So I love science but I'm not very good at understanding it. Recently though I've been flooded with videos about the guy who made his own laser gun and thought; "Wow, I really want to do that."

Ever since I was a kid I wanted to be an inventor or innovator of some sort but I was never sure what I wanted to create. I wrote plenty growing up as well and the characters I always fell back on were the same figures I watch and adore to this day — people who invent and innovate. I want to create and improve upon things that already exist, especially things that rely on computer tech in some capacity. Then again maybe what I want to do is simply too broad to pin down. I want the same versatility someone like Nile Red has, where he can just do whatever comes to his mind just because he feels like it but with more... technology stuff? I suppose? Its hard to explain. I like the idea of creating things with a function. Maybe it would be considered mechanics? Or robotics?

I don't even know where to start with studying but I want to at least try. Perhaps starting with computer stuff would be smart, given the electrical components seem to be used in pretty much any technology, but what then?

I'm writing a science fiction book where for in lore reasons nothing on the planet dies. What would the implications be?

How would that affect the atmosphere and the ecosystem?

Composition, temperature, etc...

I want to learn all there is to learn about the universe, space, and everything both beyond and within, but I have no idea where to start. I have no idea what there is to learn after I start, as I don’t know what anything is called/what all exists, and I don’t even know how to create a proper title for this post. Nevertheless, my goal is to get myself as close as possible to the “truth” of everything—our life, our worlds, the whole world, the hows, the whys, etc.—before I die (obviously we’ll never know the “truth,” I’m just saying I want to get as close to that level of knowledge as humanly possible and I’m planning on spending the rest of my recreational life doing it)

What starting/prereq concepts and learnings paths (ex: calc -> differential —> discrete) do you recommend for a most bulletproof foundation, and when (if ever) will I be able to go independent with my studies? Any advice? Any other answers to questions I didn’t think to ask but should’ve? I know I could throw this same prompt into some bot and get a decent answer, but I’d prefer to not and I figured the answers from here would be more comprehensive. Thank you.

Also interested in chem and life and so on within our atmosphere

Hi everyone!

My dream is to become a university lecturer in the biological sciences. I'm currently exploring my higher education options and trying to understand the right academic pathway to achieve this goal.

I'd genuinely appreciate advice from lecturers, researchers, or anyone with experience in academia. I'd love to hear about your academic journeys, recommendations, and any advice you wish someone had given you when you started.

Thank you!

So, the way I understand it, one theory for the end of the universe is that through Entropy, everything will eventually dissipate into a state where everything is the same, and the system is at maximum chaos, and no energy remains to transfer into a higher state. This would leave the universe essentially frozen with no energy transfer happening ever again.

My question is, theoretically, what would the opposite of the heat death of the universe be, where instead everything becoming slowly more chaotic until it all evens out, everything becomes more and more ordered until what? What would a system of perfect order potentially be like? Would it just be similar to maximum entropy, or would it be different? What might it potentially look/be like.

This question has been on my mind for a few days, and I can't find any topics discussing it anywhere, probably because it's likely impossible, but I am really curious.

Something i find interesting about astronomy is that stars and galaxies don't necessarily form at the same time. but how accurately can we determine the age of an individual star especially one that is billions of years old?

I guess you’d need two machines. One that can launch a baseball as fast as possible and one that can swing a baseball bat with as much force as possible. you might also need a sturdy bat, it could shatter if it swung hard enough.

would air resistance stop it at some point, how fast, high or far could such a thing launch a ball

if dark matter cannot interact with electromagnetic waves then could there be "Anti-electromagnetic" waves that cannot interact with normal matter, if it could exist how could humans detect whatsoever

The moment that gravity gets high enough for an object, it will start to bend light and therefore we cannot see further into it. Everything from here on out must be inferred or deduced using math since we can no longer observe what is inside. Matter takes up space and has size, and it can only be squeezed so tightly together. The fundamental interactions are what stop matter from directly touching. So my hypothesis is this: gravity becomes so strong for an object in space that it overcomes the three other fundamental interactions of matter, and forces matter to compact as close as the other fundamental interactions allow. This also leads me to assume that the moment these fundamental forces are overcome, particles stop behaving as they typically would since forces like the weak force have been overcome. The law of conservation of energy would be conserved because these forces still exist inside the pool of energy inescapable from the black hole, but they would have no interactions because gravity is overpowering them. What math and or proof do we have to prove this wrong? What math and or proof do we have to prove the singularity theory wrong?

I’m a junior in high school and I definitely know I want to get into environmental engineering but astrophysics appeals to me as well. I really value interdisciplinary work and these are very different.

I think it could be very valuable to have both of these behind my belt.

If this is something worth pursuing, what university even offers this?

Side note: I’m just asking degree wise. I won’t work in astrophysics but I want the minor nevertheless. I love calculus and physics but want to be involved in the creation of new technologies on earth and I think I could apply astrophysics knowledge into real life

Please let me know your thoughts. Be as real as possible but also consider all possibilities. Thanks!

