Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

739 Glorious Leader


About Klaynos

  • Rank
    Insert Witty Comment

Profile Information

  • College Major/Degree
    PhD Physics
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Quantum Physics
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

41194 profile views
  1. I agree. Having friends who were on short term contracts for 20 years makes me somewhat cynical.
  2. So I know a good few people with PhDs, myself included. Mostly physics but some biology and at lease one languages... Of those the vast majority no long work in academia. Some did postdocs, some did not. Doing a PhD isn't just about learning/researching your topic it is about developing research skills and toolsets. I would say people fall into a few different sectors, technical software companies (mostly modelling software), academia (the minority), research for commercial companies, telecoms companies and working for government agencies. Hardly anyone works on a topic closely or even loosely related to their PhD. Some jobs people do include software engineering, technical sales, technical after sales support, translating between technical teams working in different languages, research, hardware development, product development (both physical and digital), fault modelling, data science in various forms etc... I don't talk much about my work on here, I joined my organisation at a graduate level with a PhD, not unlike many of my friends, 8.5 years ago. Compared to others with a master's who joined at a similar time I'm more senior than them now. To the point where I've chosen to not manage people and concentrate on research. I would say that that is not atypical for people with a PhD, join the same and out pace them in a couple of years. When working with people you can normally tell who went through a PhD by the speed at which they onboard with a project, the rapidity of generating and dismissing ideas etc... It's surprisingly noticeable even when dealing with people of similar experience and time with the organisation. I'm very glad I'm no longer in academia. My contemparairies have less job security and far more pressure from their colleagues for few benefits.
  3. I agree. It's a first step. Which all it might show is that given a large number of cyclical events some well correlate well.
  4. First you need to show a correlation. You need to actually plot the data together and show a statistically significant correlation. Then we can start talking about causes. What you've done here is state something you appear to have cherry picked and then made up a story you like. It's also always worth noting that correlation is not causation.
  5. Humans are not good measurement systems. There are many layers of processing that are done which are complicated and not well understood. Even what seem like simple things are complicated when you investigate further. Mirror therapy is a good example of how the human mind can be trivially tricked, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_therapy.
  6. The way things are going towards cars broadcasting data, you might not need to rely on motion detection.
  7. Famous person says X. Famous person says Y. Famous person is famous for Y. Sometime later X is shown to be wrong. Headline: "famous person was wrong". It's just lazy and annoying. Even if Y was"wrong" if it allowed for the thinking that resulted in what we know now it was valuable. Knowledge changes and develops. Most new ideas which most people (even the clever ones) say will be shown to be wrong in 200 years. For most new ideas, the time to being shown to be wrong is minutes.
  8. https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.scienceforums.net
  9. A theoretical treatise in modern physics would be mathematical. What this reads as; "I've made some stuff up and want someone to do all the hard work".
  10. ! Moderator Note One of the rules you agreed to when you signed up is that people must be able to take part in the discussion without having to click any links. Therefore, would you kindly post some details of your ideas as just posting the links is against the rules.
  11. As someone who recruits graduate and postgraduate scientists and software engineers, I would look favourably on a mathematics background. But that's because a lot of the tasks we solve are mathematical in nature. I don't think you should have much of an issue applying your skills, you may find you need to do more background reading than your peers who have a compsci background.
  12. Kerbal space program?
  13. One of the best "I'm just a layman" type threads I've seen in a long while. All should be commended. ALine, you might enjoy having a look at the mathematical field of mechanics, specifically kinematics.
  14. Your question doesn't really have much meaning. Photons do not strongly interact with each other, so the answer is probably, no.
  15. What your describing is physical models. So trivially, yes, depending on accuracy and ignoring your example of earthquakes. To give an example slightly closer to earthquakes, then numerical weather forecasting?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.