/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5024706
I like her, but please stop bumping and spamming Daniella Titan threads.

In every field, guys.

Bumping real science.

Saging for shit video

sage
not science

Four of these stupid fucking threads on the front page...

>>5024716
How is quantum mechanics not science?

Finally a good explanation of Schrodinger's cat.

>>5024721
please stop advertising these shitty videos here, take it somewhere else

Ignore them all, for the love of all that you hold dear, you fools.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Vihart
Vihart is superior.

>>5024724
There are 4 of these threads on the front page now.
Perhaps it is time to stop?
You are clearly trolling.

Reading wikipedia isn't science, stop advertising.

>>5024726

NU.

>>5024737
How am I trolling? I am not the OP and I was only commenting on the video, saying that I found it helpful.

>>5024735
What an ugly slut.

Sort of reminds me of Harriet.

>>5024738

If I read it scientifically it is.

This is now a Vihart thread.

>>5024737

lel Harriet is jelly because she will never be as cute and smart as Daniela

>>5024745
>bumping a shit thread devoted to a shit video from a shit channel

This person is more attractive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxqTtiWxs4

>>5024757
implying it isn't OP

>>5024745
Oh come on, now.
A new Daniella Titan thread gets made, and all previous Daniella Titan threads in existence get bumped to the front page in the space of a couple of minutes.
You expect me to believe that this is a coincidence?

There is a thread on /q/ complaining about this.
Moderators banned the people who reported the threads.
The threads are science, and they are unique, but this is spamming in a way, because people can just go and watch her videos in their own time, if they desire.
We do not need every single Daniella Titan video pushed into our faces here.

I have not reported any of them, but please, be considerate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBgQPSUTWVM

fuck cute science, violent science!

>>5024753
I am not jealous.
In fact, I like her videos.

Everybody has different talents; hers is clearly Physics. I accept that she is better than me at it.

>>5024757
But this isn't shit. It's an informative video. I didn't know Schrodinger's cat before watching it and now I understood the thought experiment.

>>5024763
You're quoting the wrong post, hun. I said I'm not the OP.

>>5024763
Do you realize you are trying to prove to a troll that he is a troll?

>>5024772
>You're quoting the wrong post, hun. I said I'm not the OP.
Right... of course you're not, hun

>>5024772
Fuck off Carl

Don't you think you and your troll buddies did enough damage today? The stupid millionaire troll faggot thread already got 50 posts.

It's a broad explanation of what the thought experiment was talking about. It works for those that are interested in science in general but without an understanding of the Schrodinger equation/Eigenvalues/Heisenbergs uncertainty principle/ etc the thought experiment just becomes fodder for quantum mysticism and pseudo intellectuals claiming they "get" quantum mechanics...... Maybe

>>5024769
>Daniella Titan
>talented at physics

If that is the case, I'd like to see her show it. Certainly nothing so far would indicate that.

>>5024782
>The stupid millionaire troll thread already got 50 posts.
My apologies. That is slightly my fault. I should not have replied at all.

>>5024772
>I didn't know Schrodinger's cat before watching it

Whatever you post happy idiots do, don't blame the mods. It's not their fault, this asshole is trying to make us turn on them.

>In the bad old days: Male scientists grudgingly accepted female scientists when they had genuine talent.
>Now we are enlightened: We pretend that women have talent and give them lots of attention, as long as the have a good pair of tits.

>>5024785
The information in her videos is correct, is it not?
Is the level of detail not to your liking?

>>5024782
That thread involves an unsolved problem in measure-theoretic probability theory. It is just as much of a math thread as this is a science thread.

Subjective opinions are not relevant to what is considered on topic here.

ViHart is a much better channel with much better videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9K18CGEeiI

>>5024785
I am pretty convinced she has no formal background whatsoever and has no understanding of any mathematical framework, but has done her popsci homework.

>>5024794
Then don't bump the thread, dumbass.

>>5024792
No they are not.
All the Daniella Titan threads are science, and are all about different topics. They are not spam, and those topics do deserve to be here.

