Discussions
Favorite Science Topic?
Posted by voodooKobra • 5/22/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: biology, Chemistry, economics, physics, Psychology, science
What area of science interests you the most, and why? Be as specific as you want. General answers are acceptable.
I'm mostly interested in physics. Specifically, electrostatics, quantum physics, and relativity. Moreso than the sciences themselves, I'm interested in the applications of these disciplines. For example, superconducting an electric current at room temperature is one of the goals I've set out to achieve.
Aside from physics, I'm interested in computer science (esp. quantum computing and artificial intelligence), biology (not my strongest subject, but some of the latest findings are fascinating), and pretty much every other so-called "hard science" out there. I'm not big on economics, psychology, or "political science." (Bleh! Something about that term bugs me.)
Your turn!
User Comments
-
Oh, to start things off, have a physics joke:
-
I'm fascinated by observational astronomy, specifically the pictures taken/ data gathered by the Hubble telescope. Also, I find the intelligent, reputable scientific community's discussion surrounding Drake's Equation to be intriguing.-
I remember Carl Sagan making a strong case for the existence of extraterrestrial life somewhere in the universe being an almost certainty, and I think he used Drake's Equation as a basis for his argument.
It must've been successful, since SETI is a reputable scientific project. -
It's the METI stuff I'm a little leery of -- Who says contact with an extraterrestrial life form would automatically be a benign event? (And I don't mean any of the tinfoil hat alien abduction nonsense).
-
Yeah. Just because intelligent life exists doesn't mean that such life would be listening into the frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum that we broadcast in.
-
Or, assuming that an alien civilization is listening and initiated first contact, that this asymmetrical relationship would benefit humanity. I think Sagan was a little naive and starry eyed on this front.
-
Ah yes the Drake equation, 1 duck-female duck parts= 1 drake.
Fascinating duck based science at its best. -
Yeah, Sagan's "Contact" was very naive. I think we're looking at more of an "Aliens" situation. -
Personally, I doubt any civilization that could conquer the trivialities of interstellar travel would have anything to gain from attacking Earth.
-
But it could also be the law of unintended consequences. Look at evolutionary history. When an alien species is introduced to a new ecosystem where no natural predators, it takes over and devastates that ecosystem. Imagine a civilization that contacted earth for peaceful trading purposes, but accidentally introduced diseases/species for which we lacked any natural defenses? Think of European contact with the Americas and South Pacific, and the devastating diseases like small pox that decimated the native populations. I'm a pessimist and can easily imagine a scenario where humanity inadvertently gets the shaft.
-
You mean other than wiping out the human race and colonizing Earth?
-
Yeah, but I'm sure scientists have already considered those possibilities (both ours and the alien civilization's).
-
Even if colonization was not a stated goal of this hypothetical alien civilization, their Tribbles that jumped ship could be a problem to us Earthlings.
-
Science may have considered it, but science fiction has outlined how its actually going to go down.
-
Some Defense Department analysts also recently wrote a paper about the asymmetrical relationship humanity would find itself in with a superior interstellar civilization. Unfortunately, their conclusions were not all that rosy for the Terrans.
-
But what if the aliens have been here for centuries and have pushed us into the industrial revolution as a way of terra forming the earth and making it suitable for their type of life.
-
Indeed ... what if?
-
My God! We'll be overrun by aardvarks!
-
If they (by aardvarks) were in control anin wouldn't be dribbling around here ... lol
Or maybe he is The Lavender Lord of all ... ? :| -
Maybe Anin is here to secretly let the aardvarks infiltrate Blog Catalog. It's part of their master plan to take over everything.
-
If I was involved in this nefarious plan it would hardly be in my best interest to mention it in a public forum, I'm not a Bond villain....yet.
"Do you expect me to talk Lavender finger?"
"No Mr Bond I expect you to..... tell me the name of your tailor he is just fabulous! You can feel the quality in the cloth. I bet he's expensive, Saville row? Oh yeah....then you can die." -
You can keep your lavender finger to yourself, thank you very much.
-
Perhaps the lavender "fingers" of invading armies of aardvarks is a greater threat than the porcine/avian infuenza or reaching the end of the Mayan calendar is.
-
It's the Antbear Anthrax you really have to watch out for.
-
Maybe the Mayan Calendar predicts when the final aardvark uprising occurs, aided by their attempts to spread the flu/aardvark Anthrax. My God, it all makes sense now.
