this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
1490 points (99.5% liked)

Science Memes

11431 readers
1340 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] drail@fedia.io 104 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Here goes:

During my dissertation, I was lookig for information on the emissiom of 172nm scintillation light in mixtures of gaseous Xe and CO2 (95:5% - 98:2%), with results being difficult to come by. I found a collaborator who had tested this at lower CO2 concentrations (0-0.5%), but nothing else, no predictions or generalizable applications. Not knowing the optimal search engine terms or what textbook to look in for rules governing gaseous light emission, I ended up looking in fluorescence chemistry papers (my previous field of study) which had something called the Stern-Volmer relation for different concentrations of quenchant in a fluorescent solution. I figured gas scintillation queching was probably similar to liquid fluorescence quenching, but the standard relation didn't quite fit below 10% additive.

I dug around more and found a modification of this relation for diffusion-limited quenching of fluorescent solutions (the same limitation imposed in gas mixtures, quenching due to random Brownian collisions) that employed an exponential term, allowing for a smoother curve down to low additive concentrations. This perfectly matched the available data and allowed me to model the predicted behavior. I discussed this with the one member of my committee who was available, an organic chemist (my PI was on vacation, everyone else was sick, and my dissertation defense was in 2 weeks). He said my reasoning and math for using this formula made sense and gave me a thumbs up to include this analysis. When my PI came back from holiday, he asked me why I didn't use some equation generally used in the field, or even just a generic exponential fit. I was ignorant of his suggestion, but it provided the same general formulation as Stern-Volmer, though Stern-Volmer was more rigorously derived mathematically.

Mixing fields is super cool and can allow a much deeper understanding of the underlying principles, as opposed to limiting yourself to one branch of science. While my PI's recommendation would have given approximately the same answer, understanding and applying Stern-Volmer allowed me to really dig at the principles at play and generate a more accurate and in-depth model, which I managed to write up and defend at the 11th hour.

[–] pythonoob@programming.dev 25 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I understood so little of this lol. But good job.

[–] drail@fedia.io 24 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The assignment was to infodump, so I will take that as a compliment. I was aiming for detailed and hyperspecific.

[–] pythonoob@programming.dev 7 points 3 weeks ago

You achieved it

[–] jjagaimo@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] MonkeyBusiness@sh.itjust.works 24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

@drail@fedia.io built a wall made up of a 90 mins presentation around himself to defend his dissertation from his committee. The committee members built a wall of 120 mins of questions and internal discussions around that trapping @drail@fedia.io in for even longer. The whole affair was brutal. No one came out unscathed, yet no one can remember what happened except for the extremely troubling moments.

A moment of silence in remembrance...

🧑‍🎓 🫡🫡🫡

[–] drail@fedia.io 14 points 3 weeks ago

I've seen things. Things you'd never understand. All I can say is that the best dissertation defense is a good dissertation offense. So much blood on my hands...

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 points 3 weeks ago

One of my professors likened it to overeducated wolves surrounding a wounded elk.

Obviously the elk is weak. But is it weak enough?

[–] drail@fedia.io 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I am now Dr. Drail, so it went well! This was back in August, so I am still in recovery mode while I job search.

[–] jjagaimo@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago

Congrats and good luck on the hunt

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 60 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is why the "secret scientists don't want you to know" always turns out to be some pseudoscience bs that at best is misinformation and at worst is actively harming people. So, yes, they are things scientists don't want you to know.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 weeks ago

I would argue that we still want them to know about pseudoscience, but also know enough about everything else to understand how the pseudoscience is wrong.

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 37 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Clearly those aren't real scientists. Real scientists have secret labs, where they do secret research.

[–] Kraiden@kbin.earth 16 points 3 weeks ago

And annoying older sisters who blow their experiments to smithereens...

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 11 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

That's why they learn random facts about stink bugs to scare everyone away from their secret knowledge

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

science makes me have faith in science.

Science is unironically one of the only things i ever trust because truth prevails, always...

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 30 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Science research on the one hand is cursed to follow the money.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

My own experience leaves me a bit more optimistic, although I do see some cursed bits.

The presence of money in research depends greatly on the field and the ability of the scientists to make their research sound sexy. You can mask a lot of wierd niche basic research topics with sexy applied research talk.

Also, there's still a lot of science research without much money, being sustained by sheer enthusiasm.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 6 points 3 weeks ago

I agree. A great example of why can be found in this excellent article about an extensive "dossier" of fraud allegations against a top Alzheimer's researcher: (https://www.science.org/content/article/research-misconduct-finding-neuroscientist-eliezer-masliah-papers-under-suspicion)

Specifically, this snippet:

"Microbiologist and research integrity expert Elisabeth Bik, who also worked on the Zlokovic dossier, contributed other Masliah examples and reviewed and concurred with almost all of the findings."

Elisabeth Bik is someone who has an incredible eye for fraudulently edited Western Blots images and someone I greatly admire. Calling her a "research integrity expert" is accurate, but what I find neat is that (to my knowledge) she doesn't have any particular training or funding towards this work. A lot of work she does in this area starts on, or is made public on PubPeer, an online forum. This is all to say that Elisabeth Bik's expertise and reputation in this area effectively stems from her just being a nerd on the internet.

I find it quite beautiful in a way, because she's far from the only example of this. I especially find it neat when non-scientists are able to help root out scientific fraud specifically through non-scientist expertise. As a scientist who often finds herself propelled by sheer enthusiasm, sometimes feels overwhelmed by the "Publish or Perish" atmosphere in research, and who worries about the integrity of science when there's so much trash being published, it's heartening to see that enthusiasm and commitment to Truth still matters.

