×
top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]appealtoreason00 1570 points1571 points  (26 children)

How am I supposed to explain string-net liquids to my four year old?????

[–]12crashbash12 647 points648 points  (12 children)

I support matter, but the woke mob has gone too far this time

[–]OnsetOfMSet 236 points237 points  (2 children)

Quark-gluon plasmas are just regular matter faking their state for attention

[–]Loud-Cheesecake-2766 179 points180 points  (3 children)

Good old 🪨 rocks, 💦 water and air 🌬️ only! Glass 🚫 🍷 must be BANNED because it's the 👿🪨 👿 Devil's 👿🪨 👿 pebble! When "so-called" superfluids leave their containers it's because THE SATAN is PULLING it out with SIN, not because your crazy 🤣 🤣 🤣 🪄 wizard "physics". I once put ice into a 🎈 balloon with "heleums" in it and guess what!? IT DIDN'T HAPPEN like in your false and fake videos. Everybody know plasma is🩸blood🩸 and a LIQUID. And don't get me started on Boso-Einstein-condensate, that's just the global news media being controlled by VACCINES 💉💉💉 trying to 💊💊💊 kill the 6G that the reptilians put int your 🌊 💦 pure and aryan water 💦 🌊 u just gotta do ur own research

[–]GoldenPig64 34 points35 points  (0 children)

you're too good at making these, i had to instinctively hold back punching you in the throat

[–]bearbarebere 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Please add “sweaty” to the end like how they say “sweetie” pls it will make me die

[–]bikibird 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Dark matter matters!

[–]Aggressive_Sprinkles 44 points45 points  (0 children)

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!

:,(

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points  (1 child)

If we teach children about the existence of time crystals, they'll want to become them!

[–]bearbarebere 12 points13 points  (0 children)

To be one hundred and fifty billion percent fair……..

I do indeed want to become a time crystal after hearing about them.

[–]Infamous_Principle_6 1170 points1171 points  (139 children)

I was aware of Bose-Einstein condensate and Super-solids but the rest of that list is completely foreign to me. I am now very intrigued

Update: so, I guess I wasn’t even aware of supersolids. I was thinking of supertasks, and I could’ve sworn there was a “supersolid” equivalent, but given the comments, I am wrong. Oops

[–]AkrinorNonameGender Enthusiast 755 points756 points  (78 children)

A supercritical fluid is what happens if you heat something so far that it can't be liquid anymore, but the pressure is too high for it to be a gas.

[–]Phormitago 171 points172 points  (1 child)

Also what happens when you stick any art reviewer in a blender

[–]NeonNKnightriderCheshire Catboy 6 points7 points  (0 children)

mmmm Yahtzee juice

[–]MapleTreeWithAGunNot Your Lamia Wife 293 points294 points  (13 children)

That's the best juice

[–]sixgunbuddyguy 79 points80 points  (9 children)

So that's how you wheeze the juice!

[–]MrBalanced 24 points25 points  (3 children)

Awooooooo! Bu-UHHHHHHHH-dy!

[–]I_am_trying_to_work 13 points14 points  (0 children)

So that's how you wheeze the juice!

If the fuckin planet implodes, you've juiced too far.

[–]FirstEvolutionist 27 points28 points  (1 child)

Supercritical fluid sounds like a judgemental cup of coffee, preparing you for your day ahead.

[–]rene_gaderbig-bad-evil-guy-fieri.tumblr.com 105 points106 points  (7 children)

not an overheated liquid nor a super-pressurized gas but a secret, third thing

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (5 children)

Like when you're dating a kinky girl and she lets you hit the fourth hole on the second date

[–]JeromesDream 31 points32 points  (2 children)

this is just a special case of dating a quadratically kinky girl and hitting the n2 -th hole on the nth date

[–]OathToAwesome 6 points7 points  (1 child)

yeah, my girl is flat - topologically flat

[–]SpectralHail 52 points53 points  (3 children)

We use supercritical C02 to remove caffeine from coffee beans, which is neat!

[–]HikeyBoi 26 points27 points  (1 child)

I use it to flavor my teas and make perfumes

[–]237FIF 7 points8 points  (4 children)

That’s dope. So what are the physical properties at that point?

[–]sachs1 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Dense like a liquid, hot like a gas, and super low surface tension and viscosity, so it can for example, soak into plastics if you're not careful.

Edit: a look at supercritical co2 https://youtu.be/-gCTKteN5Y4

[–]5yleop1m 132 points133 points  (39 children)

Afaik some of those are theoretical in the sense that the math which describes the universe allows for these types of matter to exist depending on how you manipulate the parameters of the equation. Though that doesn't mean that kind of matter can actually exist because those equations aren't complete and we're continuing to find inconsistencies between the math and real life observations.

[–]TK-CL1PPY 125 points126 points  (34 children)

"The Standard Model, our most precise theory of everything, which has measured results that match its predictions out to unimaginable significant digits, cannot account for gravity in any way close to what is observed. Also, we can't find dark matter and we're not sure whether the constant that dictates the expansion of the universe is actually a... constant. We think it is. Pretty sure."

-Quantum Physicists

[–]Seenoham 46 points47 points  (21 children)

They're now pretty sure that dark matter is wimps not MaCHOs, but dark energy is still anyone's guess.

[–]TK-CL1PPY 35 points36 points  (4 children)

I keep hearing they are wimps, but if they are wimpier than neutrinos, we are shit out of luck.

My bet is that the curvature of space is impacted by "nearby" multiverses. Gravity leakage. Fantastical and unlikely, but I find it romantic.

[–]Seenoham 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Basically yes, they don't think we are going to be able to detect it discretely, but we are able to make better models on how it interacts on the mass scale.

