this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
115 points (97.5% liked)

Science Memes

20648 readers
1661 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Meta Post Tags



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


If you are here asking: "Is this a science meme?"

Probably, yes. We use the Dawkins definition of meme: a replicating idea, not just an image macro with a fact on it. A good post here doesn't need to teach you something. It needs to make you ask something: who, what, where, when, and especially why or how.

Science isn't a filing cabinet of facts, it's a conversation. For example, a photo of an eel or other localized wildlife counts because most people never see one, and wonder is the first step of inquiry. A car meme counts if it makes you curious about what's under the bonnet. If you want to talk about something you noticed in the world, chances are someone else wants to talk about it too.

We moderate for vibe, not category. Pruning is light, especially where a post creates interesting discussion. Experimenting is encouraged.

See the pinned paper on Shitposting as Public Pedagogy if you want the academic case for why this works.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

Are any particle physicists particularly concerned with matryoshkas? Like what's the context here? If this is about matryoshka brains, that's not, like, a thing particle physicists specifically care about.

[–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 51 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I would guess it refers to the fact that we used to think atoms were the smallest things, and then we found protons, neutrons, and electrons. then we thought those were the smallest things until we found quarks and gluons. and maybe some day we'll find out that there's something smaller inside quarks

[–] TwodogsFighting 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] caseyweederman@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

Are they made of Roms?

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

That's probably it.

and maybe some day we'll find out that there's something smaller inside quarks

I don't think particle physicists in 2026 wake up in a cold sweat worried about preons. We are still taking measurements, but I don't think theoreticians have any reason to invoke it – and IIRC its predictions have been outright contradicted experimentally.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

idk if you can get smaller than vibrations in a field. At least not without a different conceptual model. But I guess that's always been the problem anyway

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

guy who loves string theory: inhales

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I'm no physicist, but afaik particle/wave duality was already a thing before quantum. So we were already representing the world as waves aka frequencies aka vibrations. But then we discovered that those waves were composed of smaller waves. The rabbit hole can go on ad infinitum, as we zoom in to these waves trying to figure out the equations behind them, but we keep finding more complexity, like a fractal.

[–] Aquila@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I saw it as to see smaller and smaller you need higher energy photons. To get down to the planck length the smallest possible size the amount of energy you need to resolve that creates black holes

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Well, a little tiny black hole should be fine. It'll just evaporate. Stop picketing my lab.

electrons appear smooth still but I think quarks appear to have some structure to them... so yeah maybe more dolls still

[–] microcapybara@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 days ago

Maybe a joke about splitting an atom if you keep going far enough? Never mind that splitting a single atom releases an inconsequential amount of energy.

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 days ago

I'd guess that's also how thermonuclear weapons are layers of conventional chemical, fission, and fusion material encased within each other like that. All these things come to mind.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 days ago

Maybe the idea that there is always a smaller identical one which doesn't make sense either since as much as there are smallest particles, there is a smallest matryoshka

[–] lemmyman@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

This seems wrong to me now but at first I thought of the demon core and its layered enclosure.