You're viewing a single thread.
The medical professions are feeling this meme with you.
I understand 90% of the science behind what I do as a medical diagnostic technologist. It's still fucking magic as far as I'm concerned.
CTs and MRIs? Atom spin/relax releasing detectable energy waves that are somehow able to be read and aggregated by algorithms into a high detail image of the inside of a human body? Tell me that isn't magic and I'll call you a liar.
I majored in Computational Physics and I can tell you with certainty that electromagnetism is magic, and any machine utilizing said magic must be, by definition, magic themselves. You're right not to trust any of those "oh it's actually very well understood" snakes
Fun fact: According to Einstein's equations, electromagnetism arises when you add a fourth spatial dimension to your assumptions. String theory assumes between 9 and 11 and hypothesizes that the extras are curled up into tiny string that manifest as forces such as electromagnetism. HOW MUCH MORE MAGIC WOO-WOO CAN YOU GET
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
Surprisingly I've never heard of "computational physics" (as a specific field), but it sounds intensely interesting.
I completely agree, though. You can't look at a modern transistor (no really - you can't) and tell me it isn't some form of sorcery.
Don't tell my parents, but "Computational Physics", at least as implemented by my uni, was just a random mashup of physics, "pure" math, and programming classes. The idea is supposed to be specialization in creating simulation software, but unfortunately bridging the gap between intro to Java and C++ classes, and creating sophisticated simulation software does not really happen naturally for most people (me, I'm specifically talking about me)
It sounds very impressive on a resume though.
Well I'm still impressed, honestly. I took computer science, and I would have loved to lean further on the math/physics side. I'm one of those people that wants to know how a machine works from scratch, as foolish as that is, haha.
I recently saw a video that showed how the lightbulbs led to the invention of transistors, can't remember the title or channel, but it was really interesting.
Seems that starting with 1800's early electric technology makes it much easier to understand current, super miniaturized and specialized tech
Oh hey, I think I've seen the video you're talking about (and also can't remember the channel). Super interesting for sure.
I've always wanted to know how to create a simple computer entirely from scratch (in case of a time machine situation), but creating even a crude transistor from scratch is actually really hard, it turns out.
Ironically, that's the part we understand better.
You break a bone, we put something to keep it in place and 3 weeks later it is unbroken? That is magic.
It may be similar for most professions. But the difference is that programming is much more accessible to everyone than medical stuff, or even car mechanics.
Lets take the example of someone finding solution X for [problem], but X is wrong, but not fatal:
- Medical: possible malpractice lawsuit.
- car mechanic: Lost $$$ buying wrong parts
- Programming: Error hopefully caught by tests / QA. If the issue made it into production, roll it back to the prev version.
But it seems very likely other professions will also "google the problem"
- Woodworker: how to do X joint, constructions for drawer, table,..
- Car mechanic: likely cause of X, how to diagnose faults. Especially if they work on all cars
- Repairman: same as car mechanic. Also diagrams, and pinout of chips.
- Eletrical engineering: Parts, pinouts, troubleshooting issues with design
- Cashier: What's the number for Bananas? (ok, they don't use the internet for that)
- Waiters: Where was table 69?
- Fast food worker: "Legal to get fired over eating a fry?"