How and where it collects and doesn't.

Iirc, dark matter should "stick" so it's constantly moving because of inertia and gravity, but large scale gravity can cause an attractor effect. More dark matter is moving in places with higher gravity but it's always moving in and out.

[–]UltimateInfernoHangus Paingus Slap my Angus 16 points17 points  (3 children)

[–]TK-CL1PPY 7 points8 points  (0 children)

My favorite youtube show.

[–]The_Northern_Light 6 points7 points  (0 children)

PBS Space Time is legendary in how good it is; an absolute treasure trove

[–]Pillow_SocksCURRENTLY READING BOOKS 663 points664 points  (124 children)

what does the little graph with the M and F above it represent? am a lvl.5 gender noob

[–]TootTootMF 926 points927 points  (9 children)

That gender is a suspension bridge. That's why all the gays™ live near the golden gate.

[–]theghostofme 31 points32 points  (1 child)

That's why all the gays™ live near the golden gate.

"I fucking knew it! Sweet vindication at last!"

- Thom Brennaman, probably

[–]likwidchrist 22 points23 points  (2 children)

Incorrect. Those are my humps. They are different genders and the hijinks they get into are quite hilarious

[–]bug-hunter 13 points14 points  (1 child)

So that's what Fergie was singing about...

[–]likwidchrist 19 points20 points  (0 children)

No her lumps are both ladies.

[–]Sheepish_Princess 563 points564 points  (82 children)

Bimodal but not binary distribution for gender

[–]Xanadoodledoo 181 points182 points  (80 children)

Bimodal distribution of biological sex*. Even sex is not a binary.

[–]nutmegged_statecountry gnomes/take my bones 67 points68 points  (10 children)

It could be either. Pretty sure that both sex and gender are, at least currently, bimodally distributed in the human population. But your version might be more on-topic for a biology class.

[–]skybluegill 44 points45 points  (9 children)

sex is bimodally distributed but the existence of other local optima suggest gender is multimodal

[–]Pillow_SocksCURRENTLY READING BOOKS 64 points65 points  (0 children)

Thank you!

[–]pdblasi 73 points74 points  (7 children)

It's a multimodal distribution, specifically a bimodal one. Wikipedia for multimodal distributions in statistics.

Because biology, sociology, and psychology are all rather messy, people tend to fall into a bimodal distribution when you talk about either sex or gender. Most people fit reasonably close to the male/female average (for sex) or man/woman average (for gender), but realistically no individual is actually the "average male/female" or the "average man/woman", they're just closer to that average than others.

For sex, there are a lot of different factors that contribute to its definition. Including but not limited to: chromosomes, hormones, internal and external genitalia, and secondary sex characteristics. All of these things have many variations or exist on a spectrum of their own. So when you take them all together, you do get groupings (which we call male and female), but not completely distinct groupings, leading to a bimodal distribution.

Gender is similar, but arguably more messy considering we now need to take into account sociological factors and individual experiences. Genders have a rough tendency to follow the sexual bimodal distribution, but with more factors leading to more variance from the "averages". Gender can be influenced by a persons sexual characteristics, the culture in which a person was raised, the culture in which they currently reside, the communities in which they find themselves, and how any of these factors (and others) are viewed by themselves and their peers. Once again, at scale this leads to groupings, but not completely distinct ones, leading to bimodal and sometimes multimodal distributions.

For further reading!

https://cadehildreth.com/gender-spectrum/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

(Edit: Formatting and typo)

[–]forgedsignatures 7 points8 points  (5 children)

Something interesting I've come across a few times when reading into gender is the idea that non-binary identities/ being trans has some sort of correlation with a diagnosis of autism/ autistic traits. Is there any research that you know of that looks into whether the two are direcrly linked somehow, or whether it is more likely linked to general disdain of societal rules that are unspoken or stupid?

[–]pdblasi 16 points17 points  (3 children)

I'm not as read up on that intersection as gender expression in general, but what I have seen better follows the "those with autism tend not to care about gender as much because it's a social construct that they have limited interest in".

In other words, autism may contribute to someone having a non-standard gender identity, but having a non-standard gender identity doesn't mean that a person is more likely to have autism.

And now you've got me going down a rabbit hole, thanks for that. :P

https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/what-is-autism/autism-and-gender-identity

[–]ElectricLego 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I'll attempt to add some examples since I'm not really impressed by the responses, and I will just assume this is an honest question. Psychologically, there are lots of people who don't feel the the M or F label applies perfectly to them. From a strictly physical biology standpoint, there are lots of other situations than just XX and XY - there are XXY and XYY, for example, along with many other more rare genetic variations.

[–]Useful_Ad6195 75 points76 points  (10 children)

Looks like a probability distribution curve

[–]RandomInSpaceheck texas 17 points18 points  (9 children)

I’m in the second semester of statistics and I still don’t know what that means

[–]letmeseem 50 points51 points  (1 child)

It's a bimodal distribution curve.

It's when you have anything that has a distribution that has two peaks, for example customer distribution in a restaurant from opening to closing time if they serve both lunch and dinner.

[–]CrustaceanCountess 1152 points1153 points  (99 children)

How do i acquire a time crystal, how does it work, i need to know

[–]Unrecovered_GigglesHe would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle 473 points474 points  (13 children)

  1. Break into Google corporation facilities
  2. Acquire the Sycamore

[–][deleted] 189 points190 points  (9 children)

Sycamore is in Pokemon X and Y dipshit, you don't need to break into Google for him

[–]HaydnintheHaus 71 points72 points  (7 children)

Wish he'd break me tho

[–]Croc_Chop 15 points16 points  (0 children)

He def broke your mom tho

Here kid go find me about 620 of these oh and the rare ones that manipulate the fabric of the space time continuum.