[–] justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Research is based on the so-called scientific method (therefore science) and that is something you can't proof, just belief in. But it's the best we have with extraordinary amount of evidence to back it up.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Which, ironically, defeats the entire purpose of science.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 33 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

At first I read "have you ever met a single scientist?" As in "don't you know they're all fuckin?"

[–] Naich@lemmings.world 24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

We're all fucking all right. We are all fucking with the laws of nature. You like it when we stop your atoms moving and shine a laser at you, don't you, you dirty filthy condensate?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Slovene@feddit.nl 9 points 3 weeks ago

Meet single scientists in your area. Click here.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 28 points 3 weeks ago (17 children)

Not a scientist. I have a litany of complex topics that I just can't really talk to anyone about. I'm a big computer networking nerd, and once upon a time, when I didn't know what I didn't know, I was curious what computer networking really entailed... It seemed dead simple, you connect things to a switch, connect that switch to the internet router, not much more.

Then I learned about VLANs, which are cool but it seemed like unnecessary complexity. Then I learned about Routing and L3 switching, and routing protocols and..... Holy shit, how deep is this?

Now-a-days, I want to have conversations about the merits of one routing protocol over another in various contexts, and see/build a spine and leaf network infrastructure that's nearly infinitely scalable.

I want to explore the nuance of IP unnumbered routing. I can't find anyone who will chat about it on a level that's close to my understanding, either someone knows way more than I do, or they know way less.

IP unnumbered routing is a way of connecting devices without setting an IP on the interface that is being routed to/from. The other end uses the routing protocol on top of layer 2, and while the two might have a router ID, often in the form of an IP address, the interface that is connecting the two has no IP. It's basically advanced point to point protocol (PPP) that breaks away from traditional TCP/IP routing in ways that people who have never used anything besides TCP/IP can't really comprehend. The two "IP addresses" (actually router IDs) in play can have nothing in common. Traditional TCP/IP requires that two IPs share a subnet. In routing, this is typically a /30 for IPv4, and the two IPs are adjacent to eachother, eg, 10.254.123.1 and 10.254.123.2 IP unnumbered can have 10.254.123.2 talking directly with 172.30.88.207, with no layer 3 interfaces in-between.

It's really fascinating and interesting and I've been trying to find a good model or guide to help me learn this better, but I keep ending up at dead ends, and I have nobody to talk to about it.

[–] kantor@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Did my fair share of networking back in the day, but never heard of IP unnumbered. I was curious about the same idea back in the day and it is possible, but I haven't much seen anyone doing it for realsies. If you have any good longreads/vids on the topic, it'd be much appreciated.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 27 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

My friends are political science guys. They're just all getting blind drunk and muttering right now?

load more comments (2 replies)

Actual genuine scientists tend to be the nerd type excited about whatever it is they're studying. They can't wait to tell you about the frequency oscillations of some quasar or the courtship rituals of hagfish or whatever.

The journals they have to publish in are shady as a cave though.

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is so true, and I can’t even type that without a severe eyeroll of agreement.

I think that’s why some people wax poetic on Reddit or Lemmy with very little provocation. Finally…a captive audience that might read this info, even if they’re just passing time on the shitter…

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Yeah. No one cares if you're rambling in a comment. Just be interesting enough that someone can pause their doom scrolling to read it.

I personally have about 5 subjects where I can chime in with fun (to me) little facts.

Or essays on the subject...

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That secret being ‘the oil/sugar/etc lobby paid me to create this fake study to mislead you.’

[–] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago

"Agit-prop is a KIND of science . . . " (Lionel Hutz, probably)

[–] _____@lemm.ee 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

maybe this wording works on a certain kind of voter because of the "fuck you I got mine" attitude, they probably think that if they were the scientist they would reap the benefits for themselves

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

benefits of what, grant money you can't get anymore because there's no more federal funding? Oops.

[–] _____@lemm.ee 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

they wouldn't know about grants or how underpaid academics are in general, it's just a projection

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

currently questioning my sanity over whether key compound of my thesis did just did a ice-nine or not (it's a real thing, but not for water)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 weeks ago

Fun fact about Christmas. In next 5 years tops, the north pole will completely melt in summer thereby drowning every last motherfucker that works and lives there!

[–] Zink@programming.dev 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Gotta love when the conspiracy is so stupid that it’s the people who dedicated their lives to building and spreading human knowledge are the ones keeping the knowledge away from Joe public.

You know how Trump has been called the poor person’s idea of a rich person? I’m trying to think of the caricature they use for “scientist” in their minds. Maybe a woke Joe Rogan?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's a secret rouse so you won't suspect the stuff that they don't tell you and get together every few months to co-ordinate keeping under wraps.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

Unfortunately, real scientists have become lumped in with “industry shills paid to science the way industry wants them to science”.

[–] cr0n1c@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Wtf, I've never heard of this bug in my entire life, and just last week I took a picture of one. Google Lens comes up with Brown Marmorated Stink Bug, and I didn't think it would ever run into this tidbit of info ever again.

[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I can only hope the changing mating habit is that they’ve all stopped mating. I hate those damn bugs.

They’re invasive where I live, and it seems like they don’t really have predators. And they’re so damn loud when they fly around inside your house. And they smell awful if you startle them or squish them. Only thing I can do is catch them in a cup and flush them down the toilet.

[–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Shout out to the scientists who study the reproductive pattern of certain insects for the sole purpose of wiping them out.

We see you scientists that are sterilizing trillions of bugs then releasing them into the wild. Your work is wild, weird, but very effective.

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There's one thing they aren't screaming about: how free will is a myth. It's a topic that gets shot down a lot.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›