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You're missing models with finite dimensional Hilbert spaces.  Two level models, spin, etc.","human_ref_B":"There's also the 1-D triangular well, although the resulting differential equation is a bit advanced (the solutions are Airy functions).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7223.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
{"post_id":"vfaex3","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"What are common simple quantum mechanical models? By simple I mean well understood. I have weakness in quantum mechanics and I want to train on some excercises.  Some of the excercises the come to mind are:  Particle in a box  Harmonic oscilator  Hydrogen atom  Uniform magnetic field  What other good models are there?","c_root_id_A":"icwcyia","c_root_id_B":"icvjm53","created_at_utc_A":1655603322,"created_at_utc_B":1655587835,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You will probably like this page.","human_ref_B":"Scattering against a step barrier (or well), scattering against the delta potential (up or down)  Spin 1\/2 particle in a magnetic field (precession), magnetic resonance (leading to Rabi's formula)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15487.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"trum66","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is there a specific name for the phenomenon where light's trajectory is altered by gravitational fields? Specifically when the gravitational pull of a planet or a star bends a ray of light.","c_root_id_A":"i2nozhj","c_root_id_B":"i2ofjwv","created_at_utc_A":1648602359,"created_at_utc_B":1648615836,"score_A":14,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Gravitational Lensing","human_ref_B":"Gravitational lensing. It can be anything like a cluster of galaxies or the sun.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13477.0,"score_ratio":1.2142857143}
{"post_id":"trum66","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is there a specific name for the phenomenon where light's trajectory is altered by gravitational fields? Specifically when the gravitational pull of a planet or a star bends a ray of light.","c_root_id_A":"i2p7d47","c_root_id_B":"i2pg1tc","created_at_utc_A":1648637787,"created_at_utc_B":1648643123,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Gravitational lensing.","human_ref_B":"Gravitational lensing. The effect was discovered by Albert Einstein when he came up with the General theory of relativity, which gave a relationship between how \"Space tells mass how to move and mass dictates how space curves\", paraphrasing John Wheeler's description of the theory. It was first measured by Sir Arthur Eddington in Sao Tome and Principe off the African coast in 1919.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5336.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"yky0pj","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"What does information mean in the context of physics? Like the black hole information paradox? When I think of information I assume it's like 1's and 0's in computer science. But is this the same as what Stephen Hawking talks about for the black hole paradox? What exactly does it mean for information to be conserved?","c_root_id_A":"iuvxxyb","c_root_id_B":"iuw21vm","created_at_utc_A":1667479233,"created_at_utc_B":1667481253,"score_A":3,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Yes. All information that can be modelled by humans can be represented by binary.  In physics tho information relates to the thermodynamic entropy. And it is closely related to information entropy, intact they have very similar formulas.  In physics very basically more entropy means more \"disorder\" (not accurate) and to describe more \"disorder\" you need more information.  Like if all the air is in one tiny spot in a box or if its a solid, you can easily represent all the air molecules, as there will not be a huge number of ways that those molecules might be arranged in space but if it is spread out then the number of arrangement of those molecules, of where they potentially could be needs much more information to be fully defined.  Information entropy also relates to probability, in the sense that every bit of information, reduces your uncertainty by half.  You can also model information in terms of energy. Basically, energy is needed to erase information.  For eg, you drop a ball from height h, the ball will drop a couple times and will come to a stop. This is due to the ball losing its energy to friction and other losses. Once the ball have dropped can you tell from which height the ball was dropped? Nope, because that information have been destroyed, and it was destroyed by the ball using up its potential energy.  Information is central to a lot of things not just in physics.","human_ref_B":"One of the rules of quantum mechanics is that processes are unitary.  What this means is that if you take a state that has a certain amount of uncertainty - a certain \"distance\" from a particular state where every possibility is equally likely - then the movement of that process through time will never take it closer to or further away from that uncertain state, it will always be no more or less similar to the \"I don't really know\" state than it was before.  So for example, if you measure the magnetic moment of an electron, so that you find which way its little bar magnet is pointing, and then let it move, it will slowly evolve through a set of states, each of which is associated with a particular direction, basically moving around like a top, even though you can't see it, the axis will be just as \"certain\".  This kind of certainty is not the same as classical certainty, because even if the magnetic moment of the electron points sideways, you can still represent that as \"50% up, 50% down\", and by measuring it, force it to pick one, and drop it back into the original axis you started with again, so there will always be uncertainty.  Another way to say it is that quantum systems will still give you answers to questions, even if they are bad answers; if someone is going west and you ask them if they are going north or south, the quantum way to answer is to give a 50:50 chance of giving either option.  But if you keep track of how it *should* be moving, given what you know about it's law of motion, and keep checking whether it is at that point, step by step, you can end up getting a given axis almost 100% of the time, subject to some small amounts of environmental disturbance.  This kind of property, that there is some measurement out there that, if it moves in a synchronised way with a state, will produce reliable classical answers, is called \"purity\", and you can think of a pure state as being fully defined by its starting point and some law of motion, like a classical trajectory.  In contrast, a mixed state hides information, usually because there's some other set of degrees of freedom that are relevant that you don't keep track of.  This state, with lower purity, can be considered a little subjective, in that you can always start by defining a state you have in terms of a mixed state, if you aren't totally sure how well you prepared it in its starting point. In other words, instead of an arrow pointing out of the electron showing where north is, you have a kind of sphere around it on which you've painted a fuzzy probability distribution, giving where you mostly think the north is.  Then you can apply the same unitary transformation, which carries forwards that classical probability distribution, that \"blob\" of options, to other positions around the sphere.  You might discover that your state actually has higher purity than you thought, if you prepare it a lot of times, and find that it consistently gives you the same fixed value step by step, whereas a really mixed state might give you something other than 100% probability of appearing where you expect it to be.  But that basically is unitarity; once you have classical uncertainty, the laws of physics will carry that forwards, not making it better or worse, just moving it around, until you do more measurements to resolve it.  The point about black holes is that they seem to still hide information, while also giving you all the energy back.  You chuck something into a black hole, and you never know what happened to it after that point, but meanwhile, the black hole is getting warm, giving out a gentle buzz of particles from its event horizon.  So you're getting something back, but it doesn't seem to be what you put in.  Or to put it another way, when you set up a black hole in a certain state - if we could build a solar-system sized lab - we don't have a theoretical way to assume that we could just guess what it is going to say next and check step after step after step.  It doesn't seem to just have the quantum \"randomness\" of failing to ask the right questions, but has the pure randomness of there being *no* set of measurements you can do that will give you consistent answers 100% of the time, even if you set it up perfectly. It has actual randomness.  That's the thing people are trying to fix, understand how what goes into a black hole controls what it spits out, so that they can see how the history of the black hole is hidden in its event horizon, so that you can go \"yep, photon leaving from that longitude and latitude, next we'll have a muon leaving there...\" at least in principle, even if such an actual detector is impossible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2020.0,"score_ratio":6.6666666667}
{"post_id":"yky0pj","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"What does information mean in the context of physics? Like the black hole information paradox? When I think of information I assume it's like 1's and 0's in computer science. But is this the same as what Stephen Hawking talks about for the black hole paradox? What exactly does it mean for information to be conserved?","c_root_id_A":"iux5jr3","c_root_id_B":"iuw9xvq","created_at_utc_A":1667497156,"created_at_utc_B":1667484765,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"others in the thread have given some good answers, so i'll come at it from a different angle.   imagine throwing a coin into a system. the system could be a bathtub, a sun, a black hole, anything really. but let's say it's a black hole because that's what you're asking about.   you can imagine two scenarios, that are exactly the same except for one detail. the coin starts heads up in one scenario, and tails up in the other. that difference is information. so when susskind and 't hooft etc. said black holes should conserve information, they're saying that those two scenarios should never end up being exactly the same. the differences in the placements of atoms in the coin, should always result in two different black holes. something about their physical state should be different, from one scenario to the other. i.e. two different universes, should never be able to evolve into the exact same universe. differences early on, should always result in differences later on, even if those differences are spread out\/scrambled\/shuffled or whatever. practically speaking, you wouldn't be able to look at one black hole and say \"that black hole had a 'heads up' coin thrown in rather than tails up\". but those differences should still be present somewhere in the system.  bekenstein loosely showed that since black holes take in information when you throw something in, they must contain that information, and therefore must also have entropy, and therefore also must have a temperature... if they have a temperature then they would also emit blackbody radiation, which all hot objects do.. so black holes should emit radiation.. this argument from thermodynamics wasn't widely accepted, even hawking initially rejected it apparently.   but stephen hawking later proved this more rigorously, using quantum field theory... black holes do emit radiation, and we call it hawking radiation. so now if you leave a black hole alone for long enough, with nothing new falling into it, it will gradually radiate away energy, and therefore shrink until it's gone.   the problem is that hawking also seemed to prove that black holes don't allow any information to be released once it's fallen in, not in the hawking radiation, or by any other means. this means that with the coin you threw in, whether it's heads or tails would not affect the final state of the black hole, or the hawking radiation (or anything else), at a future time. this is a violation of \"unitarity\", i.e. it shows non-conservation of information. you could throw as much information into the black hole as you like, let the black hole radiate away, and that information would be destroyed.   there's been a lot of work to show that the information is actually released via the hawking radiation, some solutions of the paradox involve string theory, i understand very little of them. but from what i gather, it's still an open problem in some important ways. although hawking did eventually concede that information is not lost in this process, and probably does come out in the hawking radiation. i think most if not everyone agrees that it does now.. but how that exactly happens is still a bit of a mystery from what i understand.   i'm no expert on any of this. but i did read leonard susskind's 'the black hole war', which is pretty non-technical and easily accessible for the lay person. i recommend you give that a read.","human_ref_B":"This blog post is a pretty good discussion of the meaning of 'information' in physics. It doesn't discuss the black hole information paradox directly, but hopefully it gives you a better appreciation of how 'information' can be a physical thing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12391.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