[–]Anaxamander57[🍰] 264 points265 points  (43 children)

Its a "crystal" that has a repeating structure in time as well as in space. I'm not clear on exactly how this works but due to the quantized nature of energy its possible to get a system into a state where it can't lose energy and is also moving. These don't seem to be similar to ordinary crystals, though. For instance one attempt to make a time crystal from a decade ago was to have a ring of super-cooled ions in a precisely shaped (but static) magnetic field. The idea was that the ring would keep moving in a circle forever.

That experiment didn't work IIRC but there have been claims of time crystals by other groups with other methods.

[–]justapassingguy*smirks at you* 137 points138 points  (12 children)

That's dangerously close to a plot device of a bad Sonic the Hedgehog game.

[–]megalocrozmaHere for Guilty Gear (and also Pokémon and JoJo) 29 points30 points  (10 children)

Which one?

[–]justapassingguy*smirks at you* 116 points117 points  (7 children)

The next one

Launches a new Word document

[–]RamenJunkie 34 points35 points  (4 children)

I'd like to think that modern games are created entirely in Word.

Bugs are due to all the formatting Word ads when you cut and paste onto the CD Drive to burn it to a disc.

[–]DizzySignificance491 10 points11 points  (0 children)

ChatGPT in 10 years

"I want a sonic game buy really really furry and the main guy is yellow and named sonichu and instead of ring he h egets harburgers and Ellie is is gf the whole time but shes and my dad is the badguy but hes easy and the levels are too hard but have a lot of spins circles and you go fast"

Sega royalties ($19)

Nintendo royalties ($9)

Gamefreak® royalties ($56)

Facebook API access ($19)

Instagram API access ($19)

Meta API access ($19)

Use Google or Apple pay here!

[–]Chronoeylle 57 points58 points  (1 child)

Time crystals have definitely been made in the lab. The catch is that they have to be driven with something, normally light, but the time crystal doesn't actually take energy from the driving force so it still doesn't lose energy (due to some quantum shenanigan).

[–]BrokeArmHeadass 43 points44 points  (2 children)

Just don’t come looking for the quantum spin liquid, I already drank it all

[–]MagicUnicornLove 25 points26 points  (4 children)

Think about a normal crystal as a breaking of your translation symmetry. In space, it doesn’t matter if youre at position r or shifted (translated) to a position r+a. They are the same. In a crystal, that’s no long the case: you can only shift by by a discrete set of points. So, in 1d, if you have points lined up as positions x_n= n a, where n is an integer and a a length, you can only move by m*a to get back to where you started.

Importantly, you think of a crystal as arising out of a filling translationally invariant space. At some point the crystal formed at x_n, but it could equally have formed at x_n + a0, for some length a0.

A time crystal would be the same thing except with space replaced by time. In the most interesting scenario, however, it is imposible.

You can however have “discrete” time crystals. So instead of started with all points in time being the same, you start with some periodicity T. So, say at time t=0 a bell rings. And then again at time T and again at 2T, etc.

The time crystal phase would arise out of this phase by “breaking” this symmetry. Instead of all times t = n T being the same, it’s preferable to have it so that only times t = 2 n T are the same. It takes twice as long to get back where you started: the period has doubled. In my bell example, it could be that for a complicated set of reasons, every other bell toll is twice as loud as the previous.

(They’re pretty overrated in my opinion, but the name is cool.)

[–]waxsniffer 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Thank you for this very thorough explanation. I understood 25% of it and am satisfied with the illusion of being smarter now.

[–]EmperorScarletFarm Fresh Organic Nonsense 20 points21 points  (1 child)

Be careful, if they catch you they'll send you to TIME PRISON

[–]Zoloft_and_the_RRDi don't have to 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Eat the silicia gel packet that comes with the beef jerky

[–]Impossible_Garbage_4 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Brb gonna combine dark matter, anti matter, time crystal, and quantum spin liquid in a cup and see what that does

[–]ApocalyptoSoldierlost my gender to the plague 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Hey, my matter just got violently annihilated and turned into pure energy.

Was that you?

[–]SiamonTBitch so basic I score a 15 on the pH scale 14 points15 points  (4 children)

Boreth has a bunch

[–]cyborgspleadthefifth 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Still a little bothered by Pike's interpretation of what happens to him

"I saw my own death, my life will be over on that day"

bro you'll be in a wheelchair in a utopian society without capitalism or discrimination, living with a disability isn't "death"

[–]Soulerrr 6 points7 points  (1 child)

It's like a scroll of Time Stop except Wizards can't learn the spell from it. And you can get it at Kubeus' Teleporting Emporium for 18,999gp.

Edit: Actually not joking, this is in my current D&D game.

[–]Important-Ad1871 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I can’t help with a crystal, but if you need a Time Cube I might know a place.

[–]super_awesome_jr 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah yeah, we've all seen the time crystal.

[–]poompt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You either always will have had it or you never won't have had it.

[–]Dracorex_22 1718 points1719 points  (118 children)

“It’s basic science, you learn this stuff in first grade” is not the gotcha they think it is

[–]Deathaster 890 points891 points  (71 children)

When we were being taught addition and subtraction, a classmate of mine asked if you can subtract a number so much that it goes below zero. Our teacher basically replied with "Yes, but for the purpose of this class, no" (not the exact words).

She was a real G, man. Even taught us in biology that men can be raped by women too because all they need for sex is an erect penis. And it was just an off-handed comment that she didn't make a big deal out of, too!

