I've always been most fond of Physics and Psychology. Chemistry is also fun. I try to approach my observations and conclusions scientifically in any way I can, but find the results of Physics and Psychology to the most interesting in terms of results. In particular, I am interested in relativity, thermodynamics, mental illness, and conditioning of the body and mind. Thinking of these things brings value to my life and often allows me to examine myself more intimately.

My profession is to teach Physics, but at 25 I can't imagine myself doing this forever. I'd like to continue learning languages and exploring so that I may understand the world a bit better.

What kind of scientist are you? Feel free to be brief, longwinded, creative, straight forward, etc...

As this is an icebreaker thread, I'd love to keep it low in flame and debate.

If this life didn't have such a short span and so many obstacles I would dive into several different areas of science.. probably starting with evolution.

Started with a BS in chemistry. I definitely enjoy the mathematical application (not too many people enjoyed pchem). Now I am going in the direction of biology (dentistry) but biophysics and physiology is pretty cool.

I wouldn't consider myself a legitimate scientist. However, I always try to be scientific in whatever problem I encounter in reality. Recently, I have become more interested in physics. But I reject what they teach in school. I think that there is a probability that scientists could be wrong about everything. Gravity makes no sense and nothing being faster than the speed of light makes no sense. I believe that the scientific community has become like a religion.

Another thing that makes no sense is atomic structure. How is the electrons and protons not attracted to each other? Is there some unknown force that keeps atoms from collapsing? This may be a simple question for physics and chemistry teachers, but are they correct?

Science isn't trying to tell you what's right. It aims to find the most likely explaination. If you reject it, it might be a good idea to get familiar with an idea. Otherwise you'll have a very hard time disproving it.

There is a probability that scientists are wrong about everything. Somewhere between 0 and 1, likely quite close to 0.

As for your last paragraph, most of those questions are easily answered. There are many forces within an atom that hold it together. Electromagnetic, the strong force, the weak force. These are guys that make gravity look like a little bitch.

A side note about gravity: Whether people like it or not, gravity exists. There is some interaction between masses and we call it gravity. Do we understand it? No, mass is an incredibly hard phenomenon to understand.

This post was edited by iDoYardWork on Sep 8 2017 12:57am

I disagree. Science is about objectivity. The most likely explanation is not good science. That sounds a lot like speculation. And speculation is not science.

In regards to gravity, it makes no sense to make an assumption on something we do not understand. Those assumptions can lead to a religion and anyone that opposes those dogmas are seen as lunatics. This is actually counterproductive towards advancing mankind because for a long time these beliefs can go unchallenged, and nobody finds answers. Remember Galileo?

This post was edited by Malignanttumor666 on Sep 8 2017 01:49am

No, there is a known force. If you picked up any A-level physics book you would know this...

Sorry man, but you are entirely misguided on what science is. Observation followed by speculation on something you don't know is an absolute 100% must. Nobody is seen as a lunatic by anybody with compassion, and a scientist will support any questioning as it is crucial to the process.

If you re-read, you'll see that I said that science looks to find the most likely explaination, NOT that science is the best explaination. Thats like saying that baking is a cake.

Aaaand here I am doing exactly what I said not to do in this thread...

This post was edited by iDoYardWork on Sep 8 2017 08:55am

Thanks for asking an insightful question! This was actually one of the problems that lead to the development of quantum mechanics!

If electrons were just particles orbiting around oppositely charged particles, you're right, they would collapse and atomic structures would be unstable.


The reason atomic structure doesn't collapse is because electrons aren't actually just particles. They behave probabilistically, so there is a non-zero chance of finding the electron in the nucleus, but there's also a non-zero chance of finding it outside the nucleus.

It takes quite a bit of physics and math know-how to understand the derivation, but basically, when something has a really low mass it behaves more as a wave, like light, and less as a particle. This means that an electron doesn't really have a "location" in the sense we are used to, because it is spread out across an area close to the nucleus.





As for my background, I did a biochemistry bachelors, and am now working on a degree in computational biochemistry. Basically my current degree is using first-principles quantum mechanics to understand things about atoms at the individual electron level.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Sep 8 2017 12:51pm

BS, MS, PhD in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech. I currently research radar systems and associated algorithms for detection, track, and data association. I'd recommend looking into FFRDCs (US DoE National Labs such as SNL, LLNL, etc.) or UARCs such as GTRI or Johns Hopkins APL. Plenty of fun work there to keep you busy for decades.

This post was edited by Rhapsode on Sep 8 2017 10:19pm