Reed for math/physics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Reed have a particle collider?

Colleges and universities generally rely on collaborative installations for access to this technology. As an illustration as to why this represents the case, the footprint of the Large Hadron Collider exceeds the area of the entirety of Reed College by over 100 fold.

AI

Most of these responses are AI.

In that AI learned to write from humans, I don’t know how you could draw this conclusion. Worse, because of the definitive tone of your expression, someone may believe you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Reed have a particle collider?

Colleges and universities generally rely on collaborative installations for access to this technology. As an illustration as to why this represents the case, the footprint of the Large Hadron Collider exceeds the area of the entirety of Reed College by over 100 fold.

AI

Most of these responses are AI.

In that AI learned to write from humans, I don’t know how you could draw this conclusion. Worse, because of the definitive tone of your expression, someone may believe you.

It's the awkward and robotic style. It's clearly AI, and I am usually a slow skeptic to these kinds of things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is Reed for astrophysics/particle physics?

Reed lacks the astronomical tradition of colleges with long-established observatories. Reed also does not offer a geosciences program, which would be important for the study of planetary science. Nonetheless, Reed would offer the necessary foundation in physics and mathematics for a student who is interested in modern-day astrophysics and cosmology.

Geoscience and Astro are separate fields and really have little collaboration.

Students interested in astrophysics and cosmology may be interested in planetary science as well. And the methods and insights of geosciences programs are highly relevant to planetary science.

Then join a research lab in the summer? The information you actually need is physics, not the planetary geochemistry, which is mostly steered by your research interest and maybe one grad course. Cosmological research mostly doesn't involve much planetary composition research, it involves foundational physics. Theoretical physics is the gateway to exploring these research fields. Much of cosmology deals with dark matter candidacy.

The question of dark energy tends to be more accessible to observational cosmologists. Inquiry into dark matter falls more within the realm of experimental and particle physics.

You don’t think particle physics has a connection to people who observe the early universe?

Some researchers entire career is the belief that understanding fundamental particles makes most sense through cosmological inquiry over other methods.

The early universe, at least with respect to electromagnetic information, is practically and theoretically inaccessible to observational cosmologists. Inquiry into this stage, then, relies predominately on theoretical models and particle collider experimentation.

And cosmology? I can’t believed someone is arguing that cosmology has no relation to particle physics. Dark Matter, something cosmologists are very interested in, is everywhere- and it’s an unidentified subatomic particle. If I were to ask you to identify a subatomic particle, maybe if you’re a whizz, you’d think up a particle collider, but the naive question would be “hey, where do these particles come from and how do they form,” hence Cosmology…

In changing "observational cosmology" to "cosmology," you have lost the distinction of prior comments.

The distinction between "observational cosmology" and "particle physics" is much blurrier than you're making it sound. A huge amount of modern cosmology is motivated by questions that are fundamentally about particle physics: dark matter, inflation, baryogenesis, neutrino physics, dark sectors, and other beyond-the-Standard-Model phenomena.
There are researchers whose entire programs sit precisely at that intersection. For example, Cyril Creque-Sarbinowski, an incoming professor at Pomona College, explicitly describes his work as developing theoretical and statistical frameworks to study inflation, the dark sector, and baryogenesis through cosmology. That's not particle physics or cosmology in isolation—it's both.
Cosmologists don't just look through telescopes and particle physicists don't just build colliders. The cosmic microwave background, large-scale structure, primordial abundances, and other cosmological observables are some of the strongest probes we have of fundamental physics at energies far beyond what current accelerators can reach.
So for a student interested in astrophysics, cosmology, dark matter, or early-universe physics, the important preparation is usually a strong foundation in physics and mathematics. That's one reason students interested in these topics might look at places like Pomona College, where faculty such as Cyril Creque-Sarbinowski are actively working on questions that connect cosmology directly to particle physics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Reed have a particle collider?

Colleges and universities generally rely on collaborative installations for access to this technology. As an illustration as to why this represents the case, the footprint of the Large Hadron Collider exceeds the area of the entirety of Reed College by over 100 fold.

AI

Most of these responses are AI.

In that AI learned to write from humans, I don’t know how you could draw this conclusion. Worse, because of the definitive tone of your expression, someone may believe you.