[–]TreejeigProbably drinking tea right now. 384 points385 points  (34 children)

The phrase my old science teacher, around grade 7 or 8 I think idk I'm not american, used sums basically all this up perfectly.

"We as teachers help you learn by going through the cycle of lying to you. We'll tell you something, make sure you understand the concepts about why it's that was, and then tell you "Whoops, we lied, it's actually this" for the next few years."

This was how we were taught the basics of an atom, started that atoms are the smallest thing ever and that atoms are just atoms, built up to using subatomic particles, going into detail about orbitals and then going into what make up the things that make up an atom.

[–]Jaqdawksask me about my cat (shes very soft) 197 points198 points  (24 children)

Russian nesting dolls but swearing up and down that this is it, and once you’ve memorized the intricate floral pattern painted on the doll’s dress, they’re like “TADAA!! tHERE IS MORE!” And it’s got a new pattern to memorize, and you’re doing it while they swear this is it (they lie perpetually but it’s good for you. Maybe their ability to tell the truth is metaphorically a Russian nesting doll too)

[–]TK-CL1PPY 141 points142 points  (3 children)

"Remember when we said electrons orbit the atomic nucleus? Yeah, about that... let us introduce the Cloud of Possibilities TM."

~Physics Teachers

[–]SnipingDwarfjust an ordinary space amoeba 39 points40 points  (1 child)

"we know they're there, just not where™️."

-the same teacher.

[–]mindbleach 79 points80 points  (19 children)

It kinda helps that each layer is fuzzier than the last. You understand why they dumbed it down.

"This is carbon, the village bicycle of the periodic table, and we know exactly what it's doing in basically every situation. If you think that makes it simple then do not major in chemistry."

"Electrons only turn into particles when you're looking, but you can't tell where they're going if you see where they are, because there's questions where 'we don't know' is the answer. It's impossible even after-the-fact... orrr whentheymovebackwardsintime anyway here's some balloon-animal diagrams."

"There's six quarks, but they always come in balanced triplets by exchanging anti-color. And the upper four explode. So all matter in the universe is a combination of these two mysterious particles! And electrons."

"Today's lecture on false vacuum and strange matter has a two-drink minimum."

[–]SnipingDwarfjust an ordinary space amoeba 29 points30 points  (5 children)

"Don't forget to take a shot every time someone tries applying Special Relativity to the subject."

[–]Retbull 19 points20 points  (4 children)

please no I don't want to die.

[–]SnipingDwarfjust an ordinary space amoeba 20 points21 points  (3 children)

"Post-mortem analysis indicates excessive spooky matter in the bloodstream."

Edit: spoooooky

[–]Shibula 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I’m sorry this sounds absolutely fascinating where can I learn more?

[–]mindbleach 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Quantum chromodynamics, apparently. I opened Wikipedia to double-check a joke about quarks and found out cutting-edge physics are sillier than science fiction would dare.

And antimatter might be moving backwards in time? The one-electron universe seems to be a curiosity where the math works out, more than a serious hypothesis. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is definitely real, and it is a bitch. Not least because of how often you have to tell people, no, we can't just "look harder," put your goddamn hand down. They just vaguely exist as a physical statistical model in a variety of increasingly silly orbital diagrams.

[–]TheAJGman 68 points69 points  (1 child)

As long as the teacher/professor isn't a dick when you ask questions about what comes next. I developed a distain for math in elementary school because I asked "what happens when you subtract a big number from a small one?" and the answer was "you can't do that, it's impossible". The following year we learned about negatives.

All she needed to say was "that's a more advanced topic for next year" or something. Instead she told me it was impossible and primed my hatred for math and lying math teachers.

[–]TreejeigProbably drinking tea right now. 25 points26 points  (0 children)

The second one was basically how he handled it, he'd give a very brief (one or two sentence) thing on it before saying something like "But you don't need to worry about that this year".

One that comes to mind was talking about how metals work as atoms, with how his way of putting it was "They do neither [bond isn't covalent or ionic, it's metallic] but sort of act as one big structure where some of the electrons just go where ever they want as oppose to staying in their bonds" and left it at that. Next year or so you'd learn then why it's like that and how it effects the properties and such.

[–]The_Northern_Light 14 points15 points  (1 child)

My graduate advisor (physics!) said almost the exact same thing to me when I was an undergraduate.

[–]benryves 8 points9 points  (0 children)

"Lies-to-children" is a reasonably common term for this, as described in The Science of Discworld:

A lie-to-children is a statement that is false, but which nevertheless leads the child's mind towards a more accurate explanation, one that the child will only be able to appreciate if it has been primed with the lie.

[–]5yleop1m 41 points42 points  (1 child)

That's a good teacher imo. I've had teachers like that, where given a situation where the kid was thinking ahead they'd let them know they're on the right track, but ahead of what was currently being taught.

[–]Deathaster 30 points31 points  (0 children)

She was a fantastic teacher and I realized it far too late.

She's not dead (probably), I just don't have contact with her anymore. Was also annoyed how long it took for her to grade exams before I realized that she was also the second principal. And had a daughter. Like, lady was just overworked.

[–]edlee98765 96 points97 points  (20 children)

There are three kinds of people in this world:

Those that understand math, and those that don't.

[–]snackynorph 35 points36 points  (13 children)

10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't

[–]Mazetron 40 points41 points  (5 children)

And those that didn’t expect the joke to be in base 3

[–]daemin 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The two most obnoxious programming bugs to troubleshoot are "off by one" errors.

[–]TK-CL1PPY 6 points7 points  (5 children)

There are DEAD people in the world, those who understand hexadecimal and those who don't.

[–]Deathaster 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Oh, I get it, because it's three people in total. Clever!