-
Hold up now - if it makes sense then that's not an aardvark plot. However, the alliteration is quite suggestive. Perhaps it's a case of our assassins living in plain sight. Dribbling could be the vector for disease transmission --- OMG! watch where you step.
-
Look at Anin's beady little lavender eyes. Clearly he's up to something.
-
Actually my eyes are magenta with red whites and it is a trifle insulting to describe the windows to my soul as "beady"
-
He's always up for something. Now we know what it truly is.
Conquering the human race! via biological warfare. -
small and round = beady
hmmmmm ... do aardvarks have x-ray vision?
Has he been seeing us without our clothes all this time? -
Anin -- an antbear's ears are the true windows to its soul. You are merely letting slip your true extraterrestrial identity!
-
I haven't actually seen you without clothes TT but I have imagined it a lot rrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
@gtally
Actually and antbears ears are its sexual organs. That's why it is unwise to whisper anything to an Aardvark. -
As for you, Anin -- you need pants! I keep dressing you with my eyes.
-
oops! damn eyesight
@anin
Thanks for the warning. -
TT -- I determined the aardvark's reproductive parts using science! NASA's Thermal Emission Spectrometer determined which lavender bits were more lavender than the others!
-
That bit is more of a deep purple than a lavender, that's why Sir David Attenborough once described it as "The English Antbear's purple headed sex hammer."
-
That remark was right before Attenborough tackled an aardvark and attempted to put some pants on it, for decency's sake.
-
Let me tell you my friend it would take more than one knight of the realm to put trousers on this Aardvark.
As a matter of fact "Dirty Dave" was the one one who asked me to take them off in the first place. Of course I was a naive young lavender fool and he told be it would be good for my career and that the BBC expected all their animals to be nude.
I had no idea it would be broadcast he promised me they were just "test shots" for him and a few of the BBC higher ups, next thing I know I am being paraded on BBC world in all my lavender glory. -
-
Anin - That was your mistake. D. Attenborough is a well known pervert, convincing unsuspecting flora and fauna to appear in their natural states for his "documentaries."
-
You can't blame Attenborough. It's those aardvark ears, talk about love handles! The question is did Attenborough's round peg fit in the aardvarks octagonal hole? -
Well what fauna on earth could resist Dave's big fat round peg????
The moon was full and he had on that 1970's style leopard skin safari suit, what was young fauna to do when those honeyed vowels started dripping their sweet somethings into my aural organs?
Of course we all know I gave in I am but a weak and feeble Aardvark but I'll tell you this there is more than one komodo dragon on this planet that blushes at the the mention of dirty Dave. -
Yes, I've heard that Attenborough's mating display is a sight to behold. When his blue head crest is fully extended and he struts around flapping his arms and softly hooting at his intended amour -- it's pure magic. But he's apparently not much of a cuddler, once the ritual is at an end.
-
It's true he is not really one for tender after touches. He just wiped himself on the sparse hairs growing from my toes and said "If you tell anyone I'll deny it!"
-
Too bad he forgot that the cameras were rolling. Or does he also have a "casting couch?"
-
I would say it was more of a casting chaise lounge than an actual couch. He told me it was upholstered with the skins of 62 different kinds of endangered reptiles.
Needless to say I was lavender putty in his masterful hands by this point, callous indifference is a powerful aphrodisiac. -
I hear Attenborough eats endangered loon eggs for breakfast every morning. This is what the BBC will do to corrupt a man's soul -- let alone an innocent aardvark's!
-
-
I'm fascinated by pop physics: Nova specials, Carl Sagan, time travel, multiverse, chaos theory as presented in public television miniseries. But the actual math is little beyond me. I took 2 years of calculus and quit while I was ahead.
-
Then you'll probably love this. Very little math:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090508190416.htm -
Is this the dark matter that scientists isolate at the Cern laboratory and in the movie "Angels and Demons" is turned into a bomb positioned to blow up the Vatican?
-
No, that's antimatter.
Dark matter is "invisible matter." That is, we can see the gravitational influence of some matter, but it does not give off light. Scientists are struggling to understand it.
I think it has something to do with virtual particles, but that's just speculation. -
Oh, well never mind then.
I also like the pop science behind cold fusion and the never ending source of renewable energy. They make fun movies out of that. -
Heh. Don't get me started on renewable energy. I tend to ramble on and occasionally let one of my patentable ideas slip. :X
-
Yep we can only perceive 5% of the universe we live in, the other 95% is dark energy and dark matter. 70% dark energy and dark matter 25% and at the moment it is anyone's guess what that stuff is up to.
