Waiting for Death


Life; the most valuable thing we own. And death, the name of absence… Disappearance of awarness and annihilation of our egos. These two concepts take us from bad to good, fear to fearlessness and purpose to pourposelessness. Every single day we are experiencing good and bad things. We are living like we will never die. Then we are getting older and older and putting our mood to expectancy. But this is not an ordinary expectancy. This expectancy is not for wasting the time, it’s for stopping the time.

What are we afraid of though? What makes living so valuable? The loved ones? Or our own selves? Or none of these. Maybe living was just “sweet”, the ability to feel was beatifull, and simply existing was great. But not being is not like that. Since we derive from nonexistance we know really well what it means to not exist. From my opinion, what frightens us is not death or the act of dying. It’s not absence. What frightens us is not being able “to be”. Yes, because “being” was great.

- I’ve translated my old blog post Olumu Beklemek with my friend’s helps. Thank you Anila!

Lucy (2014)


Lucy is the new science-fiction film directed by Luc Besson. After my friends’ suggestion I’ve decided to watch it today, and after I started to watch the movie I figured out that the main subject of the film was the ‘Ten percent of brain myth’. As you can guess, the film is trying to answer the question ‘What it would be like if we use 100% percent of our brain’. I’m sure nowadays a lot of people believe this myth. Of course I’m aware that it’s a science-fiction movie, but how do we control everything around us if we use 100% of our brains. Or why do we need to control? I think that’s the thing that makes the film “bad” on from own viewpoint. Evolution is a natural process so it needs a lot of time to produce something. Ok, it’s a fiction, drug accelerated the process and gave the superpower to Lucy as a result she obtained ‘telepathy’ and ‘psychokinesis’ abilites. She reached the stars, made her own computer and so on. All these don’t seem different. These things have always been interesting for humans and that’s why the movie can’t answer the question properly. Indeed, it’s not easy to answer to that question. I don’t have an idea what if it would be like (if it was true). But I’m sure it will be not like as in the movie. Or, as a conclusion I can say we can’t make a prediction what it would be like if we use 100% of our brain while we are already using 100% of it.

Sources :

I would like to thanks to my friend Anila for her corrections on this post.

 

Comparing new Oldboy movie with the old one


I’m not sure how much films I’ve watched but I believe that there’s too much. Of course there’s a lot of good films but when it comes to best ‘scenario’ Oldboy always has been special for me. Holywood version of Oldboy came to theaters on 2013 but I’ve decided to watch it today. I’m not being able to compare films with details, but I have to say that new one is worst. And I suggest you to watch the old one if you didn’t see the movie, if you did then you can try to watch the Holywood version –before doing that check the reviews on the IMDB page– .

One quote from Quora :

Actually I haven’t seen the Hollywood version of the movie, and never will! The angry reviews on imdb is enough proof for me that this is a movie that should never been made! The original South Korean movie is such a masterpiece that even thinking about a remake is silly. People should see the original one, end of story.

Compare the fight scenes in this video, what makes the old one better?  

 

 

Career Aptitude Test


I was reading the blog post on Lifehacker about finding the career path and I found this test. From Lifehacker;

Most of us have a variety of skills and interests, which makes choosing a career path tricky. Rasmussen College’s free online career aptitude test lets you rank your skills or interests and then suggests matching careers.

It’s less of a “test,” really, than it is a simple tool. Adjust the sliders and the results will rank occupations based on your particular mix. The downside is that your skills are self-reported, rather than tested through actual aptitude tests as some other career assessments tests do. However, it takes into consideration not just your skills but also interests, and suggestions are based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Take the Career Aptitude Test | Rasmussen College

I’v adjusted the sliders based on my skills, interests and the result is look like :

adjust_your_careerresult

 

Masterportal.eu


This year is going to be my last year on Physics class. So I’m searcing for master educations in Europe.
But of course, the most important question for me is which countries has low tuition fees ?
Masterportal.eu has a good information about the universities and there’s a panel that you can ask question(s). I asked for low tuition fees countries,

 

Hi,I’m a Physics student at Turkey. Next year it’s my last year. For this reason I’ve started to look some master degree programs on Physics and Computer Science. Do you have any suggestions for those fields? I know it depends, but what is the lowest average money needful for a month?


Sincerely,
Erbil Silik

Dear Erbil,
You’re right, it depends on the university and the program you’re applying for. I would recommend to take a look at the Netherlands, Finland, Estonia and Denmark. The first three have quite low tuition fees for the international students and good quality programs.
— Sincerely, Katrin from Dream Foundation
Which one you prefer?

How are well-known physicists/astronomers viewed by the physics community?


Today, I have seen such an interesting question on Reddit. Here it’s the some well-known (popular) science writers.

  • Carl Sagan
  • Richard Feynman
  • Stephen Hawking
  • Brian Greene
  • Michio Kaku
  • Neil deGrasse Tyson

There’s to much answers to the question. The most rated is below.

Neil deGrasse Tyson / Carl Sagan

Very good popularizers of science. Did reasonable research back in the day (e.g., the level of an average prof at a good research university); but aren’t famous for their own research — is famous for their ability to bring science to the masses in an appealing way. EDIT: I’m not a planetary astronomer. Looking back Sagan did have a lot of very important contributions to planetary astronomy. Not Feynman/Bethe/Wheeler level but very good. NdT seemed to do very good work to get his PhD, but then seemed to move to focus primarily on popularization of science.

Stephen Hawking

Overrated because of his disease. Had a prof in grad school who was another big wig in black hole/gr research in the 1970s and Hawking gets nearly all the credit for it. But of everyone listed (except Feynman) is the only one who is famous for his own research. E.g., he’s easily one of the best 20 GR physicists of our time. But people often think of him as the next Einstein, Newton, Pauli, Fermi, etc when he’s really not.

Brian Greene

Friends at Columbia claim he’s quite annoying about his veganism. (E.g., will be upset if there’s any meat served at a department event). Personally, when I was in undergrad thought elegant universe was well done. Much better than Hawking’s BHoT.

Continue reading

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 88 other followers