[–]Vlt0r 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I'm definitely the second one, what does this mean

[–]iriedashur.tumblr.com 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The joke is that they are in the second category (those that don't understand math) even though they are making a knowledgeable-sounding statement about it, because they say "3 kinds" but only list 2

[–]HylianPikachu 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data,

[–]LeastCoordinatedJedi 18 points19 points  (3 children)

Iwish I could learn to do that with my kids. Instead I get sidetracked into a long, poorly explained conversation about whatever advanced thing they accidentally asked about until they start to nod off and my wife stops me.

Thank goodness for Kurzgesagt to explain the things they want to know in 1/10 the time and with 3x the accuracy.

[–]Deathaster 8 points9 points  (1 child)

There's actually a simple strategy for that, only answer everything they're asking exactly and nothing more.

Sure, that applies to more younger kids and I have no idea how old yours are, but I'm pretty sure if you just answer with a single sentence, that should be enough.

[–]LeastCoordinatedJedi 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm ragging myself a little for comedy. Really I think I do pretty well, my kids are older now and pretty passionate about science, in part I think because I get really excited whenever we talk about it. I do have a bad tendency to overdo it, but on the whole it's tended more positive than I implied.

[–]SqueakSquawk4 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Our teacher basically replied with "Yes, but for the purpose of this class, no" (not the exact words).

I like your teacher.

I was once in a similar situation. We were asked the highest energy state of matter. I said plasma. She said wrong, it's gas. It wasn't until I asked her after the lesson she said it was because that hadn't been taught to us yet.

I mean, come on! We were in year 7. We should at least be able to cope with "Yes, but that's not what we're talking about" or "Yes, but for the purpose of this lesson, no".

I prefer your teacher.

[–]FerociousDiglett 91 points92 points  (5 children)

Everybody knows the cable of a pendulum is massless! It's basic physics! (/s)

[–]CarbonIceDragon 55 points56 points  (3 children)

Cows are supposed to be spherical, all these weird quadruped ones are just deformed and unnatural!

[–]TK-CL1PPY 21 points22 points  (1 child)

They also are frictionless and have no need of an atmosphere.

[–]the_river_nihil 12 points13 points  (0 children)

What do you mean I can’t disregard wind resistance?!

[–]ideb18 125 points126 points  (2 children)

you learn the dumbed down version in first grade, the simplified stuff for first graders.

[–]Anaxamander57[🍰] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

The full and complete truth of the universe is only revealed to second graders.

[–]mindbleach 54 points55 points  (5 children)

Ditto "basic economics," the mating call of libertarians.

Basic doesn't mean "fundamental." It means "for children."

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

My intro to economics professor once said ‘the problem with saying “it’s basic Econ 101” is that in Econ 102, the first thing we’ll tell you is that Econ 101 was all oversimplified bullshit.’

[–]HammerTh_1701 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Come on! Basic economics is for undergrads who only landed in economics because they don't know what else to do and don't actually care about their degree but business economics pay the bills...

Yeah, I will probably do some economics courses next year.

[–]LittleRadishes 6 points7 points  (0 children)

A lot of em weren't even paying attention

[–]Rhodie114 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Seriously. When I was in first grade I also learned that you couldn’t subtract a larger number from a smaller number.

[–]Armless_Dan 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Imagine getting a 1st grade education and just going “ok thats all I need to completely understand the Universe!”

[–]Yggi_the_tree 375 points376 points  (28 children)

tag yourself, I'm Degenerate Matter

[–]dirk_loyd 88 points89 points  (2 children)

i'm quark-gluon plasma

(half life my beloved)

[–]eategg24 21 points22 points  (1 child)

gorbon freenam in the flesh…

[–]dirk_loyd 9 points10 points  (0 children)

or, rather, in the fur suit

[–]Lord_Oasis 31 points32 points  (0 children)

I claim quantum spin liquid

[–]FkinShtManEySuck 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Supercolloid (not in the list) (i am socially ostracized by my peers)

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

I'm mental illnesses

[–]skybluegill 14 points15 points  (1 child)

New enby names just dropped

[–]Yggi_the_tree 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Brilliant addition

[–]redbanditttttttt 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Superglass

[–]Ineedtwocats 10 points11 points  (0 children)

[Maude Flanders voice]

Regular glass for me

[–]an-absolute-lad 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Supercritical Fluid babey

[–]the_river_nihil 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Dips on photonic molecule! Not so massless anymore, is it?!

[–]The_Northern_Light 6 points7 points  (0 children)

i'm Color Glass Condensate because i didn't know that existed

i have an advanced degree in physics

[–]justsaneandsensibl 111 points112 points  (8 children)

If you think i'm not pissed about physics and math you are wrong in ways i could not be bothered to describe.

[–]IronMyr 113 points114 points  (12 children)

I'm glad physicists (chemists?) are having fun doing fucked-up shit to materials and recording what happens.

[–]AncientDominion 52 points53 points  (5 children)

Word you’re looking for is material scientists. Basically 50/50 chemistry and physics. Or materials engineers if you’re thinking of people who try to combine and optimize things for either industry or consumer goods. Which is 50/25/25 chemistry, physics and engineering.

Source: am studying materials science and engineering

[–]ApocalyptoSoldierlost my gender to the plague 26 points27 points  (4 children)

Are they anything like material girls (living in a material world)?

[–]AncientDominion 25 points26 points  (0 children)

As a girl doing materials science, yes.

Source: am girl

[–]193152020 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Aren’t we all just material girls living in a material world?

[–]Zaiburo 191 points192 points  (8 children)

Gender is like D&D alignment, the harder you try to define it the less sense it makes.