Every couple of decades a technology comes along that changes how everything else gets built: the PC, the internet, mobile, and now AI. AI is clearly still playing out, but I'm curious what comes next. What will we be talking about in 10–15 years?

A few candidates I keep hearing about: robotics/embodied AI, energy (fusion, cheap storage, small modular reactors), biotech and synthetic biology, quantum computing, brain-computer interfaces, and space infrastructure. But I'm more interested in what people closer to these fields actually see.

I've been wondering about a hypothetical possibility.

Suppose someone has mixed ancestry and, in the distant future, wants their appearance to resemble one of their ancestral populations more closely. Could extremely advanced gene editing theoretically modify enough of their DNA to change things like hair texture, pigmentation, facial structure, and other physical characteristics?

I'm imagining technology far beyond today's CRISPR, potentially combining gene editing, stem cells, regenerative medicine, and AI-controlled biological processes. Maybe the person could undergo the transformation inside a highly controlled medical chamber while scientists monitor and guide the process.

The interesting part to me is whether changing an adult's genetic instructions could actually cause their already-developed body to remodel itself, or whether development would have to be altered from childhood for something this drastic to work.

Could something resembling this ever become possible centuries from now, or are there fundamental biological limits that would make a complete adult phenotype transformation impossible?

No harm/malicious intentions meant just curious.

Side thought (completely unrelated, and probably even more sci-fi):

What if, in the extremely distant future, scientists could take a deceased individual's preserved body, modify their genetic makeup in the same way described above, and then somehow restore them to biological life? Perhaps the process could theoretically allow them to return in a different physical variant of themselves, expressing characteristics that were already possible within their ancestral genetic background.

Obviously, this ventures into the territory of resurrection and speculative fiction, but the thought of someone potentially returning in a completely different phenotype is pretty fascinating.

Are any of the cybernetic upgrades possible? Not like "yeah, we have prosthetic limbs" but like how they're used in game. So, legs that make you walk nigh' on silently, gorilla arms... etc. I know the sandevistan and cyberdecks are gonna be impossible, but like... the arm stuff? Skeletal? A heart pump that shoots adrenalin?

Sorry if this is not a very scientific question, this is my first post.

Extending off of the big bang, in my opinion the most scientifically accurate model of how the universe came to be is the Quantum Fluctuation Theory. I believe this model could be the most likely. Theoretically, outside the universe there is "nothing", vacuum fluctuation make the most sense because of antiparticles destroying empty space and creating fluctuations. In theory this model would most likely lead to the multiverse being real since these temporary changes in energy can irregularly happen (outside our universe in the vast nothingness). I'm very agnostic about the theory of how the universe began, I always like to be challenged or see things from other people's perspectives, I think it's interesting to see other people's opinions and how they think about this theory, I definitely have a lot to learn. I've also heard of the big bang being a localized event, if you have any knowledge on that I'd be more than happy to read about it!

Hey! I'm writing a story and it got to the point where I need help with figuring out some science. I admittedly have little affinity to science so I'm turning to you for help 🥹 (yes it is fanfiction. Yes it was meant to be centered around the romance only. Yes it got to the point where it's so serious I need the science to make sense for the plot, don't judge me lol 🩹)

The concept is: some plants have been fertilized with blood that carries an eldritch disease, which made the plants become infected. The characters need the berries for survival, but the fruits need to be purged of the disease first, otherwise they'd ingest the illness alongside the fruit. My initial idea was: irradiate the plants and re-sow the seeds from the irradiated berries later. I did as much research as I could, but I'm still not sure it would make sense. So, I guess I need help with:

• would the radiation break down the remainders of the red blood cells the soil has been fertilized with? We need the soil for the replanting, since we don't have much of it.

• would radiation kill other microbes in the soil? I've read differing opinions on this matter

• I've read up on seeds having properties that protect them from outside factors such as radiation based on plant life around Chernobyl, obviously we're working with a way smaller dosage here - but could the seeds survive, be "purified" and actually produce viable plants after resowing?

Thank you for any insight!

I’ve been thinking about this problem for years, and I’ve never found a completely satisfying solution.

Imagine this scenario:

You somehow manage to play an unreleased video game one month before its official release. You want to record yourself playing it, but you cannot publish the footage until after release.

When you eventually publish it, you want everyone to know with certainty that you actually recorded it before the game was released.

Here’s the challenge:

- You can’t rely on the camera’s timestamp. That can be changed.
- Showing today’s newspaper or a news broadcast proves nothing. You could recreate that scene months later.
- You can’t rely on witnesses or a notary. People can lie.
- You don’t want to upload the video or reveal its contents to anyone beforehand.
- You want something ordinary people can understand and independently verify, without having to trust an app or a company.

I thought about recording myself during a major live event, like a football match, with the actual field visible behind me. That would be much harder to fake, but it requires physically being there.

