Science trash-talk
My sci-fi thriller, LAZARUS, is now out on both Smashwords and Amazon! The Singularity is upon us.
Follow The Upturned Microscope on Twitter and Facebook. If you do, they’ll give the Higgs boson a surname.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The Upturned Microscope 
Haha, this was so funny and cute! 😀
LikeLike
Reblogged this on PhD-bility and commented:
I’m just loving this one !
LikeLike
I’m a condensed matter physicist and I don’t know what the hell you mean by that. Care to explain?
Also, I don’t understand what you have against Wikipedia.
LikeLike
I’m not a condensed matter physicist (CMP) but I had just interviewed one that day. He explained to me that, in order to make a preliminary model for condensed matter, sometimes CMPs begin with a 2D system rather than 3D. Hence, “thin”. That’s what I got from that. No need to get mad.
I have nothing against Wikipedia. I love it. But it shouldn’t be taken as an authority for scientific work.
I hope this answers your queries. Thanks for commenting!
LikeLike
Well, I didn’t exactly get mad, just sort of “what does that even mean?” Anyway, yes indeed CMPs sometimes do that. They also solve 1D systems, which shouldn’t really work but it sometimes does. And there even are methods where they go to higher dimensions and then claim that the results apply to 3D systems. And then they get it published. In peer-reviewed journals, too. It’s a crazy world we live in… What I don’t understand here is what does that have to do with “modelling particle interactions”? Usually you know how the particles interact and what you’re trying to find out is how does that affect different physical quantities. And if you’re scaling a system to lower dimensions it’s usually because it simplifies the calculations, which lets you understand the problem better in shorter time.
Well, of course Wikipedia is not an authority on scientific work. It’s a crowd-sourced encyclopedia. It’s a good preliminary reference to get acquainted with an unfamiliar topic. But I have yet to encounter a scientific paper which cites Wikipedia as a source. Furthermore, I don’t subscribe to the view that Wikipedia articles have “many unsupported claims”. They are mostly well written and extensively referenced. Sure, there may be some simplifications on account of the mostly laymen audience, but generally it’s on the level of a decent general purpose textbook.
LikeLike
@Zeissmann: “It’s a crazy world we live in…”
Dude……………………………i guess you’r right!!
LikeLike
Sounds like someone is taking the joke a little too seriously….
LikeLike
Damn! This is so hilarious i think i peed in my pants.
LikeLike