{"post_id":"yky0pj","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"What does information mean in the context of physics? Like the black hole information paradox? When I think of information I assume it's like 1's and 0's in computer science. But is this the same as what Stephen Hawking talks about for the black hole paradox? What exactly does it mean for information to be conserved?","c_root_id_A":"iuvxxyb","c_root_id_B":"iux5jr3","created_at_utc_A":1667479233,"created_at_utc_B":1667497156,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Yes. All information that can be modelled by humans can be represented by binary.  In physics tho information relates to the thermodynamic entropy. And it is closely related to information entropy, intact they have very similar formulas.  In physics very basically more entropy means more \"disorder\" (not accurate) and to describe more \"disorder\" you need more information.  Like if all the air is in one tiny spot in a box or if its a solid, you can easily represent all the air molecules, as there will not be a huge number of ways that those molecules might be arranged in space but if it is spread out then the number of arrangement of those molecules, of where they potentially could be needs much more information to be fully defined.  Information entropy also relates to probability, in the sense that every bit of information, reduces your uncertainty by half.  You can also model information in terms of energy. Basically, energy is needed to erase information.  For eg, you drop a ball from height h, the ball will drop a couple times and will come to a stop. This is due to the ball losing its energy to friction and other losses. Once the ball have dropped can you tell from which height the ball was dropped? Nope, because that information have been destroyed, and it was destroyed by the ball using up its potential energy.  Information is central to a lot of things not just in physics.","human_ref_B":"others in the thread have given some good answers, so i'll come at it from a different angle.   imagine throwing a coin into a system. the system could be a bathtub, a sun, a black hole, anything really. but let's say it's a black hole because that's what you're asking about.   you can imagine two scenarios, that are exactly the same except for one detail. the coin starts heads up in one scenario, and tails up in the other. that difference is information. so when susskind and 't hooft etc. said black holes should conserve information, they're saying that those two scenarios should never end up being exactly the same. the differences in the placements of atoms in the coin, should always result in two different black holes. something about their physical state should be different, from one scenario to the other. i.e. two different universes, should never be able to evolve into the exact same universe. differences early on, should always result in differences later on, even if those differences are spread out\/scrambled\/shuffled or whatever. practically speaking, you wouldn't be able to look at one black hole and say \"that black hole had a 'heads up' coin thrown in rather than tails up\". but those differences should still be present somewhere in the system.  bekenstein loosely showed that since black holes take in information when you throw something in, they must contain that information, and therefore must also have entropy, and therefore also must have a temperature... if they have a temperature then they would also emit blackbody radiation, which all hot objects do.. so black holes should emit radiation.. this argument from thermodynamics wasn't widely accepted, even hawking initially rejected it apparently.   but stephen hawking later proved this more rigorously, using quantum field theory... black holes do emit radiation, and we call it hawking radiation. so now if you leave a black hole alone for long enough, with nothing new falling into it, it will gradually radiate away energy, and therefore shrink until it's gone.   the problem is that hawking also seemed to prove that black holes don't allow any information to be released once it's fallen in, not in the hawking radiation, or by any other means. this means that with the coin you threw in, whether it's heads or tails would not affect the final state of the black hole, or the hawking radiation (or anything else), at a future time. this is a violation of \"unitarity\", i.e. it shows non-conservation of information. you could throw as much information into the black hole as you like, let the black hole radiate away, and that information would be destroyed.   there's been a lot of work to show that the information is actually released via the hawking radiation, some solutions of the paradox involve string theory, i understand very little of them. but from what i gather, it's still an open problem in some important ways. although hawking did eventually concede that information is not lost in this process, and probably does come out in the hawking radiation. i think most if not everyone agrees that it does now.. but how that exactly happens is still a bit of a mystery from what i understand.   i'm no expert on any of this. but i did read leonard susskind's 'the black hole war', which is pretty non-technical and easily accessible for the lay person. i recommend you give that a read.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17923.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"yky0pj","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"What does information mean in the context of physics? Like the black hole information paradox? When I think of information I assume it's like 1's and 0's in computer science. But is this the same as what Stephen Hawking talks about for the black hole paradox? What exactly does it mean for information to be conserved?","c_root_id_A":"iuw9xvq","c_root_id_B":"iuvxxyb","created_at_utc_A":1667484765,"created_at_utc_B":1667479233,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This blog post is a pretty good discussion of the meaning of 'information' in physics. It doesn't discuss the black hole information paradox directly, but hopefully it gives you a better appreciation of how 'information' can be a physical thing.","human_ref_B":"Yes. All information that can be modelled by humans can be represented by binary.  In physics tho information relates to the thermodynamic entropy. And it is closely related to information entropy, intact they have very similar formulas.  In physics very basically more entropy means more \"disorder\" (not accurate) and to describe more \"disorder\" you need more information.  Like if all the air is in one tiny spot in a box or if its a solid, you can easily represent all the air molecules, as there will not be a huge number of ways that those molecules might be arranged in space but if it is spread out then the number of arrangement of those molecules, of where they potentially could be needs much more information to be fully defined.  Information entropy also relates to probability, in the sense that every bit of information, reduces your uncertainty by half.  You can also model information in terms of energy. Basically, energy is needed to erase information.  For eg, you drop a ball from height h, the ball will drop a couple times and will come to a stop. This is due to the ball losing its energy to friction and other losses. Once the ball have dropped can you tell from which height the ball was dropped? Nope, because that information have been destroyed, and it was destroyed by the ball using up its potential energy.  Information is central to a lot of things not just in physics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5532.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"uzj1cf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Why, in the law of Universal Gravitation, are we adding one of the masses the other mass times? What's the logic behind it? If I had a 3kg mass a distance r from a 5kg mass, why is the force between them is ((3+3+3+3+3)*G)\/r^2 ? Same goes to Coulomb's law, but with charges.","c_root_id_A":"iaakvy3","c_root_id_B":"iaal24i","created_at_utc_A":1653727772,"created_at_utc_B":1653727926,"score_A":28,"score_B":65,"human_ref_A":"\"5 kg\" has a unit, so you can't just treat it as repeated addition in that way.  As for why the two masses are multiplied together in the force law, keep in mind that the force of the 3kg object exerts on the 5kg object has to be equal to the force the 5kg object exerts on the 3kg object. Multiplying the masses is one way to ensure that the force law is symmetric in this way. That form of the force law also ensures that adding forces and adding masses are equivalent (so the sum of the force from mass A and the force from mass B is the same as the force from the summed mass of A and B).","human_ref_B":"Note that it is only 3+3+3+3+3 due to your choice of units: In terms of grams, it would be a huge sum with 5000 terms (3000+3000+3000+...), and if you used units that don't evenly divide the kilogram, you wouldn't be able to write it down that way at all. So from that perspective, your whole premise is flawed.  However, there actually is some insight to be gained: Conceptually, you can divide any single mass into multiple smaller masses, each getting attracted individually. Forces are vectors that add linearly, and the total force will just be the sum of the forces on the individual parts. As any piece of mass from one body will attract any piece of mass from the other body, the total force ends up being proportional to the product of the masses.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":154.0,"score_ratio":2.3214285714}
{"post_id":"uzj1cf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Why, in the law of Universal Gravitation, are we adding one of the masses the other mass times? What's the logic behind it? If I had a 3kg mass a distance r from a 5kg mass, why is the force between them is ((3+3+3+3+3)*G)\/r^2 ? Same goes to Coulomb's law, but with charges.","c_root_id_A":"iaal24i","c_root_id_B":"iaak3cw","created_at_utc_A":1653727926,"created_at_utc_B":1653727049,"score_A":65,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Note that it is only 3+3+3+3+3 due to your choice of units: In terms of grams, it would be a huge sum with 5000 terms (3000+3000+3000+...), and if you used units that don't evenly divide the kilogram, you wouldn't be able to write it down that way at all. So from that perspective, your whole premise is flawed.  However, there actually is some insight to be gained: Conceptually, you can divide any single mass into multiple smaller masses, each getting attracted individually. Forces are vectors that add linearly, and the total force will just be the sum of the forces on the individual parts. As any piece of mass from one body will attract any piece of mass from the other body, the total force ends up being proportional to the product of the masses.","human_ref_B":"They're multiplied together. As in 3kg x 5kg in your example.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":877.0,"score_ratio":8.125}
{"post_id":"uzj1cf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Why, in the law of Universal Gravitation, are we adding one of the masses the other mass times? What's the logic behind it? If I had a 3kg mass a distance r from a 5kg mass, why is the force between them is ((3+3+3+3+3)*G)\/r^2 ? Same goes to Coulomb's law, but with charges.","c_root_id_A":"iaakvy3","c_root_id_B":"iaak3cw","created_at_utc_A":1653727772,"created_at_utc_B":1653727049,"score_A":28,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"\"5 kg\" has a unit, so you can't just treat it as repeated addition in that way.  As for why the two masses are multiplied together in the force law, keep in mind that the force of the 3kg object exerts on the 5kg object has to be equal to the force the 5kg object exerts on the 3kg object. Multiplying the masses is one way to ensure that the force law is symmetric in this way. That form of the force law also ensures that adding forces and adding masses are equivalent (so the sum of the force from mass A and the force from mass B is the same as the force from the summed mass of A and B).","human_ref_B":"They're multiplied together. As in 3kg x 5kg in your example.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":723.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"az20zq","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Can an electron with a de Broglie wavelength of 2 \u00b5m pass through a slit that is 1 \u00b5m wide? Saw this question and got it wrong, can anyone help? I said that the debroglie wavelength is not the actual diameter of the electron, but my teacher just put a comment saying \"it's important to say this was due to diffraction.\" How is diffraction related to the electron being able to pass through the slit?","c_root_id_A":"ei4se59","c_root_id_B":"ei4s0r1","created_at_utc_A":1552129257,"created_at_utc_B":1552128574,"score_A":23,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The de Broglie wavelength isn't its diameter and the electron isn't a little marble.   The point with the de Broglie wavelength is that it has to be similar size to the slit (or in general diffraction geometry) dimensions to see interference. If you look at the formulas involved that makes sense.  Condition for interference is d sin(\u03b8) = n\u03bb which only has solutions if n\u03bb\/d < 1, ie n\u03bb < d.  Keep in mind that for the double slit d isn't even the size of the holes, but the distance between them.","human_ref_B":"It's important to understand diffraction in quantum physics, where your question is placed, I recommend you to check Bragg relation.  Answering the question I believe main issue is that waves can bend due to diffraction, and if measurements are not too far, the smaller the slit the bigger the diffraction effect.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":683.0,"score_ratio":11.5}
{"post_id":"z5yrtb","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"In an elliptical orbit, does the centripetal force point towards the centre of eclipse, or the planet \/ focus?","c_root_id_A":"ixz4ac3","c_root_id_B":"ixzqu9w","created_at_utc_A":1669561220,"created_at_utc_B":1669571021,"score_A":5,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"The direction (and magnitude) depends on what exactly you call centripetal force in a non-circular motion. Gravity points towards the other object, a line that goes through one of the two focal points.","human_ref_B":"Elliptical orbits do not have \"centripetal force\" because they aren't circles. The gravitational force will point towards whatever it is orbiting, passing throughout their mutual barycenter which lies at one of the foci of the ellipse.   At any given moment, you can draw a circle tangential to the object's motion with the same curvature. The center of that circle will not line up with the foci of the ellipse. You can break up the gravitational force into a component parallel to the velocity and a component perpendicular to the velocity. The parallel component is called the tangential force while the perpendicular component is the centripetal force because it points towards the center of the circle of curvature.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9801.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"z5yrtb","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"In an elliptical orbit, does the centripetal force point towards the centre of eclipse, or the planet \/ focus?","c_root_id_A":"ixzqu9w","c_root_id_B":"ixyqirz","created_at_utc_A":1669571021,"created_at_utc_B":1669553478,"score_A":15,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Elliptical orbits do not have \"centripetal force\" because they aren't circles. The gravitational force will point towards whatever it is orbiting, passing throughout their mutual barycenter which lies at one of the foci of the ellipse.   At any given moment, you can draw a circle tangential to the object's motion with the same curvature. The center of that circle will not line up with the foci of the ellipse. You can break up the gravitational force into a component parallel to the velocity and a component perpendicular to the velocity. The parallel component is called the tangential force while the perpendicular component is the centripetal force because it points towards the center of the circle of curvature.","human_ref_B":"The centripetal force in fact points towards the focus where the mass is, but one thing to note is that centripetal force is used for circular orbits; why do you require it for elliptical?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17543.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"z5yrtb","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"In an elliptical orbit, does the centripetal force point towards the centre of eclipse, or the planet \/ focus?","c_root_id_A":"ixyqirz","c_root_id_B":"ixz4ac3","created_at_utc_A":1669553478,"created_at_utc_B":1669561220,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The centripetal force in fact points towards the focus where the mass is, but one thing to note is that centripetal force is used for circular orbits; why do you require it for elliptical?","human_ref_B":"The direction (and magnitude) depends on what exactly you call centripetal force in a non-circular motion. Gravity points towards the other object, a line that goes through one of the two focal points.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7742.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"ylebbz","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"What's the reasoning behind placing dx in front of the integrand? As I've taken more advanced physics courses, I've noticed my professors do this. Is there any advantage to this notation?","c_root_id_A":"iuy9qqh","c_root_id_B":"iuzpq5m","created_at_utc_A":1667514157,"created_at_utc_B":1667538510,"score_A":4,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"As long as the integration measure commutes with the integrand, it really doesn't matter where you put it.","human_ref_B":"It may be a little bit of an abuse of notation by physicists but there are cases where the order matters, e.g. when integrating a vector product.  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Biot%E2%80%93Savart_law  Integrating r x dl gives the opposite sign to dl x r.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24353.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