The vacuum of space that you might call "nothing" actually contains a repulsive force. When nothing weighs something the fun really starts. -
ΔEΔt > h/2pi
The Conservation Laws can be violated on a quantum scale for very short periods of time. The shorter the period in time, the more energy violation is allowed. This allows matter to pop into existence in what is apparently a vacuum and then vanish, usually through pair annihilation. As Δt approaches 0, ΔE approaches infinity.
And people say "Something can't come from nothing." Bwa ha ha!
-
-
Religion-
Wrong answer, Zoosmell Pooplord!
-
religion totally trumps any and all science.
-
Yeah. Especially when there are noodly appendages involved.
-
-
Q: Favorite Science Topic?
A: in no particular order:
anthropology and archeology
environmental science
evolutionary biology
psychology -
Phrenology. I've got so many bumps on my head from growing up in Brooklyn, they must mean something. -
Polybore is interested in science across the disciplines. Know most about medical microbiology but ironically am most interested in physics/ astronomy.
-
I tend to like it better when they blend, i.e. a new high tech device to explore ruins, computer models used to explore chemistry, etc. -
Metaphysics or First philosophy, the science of sciences.
"other sciences receive their first principles from it, and are, therefore, secondary to it."-
Metaphysics is not science, it's Mysticism.
Epistemology is the Philosophy of Science, that How Science knows what she knows. For that purpose I recommend:
Science and Hypothesis from Henri Poincare, the true father of Relativity and Grand Father of Chaos Theory. -
"Metaphysics is not science, it's Mysticism."
Epic wrong. First philosophy looks at a reality which is experienced under the light of it's proper principle. From there, intelligence can deduce properties of this reality, and know if "perfectly". This perfect knowledge is what Aristotle calls science and what for him is philosophical knowledge.
Interestingly, scientists have great difficulty in apprehending this type of knowledge, as their intelligence hinges very much on logic. Legal types also rarely develop a "metaphysical touch", but for other reasons... lol
A few great metaphysicians were also great mathematicians. -
The problem is metaphysics leads one to pseudoscience and is not conducive to producing scientific results.
-
-
The likelihood (in my mind) that what we currently refer to as telekinesis exists as a purely natural function of electromagnetism.-
It's like Jung's idea that all human knowledge exists in the ether like some sort of natural wireless internet system and the people we call great genius's or shamen are the people who are the best natural receivers.
-
I actually have some hypotheses about the human nervous system and electromagnetic interference, but I don't want to get into that right now.
Instead, look at these three images and see if you can interpret anything interesting:
www.biovere.com/cart/images/human_nervous_system.jpg (Exhibit A -- the human nervous system)
www.lauragrady.com/www/Imagesmrsgrady/Resources/Copy of good cIRC.gif (Exhibit B -- the human circulatory system)
www.rickrichards.com/chakras/chakra_man1.jpg (Exhibit C -- the "chakra" system according to pseudoscience)
...
Give up? The locations that pseudoscience advocates call "chakra" centers correlate to high concentrations of nerves and blood vessels. Blood contains iron, which is ferromagnetic. Nerves have electric pulses running through them. Electrons in motion produce magnetic fields.
Does this mean that pseudoscientists are right? Not at all. All this means is that the "sensations" involved in attempting telekinesis (or other silly things) have a naturalistic explanation for them. Imagine that. -
Thats a great explanation and actually very logical.. I would love to bring this to attention when it comes to certain people..
-
-
My favorite subject in science is how scientific students really learn about science because it's really amusing for me. They think they have a lot of knowledge whereas they only have a very superficial understanding of the underlying phenomena. They don't study the Epistemology of Science because their teachers themselves just don't care what Science is really about: they only train for competition for degree where students learn by rote. I won't extend today personally - maybe another time - but I will just quote an excerpt of Richard Feyman's Book:
Surely you're joking Mr Feynman Adventures of a Curious Character
It's possible to enjoy Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman simply as a bunch of hilarious yarns. At some point, however, attentive readers realize that underneath all the merriment simmers a running commentary on what constitutes authentic knowledge ...
Excerpt from "Learning without understanding"
that's just one of the many jokes from Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman
"I often liked to play tricks on people when I was at MlT. One time,
in mechanical drawing class, some joker picked up a French curve (a
piece of plastic for drawing smooth curves - a curly, funny-looking
thing) and said, "I wonder if the curves on this thing have some
special formula?"
I thought for a moment and said, "Sure they do. The curves are very
special curves. Lemme show ya," and I picked up my French curve and
began to turn it slowly. "The French curve is made so that at the
lowest point on each curve, no matter how you turn it, the tangent is
horizontal."