No, that comment genuinely reads like AI. It's not the factual content; it's the style. Nobody asked for a miniature technical exposition on particle collider infrastructure. The question was "Does Reed have a particle collider?" and the response immediately jumps into a bizarrely formal explanation: "As an illustration as to why this represents the case..." That's exactly the kind of unnecessarily verbose phrasing AI tends to produce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Reed have a particle collider?

Colleges and universities generally rely on collaborative installations for access to this technology. As an illustration as to why this represents the case, the footprint of the Large Hadron Collider exceeds the area of the entirety of Reed College by over 100 fold.

AI

Most of these responses are AI.

In that AI learned to write from humans, I don’t know how you could draw this conclusion. Worse, because of the definitive tone of your expression, someone may believe you.

No, that comment genuinely reads like AI. It's not the factual content; it's the style. Nobody asked for a miniature technical exposition on particle collider infrastructure. The question was "Does Reed have a particle collider?" and the response immediately jumps into a bizarrely formal explanation: "As an illustration as to why this represents the case..." That's exactly the kind of unnecessarily verbose phrasing AI tends to produce.

I'll translate for you:

"Like, dude, there's no way Reed could have a particle collider. You could circle that college like a million times with the one over in Sweden, or wherever. There's no way you're going to fit that into a lab, dude."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Reed have a particle collider?

Colleges and universities generally rely on collaborative installations for access to this technology. As an illustration as to why this represents the case, the footprint of the Large Hadron Collider exceeds the area of the entirety of Reed College by over 100 fold.

AI

Most of these responses are AI.

In that AI learned to write from humans, I don’t know how you could draw this conclusion. Worse, because of the definitive tone of your expression, someone may believe you.

No, that comment genuinely reads like AI. It's not the factual content; it's the style. Nobody asked for a miniature technical exposition on particle collider infrastructure. The question was "Does Reed have a particle collider?" and the response immediately jumps into a bizarrely formal explanation: "As an illustration as to why this represents the case..." That's exactly the kind of unnecessarily verbose phrasing AI tends to produce.

Is there a type of "immediately" that arises in the second sentence of a two-sentence post? And, yes, I wrote that clause and the entirety of the post. The less formal (and less precise) "for example" might have worked, but what's the difference? I hope I was helpful to the person who asked the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Reed have a particle collider?

Colleges and universities generally rely on collaborative installations for access to this technology. As an illustration as to why this represents the case, the footprint of the Large Hadron Collider exceeds the area of the entirety of Reed College by over 100 fold.

AI

Most of these responses are AI.

In that AI learned to write from humans, I don’t know how you could draw this conclusion. Worse, because of the definitive tone of your expression, someone may believe you.

No, that comment genuinely reads like AI. It's not the factual content; it's the style. Nobody asked for a miniature technical exposition on particle collider infrastructure. The question was "Does Reed have a particle collider?" and the response immediately jumps into a bizarrely formal explanation: "As an illustration as to why this represents the case..." That's exactly the kind of unnecessarily verbose phrasing AI tends to produce.

Is there a type of "immediately" that arises in the second sentence of a two-sentence post? And, yes, I wrote that clause and the entirety of the post. The less formal (and less precise) "for example" might have worked, but what's the difference? I hope I was helpful to the person who asked the question.

It’s fine to just say you used AI. Doesn’t change your argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Reed have a particle collider?

Colleges and universities generally rely on collaborative installations for access to this technology. As an illustration as to why this represents the case, the footprint of the Large Hadron Collider exceeds the area of the entirety of Reed College by over 100 fold.

AI

Most of these responses are AI.

In that AI learned to write from humans, I don’t know how you could draw this conclusion. Worse, because of the definitive tone of your expression, someone may believe you.

No, that comment genuinely reads like AI. It's not the factual content; it's the style. Nobody asked for a miniature technical exposition on particle collider infrastructure. The question was "Does Reed have a particle collider?" and the response immediately jumps into a bizarrely formal explanation: "As an illustration as to why this represents the case..." That's exactly the kind of unnecessarily verbose phrasing AI tends to produce.

I'll translate for you:

"Like, dude, there's no way Reed could have a particle collider. You could circle that college like a million times with the one over in Sweden, or wherever. There's no way you're going to fit that into a lab, dude."

This was a very unconvincing attempt to pivot the argument and an unfair representation of what was said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Reed have a particle collider?