{"post_id":"rn0tic","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What's physically happening inside the Earth's liquid iron core that generates our magnetic field? I'm learning about magnetic field and wanted to see if I can understand the Earth's magnetic field better. I'm specifically interested in the relationship between Earth's magnetic field, movement of electron, and electric field(?).  I've learned that movement of creates magnetic field. Does this mean that the liquid iron core has a unidirectional movement of electrons, which creates the Earth's magnetic field? Does the direction of these electrons follow the right hand rule?  Also, is there an electric field that's associated (created by?) this movement of electrons? Since electric field follows positive charge, would the direction of the electric field be anti-parallel to that of the electron?  I've drawn a graphical presentation here: link. This is something I've been fascinated by. It'd be great if you could explain it in a simple terms for me to understand!","c_root_id_A":"hppj0k9","c_root_id_B":"hppm20l","created_at_utc_A":1640282649,"created_at_utc_B":1640283914,"score_A":2,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"It is believed to be due to convective movement of liquid iron in the Earth's outer core, coupled with the Earth's rotation.  It is known as the geodynamo.  More information is in this Wikipedia article","human_ref_B":"This is one of the greatest not-quite-solved problems in geophysics.  Turbulent convection currents in the liquid core bend and twist existing magnetic field lines in a way that amplifies them and creates a self-sustaining field similar to how a dynamo works.  But it is nowhere near as simple as your diagram suggests.  The field inside the core is believed to be incredibly complicated and asymmetrical -- in fact, there are proofs that the flow and field *must* be asymmetrical to create a self-sustaining dynamo.  We are able to create numerical simulations of a self-sustaining planetary magnetic field, but we are not yet able to make them work with realistic Earth parameters, and (to my knowledge) nobody's given a simple explanation of exactly which parts of the complex interaction of field and flow are key to creating the field.  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dynamo_theory","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1265.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
{"post_id":"d0qb62","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"Is this a good way to learn the fundamentals of physics for higher learning? So recently I've gained an interest in Physics and Astrophysics. At first, I begun reading Micho Kaku, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Hawking, and Sagan books for leisure, and because I found them interesting. But recently I've been interested in knowing all these advanced stuff (relativity, gravitational waves, quantum mechanics, string theory) etc but I realized my foundations aren't that strong.   Plus, I'm a highschool student.  I have a basic knowledge of derivatives and integrals, and some high school physics. But my knowledge in physics is quite shallow and consists of loosely remembered formulas and vague concepts.  So here's my plan to make sure my fundamentals are solid before I go on to study the \"cool stuff\".  Physics - read Halliday's Fundamentals of Physics supplemented by Feynman lectures, Khan Academy and Crash Course - watch Leonard Susskind's lectures??? (Im still conflicted on this part)  Math - my high school is teaching me calculus, but I'm supplementing that by watching 3Blue1Brown's series and doing some problems - idk which textbook I should be using, especially at my level  Physics problems - I've heard Schaum books are quite good for this stuff, but I'm still not sure. PLEASE suggest any resources for physics problems I can solvr  I'm not sure if this is a good way to go about doing this. Do any of you have any tips or suggestions on resources? I prefer books though since I can work on those on my own pace. I'm thinking of majoring in Physics.","c_root_id_A":"ezbtkez","c_root_id_B":"ezbrvqg","created_at_utc_A":1567825214,"created_at_utc_B":1567824556,"score_A":14,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Okay, let's go! I'll comment your plan in the end.  EDIT: 1 and 2 refer to something as first and second year of undergrad. 3 is the rest of the undergrad + some grad stuff. Edit end.  First: I'd recommend learning the necessary maths along with the physics. Therefore:  &#x200B;  **1-**  Halliday One + Corresponding Feynman Lectures  Stewart Vol1 (for calculus, real easy book, I'd recommend supplementing this one with another of your choice)  An analytic geometry one (really don't know any English reference, sorry).  &#x200B;  If you start to hate Halliday, there are lot's of other books on this level, such as Tipler and Serway. Also, there are a shitton of calculus books. If Stewart does not suits you, try another one. If you want to go crazy, pick Apostol's.  &#x200B;  **2-**  Hallidays   Two to Four + Feynmans  Stewart Vol 2 (multivariable Calculus, series, vector calculus)  An Linear Algebra  book.  &#x200B;  3- At this point, **maths intensifies**. Most books will cover just enough, but always supplement with a math oriented book like:  Complex Variables - Churchill  Mathematical Physics - Hassani (not Mathematical methods for god sakes)  Mathematics For Physics - Dennery  Geometry, topology, and physics - Nakahara  &#x200B;  Now, into the physics itself:  **Classical Mechanics:** Taylor's book. Can't recommend this enough. Read this, then supplement with Nivaldo Lemos and Goldstein. You should be okay.  &#x200B;  **Electromagnetism:** Griffiths all the way. One of the best books ever written. If you intent to go to grad level, pick Jackson up, but this will hurt. A lot.  &#x200B;  **Structure of the Matter:** (also known as modern physics): Tipler book is okay. There is also \"Brehm & Mullin\" and Eisberg. Highly recommend going thought this section before going into Quantum.  &#x200B;  **Quantum Mechanics:** There are lot's of good QM books. If you liked griffiths EM one, there is also a QM one, although it's too much introductory. Shankar's one is great, and Sakurai is a master piece (until the third chapter. He literally dies after that and the quality drops a little).  &#x200B;  **General Relativity**: Sean Carrol has a nice book on this. There is also Wald's one, but for me, it has the same Jackson feeling. Hurts you in unecessary ways. Also D'Inverno's book is great, it has something like six chapter preparing you before really starting.  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  &#x200B;  **Well, about your plan:** Halliday + Feyman is a good call for the basics. There's a lot of hate towards Halliday for not doing shit the \"right way\" but you'll eventually learn it when you go to specific books. Mind you, Halliday has a shit ton of exercises, I don't think there's much need of supplementary books only for exercises, but it's your choice. Practice until you feel like you get it then practice some more.  About the math part: It's nice that you have someone teaching you calculus, but I still recommend reading through a text book. 3B1B is great but **it's not even close to being enough**. It's too much introductory, you need to go somewherelse after watching his course (i'm referring to the ones on YT, don't know about any others).  Also, for lot's of stuff you need **a ton of linear algebra**. I did not see you talk about this anywhere.  &#x200B;  **THE MOST IMPORTANT PART:** Have fun. Do not become a calculator, learn what  you're doing all along. DO NOT JUST FOLLOW STEPS, understand those, and this is by far, the most difficult part. Also, some shit is hard. Really hard. Do not be ashamed of stopping reading something if you're not understanding. Get some easier books or subjects first, then go to the one you're having difficulty, but **DO NOT GIVE UP.** Physics hurts you in every possible way, but it's worth it.  &#x200B;  Sincerely: A grad student.","human_ref_B":"Hallidy (or Halliday and Resnick) are perfect.  I'd suggest making sure you work through all the homework questions.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":658.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667}
{"post_id":"oeba3i","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Why do we use circularly polarized light in laser cooling? I am studying the principles of magneto-optical traps for an exam, and can't really understand why circularly polarized light is necessary for laser cooling to work.","c_root_id_A":"h45njz1","c_root_id_B":"h45mb4d","created_at_utc_A":1625512048,"created_at_utc_B":1625511422,"score_A":14,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Circularly polarized light is light in an eigenstate of angular momentum. For left polarization, angular momentum is +1, while for right circular polarization it's -1. Because of conservation of angular momentum, when the atom transitions from the ground state (m=0) to the state m=+1 (m=-1) it must do so by absorbing a left (right) handed photon.  You can use that to make sure atoms on the +**x** (-**x**) side only absorb photons moving left (right), pushing them back to **x**=0.  If you look at this diagram you can see that the laser is resonant in two places (left and right side). If you throw unpolarized light, then the atoms will absorb both beams at the two resonant points, which means many will gain momentum (increasing temperature and moving away from the trap). By using circularly polarized light you can guarantee this won't happen and the atoms will absorb the right photon on each side.","human_ref_B":"You need atoms with for example a 0,+1 and -1 state and an outer magnetic field that rises linearly through the x-direction of the trap, so that the Zeeman effect splits the energy levels depending on the position of the atoms.  Now you want the atoms that move for example to the right to only interact with the laser that is coming from the right, so that the photon absorption gives them a little kick to left, towards the trap. The reason for the polarization of the laser is this detail, that the atoms have to only interact with one laser. So the atoms moving to the right will see resonant laser light for their (for example) 0 -> +1 transition, which is only resonant for lets say right cirularization. And the atoms moving to the left will be resonant for the 0 -> -1 transition, which is only resonant with the, lets say left circularization.  So if you switch the polarizations of the two lasers, then the wrong transitions are resonant and the atoms get pushed outwards instead of towards the center. And if you use linearly polarized light, the atoms wont see any net force, because they are always resonant to both lasers from both directions.  There are a lot of details at play here, I cant put everything in one comment, but thats the reason for the different polarizations. Did that help?  (Also in which direction the atoms are resonant with which polarization obviously depends on the exact setup)  Edit: This is a nice picture. Here atoms that go to right become resonant for their -1 transition and interact only with the sigma\\_minus light from the right (but not with the sigma\\_plus light from the left) and vice versa for the other side.   https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/figure\/The-mechanism-of-a-magneto-optical-trap-for-an-atom-with-a-J-0-to-J-1-transition\\_fig1\\_268352730","labels":1,"seconds_difference":626.0,"score_ratio":2.8}
{"post_id":"z4vytf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"why don't we see stars as long streaks? if a telescope such as Hubble is looking at a 5 billion year old Star why doesn't it also see that same star as 4 billion years old, 3 billion years old, etc, making it look like a streak of all the various ages?  I assume as the sart ages it also moves in respect to our view of it, and since a telescope is just a way to look back in time we should be able to see the full life time of at least some stars!?","c_root_id_A":"ixt2dl5","c_root_id_B":"ixt2aty","created_at_utc_A":1669431781,"created_at_utc_B":1669431739,"score_A":34,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Notice how the bullets leaving this gun never catch up with the bullets that went before them? Light is like that, just much faster.  https:\/\/youtu.be\/x4FiYnkEub4","human_ref_B":"Only the light at one age will be equal to the distance in light years from the Earth. The effect of the distance on the wavelength of the light can be described with Hubble's law. If a star is 5 billion light years from Earth we will only see it as it was 5 billion years ago. Older light would have already been absorbed by the Earth, and newer light has not hit the Earth yet.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":42.0,"score_ratio":4.25}
{"post_id":"z4vytf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"why don't we see stars as long streaks? if a telescope such as Hubble is looking at a 5 billion year old Star why doesn't it also see that same star as 4 billion years old, 3 billion years old, etc, making it look like a streak of all the various ages?  I assume as the sart ages it also moves in respect to our view of it, and since a telescope is just a way to look back in time we should be able to see the full life time of at least some stars!?","c_root_id_A":"ixt2aty","c_root_id_B":"ixt9ckb","created_at_utc_A":1669431739,"created_at_utc_B":1669435631,"score_A":8,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"Only the light at one age will be equal to the distance in light years from the Earth. The effect of the distance on the wavelength of the light can be described with Hubble's law. If a star is 5 billion light years from Earth we will only see it as it was 5 billion years ago. Older light would have already been absorbed by the Earth, and newer light has not hit the Earth yet.","human_ref_B":"The telescope,no matter how powerful, is just seeing the light that's hitting the Earth right now.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3892.0,"score_ratio":2.875}
{"post_id":"z4vytf","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"why don't we see stars as long streaks? if a telescope such as Hubble is looking at a 5 billion year old Star why doesn't it also see that same star as 4 billion years old, 3 billion years old, etc, making it look like a streak of all the various ages?  I assume as the sart ages it also moves in respect to our view of it, and since a telescope is just a way to look back in time we should be able to see the full life time of at least some stars!?","c_root_id_A":"ixt2f9h","c_root_id_B":"ixt9ckb","created_at_utc_A":1669431807,"created_at_utc_B":1669435631,"score_A":4,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"The light that left that star 4 billion years ago is traveling at the speed of light and won't get here for another billion years. Why would we see it?","human_ref_B":"The telescope,no matter how powerful, is just seeing the light that's hitting the Earth right now.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3824.0,"score_ratio":5.75}