All the guys in the class were holding their French curve up at
different angles, holding their pencil up to it at the lowest point
and laying it along, and discovering that, sure enough, the tangent is
horizontal. They were all excited by this "discovery" even though they
had already gone through a certain amount of calculus and had already
"learned" that the derivative (tangent) of the minimum (lowest point)
of any curve is zero (horizontal). They didn't put two and two
together. They didn't even know what they "knew."
I don't know what's the matter with people: they don't learn by
understanding, they learn by some other way-by rote, or something.
Their knowledge is so fragile."
www.elitethinker.com/2009/05/disastrous-scientific-education.html-
Hahaha. Feynman is awesome.
I agree. Some of the students in my classes are really absentminded.
-
-
Was the universe created for intelligence? Did intelligence create the universe? And if so, what part do we play>-
Why assume the universe was created? Also, you did not answer the question in the OP.
-
Why assume the universe was created? Because I exist. Figure something happened. I look for science, specifically physics, to come up with an answer. Nothing wrong with assuming. As a child I assumed I had better not step to close to the edge of a cliff. Had no knowledge or even definition of gravity. Lack of specifics didn't stop me from being cautious. And - dropping a rock - from wondering. I am an artist not a scientist but lack of formal training and knowledge doesn't stop me from be curious. And I do look to science for answers.
-
[Why assume the universe was created? Because I exist. Figure something happened.]
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/favorite-science-topic#comment_957253
There does not need to be a "first cause." ΔEΔt > h/2pi pretty much takes care of that.
[I look for science, specifically physics, to come up with an answer.]
Good. Check out Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Cosmic Inflation for models of how the universe could exist without a creator deity.
(EDIT: I'm only mentioning this because you responded to "Why assume the universe was created?" Creation implies intent. Intent necessarily implies a conscious decision.)
[Nothing wrong with assuming. As a child I assumed I had better not step to close to the edge of a cliff. Had no knowledge or even definition of gravity. Lack of specifics didn't stop me from being cautious.]
Let me correct you here. There is nothing wrong with assuming when individual judgments are involved. Sticking a fork into an outlet sounds stupid. However, when it comes to understanding the universe around us, an assumption leads to flawed understanding.
[And - dropping a rock - from wondering.]
You gave yourself data by doing that.
[I am an artist not a scientist but lack of formal training and knowledge doesn't stop me from be curious. And I do look to science for answers.]
Okay, then I can't fault you for your tendency to assume.
-
-
I am actually teaching my Rec/Yr 1 class about Space at the moment. They love it. If anyone has any good websites that are for young children, that would be great. It can be hard getting children interested in Maths and Science. -
we want to write about marine and petroleum surveying at my blog www.rulyabdillah.com/, any body like? -
thermodynamics ^^-
Lately, I've been convinced that entropy does not exist within microwaves. Cooking something for five minutes and letting it sit for two, and having the container hot enough to cause second-degree burns while the middle is still frozen solid can lead to no other conclusion (except, perhaps, that my microwave sucks and I should get new one).
-
Entropy is a probabilistic concept, that is a macro-concept that does not explain the inner working of Universe. So it is linked to the concept of Complexity because the more something is complex the less probable it exists by "random" without some external design forces.
So take a computer, it is a complex stuff. If someone claims it could have emerged from pure randomness you would laugh. Now take this genetics stuff
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B08itXiXok
it's even more complex than a computer so even as I'm not a believer in God, I admit it's still a very damn logical question regarding the Entropy.
Every true scientists would ask that logical question, quoting Feynman again this time about the alpha constant of Universe (be this constant slightly different the Universe and so Life couldn't have existed because it would be unstable):
"There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to -0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!" -
Hahahaha!! :))
Honestly speaking, i didn't even read any articles about thermodynamics since i graduated in Physics. You'r great! -
Net entropy cannot be violated, but local entropy can be.
-
Not by magic it is done at the expense of the surrounding entropy which will then increase. Same kind of law than Energy or Matter cannot be created out of thin air.
-
@elitethinker @ophase haha I like that
@voodoo I would like to suggest that it may be the transformer or the magnetron being over used or even rusted enough to restrict the flow of electricity if you have to cook your foods for long periods of time to achieve this result.
what have you been trying to microwave? maybe giving a stir would work.
besides if it's hot enough to burn you after a short period of time you may have the settings set too high
-
-
I like biological science, particularly with regard to medically-related stuff. I also enjoy anthropology and psychology.