So here’s my question:

Is there any physical or scientific way to record yourself alone at home, keep the video completely private, and later prove beyond reasonable doubt that it existed before a specific date?

Or is this fundamentally impossible without creating some kind of externally verifiable evidence at the time?

I’m genuinely curious whether there’s an ingenious solution I’m overlooking.

Former Trump Administration official Calley Means went on the Joe Rogan podcast this weekend and made some definitive claims about the dangers of glyphosate. I’ve seen a previous question about glyphosate usage in this sub, but the answers were a bit difficult to parse.

My main question is whether there is any science-based, evidentiary support for Means’ claims that the amount of EPA-approved glyphosate poses risks to humans or if this is more akin to MAHA’s unsupported claims about autism and vaccines.

I’m into more educational viewing and recently found Human: Origins engaging. Does this list bring to mind anything you enjoyed? Thanks.

PRESENTERS:

Attenborough -Highlights: Blue Planet Series, Planet Earth Series

[Brian Cox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist) -Highlights: Human Universe, The Planets, Universe, Solar System

Jim Al-Khalili -Highlights: Atom, the Secret Life of Chaos, Chemistry: A Volatile History, Everything and Nothing, Order and Disorder, Light and Dark, The Secrets of Quantum Physics, The Beginning and End of the Universe, Secrets of the Brain

SHOWS:

A Brief History of the Future
Antarctica A Year on the Ice
Common Ground / Kiss the Ground
Connected
Cosmos
Cunk on Earth
Fry's Planet Word
Honest Supermarket, Our Food
Human Planet
Origins, The Journey of Humankind
Secrets of the Castle
The Brain with David Eagleman
The Fabric of the Cosmos
The Future

I've noticed certain trends where niches or subfields of science became popular especially in biology. Not talking about pseudoscience but real useful discoveries. However if confirmation bias occurs a phenomina might be seen where its not really the case.

It might be that x really play an important role in a group of diseases but is not a factor in this particular patient. This is common in medical advice from people who aren't qualified to give such advice but how do scientists and those who use the results of their work (e.g doctors) protect themselves from such bias?

Edit: looks like I asked an offense question. For context, I love science but it seems more and more like I should just avoid it. Guess I'll have nothing because it's such a big part of me but I'm trash anyway.

I'm watching the documentary 'One Strange Rock' on Disney+, specifically episode 4, listening to how the formation of cell membranes is a critical part of how life was able to develop, but that scientists are still learning how it developed in the first place. It's compared to how a bubble keeps the air inside protected from the environment outside, and that actually made me think of how meringue and whipped cream is made. Both substances are formed by whipping air into viscous liquids, creating bubbles with highly elastic membranes; and as you keep whipping in air, the bubble membranes are sturdy enough that they break into more, smaller bubbles instead of bursting. Eventually, you have piles and piles of teeny-tiny bubbles sticking together and stabilizing each other.

Technically, you *could* just beat the devil out of plain cream or egg whites, counting on the fats and proteins to form these sturdy membranes, but the bubbles will be extremely fragile on their own. The solution is a simple extra ingredient: SUGAR. It increases the elasticity of the membranes, allowing more, smaller bubbles to be broken apart faster; gives the tiny bubbles a better grip to hold themselves together; and while the friction from beating loosens it up enough to polymerize with the rest of the mass, the cooling effect after the friction is gone locks the bubbles in place, increasing stability. It's molecular gastronomy at its most fascinating and useful!

So I'm listening to a biochemist talking about how we still don't understand the conditions that allowed cell membranes to form the way they have - with enough structure that they don't just burst like an air pocket in hot mud. A carbon-based substance is a good start, but it's not strong enough to hold together long enough for meaningful lifeforms to develop. And I was immediately like...... Has *no one* looked into carbohydrates? These single-celled organisms would figure out how to convert sunlight into simple sugars for food not too long thereafter, so all the right elements were clearly within reach. Maybe meringue and whipped cream are just the latest iteration of a concept we've known before life itself: that sugar is power.

I think it's not a bad idea for a human with a functioning brain and a very specific skillset, but is it viable? Has anyone else ever had the same one? How does a very curious casual even begin to look up more information on this? I'd love a more knowledgeable community's input.

They seem to be mouth fed by their parents until almost the day they leave the nest. This would be like if a human mother bottle fed their kid until they hit 18.

also not all birds, there’s a species of bird that the day it’s born it’s ready to live on its own and hunt but I mean more common birds.

is there anything more dependent than them.

Neurons in avian brains are smaller and more energy efficient and far more densely packed than neurons in primate brains. This allows them to perform higher level cognition without a layered neocortex like a primate brain.

What effect would there be if you gave a primate with a layered neocortex small and dense neurons like an avian brain?

Would it be the best of both worlds or would something about small densely packed neurons interfere or cancel out the benefits of a primate's layered neocortex?