[–]pterrorgrinesayonara you weeaboo shits 24 points25 points  (3 children)

Imposition of order equals escalation of chaos

[–]beelzeflub.tumblr.com 11 points12 points  (1 child)

It’s flexible!

[–]skyjoka 19 points20 points  (0 children)

“The code is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.” – Barbossa, Pirates of the Caribbean

[–]MagicMooby 278 points279 points  (85 children)

As a biologists, I'm not really a fan of the biology arguments of either side

because to me, it doesn't matter

Trans people do not ignore basic biology, they are very much aware of it since the mismatch between their sex (biology) and gender is what causes gender dysphoria

the main argument of trans people is not that biology doesn't exist, it's that identity involves far more than just biology and that the biological aspects of identity are far less important than the social and psychological aspects

and I absolutely agree with them

after all, I involuntarily gender every single person that I meet in my everyday life, I put all of them in neat little male/female/no idea boxes in my brain yet I never see their genitalia or their chromosomes

we don't sort peole based on their genitals in their everyday lives, we sort them based on secondary and tertiary characteristics (which are highly variable and which can be manipulated) as well as how they present themselves

and if that doesn't work, we usually just ask

this is how it has worked for most of human history and this is especially how it works in the modern digital age

and yet, transphobes want to ignore all that and reduce everyone to their gametes

but those are just my thoughts as a cisgender biologist

and also, if we ever find evidence of biological causes for being trans like we did with homosexuality (a trans gene if you will) then being trans will become an objective biological fact, but transphobes won't care about that the same way that homophobes still push conversion therapy bullshit

Edit:

Just for clarity, while I dislike the use of biological arguments in those debates because I think they miss the point, that doesn't meant that they don't have a place. There absolutely are biological arguments to be made and they support trans people.

As others have pointed out to me we do actually have some solid evidence that suggests that there are biological factors that influence gender identity.

[–]artemis1935holy defiler 60 points61 points  (31 children)

we found a biological cause for being gay?

[–]MagicMooby 90 points91 points  (27 children)

Kinda?

Technically there is no 100% proof that being gay is determined by biology, but there is a lot of evidence for biological factors. For example, experiments with twins show that monozygotic (same egg) twins are more likely to share sexual orientaton than dizygotic (different eggs) twins. Experiments like that point towards prenatal biological factors that influence sexual orientation. Afaik there are also a number of genes which have been linked to sexual orientation but there isn't one definitive 'gay gene'. All in all we can confidently say that there are biological factors which influence sexual orientation which also means that conversion therapy CANNOT work.

Wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on this called 'biology and sexual orientation' which gives a lot of information and some sources for further reading.

Edit: u/raskingballs explains it better than I can in his reply, but the genetic factors are weaker than I assumed. That doesn't mean that these genetic factors don't exist, it just means that they cannot explain what we see. We still don't know why people are homosexual but the evidence suggests that biology plays a role.

[–]raskingballs 61 points62 points  (1 child)

As a geneticist, I'd like to ask you to make your comment less prone to misinterpretation.

Even if it was not your intention, a lot of people are interpreting your comment as "there is a gay gene". As scientists, we have the responsibility of making science communication clear (specially with polemical topics), and make sure they cannot be misinterpreted or twisted by people with extremist political agenda.

Btw, the heritability of homosexuality is moderate --less than 0.40. That means that less than 50% of the variability in the probability of being gay is explained by (additive) genetic factors.

On the other hand, the "biological cause" for being gay has not been found. It is more accurate to say that it has been determined that biology (genetics) play a (moderate) role in the probability of being gay. However, even if we know that the heritabbility is greater than 0, we don't know the genes (or genetic variants, to be more precise) that explain such heritability. Thus, we cannot claim that "we have found a biological cause for being gay". It is more accurate to say "we know there are some biological (genetic) factors, but we haven't identified them yet". But most importantly, identifying them is less meaningful because of the high poligenicity of the trait.

[–]FireHazard11 19 points20 points  (9 children)

It's also been discovered that the more sons a woman has, the more likely the later ones are to be gay. I dont remember if there was a similar link for lesbians and multiple daughters though.

[–]Express_Opposite 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The organizational-activational hypothesis is also pretty neat.

[–]TotemGenitorYou must cum into the bucket brought to you by the cops.[S] 68 points69 points  (0 children)

That is more about intersex people and how trans people having a "wrong" phenotype is nothing new.

But it is a great point.

[–]TheBirminghamBear 42 points43 points  (11 children)

after all, I involuntarily gender every single person that I meet in my everyday life, I put all of them in neat little male/female/no idea boxes in my brain yet I never see their genitalia or their chromosomes

The other problem is that "male" and "female" don't exist in nature.

They're words we make up. They're words that describe trends. They're not realities.

Some species have "two" sexes and high sexual dimorphism. Other species have two sexes and extremely low sexual dimorphism. Some exist in in-between states or even states where a creature swaps sexes within its lifecycle.

Male and female are just words we invented that then we attached meaning to. They aren't absolutes - nature doesn't deal in absolutes, it deals in gradients. There are gradients of everything.

Two is less complicated than three, and so the reason most sexual species of animals present with two "sexes" is because it is less complicated and it is sufficient to produce the genetic variation in a population for that population to survive.

There is no reason under other circumstances it couldn't be three. There's no reason at all for it to present the way it does, and nothing wrong with fluidity iinside of that.

The single greatest thing that I see from the scientifically ignorant is a lack of an ability to understand that the words we use to symbolize things are just that - symbols. Approximations. They aren't the thing. There's no true male and true female. There are people with Y chromosomes, who generally present with a penis and testes. There are people with no Y chromosome, who generally present with a vagina.