{"post_id":"ini94w","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"If General Relativity is time-symmetric, then how do 2 objects orbiting each other radiate gravitational waves outwards, lose energy, and come closer, establishing an arrow of time? My belief was that a system of 2 objects orbiting each other is time-symmetric. Reverse the film, and they're still orbiting each other and both objects' gravities are still attractive. So what is the time-unsymmetric aspect of this setup, in order to cause the radiation of gravitational waves into only one direction of time?","c_root_id_A":"g47rau4","c_root_id_B":"g47tkut","created_at_utc_A":1599381527,"created_at_utc_B":1599384020,"score_A":11,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Huh? Where did you get the idea that a physical process must look the same in both directions? It doesn't have to. This has nothing to do with gravitational waves. You could equally ask that about almost every physical process.","human_ref_B":"I think you are mixing up general relativity and metric. The metric that describes a Swarzschild Blackhole is invariant with respect to time reversal because it describes a non rotating black hole. On the other hand, the Kerr metric describes a rotating black hole and is not invariant with respect to time reversal. It is only invariant to the double transformation t->-t, \u03c6->-\u03c6. You can check it out yourself by looking at both spacetime metrics and doing those changes on each one. If you invert time in a Kerr black hole you will get a black hole spinning in the opposite direction.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2493.0,"score_ratio":1.5454545455}
{"post_id":"ini94w","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"If General Relativity is time-symmetric, then how do 2 objects orbiting each other radiate gravitational waves outwards, lose energy, and come closer, establishing an arrow of time? My belief was that a system of 2 objects orbiting each other is time-symmetric. Reverse the film, and they're still orbiting each other and both objects' gravities are still attractive. So what is the time-unsymmetric aspect of this setup, in order to cause the radiation of gravitational waves into only one direction of time?","c_root_id_A":"g47rau4","c_root_id_B":"g48bb7r","created_at_utc_A":1599381527,"created_at_utc_B":1599400401,"score_A":11,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Huh? Where did you get the idea that a physical process must look the same in both directions? It doesn't have to. This has nothing to do with gravitational waves. You could equally ask that about almost every physical process.","human_ref_B":"You are forgetting that you also need to reverse the gravitational waves. If you were to have a situation where the gravitational waves were being focused in towards the orbiting objects in just the right way, then you would get a situation where the objects orbit each other at an _increasing_ distance. Obviously this does not occur in reality because it would require a very strange gravitational wave pattern. The apparent irreversibility is due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (two orbiting objects is a lower entropy state than two objects in a lower orbit+some waves).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18874.0,"score_ratio":1.2727272727}
{"post_id":"bwj9b9","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Why does light can pass through transparent objects but not through opaque ones ?","c_root_id_A":"epyh6nj","c_root_id_B":"epyaab5","created_at_utc_A":1559634468,"created_at_utc_B":1559625079,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Sixty Symbols: Why is glass transparent?","human_ref_B":"This is a bit of an incomplete answer, but I'll give it a crack:   When a photon hits an atom, it has the chance to excite an electron in that atom to a higher energy state. When the electron settles, it will re-emit that light in a random direction. The net effect of this happening a bunch of times as a whole lot of photons pass through a solid, is the light is scattered and never actually penetrates through the solid. Atoms will only absorb photons with specific energies, but if we take into account the fact that most materials we see in our everyday life are made of a bunch of different kinds of atoms, all with different photon absorption properties, the majority of the electromagnetic spectrum is covered and not many photons pass by unaffected.   Glass is mostly made of silicon, which for the most part absorbs photons that are not visible photons. This means that visible light is able to get through the glass, but it still blocks frequencies of light that we can't see.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9389.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"fe7hw5","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Why does the shape\/density of a body not affect it's gravitational pull The idea that an object's gravity just somehow propogates from it's center of mass has always bothered me. I coped with it by assuming that all mass-having components of such a body would pull an object directly toward it causing both the top and bottom of the body to be pulling at an angle to it's center of mass, partly canceling out. This seems to suggest that gravity is stronger the lesser the body's volume. It also seems to suggest that as you get closer to the body, the extremities would pull less strongly causing a small reduction as the angle increases (not enough to overcome the inverse relationship to distance of the equation perhaps).   The equation for the force of gravity only seems to take mass, displacement, and the gravitational constant into account. Wouldn't the shape of the body have a notable impact on it's attractive force at moderately close distances though?","c_root_id_A":"fjmdllj","c_root_id_B":"fjmdkzw","created_at_utc_A":1583467729,"created_at_utc_B":1583467717,"score_A":12,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Yes and no.  It is true that the exact strength of gravity at a given location depends on the distribution of mass as well as the total amount of it. However large enough masses will always tend toward becoming spherical, because it decreases the total gravitational potential energy of the configuration. For a perfect sphere, the symmetry ensures that no matter where you are in relation to it the gravitational force will point directly toward the center. Nothing is exactly spherical of course, but for most large objects (including the earth)  this is a decent approximation for everyday applications. However geologists can and do map the slight variations of gravity at variations as a method of understanding the composition of the particular area.  Also if you\u2019re far enough away from something, the slight variations due to the objects shape become completely negligible, and it\u2019s perfect acceptable to just model the object as a point mass.","human_ref_B":"The shape of an object does effect it's gravity.  https:\/\/www.newscientist.com\/article\/dn24068-gravity-map-reveals-earths-extremes\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
{"post_id":"fe7hw5","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Why does the shape\/density of a body not affect it's gravitational pull The idea that an object's gravity just somehow propogates from it's center of mass has always bothered me. I coped with it by assuming that all mass-having components of such a body would pull an object directly toward it causing both the top and bottom of the body to be pulling at an angle to it's center of mass, partly canceling out. This seems to suggest that gravity is stronger the lesser the body's volume. It also seems to suggest that as you get closer to the body, the extremities would pull less strongly causing a small reduction as the angle increases (not enough to overcome the inverse relationship to distance of the equation perhaps).   The equation for the force of gravity only seems to take mass, displacement, and the gravitational constant into account. Wouldn't the shape of the body have a notable impact on it's attractive force at moderately close distances though?","c_root_id_A":"fjmj6mm","c_root_id_B":"fjmdkzw","created_at_utc_A":1583472135,"created_at_utc_B":1583467717,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Physics student here.  What you said is only true for point like bodies and uniform bodies with spherical symmetry. For any other body each tiny part of body pulls each tiny part of an other body and vice versa. And overall gravity will equal to sum of gravity of every small part.  Actual formula takes into account density and volume, on which mass depends. But it just happens that bodies with spherical symmetry act like all their mass is in center.","human_ref_B":"The shape of an object does effect it's gravity.  https:\/\/www.newscientist.com\/article\/dn24068-gravity-map-reveals-earths-extremes\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4418.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"uj66fl","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"so I am trying to prove one way speed of light... is there anyway I could make light goes in a circle? or if I use something like optical fibre and it can bends the light but does that count as one way or multiple way?   &#x200B;  my experiment idea is:  I have a thing that is like CERN's particle accelerator, and my light beam would run through the \"ring\" or \"circle\" or whatever you call it. Then the light beam should go back to its original point then I would use a tooth wheel (similar to the one in Fizeau's experiment)?   &#x200B;  &#x200B;  sorry if this is a dumb idea, I am just a dumb 14yo trying to contribute to physics \ud83d\ude05\ud83d\ude47\ud83c\udffb\u200d\u2642","c_root_id_A":"i7h4226","c_root_id_B":"i7gwzhx","created_at_utc_A":1651784757,"created_at_utc_B":1651781907,"score_A":44,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"I've got some slightly bad news. Right now, you don't know enough to contribute to physics. I don't think there's many 14 year olds that do, because a huge part is building up your background of knowledge.  But, 14 is the perfect age to get into the nitty gritty, no longer are you measuring gravity by dropping a penny and counting. No, now is the time to build a Van der Graaf Generator, or a Michelson interferometer, or a neutron detector. There are tons of instructions on how to build DIY physics instruments, and lots of physicists got their start tinkering like this. You won't discover anything new with these projects, but YOU will learn so much useful science and hands on skills.  Now I need to warn you that when doing DIY physics that SAFETY IS HUGELY IMPORTANT. I would recommend starting off seeing if there's a science teacher at your school or a physics club that can provide some oversight there. I never did, but it's lucky I still have all my fingers after my rocketry phase.","human_ref_B":"If you think there is anything to prove related to the one way speed of light you don't understand the problem with measuring the one way speed of light.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2850.0,"score_ratio":1.6296296296}
{"post_id":"uj66fl","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"so I am trying to prove one way speed of light... is there anyway I could make light goes in a circle? or if I use something like optical fibre and it can bends the light but does that count as one way or multiple way?   &#x200B;  my experiment idea is:  I have a thing that is like CERN's particle accelerator, and my light beam would run through the \"ring\" or \"circle\" or whatever you call it. Then the light beam should go back to its original point then I would use a tooth wheel (similar to the one in Fizeau's experiment)?   &#x200B;  &#x200B;  sorry if this is a dumb idea, I am just a dumb 14yo trying to contribute to physics \ud83d\ude05\ud83d\ude47\ud83c\udffb\u200d\u2642","c_root_id_A":"i7h4226","c_root_id_B":"i7h2wuo","created_at_utc_A":1651784757,"created_at_utc_B":1651784292,"score_A":44,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"I've got some slightly bad news. Right now, you don't know enough to contribute to physics. I don't think there's many 14 year olds that do, because a huge part is building up your background of knowledge.  But, 14 is the perfect age to get into the nitty gritty, no longer are you measuring gravity by dropping a penny and counting. No, now is the time to build a Van der Graaf Generator, or a Michelson interferometer, or a neutron detector. There are tons of instructions on how to build DIY physics instruments, and lots of physicists got their start tinkering like this. You won't discover anything new with these projects, but YOU will learn so much useful science and hands on skills.  Now I need to warn you that when doing DIY physics that SAFETY IS HUGELY IMPORTANT. I would recommend starting off seeing if there's a science teacher at your school or a physics club that can provide some oversight there. I never did, but it's lucky I still have all my fingers after my rocketry phase.","human_ref_B":"If the light goes in a circle, that means it's traveling more than just one-way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":465.0,"score_ratio":1.6923076923}
{"post_id":"jnui8j","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"[Computational Physics] Should I upgrade my system? Hello to everyone, I'm a physics undergraduate in Italy and I've just started my first course of computational physics. Since it's a subject that I really like I plan to continue exploring it in the next years, mainly regarding particle physics and fluid dynamics. Currently my PC is a laptop with a i7-6700HQ (quad core), GTX 950M 2GB and 16G of ddr4 RAM and, for the few things I've done it held up pretty well. Do you think it is worth it to upgrade my system (I was thinking about a ~900\u20ac desktop) or, for the level at which computational physics are done at university, this system will work?","c_root_id_A":"gb4vqih","c_root_id_B":"gb4hs9w","created_at_utc_A":1604510735,"created_at_utc_B":1604504138,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"You absolutely need a monster graphics card, mechanical keyboard, widescreen curved monitor and a shit load of LEDs in your tower to do good computational physics. It's integral the the process.","human_ref_B":"What everyone else has said is true for research. For classes, your university might not give you access to serious workstations. But (i) the assignments are reasonable in terms of computing power if you're expected to run them at home (ii) 900\u20ac isn't going to buy you a serious 2020 workstation anyway.  Plus there's little point in buying new hardware if you're not using yours to its full capacity. Unless you're already writing parallelized code and you're pushing all your cores to their limit, or you're doing a *ton* of CUDA and machine learning on your own time, dropping 900\u20ac to get a 0.3 GHz increase in CPU clock speed to get your stuff to run 10% faster is a total waste of money. You have enough already to run small simulations for classes at a decent speed.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6597.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"jnui8j","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"[Computational Physics] Should I upgrade my system? Hello to everyone, I'm a physics undergraduate in Italy and I've just started my first course of computational physics. Since it's a subject that I really like I plan to continue exploring it in the next years, mainly regarding particle physics and fluid dynamics. Currently my PC is a laptop with a i7-6700HQ (quad core), GTX 950M 2GB and 16G of ddr4 RAM and, for the few things I've done it held up pretty well. Do you think it is worth it to upgrade my system (I was thinking about a ~900\u20ac desktop) or, for the level at which computational physics are done at university, this system will work?","c_root_id_A":"gb4vqih","c_root_id_B":"gb4fknh","created_at_utc_A":1604510735,"created_at_utc_B":1604503044,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You absolutely need a monster graphics card, mechanical keyboard, widescreen curved monitor and a shit load of LEDs in your tower to do good computational physics. It's integral the the process.","human_ref_B":"I want to second u\/moss-fett and u\/HattedFerret. I've done computational condensed matter for 5 years now and I was using a surface pro at first which did just fine since all o really needed was an ssh port. I upgraded to and i7 and 12 GB of RAM mostly because I could and for a specific industry internship at a startup. You really just need an ssh window and maybe run some python code to make plots. I don't ever run any serious simulations on my laptop, just small test cases as an early stage simulation design step sometimes. Everything else gets run on a supercomputing cluster, which is standard practice at any computational group.