Colleges and universities generally rely on collaborative installations for access to this technology. As an illustration as to why this represents the case, the footprint of the Large Hadron Collider exceeds the area of the entirety of Reed College by over 100 fold.

AI

Most of these responses are AI.

In that AI learned to write from humans, I don’t know how you could draw this conclusion. Worse, because of the definitive tone of your expression, someone may believe you.

No, that comment genuinely reads like AI. It's not the factual content; it's the style. Nobody asked for a miniature technical exposition on particle collider infrastructure. The question was "Does Reed have a particle collider?" and the response immediately jumps into a bizarrely formal explanation: "As an illustration as to why this represents the case..." That's exactly the kind of unnecessarily verbose phrasing AI tends to produce.

Is there a type of "immediately" that arises in the second sentence of a two-sentence post? And, yes, I wrote that clause and the entirety of the post. The less formal (and less precise) "for example" might have worked, but what's the difference? I hope I was helpful to the person who asked the question.

It’s fine to just say you used AI. Doesn’t change your argument.

You're not going to learn anything today, are you? Aren't there AI detectors available? Try that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Reed have a particle collider?

Colleges and universities generally rely on collaborative installations for access to this technology. As an illustration as to why this represents the case, the footprint of the Large Hadron Collider exceeds the area of the entirety of Reed College by over 100 fold.

AI

Most of these responses are AI.

In that AI learned to write from humans, I don’t know how you could draw this conclusion. Worse, because of the definitive tone of your expression, someone may believe you.

No, that comment genuinely reads like AI. It's not the factual content; it's the style. Nobody asked for a miniature technical exposition on particle collider infrastructure. The question was "Does Reed have a particle collider?" and the response immediately jumps into a bizarrely formal explanation: "As an illustration as to why this represents the case..." That's exactly the kind of unnecessarily verbose phrasing AI tends to produce.

Is there a type of "immediately" that arises in the second sentence of a two-sentence post? And, yes, I wrote that clause and the entirety of the post. The less formal (and less precise) "for example" might have worked, but what's the difference? I hope I was helpful to the person who asked the question.

It’s fine to just say you used AI. Doesn’t change your argument.

You're not going to learn anything today, are you? Aren't there AI detectors available? Try that.

It’s fine to just say you used AI. Doesn’t change your argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is Reed for astrophysics/particle physics?

Reed lacks the astronomical tradition of colleges with long-established observatories. Reed also does not offer a geosciences program, which would be important for the study of planetary science. Nonetheless, Reed would offer the necessary foundation in physics and mathematics for a student who is interested in modern-day astrophysics and cosmology.

Geoscience and Astro are separate fields and really have little collaboration.

Students interested in astrophysics and cosmology may be interested in planetary science as well. And the methods and insights of geosciences programs are highly relevant to planetary science.

Then join a research lab in the summer? The information you actually need is physics, not the planetary geochemistry, which is mostly steered by your research interest and maybe one grad course. Cosmological research mostly doesn't involve much planetary composition research, it involves foundational physics. Theoretical physics is the gateway to exploring these research fields. Much of cosmology deals with dark matter candidacy.

The question of dark energy tends to be more accessible to observational cosmologists. Inquiry into dark matter falls more within the realm of experimental and particle physics.

So sounds like you’re saying Reed would be good for someone interested in dark matter, or no?

This person knows how to follow a discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's one reason students interested in these topics might look at places like Pomona College, where faculty such as Cyril Creque-Sarbinowski are actively working on questions that connect cosmology directly to particle physics.

Or go to MIT, JHU, or UW, where Creque-Sarbinowski learned about that stuff and worked at research labs.

(Also, Creque-Sarbinowski isn't even at Pomona yet.)

https://cyril-creque.github.io/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
That's one reason students interested in these topics might look at places like Pomona College, where faculty such as Cyril Creque-Sarbinowski are actively working on questions that connect cosmology directly to particle physics.

Or go to MIT, JHU, or UW, where Creque-Sarbinowski learned about that stuff and worked at research labs.

(Also, Creque-Sarbinowski isn't even at Pomona yet.)

https://cyril-creque.github.io/

[Anonymous]

If physicists are a stupid as the alleged experts posting in this thread then I don't want my kid to study physics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If physicists are a stupid as the alleged experts posting in this thread then I don't want my kid to study physics.

What is it about the use of the word "stupid" that makes a person sound stupid?