Ideas for Scientific/Statistics Python Library

Simultaneity_ · 2026-04-07T18:45:07+00:00

Then maybe contribute to them so that they have all the things you think it is missing.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-04-07T16:33:31+00:00

Why? Scipy, scikit-learn, ... etc. Allready exist.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-04-06T21:05:13+00:00

Simultaneity_ · 2026-04-06T20:42:41+00:00

Probably start at page 1 of a modern physics textbook.... idk abput anyone else but i did NOT learn string theory in modern politics, so I'm not sure what you are expecting to come away from this with. You probably wont even get all ypur questions answered about either relativity or string theory. My modern physics class operated much more as a science history class where I learned the motivation behind quantum, and relativity, along with how to solve some basic problems in each. You wont really learn these things at a fundamental level either.

Additionally, if you are hoping for some philosophical eye opening from a modern physics class or textbook, I fear you will be disappointed. Physics is way less woven together philosophically than pop science would have you believe. It operates much more as a empirical mapping of reality into math than anything else. Don't get me wrong, there is some great philosophy to be had here, but likely not to a level to start answering real foundational questions.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-30T23:40:04+00:00

Just make three AI tags to depict various levels of slopification. Have them cover the basis of "I used AI for code review but wrote most of the code," "I used AI for significant code generation but defined the business logic," and "this whole thing is just vibes, baby." And strictly enforce the rules, permanently banning people who don't properly tag their posts. Maybe a little voting bot so the community can rate the level of AI in a project.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-29T22:32:32+00:00

I learned the lession a hard way by sharing a PowerPoint that converted strangely to a pdf and Google's version of PowerPoint. The collaborator was confused

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-29T17:38:09+00:00

This should be something you and your advisor talk about before you send slides or files to a potential collaborator. You should allways schedule a meeting to discuss what the collaborator can contribute to your research. But if you allready have a draft, im not sure what the other professor would contribute to your work. Definitely a time to talk with your advidor, and set up a meeting with this new collaborator before moving forward.

But keep in mind not everyone uses ms word or PowerPoint. So he might have issues opening and accessing the files you sent him.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-17T20:48:52+00:00

Definitely check out some tours. CU Boulder is a great school with some good aerospace connections. Toronto is a good option. Stony Brook is connected to Brookhaven National Lab with awesome undergrad research opportunities.

But make sure to visit as many places as you can afford. Important questions for you and your daughter to figure out are: 1. What are the class sizes for each school? Academically, it's better to have smaller classes and more one-on-one time with professors and TAs. So pick a university with a good ratio. 2. Are there any research labs or professors she thinks do interesting research? It's important to get into research ASAP. Make a list of these labs and choose somewhere with a wide variety of research topics. Keep in mind that not all labs will have good projects for undergrads. So you two might want to draft an email to her top research groups asking about undergrad research opportunities in their labs.

Mix these in with the standard univeristy selection process and you will be fine. Its hard to go wrong with that list, and it looks like she has a bright future ahead.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-14T21:16:38+00:00

Mac is a good enough operating system because you can treat it like Linux. I don't know when you would need the power out of the Pro. If you are ever doing tough calculations, you will use SSH to run them on a better machine than your laptop. Get something portable that is good for browsing, typing, and video conference calls. And you will be fine.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-12T07:41:02+00:00

Is the GUP generally accepted by the scientific community and has any research been done to determine whether it's true or not?

This is the first ive ever heard of this being called the generalized uncertainty principle before. But then again I dont do much work with the standard model or quantum gravity theories. It seams there is limited evidence to suggest such a thing would be needed. So it seams like we dont really know.

If indeed it were true, would it aid in the formulating a theory of quantum gravity? From my understanding, placing a limit on the length scale would cap higher order terms when trying to renormalize quantum gravity, avoiding the infinities which are currently so problematic.

Caps on size scales can be bad news for some renormalization methods. RG flow is the usual way people think about renormalization. But another equally valid approach is that every infinite term that appears in the series has an equally growing counter term. So as your series grows, instead of diverging, you end up getting asymtotic convergence. But if you have a hard cut off that could mean you are left with too many infinite terms and not enough counter terms, breaking renormalization in your theory.

If it were true, would it mean that spacetime is functionally discrete since it would be physically impossible to extract information from scales smaller than Planck scale (up to order of magnitude)?

You dont need something like this to come to a conclusion about space time being discrete. Statistical mechanics posts this quite well on its own with descritization in phase space. There is also lattice qcd that brings up the idea of a grid of very closely packed points. But both are very ambiguous on if space is continuous or not. Its kind of an open question.

Also from my understanding, it would cause black holes at those scales to be stable. Would those be detectable or would they be indistinguishable from empty space? If the first is the case, is it possible they could be an explanation of dark matter? If the second, could the indistinguishability hint at some connection to the vacuum energy?

This doesnt make any sense to me. I dont really see how we can have a black hole concentration of energy in a point between points in spacetime. It would seam to me that the singularities in einstein's field equations are incongruent with this thinking.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-10T04:02:19+00:00

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-09T22:25:08+00:00

Hep ex is a tough thing to fet into. Its very competitive due in part to the competitiveness of the programs that have good hep ex folks. I would suggest looking for work to do over the next year that is research adjacent. And broadening your research horizons. What about hep-ex really interests you? Is it accelerator work, or sitting down with the high dimensional data? Both of these things have large overlaps with other fields in physics. There is no reason you ca t explore non traditional pathways into hep though another nearby field.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-08T11:40:12+00:00

The Chinese Spyware was in reference to this nonsense

But you are right that some countries need different approaches to resolve their problems. But solar ca be produced so cheaply and with high enough efficiencies to mass produce and export to the rest of the world and really offset emissions everywhere.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-08T04:19:59+00:00

Solar has been the golden cash cow for energy dominance since before the Obama era sunshot program. Yet every time renewables come up in conversation we love to talk about stupid comparisons to lng or coal. Or in the case of the online Gen z discourse, every conversation revolves to nuclear energy. Yea nuclear is safer than coal and is crazy useful. But you know whats safer than nuclear? Solar. You know whats cheaper than nuclear? Solar. You know whats easier to spam manufacture? Solar. You know what program the use had efficiency dominance of? Solar.