The moderators have acted exactly as they should have, you just do not like it.
Moderators can only issue a ban if a user has broken the rules.
These threads have not.

>>5024795
Reading from Wikipedia is hardly my definition of "talented at physics". But yes, if they were more detailed I probably would be happier.

>>5024799

It's scripted. This is viral advertising on /sci/. Unless 4chan is getting a cut, this person is getting free advertising.

>>5024797
Yesh she ish much better

>>5024794
>good pair of tits
>Daniella Titan

>>5024735
>>5024746
>>5024760
>>5024767
>>5024797
le butthurt samefag trying to push his shitty popsci videos.

Take them somewhere else, this is real rigorous science.

>>5024813
>not actually viewing the links
>thinking they were all the same channel
>thinking they were all the same person

>>5024799
Did you even watch the video? I'd say she's at least a grad student of physics.

>>5024805
I bet you wouldn't understand everything on wikipedia. Especially the math heavy physics topics are almost impossible to understand without university education.

>>5024805
Fine.
But keep in mind that most casual viewers of YouTube do not like videos that have too much depth.
If something is too complex, most people are not interested in watching it. They want the basic facts; a summary.
Keep it short and sweet.

>>5024799

I would like to see her normalize a wave function live. If she can do it, then I will watch her videos...or not.

>>5024804
>All the Daniella Titan threads...are not spam

Are you the same person who said this>>5024763 ?

>>5024820
Nobody cares. Stop spamming our science thread.

>>5024797
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx5D09s5X6U

>>5024824
>our science thread
>our
>implying you own it
>science
>implying there is science here
>thread
>implying implications

>>5024802
Whoa, a little hostile there

>>5024825
>>5024830
Stop shitposting `please`.

>>5024823
Yes.
Spamming 'in a way' because they have a common factor: all being Daniella Titan videos.
The topics are different, however.

I suggest making a thread about that particular topic, without mentioning Daniella Titan at all, in future.

>>5024817
MinutePhysics is more informative, less obnoxious, and basically the same length.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4

>>5024830
>implying you aren't Inurdaes trying to push his shitty popsci videos

>>5024819
>normalize a wave function
What are you 12? I know her personally. She derived the entire standard model from just the Wightman axioms and pure thought.

>>5024834
Thankyou. I actually think that this video is better than Daniella's.
I will explore this channel more.

>>5024833 without mentioning Daniella Titan at all, in future.

Why not?

I suggest you immediately turn off your tripfag.

>>5024818
Stop being dumb, there is literally no maths knowledge needed to read the Wikipedia entry for Schrodinger's cat. Speaking as a person who actually does have a degree in physics, I can't judge whether or not she has any formal education at all. If she does, she is purposefully not showing it.

>>5024839

2/10

>>5024841
Done.

And because it is the topic that is important, not any particular link, or paper, or video on a topic.

>>5024812
Ok I didn't want to click the link on principle. Still, if she had the appearance of a typical physics PhD, she would get no hits. Goes to show how idiotic "empowerment" is as a concept.

Isn't the cat already dead or alive before an observation is made? Isn't superposition really just a reflection of our ignorance of which outcome will prevail in probabilistic situations?

>>5024842
>Confirmed LoLfag
>References it
She will never get a college education.

>>5024842
>who actually does have a degree in physics
What kind of degree? She is most likely a postdoc who does these videos in her spare time.

>>5024851
So why do people make a big deal out of this?

>>5024848
Yes.

>>5024834
No, that's dumbed down pop sci and not as informative as her videos.

>>5024842
You are biased. You have physics and math education and thus understand much more than a normal person. For sure the average /sci/ poster fails to understand most physics articles on wikipedia.

>>5024852
0/10

>>5024853
Because sometimes people take it literally, when it is not supposed to be taken literally.

Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment about quantum physics. Erwin Schrödinger proposed it in 1935, in reaction to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. With this thought experiment, Schrödinger wanted to show that this way of thinking about quantum mechanics would lead to absurd situations: in this case, a cat being both alive and dead at the same time.

>>5024855
but I was serious ;(

>>5024848
For something as macroscopic as a cat, yes, because of decoherence. For individual particles, no, it is not. I already PM'd her and asked for her to do a video explaining just this. (Bell's inequalities).

Hopefully she'll have it up next week, I'll post a link to it on here when it goes live

>>5024850
Great, she's turtles all the way down.

>>5024847
A little harsh. Even in physics there are some hot ladies. Not many, but they do exist. Oh and they're all taken btw.

>>5024866
No, pointing out that a group of women is on average not very attractive is not harsh.

Valuing women only for their attractiveness is what is harsh.

>>5024842
>>5024850
Speaking as another person with a physics degree, I highly doubt she has one, let alone is a postdoc.

Also, yeah, more Vi Hart please.

>>5024866
You know nothing of physics. She does have credentials.

>>5024871
>having a physics degree
>not hating vi hart

0/10, go back to school

>>5024871
There's no need to be upset over her ability to explain a topic in a more informative and less convoluted manner than you.

>>5024845
Except I'm not trolling.

>>5024878
>not having a physics degree
>thinking anybody who does have one hates interesting video makers

>>5024893
>interesting video makers

You have no idea what that means.

>>5024875
There's no need to upbraid me for not using precise language in an informal setting.

>>5024879
Nobody's upset over that. Our jimmies are rustled by threads devoted to spamming her videos appearing on /sci/ en masse.

>>5024895
>implying I didn't make the square thingy that demonstrated Pythagora's theorem
>implying it wasn't genuinely interesting
>implying Daniella Titan's videos can evoke anything close to the same response

>>5024901
Now we KNOW that you don't have a physics degree.

>>5024900
just a misunderstanding bro

>>5024772
>I didn't know schrodinger's cat before watching it and now i understood the thought experiment

Anon confirmed for never watching a video on Schrodingers cat. Or even reading the simple wikipedia page on the experiment.

>>5024904
Yeah, all physics degrees start with a proof of Pythagora's theorem from first principles. Sadly I was sick on Pythagora's Day, which is the appointed day of the year that all physics students are taught this closely guarded proof. Sorry to disappoint.

>>5024818
Holy fucking shit. How retarded are you? I'm a sophmore physics major, and I could do at least the same job she did. Have you never even read the wikipedia article on the thought experiment?

A cat is placed in a room that is separated from the outside world. A Geiger counter and a little bit of a radioactive element are in the room. Within some time, say one hour, one of the atoms of the radioactive material may decay (or break down, this is because the material is not stable), or it may not. The Geiger counter can measure that. If the material breaks down, it will release poisonous gas, which will kill the cat.
The question now is: at the end of the hour, is the cat alive or dead?
Schrödinger says that as long as the door is closed, the cat could be dead or alive. There is no way to know until the door is opened.
The problem is in that by opening the room, the person is interfering with the experiment. The person and the experiment have to be described with reference to each other. By looking at the experiment the person has influenced the experiment. A famous physics theory (the Copenhagen interpretation) said that the cat was both dead and alive until its observation proved it to be one or the other (Superposition).


Thats a copypasta from wikipedia and ALREADY its more informative then her video, and its not incredibly difficult to understand.

>>5024911
lol you have no idea what "proof" means in mathematics. Protip: making colorful drawings is not enough to constitute a proof

>>5024900
>Nobody's upset over that. Our jimmies are rustled by threads devoted to spamming her videos appearing on /sci/ en masse.
There are informative videos on a variety of different topics. They are not spam, as individual threads focus on entirely different things. I don't want to talk about entangled rays in Hilbert space inside a biology mouse thread.

The person who creates the videos is irrelevant. It's the varied content and clarity.

>>5024914
I don't know what a "sophmore" (sic!) is, but it must be some higher level of education and according to you she must have at least that level to understand this kind of physics.