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7691.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"jnui8j","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"[Computational Physics] Should I upgrade my system? Hello to everyone, I'm a physics undergraduate in Italy and I've just started my first course of computational physics. Since it's a subject that I really like I plan to continue exploring it in the next years, mainly regarding particle physics and fluid dynamics. Currently my PC is a laptop with a i7-6700HQ (quad core), GTX 950M 2GB and 16G of ddr4 RAM and, for the few things I've done it held up pretty well. Do you think it is worth it to upgrade my system (I was thinking about a ~900\u20ac desktop) or, for the level at which computational physics are done at university, this system will work?","c_root_id_A":"gb4hs9w","c_root_id_B":"gb4fknh","created_at_utc_A":1604504138,"created_at_utc_B":1604503044,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What everyone else has said is true for research. For classes, your university might not give you access to serious workstations. But (i) the assignments are reasonable in terms of computing power if you're expected to run them at home (ii) 900\u20ac isn't going to buy you a serious 2020 workstation anyway.  Plus there's little point in buying new hardware if you're not using yours to its full capacity. Unless you're already writing parallelized code and you're pushing all your cores to their limit, or you're doing a *ton* of CUDA and machine learning on your own time, dropping 900\u20ac to get a 0.3 GHz increase in CPU clock speed to get your stuff to run 10% faster is a total waste of money. You have enough already to run small simulations for classes at a decent speed.","human_ref_B":"I want to second u\/moss-fett and u\/HattedFerret. I've done computational condensed matter for 5 years now and I was using a surface pro at first which did just fine since all o really needed was an ssh port. I upgraded to and i7 and 12 GB of RAM mostly because I could and for a specific industry internship at a startup. You really just need an ssh window and maybe run some python code to make plots. I don't ever run any serious simulations on my laptop, just small test cases as an early stage simulation design step sometimes. Everything else gets run on a supercomputing cluster, which is standard practice at any computational group.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1094.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"l1v1li","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Why can\u2019t the wings of the aeroplane be used to generate electricity from the Earth\u2019s magnetic field? We know that moving conductors in a magnetic field generate EMF. The plane flies in the Earth\u2019s magnetic field. Is there any way to use this EMF to generate electricity (perhaps by completing the circuit) and using it to power the plane?  In any sense, is this usable energy at all? (Even if it\u2019s negligible)","c_root_id_A":"gk1xmt3","c_root_id_B":"gk1sk9f","created_at_utc_A":1611230955,"created_at_utc_B":1611226283,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It's also worth noting that even if you could somehow create a useful changing magnetic flux to produce EMF on a plane, the earth's magnetic field just isn't all that strong.     The magnetic field intensity is about 3 x 10^(-4) T. (About 1% of the magnetic strength of a typical refrigerator magnet.)  https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field)","human_ref_B":"Moving conductors in a magnetic field do not generate EMF.  Moving conductors in a changing magnetic field will do that. Supposing that you could do that, the induced EMF would generate its own magnetic field (assuming that there is current flowing) which would oppose the field you are flying through, thus requiring more energy. TANSTAAFL","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4672.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"7mgahb","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"How can black holes grow if nothing passes the event horizon in our frame? Let's say a black hole sucks up a star. Its mass should increase and we see should see the event horizon grow. However if we would look closely not one single atom of the star should cross the event horizon according to time dilation.   So how does that work itself out?","c_root_id_A":"drtpzdd","c_root_id_B":"drtqpyh","created_at_utc_A":1514396735,"created_at_utc_B":1514397545,"score_A":3,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=mht-1c4wc0Q","human_ref_B":"In your perspective, as the infalling object approaches a point on the horizon slower and slower, it carries along with it its gravitational field lines shooting out to infinity. The number of field lines is equal (in some units) to the mass of the object. As it gets closer, these field lines do a very peculiar thing. They shoot sideways from the object, moving parallel to the horizon just above it up to some other point right above the horizon, then they suddenly shoot out radially from there to infinity. In addition the lines distribute themselves uniformly over the horizon: there is a constant number of field lines of the infalling object per unit horizon area. While still emanating from the body outside the BH, the field lines seem to really want to be field lines for the black hole. From afar, it looks just like the black has increased in mass by the mass of the object. If we define as it's natural mass through thennumber of gravitational field lines at infinity, then the BH has by all means grown.  This is actually a piece of a very deep and interesting phenomenon with black holes in which if you purposefully choose \"bad\" coordinates so that infall takes infinite time (as we are doing above) then it's like the black hole \"reenacts\" in some weird codified way the infall using only outside-the-horizon physics. It's eerie.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":810.0,"score_ratio":13.6666666667}
{"post_id":"a0luc6","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"What happens if water has no room to expand when freezing? Say you have a hollow container made from an extremely durable material such as titanium or something similar. This container is a perfect sphere with no imperfections or cracks or fault lines or anything of the sort. The container is 100% filled with water. There is zero room for air inside the container. This container is sitting in a room that is constantly 28 degrees Fahrenheit with no fluctuations. What happens? Does the water freeze anyway with no room to expand? Will it freeze and expand anyway and break the container? Or will the water simply refuse to freeze due to having no extra space for expansion?","c_root_id_A":"eajd4vx","c_root_id_B":"eairdir","created_at_utc_A":1543276993,"created_at_utc_B":1543260235,"score_A":19,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There's 18 different types of water ice (\"phases\"), if you force extreme enough temperatures and pressures you'll generate phases that aren't the common freezer stuff: https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ice#Phases","human_ref_B":"Am I missing something or does water contract, not expand, when freezing?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16758.0,"score_ratio":9.5}
{"post_id":"yrzfys","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Does a full refrigerator use more energy than an empty one? Two identical refrigerators set to 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  A is empty, B has a 24 pack of canned beer, already chilled to 40 degrees.     Situation 1:  The door is never opened.   My intuition is that they use the same amount of energy. Is that correct?  Situation 2: The door is opened once a day.  My intuition is that fridge B will use less energy.  When you open fridge A, warm air comes in that needs to be chilled.  In fridge B, less warm air enters because of the beer.  Beer has a high specific heat and so holds its chill while the fridge door is open.  Is that correct?","c_root_id_A":"ivwkors","c_root_id_B":"ivxsy1k","created_at_utc_A":1668137093,"created_at_utc_B":1668169352,"score_A":12,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Yes I think you\u2019re right on both counts.","human_ref_B":"In a simplified textbook world you are right about both situations, above the effect of opening the door is small enough that it's not worth worrying about that.  But in real life, in situation 1 there can be a quite significant difference. That's because the refrigerator's cooling system, the heat pump, cycles on and off controlled by a thermostat.  When there's more thermal mass inside, it will cycle on and off more slowly.  In an idealized model, that wouldn't matter. If it ran 25% of the time, it wouldn't matter whether that was 1 hour out of four hours or one minute out of 4 minutes.  But the actual vapor compression refrigeration cycle relies on maintaining a pressure difference between the condenser and the evaporator.  Each time it turns on, the compressor needs to first build up that pressure difference before much of work the compressor is doing goes into refrigeration.  Then when it turns off, the pressures equalize between the condenser and evaporator, losing the work that was done to build up that pressure difference.  So there's a certain amount of energy wasted for each cycle, and the slower cycling fridge with the higher thermal mass uses less energy over the course of a day.  Note that better refrigerators will have smart* controls that will avoid having it cycle too fast even if there's very little inside.  But in order to prevent the short cycling, they have to allow the temperature inside to swing up and down more than it would if they allowed the fast cycling, and more than it would if the fridge was full.  Having the temperature cycle up and down a lot is worse for keeping food fresh, so even in that case, having more thermal mass inside is beneficial even if its effect on energy savings is reduced.  *By smart I mean a really basic level of well-designed controls, not being connected to the internet or having a color touch panel on the front or anything like that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32259.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"yrzfys","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Does a full refrigerator use more energy than an empty one? Two identical refrigerators set to 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  A is empty, B has a 24 pack of canned beer, already chilled to 40 degrees.     Situation 1:  The door is never opened.   My intuition is that they use the same amount of energy. Is that correct?  Situation 2: The door is opened once a day.  My intuition is that fridge B will use less energy.  When you open fridge A, warm air comes in that needs to be chilled.  In fridge B, less warm air enters because of the beer.  Beer has a high specific heat and so holds its chill while the fridge door is open.  Is that correct?","c_root_id_A":"ivxhojb","c_root_id_B":"ivxsy1k","created_at_utc_A":1668160595,"created_at_utc_B":1668169352,"score_A":7,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I commented situation 2 a couple days ago in a german subreddit. Here just thrown into a translator:  &#x200B;  The effect is minimal. Air has a heat capacity of 1.2 kJ\/(K*m\u00b3). With a temperature difference of 15 K to the room air and a refrigerator volume of 200l, a maximum of 3.6 kJ would have to be postcooled. Regarding the thermal efficiency, I only found a Leifi page where a value of 2 is mentioned. You would need 1.8kJ electrical energy for the 3.6kJ. That is 0.5 Wh.  In comparison, a refrigerator consumes 200kWh\/a (one from Ikea). That would be 550 Wh per day. So if you open the fridge 10 times a day, you could save 1% of the energy if the fridge was completely full. In reality, probably even less, because even a full refrigerator is certainly only half full and also not the complete air is exchanged.","human_ref_B":"In a simplified textbook world you are right about both situations, above the effect of opening the door is small enough that it's not worth worrying about that.  But in real life, in situation 1 there can be a quite significant difference. That's because the refrigerator's cooling system, the heat pump, cycles on and off controlled by a thermostat.  When there's more thermal mass inside, it will cycle on and off more slowly.  In an idealized model, that wouldn't matter. If it ran 25% of the time, it wouldn't matter whether that was 1 hour out of four hours or one minute out of 4 minutes.  But the actual vapor compression refrigeration cycle relies on maintaining a pressure difference between the condenser and the evaporator.  Each time it turns on, the compressor needs to first build up that pressure difference before much of work the compressor is doing goes into refrigeration.  Then when it turns off, the pressures equalize between the condenser and evaporator, losing the work that was done to build up that pressure difference.  So there's a certain amount of energy wasted for each cycle, and the slower cycling fridge with the higher thermal mass uses less energy over the course of a day.  Note that better refrigerators will have smart* controls that will avoid having it cycle too fast even if there's very little inside.  But in order to prevent the short cycling, they have to allow the temperature inside to swing up and down more than it would if they allowed the fast cycling, and more than it would if the fridge was full.  Having the temperature cycle up and down a lot is worse for keeping food fresh, so even in that case, having more thermal mass inside is beneficial even if its effect on energy savings is reduced.  *By smart I mean a really basic level of well-designed controls, not being connected to the internet or having a color touch panel on the front or anything like that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8757.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429}
{"post_id":"yrzfys","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Does a full refrigerator use more energy than an empty one? Two identical refrigerators set to 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  A is empty, B has a 24 pack of canned beer, already chilled to 40 degrees.     Situation 1:  The door is never opened.   My intuition is that they use the same amount of energy. Is that correct?  Situation 2: The door is opened once a day.  My intuition is that fridge B will use less energy.  When you open fridge A, warm air comes in that needs to be chilled.  In fridge B, less warm air enters because of the beer.  Beer has a high specific heat and so holds its chill while the fridge door is open.  Is that correct?","c_root_id_A":"ivxsy1k","c_root_id_B":"ivwr9p9","created_at_utc_A":1668169352,"created_at_utc_B":1668140544,"score_A":15,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In a simplified textbook world you are right about both situations, above the effect of opening the door is small enough that it's not worth worrying about that.  But in real life, in situation 1 there can be a quite significant difference. That's because the refrigerator's cooling system, the heat pump, cycles on and off controlled by a thermostat.  When there's more thermal mass inside, it will cycle on and off more slowly.  In an idealized model, that wouldn't matter. If it ran 25% of the time, it wouldn't matter whether that was 1 hour out of four hours or one minute out of 4 minutes.  But the actual vapor compression refrigeration cycle relies on maintaining a pressure difference between the condenser and the evaporator.  Each time it turns on, the compressor needs to first build up that pressure difference before much of work the compressor is doing goes into refrigeration.  Then when it turns off, the pressures equalize between the condenser and evaporator, losing the work that was done to build up that pressure difference.  So there's a certain amount of energy wasted for each cycle, and the slower cycling fridge with the higher thermal mass uses less energy over the course of a day.  Note that better refrigerators will have smart* controls that will avoid having it cycle too fast even if there's very little inside.  But in order to prevent the short cycling, they have to allow the temperature inside to swing up and down more than it would if they allowed the fast cycling, and more than it would if the fridge was full.  Having the temperature cycle up and down a lot is worse for keeping food fresh, so even in that case, having more thermal mass inside is beneficial even if its effect on energy savings is reduced.  *By smart I mean a really basic level of well-designed controls, not being connected to the internet or having a color touch panel on the front or anything like that.","human_ref_B":"Your logic is correct, in my opinion,","labels":1,"seconds_difference":28808.0,"score_ratio":7.5}