I used to work in biotech and part of my job entailed producing posters and white papers for symposia. It was enlightening. Now I do free lance research for a dietitian and find that fascinating as well.
Physics, on the other hand, merely baffles me, although it intrigues and fascinates my husband. -
The limitations of science. Where science ends and life (and poetry) begin.
-
I'm always intrigued by genetics.-
That is a very interesting topic. I used to work for a company that made DNA machines...producing posters and literature for them was a fascinating experience.
-
Oh god, sometimes it makes you wonder about the mysteries of life you know.
-
Amazing Genetics 3D Animation
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B08itXiXok
-
-
I like geology and archeology -
Science of unexplained mysteries. -
When I'm in a science mood, I prefer geology, anthropolgy, archaeology.
Two of my top ten favorite books are of science.
One is the physics book, "Rainbows, Snowflakes and Quarks" by Hans Christian Von Baeyer. Good read to stretch the mind.
You may have moments of feeling smart. -
Awesome. There's a lot more public interest in science than I would have predicted, but not as much as I would have hoped.
-
Kobra, I think when it comes to science, there usually would be a strong niche of people who aspire to seek to be a part of a community who stands at the forefront of discovery............. even though they are not scientists.
-
-
physics, geology & mathematics -
schrodingers cat
-
I am a computer science student, so I have to list that here.. specifically Machine learning and Evolutionary algorithms..
That apart, I had a keen interest in Physics back in school, especially optics and relativity.. My bedside reading most of the time used to be the relativity portion from Resnick-Halliday and the Feynman lectures-
ps: I absolutely love Big Bang theory... the best show on TV right now.. for the geeks
-
-
Right now, I'm really into forensic science. Wondering if there is such a thing as the perfect murder and if I could get away with it. -
Heheheheee...I know just what you mean. I once had a marriage like that...
-
-
antimatter - recently went to a great lecture at Fermilab on the science behind the movie "Angels and Demons". -
Psychology all the way!
Though genetics is fascinating as well. -
My Favorite Science Topic is the "Religion of Science" where people ridiculously extropolate what is proven by science to somehow explain our creation and existence...
It would be nice to discuss this topic in a scientific manner...-
In a different thread, perhaps. This is not a religion thread. Like, at all.
-
-
"When Will The World End?"-
when people won't stop talking about it
-
That means it must be ending now and for the past 1000 years, too!
-
-
genetics......love its possibilities... -
Science is such a narrow way of thinking.
But my opinion may be coloured by the fact im coming up to exams.-
[Science is such a narrow way of thinking.]
Please elaborate. -
I suppose I meant rigid instead of narrow.
As science is used to explain everything, its not really narrow.
But we try to explain too much with science. Like depression. Science is very precice, cold and mathematical. Humans, by nature, aren't. I'm sure theres a better way of treating it than we currently do, and I dont think the answer lies in science.
A blend of sciences critical thinking, kindness and philosophy is whats needed, just need to figure out how. -
Well said JonnyDunMind...
While Science Build Logics, Man Build Tombs!
Yes But, That Doesn't Mean I Am Against Science And Progress; I Am Very Much For Any "Good" Science & "Humanity" Development; But Meanwhile, Art & Psychological (Philosophical) Theories Need To Be Well Understood. Afterall, It Is Also A Related Science! And I Am Absolutely Not Talking About Any Religious Monopolies & Superstitions Here (These Should Be Ignored As Far As Possible) But, About Pure Spiritual (P.S.: Term Used In Every Positive Sense) Convictions! -
first of all Jonny precice is actually spelt precise
second science is not used to explain everything science did not just poof into existence out of nothing.
It is an accumulated wealth of knowledge
It is hardly cold at all
Science by definition is "learning through observation" and as such has to be approached with kindness and philosophy ... how do you think it is that we can come to conclusions without deeply considering the effects of our answers,
It is called ethics -- that my friend is a major constituent of philosophy.
depression can be caused by many things and to think that a placebo such as god, spiritualism or faith is a cure all then you are sadly mistaken
that exact theory led many to hospitalisation, exorcism and far more dramatic cures...
If I were you I would be considering thanking your god for such a mild version of control compared to what it was
-
-
Cognitive neuroscience and how the type of music we listen to physically changes the brain (neuroplasticity). That's actually what my blog is about -
you've just earned yourself a reader
-
-
Computer science, especially AI. That's my favourite topic and I regret never taking a course in AI when I had the chance during undergrad. At least there are plenty of free and fell-off-the-back-of-a-truck kind of free resources.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