They're trends. Commonalities. DNA is mutable, prone to error and mutation and that is the driving force behind evolution. We're always producing new things, but these people can't fathom that. Their thinking is too rigid, too reductive, too simplistic, and so they want just two boxes and they want everything to fit in those boxes and then they tend to react violently to anything which does not fit in those two boxes.

There is no "gravity" - there's a pattern of observed phenomena that we have given a name, but the universe doesn't bend to our taxonomy. It's the other way around. We must bend to nature because words are abstracts, and nature is.

And there's a lot of not-super-bright people out there who continually and perpetually fail to understand the difference.

[–]FNLN_taken 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Do you have a vendetta against the period?

Otherwise, I by-and-large agree.

[–]MagicMooby 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Do you have a vendetta against the period?

Too much time spent in chatrooms and forums where nothing matters as long as you can still guess what the other person meant. It has actually started to bleed into my professional writing, I should really try to correct that lol.

[–]ilovemycatjunean alolan vulpix irl | look at june --> r/iheartjune 123 points124 points  (16 children)

ohhh I can’t wait to sort by controversial in a few hours and see the terfs fuming about this one

[–]TotemGenitorYou must cum into the bucket brought to you by the cops.[S] 59 points60 points  (15 children)

It has already caught a few. We just need to reach r/all.

[–]PickledPlumPlot 63 points64 points  (27 children)

Reminds me of when in middle school I had a breakdown and got into a crying argument with my parents when I found out that electrons don't literally orbit the nucleus.

I felt so betrayed and lied to

[–]AceBean27 26 points27 points  (24 children)

when I found out that electrons don't literally orbit the nucleus.

They really do though.

I don't know why there's a widespread belief that they don't. I think it's chemists' fault.

Just like with most things, the quantum mechanical orbit has some different properties to the classical mechanics orbits, sure. But I don't see how you can argue it's not an orbit though, without also arguing something like motion doesn't exist. The electrons are moving (they have momentum), and they are bound to the nucleus via electrostatic attraction. The stronger the attraction (the heavier the element), the faster the electrons move (the more energy and momentum they have).

[–]PM_ME_UR_BAN_NOTICE 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I think when people say "electrons don't orbit the nucleus" they mean in a classical elliptical orbit. The resason this is spread (probably by chemists indeed) is because it's a lot easier to say that than to define the looser definition of orbit.

[–]SgtMcMuffin0 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Don’t they? I know it’s not a simple circle like the Bohr model that is often taught in middle/high school chemistry would suggest. But I thought they did literally orbit the nucleus and that electron orbitals are just used to describe the probability that the electron is at any given location at a moment in time.

[–]WormcoilSickos 91 points92 points  (9 children)

I get bad vibes off the lies-to-children teaching method in general. When I was taught Newtonian physics in grade school, they actually stressed to me that it was a model of thinking that produced useful results in only some contexts, and that worked for me. I wish we used that framing for more subjects

[–]TotemGenitorYou must cum into the bucket brought to you by the cops.[S] 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it should be made clear that it is the simplified version.

[–]Seenoham 31 points32 points  (0 children)

I agree.

Teaching the simplified model is still good even if we know it's not the most accurate, but after a very early point we can say it's a simplified model.

Once they are capable of understanding the idea of a model, we don't need to disguise it anymore.

When you start getting into hogfather lies it's more complex.

[–]greg19735 15 points16 points  (3 children)

at what grade was this though?

I feel like the idea of a 'model" as a way of thinking is too complex for elementary schoolers. i think we could bring up the idea earlier, but too early and you're just gonna have kids mind blown apart as they start asking why 1+1=2

[–]Duck__Quack 8 points9 points  (2 children)

You're absolutely right, and the next step is clear.

Principia Mathematica as a bedtime story.

[–]theweekiscat 57 points58 points  (18 children)

I hate advanced math because they couldn’t figure it out and now I have to deal with fake numbers that aren’t real

[–]Seenoham 45 points46 points  (4 children)

The Pythagoreans killed a man because he proved that the square root of 2 was irrational.

The real numbers don't mean what you think they mean. "Real" is just the word they use, it includes things like transcendental numbers.

[–]Nice-Violinist-6395 6 points7 points  (2 children)

The… who?

Are you taking about a group of people or two married math nerds or why are they plural? I had no idea they were plural. Is “The Pythagoreans” like The Brady Bunch? what is going on here? why are they murdering another math guy? It’s not just one Pythagorus or some shit? Is it like a cult, or the band Bread? what the hell

[–]JefftheDoggo 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The Pythagoreans were the followers of Pythagoras. They slit a guys throat and drowned him because he used the Pythagorean Theorem to prove root 2's irrationality.

[–]Seenoham 9 points10 points  (0 children)

They were the followers of Pythagoras, a little bit scholars, a little bit rich bored philosophers, a little bit cult.

[–]ShaadowOfAPerson 19 points20 points  (3 children)

Imaginary numbers are a terrible name for it there's absolutely nothing about them that's any more or less real then real numbers. It's just a 2 dimensional vector space extension. You can do the exact same type of thing by treating the square root of 2 as a fraction and get an equally valid mathematical object.

[–]BatyStar 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Not really, 2D vector space and complex numbers aren't the same, just isomorphic. This is the far edge of my mathematical knowledge, but i would say the main differences are definitions of multiplication and division (good luck dividing 2 vectors), and possibly other operations. It's still fine to visualize them like this tho.