{"post_id":"yrzfys","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Does a full refrigerator use more energy than an empty one? Two identical refrigerators set to 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  A is empty, B has a 24 pack of canned beer, already chilled to 40 degrees.     Situation 1:  The door is never opened.   My intuition is that they use the same amount of energy. Is that correct?  Situation 2: The door is opened once a day.  My intuition is that fridge B will use less energy.  When you open fridge A, warm air comes in that needs to be chilled.  In fridge B, less warm air enters because of the beer.  Beer has a high specific heat and so holds its chill while the fridge door is open.  Is that correct?","c_root_id_A":"ivxsy1k","c_root_id_B":"ivx0u1z","created_at_utc_A":1668169352,"created_at_utc_B":1668146605,"score_A":15,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"In a simplified textbook world you are right about both situations, above the effect of opening the door is small enough that it's not worth worrying about that.  But in real life, in situation 1 there can be a quite significant difference. That's because the refrigerator's cooling system, the heat pump, cycles on and off controlled by a thermostat.  When there's more thermal mass inside, it will cycle on and off more slowly.  In an idealized model, that wouldn't matter. If it ran 25% of the time, it wouldn't matter whether that was 1 hour out of four hours or one minute out of 4 minutes.  But the actual vapor compression refrigeration cycle relies on maintaining a pressure difference between the condenser and the evaporator.  Each time it turns on, the compressor needs to first build up that pressure difference before much of work the compressor is doing goes into refrigeration.  Then when it turns off, the pressures equalize between the condenser and evaporator, losing the work that was done to build up that pressure difference.  So there's a certain amount of energy wasted for each cycle, and the slower cycling fridge with the higher thermal mass uses less energy over the course of a day.  Note that better refrigerators will have smart* controls that will avoid having it cycle too fast even if there's very little inside.  But in order to prevent the short cycling, they have to allow the temperature inside to swing up and down more than it would if they allowed the fast cycling, and more than it would if the fridge was full.  Having the temperature cycle up and down a lot is worse for keeping food fresh, so even in that case, having more thermal mass inside is beneficial even if its effect on energy savings is reduced.  *By smart I mean a really basic level of well-designed controls, not being connected to the internet or having a color touch panel on the front or anything like that.","human_ref_B":"Air has less heat capacity than the walls of the refrigerator and its contents. Quickly opening the door allows the air to escape but the walls and contents retain their temperature. When the door is closed, the pump turns on to remove any heated air that entered. B will be slightly better but it will be a very small effect, possibly not easily measurable","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22747.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"yrzfys","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Does a full refrigerator use more energy than an empty one? Two identical refrigerators set to 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  A is empty, B has a 24 pack of canned beer, already chilled to 40 degrees.     Situation 1:  The door is never opened.   My intuition is that they use the same amount of energy. Is that correct?  Situation 2: The door is opened once a day.  My intuition is that fridge B will use less energy.  When you open fridge A, warm air comes in that needs to be chilled.  In fridge B, less warm air enters because of the beer.  Beer has a high specific heat and so holds its chill while the fridge door is open.  Is that correct?","c_root_id_A":"ivxaibl","c_root_id_B":"ivxsy1k","created_at_utc_A":1668154213,"created_at_utc_B":1668169352,"score_A":2,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"You're absolutely right in situation 1.  Situation 2 is a bit more complicated. You're right but not because of the reason you gave.  The full fridge will hold its inside temperature longer than the empty one because of heat capacity as you correctly point out. Note that it is temperature not energy. Even though its temperature might stay lower for longer it will take up the same amount of heat energy as the empty one, all other things equal. It will need to put in the same amount of work to cool it down to the set temperature after opening.  The one reason why the full fridge will in practice take on less heat energy is merely because much of the volume that could be filled with warm air will be occupied by cold cans of beer.   If that wasn't the case the two scenarios would again be equal in terms of energy.","human_ref_B":"In a simplified textbook world you are right about both situations, above the effect of opening the door is small enough that it's not worth worrying about that.  But in real life, in situation 1 there can be a quite significant difference. That's because the refrigerator's cooling system, the heat pump, cycles on and off controlled by a thermostat.  When there's more thermal mass inside, it will cycle on and off more slowly.  In an idealized model, that wouldn't matter. If it ran 25% of the time, it wouldn't matter whether that was 1 hour out of four hours or one minute out of 4 minutes.  But the actual vapor compression refrigeration cycle relies on maintaining a pressure difference between the condenser and the evaporator.  Each time it turns on, the compressor needs to first build up that pressure difference before much of work the compressor is doing goes into refrigeration.  Then when it turns off, the pressures equalize between the condenser and evaporator, losing the work that was done to build up that pressure difference.  So there's a certain amount of energy wasted for each cycle, and the slower cycling fridge with the higher thermal mass uses less energy over the course of a day.  Note that better refrigerators will have smart* controls that will avoid having it cycle too fast even if there's very little inside.  But in order to prevent the short cycling, they have to allow the temperature inside to swing up and down more than it would if they allowed the fast cycling, and more than it would if the fridge was full.  Having the temperature cycle up and down a lot is worse for keeping food fresh, so even in that case, having more thermal mass inside is beneficial even if its effect on energy savings is reduced.  *By smart I mean a really basic level of well-designed controls, not being connected to the internet or having a color touch panel on the front or anything like that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15139.0,"score_ratio":7.5}
{"post_id":"yrzfys","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Does a full refrigerator use more energy than an empty one? Two identical refrigerators set to 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  A is empty, B has a 24 pack of canned beer, already chilled to 40 degrees.     Situation 1:  The door is never opened.   My intuition is that they use the same amount of energy. Is that correct?  Situation 2: The door is opened once a day.  My intuition is that fridge B will use less energy.  When you open fridge A, warm air comes in that needs to be chilled.  In fridge B, less warm air enters because of the beer.  Beer has a high specific heat and so holds its chill while the fridge door is open.  Is that correct?","c_root_id_A":"ivxsy1k","c_root_id_B":"ivwu61o","created_at_utc_A":1668169352,"created_at_utc_B":1668142244,"score_A":15,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In a simplified textbook world you are right about both situations, above the effect of opening the door is small enough that it's not worth worrying about that.  But in real life, in situation 1 there can be a quite significant difference. That's because the refrigerator's cooling system, the heat pump, cycles on and off controlled by a thermostat.  When there's more thermal mass inside, it will cycle on and off more slowly.  In an idealized model, that wouldn't matter. If it ran 25% of the time, it wouldn't matter whether that was 1 hour out of four hours or one minute out of 4 minutes.  But the actual vapor compression refrigeration cycle relies on maintaining a pressure difference between the condenser and the evaporator.  Each time it turns on, the compressor needs to first build up that pressure difference before much of work the compressor is doing goes into refrigeration.  Then when it turns off, the pressures equalize between the condenser and evaporator, losing the work that was done to build up that pressure difference.  So there's a certain amount of energy wasted for each cycle, and the slower cycling fridge with the higher thermal mass uses less energy over the course of a day.  Note that better refrigerators will have smart* controls that will avoid having it cycle too fast even if there's very little inside.  But in order to prevent the short cycling, they have to allow the temperature inside to swing up and down more than it would if they allowed the fast cycling, and more than it would if the fridge was full.  Having the temperature cycle up and down a lot is worse for keeping food fresh, so even in that case, having more thermal mass inside is beneficial even if its effect on energy savings is reduced.  *By smart I mean a really basic level of well-designed controls, not being connected to the internet or having a color touch panel on the front or anything like that.","human_ref_B":"The beer may hold the chill more, but you still lost cold (or rather, gained heat\/energy) from the air transfer. For a short door open time, where the contents of the fridge dont significantly change temperature while the door is open, you will still have to remove the energy that was added to the fridge when the door opened, so it will be roughly the same.  Of course fridge B has less air volume in it, so maybe if all the air cycles out fast enough in both fridges, B would have less cold air to lose... but theres also more thermal mass to cool off in that time with a higher surface area...  My intuition says it would be equal for a short door opening","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27108.0,"score_ratio":7.5}
{"post_id":"yrzfys","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Does a full refrigerator use more energy than an empty one? Two identical refrigerators set to 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  A is empty, B has a 24 pack of canned beer, already chilled to 40 degrees.     Situation 1:  The door is never opened.   My intuition is that they use the same amount of energy. Is that correct?  Situation 2: The door is opened once a day.  My intuition is that fridge B will use less energy.  When you open fridge A, warm air comes in that needs to be chilled.  In fridge B, less warm air enters because of the beer.  Beer has a high specific heat and so holds its chill while the fridge door is open.  Is that correct?","c_root_id_A":"ivwr9p9","c_root_id_B":"ivxhojb","created_at_utc_A":1668140544,"created_at_utc_B":1668160595,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Your logic is correct, in my opinion,","human_ref_B":"I commented situation 2 a couple days ago in a german subreddit. Here just thrown into a translator:  &#x200B;  The effect is minimal. Air has a heat capacity of 1.2 kJ\/(K*m\u00b3). With a temperature difference of 15 K to the room air and a refrigerator volume of 200l, a maximum of 3.6 kJ would have to be postcooled. Regarding the thermal efficiency, I only found a Leifi page where a value of 2 is mentioned. You would need 1.8kJ electrical energy for the 3.6kJ. That is 0.5 Wh.  In comparison, a refrigerator consumes 200kWh\/a (one from Ikea). That would be 550 Wh per day. So if you open the fridge 10 times a day, you could save 1% of the energy if the fridge was completely full. In reality, probably even less, because even a full refrigerator is certainly only half full and also not the complete air is exchanged.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20051.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"yrzfys","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Does a full refrigerator use more energy than an empty one? Two identical refrigerators set to 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  A is empty, B has a 24 pack of canned beer, already chilled to 40 degrees.     Situation 1:  The door is never opened.   My intuition is that they use the same amount of energy. Is that correct?  Situation 2: The door is opened once a day.  My intuition is that fridge B will use less energy.  When you open fridge A, warm air comes in that needs to be chilled.  In fridge B, less warm air enters because of the beer.  Beer has a high specific heat and so holds its chill while the fridge door is open.  Is that correct?","c_root_id_A":"ivxhojb","c_root_id_B":"ivx0u1z","created_at_utc_A":1668160595,"created_at_utc_B":1668146605,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I commented situation 2 a couple days ago in a german subreddit. Here just thrown into a translator:  &#x200B;  The effect is minimal. Air has a heat capacity of 1.2 kJ\/(K*m\u00b3). With a temperature difference of 15 K to the room air and a refrigerator volume of 200l, a maximum of 3.6 kJ would have to be postcooled. Regarding the thermal efficiency, I only found a Leifi page where a value of 2 is mentioned. You would need 1.8kJ electrical energy for the 3.6kJ. That is 0.5 Wh.  In comparison, a refrigerator consumes 200kWh\/a (one from Ikea). That would be 550 Wh per day. So if you open the fridge 10 times a day, you could save 1% of the energy if the fridge was completely full. In reality, probably even less, because even a full refrigerator is certainly only half full and also not the complete air is exchanged.","human_ref_B":"Air has less heat capacity than the walls of the refrigerator and its contents. Quickly opening the door allows the air to escape but the walls and contents retain their temperature. When the door is closed, the pump turns on to remove any heated air that entered. B will be slightly better but it will be a very small effect, possibly not easily measurable","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13990.