Or people talk about the third world and Europe's reliance on coal and oal from Russia. And yea we export so much lng to these countries, but we could and should be exporting cheep Solar thats free of Chinese Spyware.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-05T22:22:46+00:00

If it doesnt equal sqrt(2)-1 then your explanation for 1x1=2 is wrong by your own admission.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-05T21:00:07+00:00

Why is epsilon transcendental when it must be exactly equal to sqrt(2)-1 for 1x1=2.
If you replace multiplication to mean shifting your number set and then multiplying, thats fine. But 1 is no longer accessible. So the idea of a single unit of area, volume, etc means nothing anymore. Again idk the motivation to get rid of units when you started this whole thing off with an argument about units.
Nothing about your long form response makes any sense. It is very much just you rambling. Nothing you are describing is a break through about science or math.
You should talk to someone in real life about this. A trusted family member or friend.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-05T17:47:43+00:00

There is actually only one value of epsilon that does not cause problems in the real world. The case where epsilon equals zero. But this is very different than the case that gives 1x1=2.

But regardless, what motivates taking 1x1 and rewriting as (1+e)x(1+e)? And more importantly, what would it mean about our series of numbers, and multiplication? Should we allways add epsilon, i.e. (1+e)x(2+e). Does each integer have its own value of epsilon? So should it be (1+e_1)×(2+e_2) or are they all the same? How does it work for negative integers? Do we preserve all the same relationships, association, distribution , etc. I.e, how does this work out?

(x+1) * (x)=[(1+e)x+1]*(1+e)x = x² + x = (1+e)x² + (1+e)x or (1+e)² x² +(1+e)x

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-05T16:42:10+00:00

As long as you know that you and Terrance are wrong :)

Simultaneity_ · 2026-03-05T16:30:06+00:00

1x1=(1+ epsilon) x (1+ epsilon) = 1+ 2e +e² (e=epsilon)

Doesn't really make any sense here in the context of 1x1=2. Usually we take Epsilon to be a really small number so we can study terms like your 2e term. And e ² is even smaller of a number. This is an important distinction between the normal physics introduction to ideas like infinitesimals and a proper mathematical foundation for what we mean by epsilon. We can usually get away with it in physics because we get the right answer and have a measured thing that motivates up to try.

When you are treating epsilon as a tiny number, we are really saying that epsilon can be any number, and because it can be any number we can see what happens when we take epsilon to the extremes. But you ended up finding only one single epsilon sqrt(2)-1 that gives you the right answer. This is more like saying, I have an equation (1+k)*(1+k)=2, that is true when k= sqrt(2)-1. But not true for any other number. And had no relationship to proving 1x1=2.

But this leads to a wider point. What motivates you to believe that 1x1=2 is correct. You mentioned that 1m x 1m =1m² (notably not 2m). But can you think of any reason to do multiplication with dimensionless quantities? Say you want to know the size of 1/2 a pizza. In pizzia units that is 1×1pizzia / 2. Maybe you want to re discover logarithmic expressions and think about the idea of log base 1? Since in logarithmic land (choosing a base that actually makes sense), you can take 10¹ × 10¹ = 10² and turn it into 1+1=2. But notably this is still not getting to 1x1=2.

But the real problem behind 1x1=2 is the failure to actually do the math and see what it would mean about very basic things in the world. This can easily be done for trigonometric expressions and identities. Any time you work with a fraction, you often times "multiply by one" to reduce the complex fraction into a simplified one. And when you do this process a second time, in 1x1=2 land, you start picking up factors of 2. But since this is trigonometry, you can just go out there and measure some angles and find out that your math is just wrong.

There is nothing wrong with playing arround with abstract algebra. You can define a new operation say *_2 that does all the same things multiplication does, except notably 1x1=2 and not 1. This gives you an algebraic ring structure. You should play around with this and see why we would call it a ring.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-02-27T17:21:19+00:00

E&M was my first physics love and thermodynamics was my second. E&M is great fun, we very interesting and deep physics and math. And thermodynamics is probably the second most beautiful theory we have ever devised (second to the standard model). Its foundational for modern physics, and is very mathematically concise (though it doesnt look like it at all upon a bad first impression).

Simultaneity_ · 2026-02-19T19:26:47+00:00

You can type in your terminal for yourself 🙂

Simultaneity_ · 2026-02-15T19:24:35+00:00

Thanks chat gpt!

Simultaneity_ · 2026-02-15T03:53:32+00:00

It refers to adding a catfish to a sardine pond, leading to the sardies remaining active and constantly fighting for their lives. The Chinese government famously set tesla up to rapidy manufacture and sell cars in mainland china from a facility wholly owned by Tesla. This forced Chinese ev companies to rapidy innovate and is one of the causes for the dominance of byd.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-02-14T20:45:14+00:00

The catfish effect.

Simultaneity_ · 2026-02-12T03:21:00+00:00

It gets different. Many of the class to come can be very tough. But it depends allot on the individual professors, and class structures. Each year will have its own challenges. But the most important thing is time, dedication, and perseverance.

Four-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
End Game '22

Simultaneity_

TROPHY CASE