[–]memesfromthevine 20 points21 points  (9 children)

true story, i actually briefly contemplated that my physics professor might have been insane when he started talking about up quarks, down quarks, and gluons. I sincerely thought he made those words up and looked them up to see if these were words anyone else on the planet had ever said before. Now I have a very elementary understanding of quantum mechanics, fusion, fission, and a bunch of other stuffthatitotallywontforgetin3months

[–]Elekitu 73 points74 points  (53 children)

As a mathematician, I die a little inside everytime I see someone write "sqrt(-1)=i"

[–]TobbyTukaywan 37 points38 points  (20 children)

Is that not the definition of i? I'm confused.

[–]Xurkitree1 111 points112 points  (19 children)

i is defined by the equation x2 +1=0, which actually has two solutions, i and -i. So Root(-1) has two values which are both equally valid solutions. The comic here omits the other, equally valid definition (since nothing really stops you from flipping the signs on every bit of complex algebra ever).

[–]Seenoham 92 points93 points  (7 children)

While the mathematician in me agrees with you, the artist in me in me thinks using the technically more accurate equation would break the compositional balance of the piece in a way that would undermine the effect.

[–]Elekitu 15 points16 points  (1 child)

You're perfectly right, but it's one of my pet peeves, and I couldn't let an opportunity to spread the good word go to waste :v

[–]Seenoham 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I feel you.

For me it's "infinity isn't a number it's a concept".

No, it's several distinct mathematical concepts. In limits negative infinity is different from infinity, but in geometry there is a single point at infinity, and set theory has so many infinities they had to make these things called ordinals.

[–]dontshowmygf 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Well, I think "+/- i" would still work visually, and it sounds like to would satisfy the mathematicians in the crowd. Doesn't make it less pedantic, but it's a fun discussion.

[–]Sinister_Compliments🍁 Th- This is my Hole! It was made for me! 🍁 15 points16 points  (5 children)

Would you accept, sqrt(-1)={-i,i}

[–]Elekitu 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Not really. You're using an implicit inclusion from complex numbers to subsets of complex numbers. And even then you need to extend your definition from C to P(C), so that you can write sqrt(sqrt(-1)). I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's a lot of complications that doesn't accomplish much. From a teaching perspective, it causes less confusions to just leave it as undefined.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (13 children)

As a guy who likes math YouTube channels and thought that was correct, can you explain why it's wrong?

[–]SkyConsistent3216 18 points19 points  (1 child)

writing i^2 = -1 is correct, but the square root of a complex number is hard to define, and the typical definition of sqrt outputs a set. Here, sqrt(-1) = {i, -i} if you really want to be pedantic.

tldr : i^2 = -1 yet i is not sqrt(-1), this doesn't work like in R+.

[–]Randomd0g 6 points7 points  (0 children)

As a dyslexic, I raise my eyebrows every time I see that abbreviation because I think you just said "squirt"

[–]Ausradierer 12 points13 points  (6 children)

Ok, so to anyone that cares about the last thing.

the states are fine, though saying Vapor is Gas is a bit wrong, since generally a Vapor is a liquid suspended in a gas.

Putting a Supercritical fluid on the same "level" as Quark Gluon Plasma is a bit odd, Since a Supercritical Fluid is "just" the point where the fluid of a substance and the gas of a substance have the same density. Whereas Quark Gluon Plasma similar, but at like a bazillion degrees fuck you. Where Hadrons disintegrate into Quarks which just kind of nyoom around in Gluon Soup.

A colloid is just when 2 things liquids don't mix. If you put a drop of water in oil and it sinks, that's a colloid. That's not a state of matter.

Glass is just an amorphous Crystal. You can get Silicon Dioxide to crystalize properly, you just need to cool it slower. Why is this here?

A Crystal is just a type of solid. It's a repeated arrangement of molecules/atoms why is it here?

I'll give you the liquid crystal though, as they're weird.

Exotic Matter is a funny word that basically means any particle that maybe exists that doesn't behave according to the laws of physics. It's a word to describe a concept. it's not real.

Programmable Matter is weird, but in general describes a property of a system of particles, rather than the system itself.

Dark Matter is just Matter we can't see but know is out there.

Antimatter is just regular Matter but with the charges flipped. It behaves just like regular matter and can form solids, liquids and gasses. The only interesting property is that it anihilates with regular matter releasing a bunch of energy.

Why are magnets here? These are not states of matter but yet again properties of solids. There's also liquid magnets. Ferro Fluid doesn't count it's just dust in oil. At least mention the cool types like Diamagnetism and Paramagnetism.

String Net Liquid is a proposed mechanism for Quantum mechanical mechanisms that are currently unexplained or unsatisfactorially explained by the standard model of particle physics. It's not really a state of matter either, but it extremely complex and you need a very deep understanding of Quantum Mechanics to even begin to conceptualize how it behaves.

Superglass is a Superfluid Crystal. We don't know if it exists. Some guy proposed it as a possible state for Helium to be in under extremely extreme conditions.

[–]Nulono 33 points34 points  (14 children)

I think the problem is that different people use the same words to refer to like 9 different ideas, and people end up arguing over the words instead of the ideas.

[–]Oceloctopus 23 points24 points  (5 children)

Alas, if only. If folks argued about the words they might actually reach a conclusion, instead they argue about the ideas without knowing or caring that the other person is using a different definition, and thus a different idea.

This mini rant brought to you by folks arguing about racism using "bigotry +power" VS racism "bigotry"

[–]AllThingsEndBadly 22 points23 points  (6 children)

Nature doesn't draw straight lines.

One thing exists; the universe. Every word we have invented is just to describe a very temporary form of a very small piece of the universe.

We defined every word. We defined every concept. We change them when we want.

[–]AGneissGeologist 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Entry level geology: oooh pretty crystals

Advanced geology: we are insignifigant lava monsters. Also, here's the Miller Index now go fuck yourself.

[–]Luxmaindudes 10 points11 points  (0 children)

sex are boobieeeees