I hate e.

[john turner]

my friends and i were talking about this on the way to lunch today. physics papers are simply impossible for everyone except the author.

...and guess what i'm off to do: (try to) read some papers...

ooo, what's the topic?

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

i meant engineers are used to having their stuff read by non-engineers, so they have to simplify it as much as possible, whereas physics guys don't care and therefore wish it be as arcane as possible. gotta earn the right to understand it, dammit.

I don't know if that is always the case with engineers papers. Physics papers are generally for other people in the physics community.

And with all the constraints, it's understandable at times that things can get a bit cramped in a paper. I've just spent the last hour cutting a 266 word abstract down to 250 words (the limit for an upcoming conference). So some of the grammer is possibly pushing it just a tiny little bit

 

[john turner]

I don't know if that is always the case with engineers papers. Physics papers are generally for other people in the physics community.

And with all the constraints, it's understandable at times that things can get a bit cramped in a paper. I've just spent the last hour cutting a 266 word abstract down to 250 words (the limit for an upcoming conference). So some of the grammer is possibly pushing it just a tiny little bit

yeah, i was only being half serious. besides, being trained as an engineer i'm sorta partial to that manner of presentation.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

yeah, i was only being half serious. besides, being trained as an engineer i'm sorta partial to that manner of presentation.

Aye, that is understandable, having to flog ideas.

I wish some of the theoretical physicists would take a leaf out of that book tho!

 

[ehque]

Another fun math thing is to determine which is bigger between pi^e and e^pi without using a calc. Gotta make a nice lil fonction to do that

Even without working it out, pi is marginally bigger than e, so my half-informed guess says that e^pi is bigger than pi^e.

And i was right. How would you have solved the problem?

 

[Brad Barker]

ooo, what's the topic?

graphene. i'm starting with papers from 1992, and will eventually work my way up to current stuff.

 

[Disraeli Gears]

As someone who is going to take calc next year, this thread is terrifying. D:

In my experience, calc is actually pretty easy--it explains a lot of stuff that you just kinda had to trust to be true before. Honestly, I struggled quite a bit in math before calc because with math I just can't do something until I know WHY it works.

I'm also posting this from calc class .

 

[john turner]

graphene. i'm starting with papers from 1992, and will eventually work my way up to current stuff.

neat. with regard to its semiconductor properties, or something else?

 

[DesertCreature]

Guitar players love E.

Sax players, not so much.

 

[Ziltoid]

Even without working it out, pi is marginally bigger than e, so my half-informed guess says that e^pi is bigger than pi^e.

And i was right. How would you have solved the problem?

e^x / x^e, that's enough for you to figure the rest

And the difference is very small just so you know

 

[monzamess]

Yeah, stupid e. Get yourself a z.

 

[fdeck]

I don't know if that is always the case with engineers papers. Physics papers are generally for other people in the physics community.

And with all the constraints, it's understandable at times that things can get a bit cramped in a paper. I've just spent the last hour cutting a 266 word abstract down to 250 words (the limit for an upcoming conference). So some of the grammer is possibly pushing it just a tiny little bit

Try reading a math paper sometime.

 

[Brad Barker]

neat. with regard to its semiconductor properties, or something else?

there's been some recent talk about p-doped graphene becoming a superconductor with a fairly high critical temperature. but, really, i'll do whatever my (future) adviser tells me to.

graphene is exciting because it's a gapless semimetal; you have to tinker with it to make it behave like a semiconductor. berkeley definitely has guys on that.

Try reading a math paper sometime.

never!!!

 

[Joe Gress]

I'm just going to leave this:

 

[champbassist]

 

[ehque]

e^x / x^e, that's enough for you to figure the rest

And the difference is very small just so you know

Differentiate, find asymptote? I think so. It's been a long time since i've done my math.

 

[john turner]

there's been some recent talk about p-doped graphene becoming a superconductor with a fairly high critical temperature. but, really, i'll do whatever my (future) adviser tells me to.

graphene is exciting because it's a gapless semimetal; you have to tinker with it to make it behave like a semiconductor. berkeley definitely has guys on that.

i knew about its semimetal properties, but i wasn't aware that it still needed to be doped to behave like a semiconductor - i thought that semi-metals acted like intrinsic semiconductors, but it's been a while since my semiconductor class, so i probably have that wrong heh.

and a superconductor just by p-doping - wow. what kind of critical temp are we talking about here for it to superconduct? i remember when i was in college that was all the rage, trying to get superconductors up to a usable temp (i think back then, late 80's, the best available temp was around 100 K).

isn't graphene supposed to be very strong too? wonder how p-doping would effect that.

i used to love reading about all the carbon species and their wacky properties. wasn't a chem guy but i was really interested in those. seems like one of the keystones of our science fiction future is going to be carbon and it's many wacky allotropes.

 

[BassyBill]

The strangest thought just occurred to me - I wonder what Isaac Newton would make of this thread?

Just think about it...

 

[Munjibunga]

So does this mean you hate ln by association, then?

 

[Brad Barker]

i knew about its semimetal properties, but i wasn't aware that it still needed to be doped to behave like a semiconductor - i thought that semi-metals acted like intrinsic semiconductors, but it's been a while since my semiconductor class, so i probably have that wrong heh.

and a superconductor just by p-doping - wow. what kind of critical temp are we talking about here for it to superconduct? i remember when i was in college that was all the rage, trying to get superconductors up to a usable temp (i think back then, late 80's, the best available temp was around 100 K).

isn't graphene supposed to be very strong too? wonder how p-doping would effect that.

i used to love reading about all the carbon species and their wacky properties. wasn't a chem guy but i was really interested in those. seems like one of the keystones of our science fiction future is going to be carbon and it's many wacky allotropes.

i'm by no means an expert on graphene. the blurb i'd read is that a group predicted a Tc of 90K... and suspected that it was describable by the standard BCS theory. that's what i'd like to see, to see if those guys screwed up somewhere.

graphene is exciting because it is gapless and has a nearly-linear dispersion. the idea is that silicon valley might one day become graphene valley. in the mean time, i suspect there's money to be had from the government to do some physics.

The strangest thought just occurred to me - I wonder what Isaac Newton would make of this thread?

Just think about it...

he would eviscerate us with his caustic wit, go back to farming, and then solve quantum gravity, all by sun down.