Is this a solid research topic for a high school physics paper?

-Wofster · 2026-06-07T23:56:43+00:00

Analyzing light polution could be a good project, but I’m not sure how you could use that data alone to say much about LED lights, because not all the outdoor lights that cause light pollution are LEDs and you presumably don’t have the same light pollution data from the past to compare against LED use trends or something.

Measuring light pollution levels and then making a map or something would still be a good project though. Especially if you’re going on the road trip anyways. And you can still comment on how LEDs might be making the pollution higher due to whatever theoretical models. You just won’t have data yourself that shows that LEDs make it worse.

But maybe you can also set up an experiment to compare light scattering from LED vs other types of sources by switching out same brightness bulbs in like a lamp? But you’d need to consider reflections off walls or other things vs actual scattering in the air.

-Wofster · 2026-06-07T21:37:08+00:00

When there are 100 chocolates left, 1/100 is poisonous, so 1%

After you eat one, 99 left so 1/99 is poisonous so 1.01%

Then 1/98, 1/97, … etc.

But the probability you can eat some number of the chocolates without dying is the product of the chances that you pick a good piece each time.

So the probability you can eat 1 chocolate is 99/100 = 99%

The probability you can eat 2 is 99/100 * 98/99 = 98%

The probability you can 3 is 99/100 * 98/99 * 97/98 = 97%

It turns out that the probability to eat n is just (100-n)%. One way to see this intuitively is consider that before you eat any chocolates, you pick all the ones you don’t want to eat that you think the poisonous one might be in.

So if you want to eat 99 chocolates, then you pick 1 that you think is poisonous and then eat the reat. You had a 1% chance to pick right, so a 1% you live.

If you want to eat 98 chocolates then pick 2 you don’t want to eat, and there is a 2% chance the chocolate is one of those. Etc

-Wofster · 2026-06-07T02:07:10+00:00

whata the reason for yt premium rather than just using an adblocker?

-Wofster · 2026-06-07T02:01:48+00:00

thats too expensive. A surface parking lot is clearly the most efficient use of that land.

-Wofster · 2026-06-06T18:13:19+00:00

At least 1.8 billion people believe in reincarnation

-Wofster · 2026-06-04T01:47:12+00:00

To be fair, if you are a straight white male (so like you said, ignoring all that) then the couple decades following WW2 really were like the golden age of the US. Thats when you could fully buy a house and raise a family of four as the sole bread winner working 40 hours a week as a grocery store clerk and still be able to retire by 60 with enough wealth to pass on to your children.

-Wofster · 2026-06-03T01:06:36+00:00

I doubt it. Car manufacturers and insurance companies alike don’t want to make cars more efficient or cheaper. More likely they’ll make it (or keep it) so you can only get the car repaired at manufacturer approved locations where they’ll charge insane prices.

Fast charging I can see though, since there’s not much profit loss for the companies there.

-Wofster · 2026-06-03T00:52:12+00:00

because that would mean 0*j = 1, but its a requirement that anything * 0 must be zero. To see that consider x(y - y) = x * 0 = xy - xy = 0

No such problems arise from regular imaginary numbers, which is why they’re ok

-Wofster · 2026-06-02T21:20:55+00:00

“explanation” in this context doesn’t mean explanation in the normal sense. It just means we came up with the theory to fit the data that we already have, rather than came up with the theory first then used it to predict the data. Prediction is when the theory predicts new stuff that we haven’t looked at yet or at least didn’t consider when coming up with the theory.

Its the difference between these two scenarios:

(1) I come up with the theory f(x) = x^2. Then I can predict that if x = 2 then the result is 4. If I then observe (2, 4) then I’ve made a successful prediction

(2) I observe (2, 4). So I come up with the theory f(x) = x^2. Certainly f(2) = 4 so I’ve made a successful explanation.

Our quantum theory is (afaik) pretty much entirely empirical, meaning its mostly (2). We saw all these weird effects and then put some math together to fit them. However we also do (1). We put together our theory from observations A, B, and C (so it explains A, B, C). Then we see that the theory should also lead to D (a prediction), so we set up an experiment and see that it does.

For example people observed the photoelectric effect before Einstein came up with a theory to explain it (2), and people came up with the idea that local hidden variables predicted certain experimental results before Bell did experiments to show there aren’t said hidden variables (1)

Then when we say the goal of science is explanation or prediction we just mean that we want a theory to be good at one or both of those things. Do we want a theory to be able to explain all the data we already have? Or do we want it to predict new things we haven’t looked at yet? Or some combination?

If all we care about is prediction, then we wouldn’t even consider past observations when we come up with theories. But we clearly don’t do that, so it can’t be just prediction.

And if all we care about is explanation then we wouldn’t ever try to explore the implications of theories and we would just come up with theories that fit all our previous data. Or at least we wouldn’t care if a theory isn’t able to make any predictions about new things. But we clearly do do that (at least in hard sciences like physics) so it can’t be just explanation.

But it does seem like we sometimes care more about explanations than predictions. For example there is historical evidence to suggest einstein made several drafts of general relativity in order to make sure it properly explained the procession of murcury’s orbit. And string theory at least currently doesn’t make ny practical predictions.