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"yrzfys","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Does a full refrigerator use more energy than an empty one? Two identical refrigerators set to 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  A is empty, B has a 24 pack of canned beer, already chilled to 40 degrees.     Situation 1:  The door is never opened.   My intuition is that they use the same amount of energy. Is that correct?  Situation 2: The door is opened once a day.  My intuition is that fridge B will use less energy.  When you open fridge A, warm air comes in that needs to be chilled.  In fridge B, less warm air enters because of the beer.  Beer has a high specific heat and so holds its chill while the fridge door is open.  Is that correct?","c_root_id_A":"ivxhojb","c_root_id_B":"ivxaibl","created_at_utc_A":1668160595,"created_at_utc_B":1668154213,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I commented situation 2 a couple days ago in a german subreddit. Here just thrown into a translator:  &#x200B;  The effect is minimal. Air has a heat capacity of 1.2 kJ\/(K*m\u00b3). With a temperature difference of 15 K to the room air and a refrigerator volume of 200l, a maximum of 3.6 kJ would have to be postcooled. Regarding the thermal efficiency, I only found a Leifi page where a value of 2 is mentioned. You would need 1.8kJ electrical energy for the 3.6kJ. That is 0.5 Wh.  In comparison, a refrigerator consumes 200kWh\/a (one from Ikea). That would be 550 Wh per day. So if you open the fridge 10 times a day, you could save 1% of the energy if the fridge was completely full. In reality, probably even less, because even a full refrigerator is certainly only half full and also not the complete air is exchanged.","human_ref_B":"You're absolutely right in situation 1.  Situation 2 is a bit more complicated. You're right but not because of the reason you gave.  The full fridge will hold its inside temperature longer than the empty one because of heat capacity as you correctly point out. Note that it is temperature not energy. Even though its temperature might stay lower for longer it will take up the same amount of heat energy as the empty one, all other things equal. It will need to put in the same amount of work to cool it down to the set temperature after opening.  The one reason why the full fridge will in practice take on less heat energy is merely because much of the volume that could be filled with warm air will be occupied by cold cans of beer.   If that wasn't the case the two scenarios would again be equal in terms of energy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6382.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"yrzfys","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Does a full refrigerator use more energy than an empty one? Two identical refrigerators set to 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  A is empty, B has a 24 pack of canned beer, already chilled to 40 degrees.     Situation 1:  The door is never opened.   My intuition is that they use the same amount of energy. Is that correct?  Situation 2: The door is opened once a day.  My intuition is that fridge B will use less energy.  When you open fridge A, warm air comes in that needs to be chilled.  In fridge B, less warm air enters because of the beer.  Beer has a high specific heat and so holds its chill while the fridge door is open.  Is that correct?","c_root_id_A":"ivxhojb","c_root_id_B":"ivwu61o","created_at_utc_A":1668160595,"created_at_utc_B":1668142244,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I commented situation 2 a couple days ago in a german subreddit. Here just thrown into a translator:  &#x200B;  The effect is minimal. Air has a heat capacity of 1.2 kJ\/(K*m\u00b3). With a temperature difference of 15 K to the room air and a refrigerator volume of 200l, a maximum of 3.6 kJ would have to be postcooled. Regarding the thermal efficiency, I only found a Leifi page where a value of 2 is mentioned. You would need 1.8kJ electrical energy for the 3.6kJ. That is 0.5 Wh.  In comparison, a refrigerator consumes 200kWh\/a (one from Ikea). That would be 550 Wh per day. So if you open the fridge 10 times a day, you could save 1% of the energy if the fridge was completely full. In reality, probably even less, because even a full refrigerator is certainly only half full and also not the complete air is exchanged.","human_ref_B":"The beer may hold the chill more, but you still lost cold (or rather, gained heat\/energy) from the air transfer. For a short door open time, where the contents of the fridge dont significantly change temperature while the door is open, you will still have to remove the energy that was added to the fridge when the door opened, so it will be roughly the same.  Of course fridge B has less air volume in it, so maybe if all the air cycles out fast enough in both fridges, B would have less cold air to lose... but theres also more thermal mass to cool off in that time with a higher surface area...  My intuition says it would be equal for a short door opening","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18351.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"yrzfys","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Does a full refrigerator use more energy than an empty one? Two identical refrigerators set to 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  A is empty, B has a 24 pack of canned beer, already chilled to 40 degrees.     Situation 1:  The door is never opened.   My intuition is that they use the same amount of energy. Is that correct?  Situation 2: The door is opened once a day.  My intuition is that fridge B will use less energy.  When you open fridge A, warm air comes in that needs to be chilled.  In fridge B, less warm air enters because of the beer.  Beer has a high specific heat and so holds its chill while the fridge door is open.  Is that correct?","c_root_id_A":"ivwr9p9","c_root_id_B":"ivx0u1z","created_at_utc_A":1668140544,"created_at_utc_B":1668146605,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Your logic is correct, in my opinion,","human_ref_B":"Air has less heat capacity than the walls of the refrigerator and its contents. Quickly opening the door allows the air to escape but the walls and contents retain their temperature. When the door is closed, the pump turns on to remove any heated air that entered. B will be slightly better but it will be a very small effect, possibly not easily measurable","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6061.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"yrzfys","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Does a full refrigerator use more energy than an empty one? Two identical refrigerators set to 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  A is empty, B has a 24 pack of canned beer, already chilled to 40 degrees.     Situation 1:  The door is never opened.   My intuition is that they use the same amount of energy. Is that correct?  Situation 2: The door is opened once a day.  My intuition is that fridge B will use less energy.  When you open fridge A, warm air comes in that needs to be chilled.  In fridge B, less warm air enters because of the beer.  Beer has a high specific heat and so holds its chill while the fridge door is open.  Is that correct?","c_root_id_A":"ivwu61o","c_root_id_B":"ivx0u1z","created_at_utc_A":1668142244,"created_at_utc_B":1668146605,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The beer may hold the chill more, but you still lost cold (or rather, gained heat\/energy) from the air transfer. For a short door open time, where the contents of the fridge dont significantly change temperature while the door is open, you will still have to remove the energy that was added to the fridge when the door opened, so it will be roughly the same.  Of course fridge B has less air volume in it, so maybe if all the air cycles out fast enough in both fridges, B would have less cold air to lose... but theres also more thermal mass to cool off in that time with a higher surface area...  My intuition says it would be equal for a short door opening","human_ref_B":"Air has less heat capacity than the walls of the refrigerator and its contents. Quickly opening the door allows the air to escape but the walls and contents retain their temperature. When the door is closed, the pump turns on to remove any heated air that entered. B will be slightly better but it will be a very small effect, possibly not easily measurable","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4361.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"l17p4o","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"I am intrigued by gravitational waves, and would like some advice to develop a career in the field. I am really interested in physics, astronomy, and (hence) astrophysics, and want to develop a career in the field. I have been lurking here to understand what has been going on, and try to understand whatever I can, and after some thought, I have decided to try and get into the emerging field of gravitational wave astronomy.  I am still young, I am in highschool, and studying basic physics. I am passionate about it, and have always been fascinated by what research can reveal about the universe that we live in. I would love to be a part of the discovery, and to be honest, my only \"life goal\" is to make a mark in the field of physics. I am amazed by what gravitational waves can reveal. Supernovae, events relating to black holes, neutron stars, and IF, IF they could exist, then a form of quantization of gravity. That's the most thrilling part, I think. I freak about these things, and try to explain it to my classmates, and as a result, I have been declared a maniac. I don't mind that.  Anyway, what I want from the people here is advice about what can I do to make my chances better. I will participate in the physics and astronomy olympiads, and do whatever I can to strengthen my basics, but to get where I want to, what courses will I need to take? Are there any specific topics\/subjects I could advance into for a headstart? I want to make the most out of this, and your help would be appreciated. Thank you.","c_root_id_A":"gjxzpgo","c_root_id_B":"gjxyza6","created_at_utc_A":1611150876,"created_at_utc_B":1611150458,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If you can, go to a university that has professors who work in that field and get involved with undergraduate research. The two biggest collaborations studying gravitational waves that I'm aware of are LIGO and NANOGRAV, so look into those. You'll want to do well in your undergraduate studies and get into a grad school with advisors that work in the field.  As for courses, aside from the normal physics curriculum, take a General Relativity course if it's available (may have to wait till grad school before it becomes available depending on the university).","human_ref_B":"So you need to find a college that has a physics program and start thinking about how you are going to get into it. Focus on getting good grades in everything in High School. Talk to your guidance counselor as well as an advisor at whatever college you are interested in.  As for classes,  try taking every AP class you can, even if they aren't math and physics related. AP classes count towards college credit and that way you don't spend as much time in college doing the General Education classes (i.e. more time to focus on what you're really interested in, and maybe save a few bucks.)  As for physics-specific classes in HS, I would take whatever they offer. Research in physics is very math-intensive. So make sure you take AP calculus.  It is easy to look at the amount of coursework for a degree and get overwhelmed looking at the high level classes. Just take things one step at a time. High level classes build on the lower ones the same way your geometry class builds on the algebra and arithmetic you learned in elementary school. Sometimes you will spend an hour looking at something and it just won't click, then later that night as you are lying in bed it will all of a sudden come together.  The plus side to this is that there is a lot of overlap between a physics degree and an engineering degree. If for some unknown reason you decide research life isn't for you but you still enjoy STEM stuff you will be well on your way to an engineering degree.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":418.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
{"post_id":"ul0cj0","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Why is velocity always relative? I understand that you can only tell the velocity of an object with reference to another object. However, could I not point to an arbitrary coordinate in space and measure velocity from the objects distance to that coordinate? It seems like if there is only relative velocity, then it is also impossible to pinpoint a point in space. If it is possible, you would able to always take the coordinates of space itself as the frame of reference and thus infer an \u201cabsolute velocity\u201d. I\u2019m sure I\u2019m missing something\u2026 Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"i7sgief","c_root_id_B":"i7sf0ub","created_at_utc_A":1652013063,"created_at_utc_B":1652012109,"score_A":61,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":">However, could I not point to an arbitrary coordinate in space and measure velocity from the objects distance to that coordinate?   That's exactly why it's relative. You are free to choose any such point. And you are even free to choose any system in which that moves with constant velocity.  >If it is possible, you would able to always take the coordinates of space itself as the frame of reference   There's no such thing as \"the coordinate of space itself\"","human_ref_B":"You can define motion relative to a coordinate system. But this is not all that different from motion relative to an object.  There are many different possible coordinate systems to choose from, just like there are many different objects. Using the word \"absolute\" to describe this would be a misleading word choice, since it is really relative to your (arbitrarily chosen) coordinate system.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":954.0,"score_ratio":5.0833333333}