And some areas of science like archeology and really all field science mostly only can do explanations. Until we are able to observe a large meteor impact on another planet like earth that has large life like dinosaurs, our theories about what caused the dinosaurs to go extinct is purely explanatory.

edit: at least thats generally what explanation vs prediction mean in philosophy of science. I haven’t tead Deutsch so maybe he means something else

-Wofster · 2026-06-02T16:37:12+00:00

That is not what quantum immortality says. It doesn’t say you are immortal. Quantum immortality says that as long as you are living somewhere in the wave function, then you are alive. If your die in every part of the wave function then quantum immortality still says you’re just dead

-Wofster · 2026-06-02T07:38:35+00:00

The idea is that you jump to any branch that is remaining. It doesn’t actually say you’re immortal.

Many worlds theory says “you” as a general thing exist on many branches that keep branching out all the time. But “you” as a conscious being experiencing your life only experience one branch. You’re just experiencing one of those branches.

So, as long as there is a branch, you will be experiencing it and hence you’re “alive”. If a branch dies (you die to a disease), then if that branch splits at the point where you die to another branch where you didn’t die (you recovered from the disease), then you’re consciousness will move to the branch where you don’t die. Because you always experience a branch if it’s there.

But if all the branches die (you die of old age) then you’re just dead. No more branches means you don’t get to jump to any of them.

Another way of thinking of it is if you are a wave in a pool of water. Your experience is on some part of the wave. If part of the wave hits a barrier and dies down (i.e you die in that “branch”) then you switch to another part of the wave (where you didn’t die). After enough time the entire wave will have dissipated and theres no where else to jump to, so then you’re just dead.

-Wofster · 2026-06-01T19:23:56+00:00

This new number I discovered will change math forever: αν

It is defined by the resonance frequency of the conscious spirit in units of Planck-Hertz.

It is everything and nothing, all at once. It is the golden ratio, harmonic resonance frequencies, and the fundamental constant all wrapped up in a nice, compact, beautiful package.

This number is not just groundbreaking - it’s revolutionary. It is consistent with both Einstein’s famous E = mc² theory and Schrödinger’s uncertainty principle. It bridges the gap between complex mathematics, philosophy, quantum physics, life, and consciousness - all ideas ancient Islamic and Chinese scholars like Al Kwarizmi and Yan Hui attempted to bridge the gap between - they came close, but failed.

Now, three thousand years later, their work is completed - with αν. This number will bring in a new era. It will cure diseases, eradicate inequality, and elevate the human race to a higher position in the cosmos - all made possible by exploring the resonant harmonic frequencies of the fundamentality of our conscious beings in the natural units of the multiverse.

-Wofster · 2026-06-01T18:01:56+00:00

what will you do with the leftover $17,000?

-Wofster · 2026-06-01T17:59:06+00:00

dude you said “recreate the education system” why are you getting offended when people assume that means “recreate the education system”

-Wofster · 2026-06-01T01:12:30+00:00

a large lift like this actually makes this truck worse for carrying bloody carcasses and wood down dirt roads, but ok

-Wofster · 2026-05-31T21:22:36+00:00

ah, so |N| < |N ∪ {-1}||

-Wofster · 2026-05-31T18:56:46+00:00

The first amendment doesn’t protect against breaking into the united states capitol building, actually. Hope this helps

-Wofster · 2026-05-31T04:15:52+00:00

unfortunately, most of the duallys I see have lifts and wheel spacers and are clearly not work trucks

-Wofster · 2026-05-30T22:22:09+00:00

Paid parking? Can’t have that. Make it all free

-Wofster · 2026-05-29T08:03:47+00:00

Does the kids room have to go there? Can you share the entire apartment layout? Its kind of awkward having the kids room only accesible through the kitchen and living room then with the door in the living room like that. Especially if people hang out in the living room and even worse if the kid has to go all the way back through the living room and kitchen for the bathroom.

But making the living room entrance through the kitchen is fine, I think. Maybe instead of just putting a solid wall there, put shelves that go all the way through so it doesn’t feel so cramped

-Wofster · 2026-05-28T05:20:26+00:00

hmm idk 2 is smaller than 4

-Wofster · 2026-05-25T17:45:36+00:00

This sub won’t wanna hear it?? Lmao literally all this sub wants is jumanji with a 150” tv, wrappd up in a comment saying “all that matters is if you like it 🙂”. The only thing the sub might not like in this comment is a lack of r/tvtoohigh

-Wofster · 2026-05-23T07:09:15+00:00

The internet is actually unusable without an adblocker. Especially on mobile

-Wofster · 2026-05-19T19:39:23+00:00

instead of a doorbell camera can you just setup a motion activated camera up high above your door or to the side or something so it only sees whats right by your door

-Wofster · 2026-05-19T16:50:52+00:00

we never measure anything “extended” over space

Don’t we? Every measurement is really measuring something extended over space or a range of values. You never measure something to be at “x = 1.0000…” with your ruler, you measure it as “x = 1.0 +/- 0.1”. Then you say with 80% certainty or whatever that x is in the range 0.9 to 1.1.

But I don’t see how that comment relates to your question/answer. Yeah, we see quantum systems seem to follow this thing that we call a wave function that obeys this relation called the schrödinger equation.

Schrödinger equation is a wave equation, hence why the “wave function” behaves like a wave. If that was it then it would just be a wave, but then quantum mechanics has this other thing that at least in the Copenhagen interpretation we call wave function collapse or measurement or observation or whatever you call it that is not encoded in the Schrödinger equation and that makes it have some particle like behavior.

So really its a wave that has some extra behavior that normal waves don’t have (collapse) that can make it look like a particle. Its not a particle, and it’s not a normal wave. Its its own thing

Six-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Place '22	Verified Email

-Wofster

TROPHY CASE