{"post_id":"ul0cj0","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Why is velocity always relative? I understand that you can only tell the velocity of an object with reference to another object. However, could I not point to an arbitrary coordinate in space and measure velocity from the objects distance to that coordinate? It seems like if there is only relative velocity, then it is also impossible to pinpoint a point in space. If it is possible, you would able to always take the coordinates of space itself as the frame of reference and thus infer an \u201cabsolute velocity\u201d. I\u2019m sure I\u2019m missing something\u2026 Thanks in advance","c_root_id_A":"i7simk9","c_root_id_B":"i7si0yl","created_at_utc_A":1652014355,"created_at_utc_B":1652014000,"score_A":10,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Right now I'm going a million miles an hour relative to something who thinks it's at rest.  Wheeee","human_ref_B":"<<could I not point to an arbitrary coordinate in space and measure velocity from the objects distance to that coordinate? >>  Yes, you could...........and then the measured velocity would then be ***relative*** to this arbitrary point in space.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":355.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"ikhy4v","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Does a curved shape of the Universe cause a 'twins' Paradox? The twins paradox is the idea that someone who experiences time dilation can not account for the time experienced by someone who doesn't. It's not really a paradox since it's solved by rotating time as the person's velocity changes. But this left me wondering. What kind of implications does this have on the shape of the Universe theory. If the Universe curves in on itself, technically someone could go in a straight line and reach the point they started at all without ever changing velocity (right?) which means time wouldn't rotate and the paradox would imply a curved universe is impossible. It's difficult for me to wrap my head around this (no pun intended) so how would you account for that missing time in a universe that curves in on itself?","c_root_id_A":"g3knetq","c_root_id_B":"g3knjdr","created_at_utc_A":1598957988,"created_at_utc_B":1598958110,"score_A":6,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":">The twins paradox is the idea that someone who experiences time dilation can not account for the time experienced by someone who doesn't. It's not really a paradox since it's solved by rotating time as the person's velocity changes.  I don't think this is a very accurate description of what it is. At least I don't understand it. \"Rotating time\" isn't a thing either. Seems like you've read some \"alternative explanations\" that often garble the language of relativity. I'm just going to quote a summary I've posted a few days ago  >The basic setup is that you have two people with clocks meeting twice and measuring the time between those two events. The twin paradox is the fact that the time measured by each of them depends on their world line and an inertial World line will show maximal proper time passing between the events while non inertial ones will show less time passing than that. So you end up with a situation where one person has aged more than the other between two meetings between them (and that is not a problem - it only seems like a paradox in the setup where you have two people moving away from each other and they both see each other's clock go at a slower rate, then from there somehow arriving at the conclusion that each will think the other should have aged less).  here's a blog post about the twin paradox that's similar http:\/\/rantonels.github.io\/twin-paradox-for-literal-children\/  >If the Universe curves in on itself, technically someone could go in a straight line and reach the point they started at all without ever changing velocity (right?) which means time wouldn't rotate and the paradox would imply a curved universe is impossible.  Ok again I don't really understand what you're saying because the language is really odd, but what I suspect you mean is something like this: As I mentioned above the longest proper time between two events is that which an inertial observer will measure. The worldline of an inertial observer is a geodesic. Now you're saying if you have curvature you could have two people that don't have the same worldline (so they are inertial at all times) meet twice and then compare their clocks. Yes that's possible and they would in general show different times elapsed. One has to go back to the statement that inertial worldlines have maximal proper time and add the word locally, meaning if you deviate from the worldline slightly  you get one of smaller proper time, but it doesn't mean that it's *globally* maximal.  >the paradox would imply a curved universe is impossible.  No, they can just disagree on the time passing between their two meetings and one will have aged more than the other (unless through some coincidental choice of worldline they happen to have measured the exact same time). There's no paradox here at all and it doesn't say anything about spatial (?) curvature of the universe. This situation doesn't require overall spatial curvature, just any kind of gravity (curved spacetime).","human_ref_B":"Disclaimer: this is \"as far as I understand\", not the final word. Lorentz transforms are *local* transformations. When you consider two bodies which fly near one another at relativistic speeds, there is symmetry between their two local worldlines (as in flat Minkowski spacetime). The two worldlines proposed in your generalised Twin Paradox are not *globally* symmetrical due to the non-flat topology of the proposed spacetime.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":122.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"ffscuv","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why does a car moving at twice the speed will cause four times more damage in a car crash? According to (F=ma)  the acceleration should be twice therefore twice the damage?","c_root_id_A":"fk0aw1r","c_root_id_B":"fk0ktcu","created_at_utc_A":1583750241,"created_at_utc_B":1583759784,"score_A":2,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Let's assume a car moving in an horizontal plane at a given speed v. This car collides with another one (which we will assume is not moving for simplicity).  In the crash, if we assume that the moving car stops completely after the crash, we know it has transfered all of its energy to the other car (we assume all of this energy is kinetic, and that there are no losses). The energy transfered is then E=(m*v^(2))\/2.   This energy is exactly the work done by the car, and thus is W=F*d, where F is the force and d the distance. So the force is F=(m*v^(2))\/2d  Now consider the car goes at double speed, but has the same mass and covers the same distance. Since in the force equation v goes squared, we have that if you double the speed we multiply the force by 4.   There you have it. In reality we need to considerate a lot of factors that i assumed didn't happen, but it is a nice aproximation.","human_ref_B":"\"Damage\" is not a very well-defined word.  The amount of *energy* dissipated will be four times as great.  The amount of *momentum* change will be twice as great.  The amount of *dollars* lost depends more on whether your car has those fancy parking sensors in the bumpers than on the speed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9543.0,"score_ratio":11.0}
{"post_id":"ffscuv","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why does a car moving at twice the speed will cause four times more damage in a car crash? According to (F=ma)  the acceleration should be twice therefore twice the damage?","c_root_id_A":"fk0uli6","c_root_id_B":"fk0aw1r","created_at_utc_A":1583766501,"created_at_utc_B":1583750241,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I think part of the issue here is you're thinking of \"Force\" as \"the thing that causes damage\". And in a way, you're right. But a force only causes one tiny little piece of damage (a part breaking, a mirror flying off, whatever). It's an instantaneous thing. A ton of tiny little forces cause a *car crash*. If you sum up all those tiny little forces, you get the total amount of *energy*. So the total *energy* of the car crash is a decent indicator of how much \"damage\" the car crash will result in.","human_ref_B":"Let's assume a car moving in an horizontal plane at a given speed v. This car collides with another one (which we will assume is not moving for simplicity).  In the crash, if we assume that the moving car stops completely after the crash, we know it has transfered all of its energy to the other car (we assume all of this energy is kinetic, and that there are no losses). The energy transfered is then E=(m*v^(2))\/2.   This energy is exactly the work done by the car, and thus is W=F*d, where F is the force and d the distance. So the force is F=(m*v^(2))\/2d  Now consider the car goes at double speed, but has the same mass and covers the same distance. Since in the force equation v goes squared, we have that if you double the speed we multiply the force by 4.   There you have it. In reality we need to considerate a lot of factors that i assumed didn't happen, but it is a nice aproximation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16260.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
{"post_id":"ffscuv","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why does a car moving at twice the speed will cause four times more damage in a car crash? According to (F=ma)  the acceleration should be twice therefore twice the damage?","c_root_id_A":"fk2dtzu","c_root_id_B":"fk0aw1r","created_at_utc_A":1583798830,"created_at_utc_B":1583750241,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Everyone's giving you work-energy solutions, but that's not satisfying for I think what you're looking for.  *The acceleration won't be twice, it will be four times*.  See, you're right that twice the speed will require twice the acceleration to stop in the same amount of time.  That's not quite right though.  Because you're moving twice as fast, you only have *half the time*.  So now you need to get rid of twice as much velocity, but only have half the time to do it in.  Hence, quadruple acceleration.","human_ref_B":"Let's assume a car moving in an horizontal plane at a given speed v. This car collides with another one (which we will assume is not moving for simplicity).  In the crash, if we assume that the moving car stops completely after the crash, we know it has transfered all of its energy to the other car (we assume all of this energy is kinetic, and that there are no losses). The energy transfered is then E=(m*v^(2))\/2.   This energy is exactly the work done by the car, and thus is W=F*d, where F is the force and d the distance. So the force is F=(m*v^(2))\/2d  Now consider the car goes at double speed, but has the same mass and covers the same distance. Since in the force equation v goes squared, we have that if you double the speed we multiply the force by 4.   There you have it. In reality we need to considerate a lot of factors that i assumed didn't happen, but it is a nice aproximation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":48589.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"s4nm8l","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Class demos ideas for High School Physics Hello I am a physics teacher...i mostly use whaever i find simple tools to explain topics in class.. some of them are 1. Take a compass and place it near current carrynig wire to show magnetic effect of current. 2.  Use laser and small prism to show deviation of light. 3. Take salt amd water and mix then pass laser to show how density effect deviation. 4. Take a two small tube of different diameter to show capillary action and radius relation  Please share some of yours if you have some interesting ideas for High school students.","c_root_id_A":"hss5vy1","c_root_id_B":"hsslzbi","created_at_utc_A":1642264527,"created_at_utc_B":1642270769,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I don't know if you cover QM in your course but shining a laser through a strand of hair is an easy way to perform the double slit experiment.   It can also easily be converted into a lab to find the wavelength of the laser by measuring the bands, distance to the wall, average width of a hair, etc   The basic concept of constructive and destructive waves is also really fun to show with the Moire Effect. The easiest way to do this is with two small pieces of fiberglass or another netted, stiff material but fiberglass should be cheap enough at your local construction store.   Another fun demonstration could be Lenz's Law though the cost of materials might be more than it's worth considering there's probably plenty of good videos of it online.","human_ref_B":"My fist university physics professor got a straw, cut the top into a v shape, and blew on it really hard producing a sort of loud duck call. He then while blowing it started cutting it shorter and shorter and the pitch went higher and higher.  He did it out of nowhere, so it both woke us all up and demonstrated the relationship between wavelength and frequency.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6242.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"s4nm8l","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Class demos ideas for High School Physics Hello I am a physics teacher...i mostly use whaever i find simple tools to explain topics in class.. some of them are 1. Take a compass and place it near current carrynig wire to show magnetic effect of current. 2.  Use laser and small prism to show deviation of light. 3. Take salt amd water and mix then pass laser to show how density effect deviation. 4. Take a two small tube of different diameter to show capillary action and radius relation  Please share some of yours if you have some interesting ideas for High school students.","c_root_id_A":"hssitzh","c_root_id_B":"hsslzbi","created_at_utc_A":1642269557,"created_at_utc_B":1642270769,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I used to use a bicycle for all kinds of things.  Converting units (revolutions to meters)  Torque (attach weights to the spokes on the wheels , attach weights to the pedals and the spokes and then change the gear, etc)  Friction and work, I squeeze the break and do nearly zero work, but the breakpad does tons of work on the wheel ( that always floored them)","human_ref_B":"My fist university physics professor got a straw, cut the top into a v shape, and blew on it really hard producing a sort of loud duck call. He then while blowing it started cutting it shorter and shorter and the pitch went higher and higher.  He did it out of nowhere, so it both woke us all up and demonstrated the relationship between wavelength and frequency.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1212.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"s4nm8l","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Class demos ideas for High School Physics Hello I am a physics teacher...i mostly use whaever i find simple tools to explain topics in class.. some of them are 1. Take a compass and place it near current carrynig wire to show magnetic effect of current. 2.  Use laser and small prism to show deviation of light. 3. Take salt amd water and mix then pass laser to show how density effect deviation. 4. Take a two small tube of different diameter to show capillary action and radius relation  Please share some of yours if you have some interesting ideas for High school students.","c_root_id_A":"hsslzbi","c_root_id_B":"hssg0fd","created_at_utc_A":1642270769,"created_at_utc_B":1642268464,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"My fist university physics professor got a straw, cut the top into a v shape, and blew on it really hard producing a sort of loud duck call. He then while blowing it started cutting it shorter and shorter and the pitch went higher and higher.  He did it out of nowhere, so it both woke us all up and demonstrated the relationship between wavelength and frequency.","human_ref_B":"Could you do something like making a small catapult or trebuchet and try to calculate how far it'll launch a small rock?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2305.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"s4nm8l","domain":"askphysics_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Class demos ideas for High School Physics Hello I am a physics teacher...i mostly use whaever i find simple tools to explain topics in class.. some of them are 1. Take a compass and place it near current carrynig wire to show magnetic effect of current. 2.  Use laser and small prism to show deviation of light. 3. Take salt amd water and mix then pass laser to show how density effect deviation. 4. Take a two small tube of different diameter to show capillary action and radius relation  Please share some of yours if you have some interesting ideas for High school students.","c_root_id_A":"hssitzh","c_root_id_B":"hssg0fd","created_at_utc_A":1642269557,"created_at_utc_B":1642268464,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I used to use a bicycle for all kinds of things.  Converting units (revolutions to meters)  Torque (attach weights to the spokes on the wheels , attach weights to the pedals and the spokes and then change the gear, etc)  Friction and work, I squeeze the break and do nearly zero work, but the breakpad does tons of work on the wheel ( that always floored them)","human_ref_B":"Could you do something like making a small catapult or trebuchet and try to calculate how far it'll launch a small rock?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1093.0,"score_ratio":1.5}