this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2026
61 points (88.6% liked)

Showerthoughts

43769 readers
645 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I started watching Dark Matter and the professor is there explaining Schrodinger's Cat to a college class like no one ever watched The Big Bang Theory or Steins;Gate or Dark or played Portal or ever heard that reference from dozens of pop culture sources before, because every major franchise in the last 10 years decided to go "Multiverse" and shit, so it's everywhere, and shows trying to show how into science they are, like so nerd and you are getting so smart and hearing about these so obscure theories that makes you so big brain, they make a section just to tell you about Schrodinger's Cat.

I feel like this used to be E = mc², I can't pin-point sources but I feel like every average movie when the professor was talking sciences they would be teaching E = mc², like knowing the formula exists is such a brainy thing that get your intellect so high you'd even qualify to watch Rick and Morty, like someone asked you if you knew anything about sciences you just be like "E = mc²" and *BOOM* take that, bitch! *supa hot fire gif ensues*. It was in cartoons like Animaniacs, Ghost Busters, probably Freakazoid, the Mask, etc, you had a few songs mentioning, like hip-hop playing with the words "MC squared". My memory is more of 80s and 90s pop culture but I watched later the 1965 Godard movie Alphaville and to show how hard into sciences it was there was random graffiti of E = mc² all around the place, like a gang of hardcore scientist thugs committing vandalism because sciences 4 life.

tl/dr it's a hard science concept adopted by pop culture that is repeatedly repeated and people with no real science knowledge will repeat them to sound smart.

top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 21 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

I would argue schrodingers cat is more annoying because most people don’t understand it at all and think it was an actual thought experiment vs a critique on the ridiculousness of superposition

[–] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

A critique that doesn't take into account that there is a direct observer inside the box: the cat.

[–] SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It’s not like the average person had any idea how E=MCC worked either. They just knew the formula.

[–] yermaw@sh.itjust.works 4 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

I still dont understand it. How in the hell can you multiply matter by the speed of light?

I mean sure it works, and the scientists understand it, and its transformed our entire species into a new era and so on but seriously what the fuck are you talking about Einstein? Have a day off.

[–] gumball4933@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

You divide distance by time to get speed of your car and that feels completely natural. But if you think about it, it’s equally as baffling as multiplying mass with speed.

[–] badgermurphy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] yermaw@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Good correction, but it doesnt make it any less baffling

[–] badgermurphy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

It definitely can be. I tend to think of all of the properties of a particle to be its "stats" or "facets", many/all(?) of which are correlated.

How massive a particle is doesn't intuitively seem to be correlated with the speed of light/causality, but that universal constant is correlated with literally all matter and energy, which you can sort of see by noticing that a particle having mass at all (or not) affects its "movement" through "space" and "time" directly.

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 39 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

I once had a guy at a party claim that Einstein didn't really understand what E=mc² meant.

I broke it down, and explained it. He thought I was bluffing when I said "c is the constant"

"The constant what?"

"The universal constant"

"See, you don't even know"

"The speed of light"

"Yeah I don't think Einstein would use the letter C to refer to light"

I guess I was beaten by experience, yet again.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 4 hours ago

No need to repeat the Scopes Trial - we all know how that ends.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 14 hours ago

90% of Americans think Einstein made the atomic bomb. He wasn't even allowed near New Mexico.

[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 5 points 17 hours ago

The most "trust me bro" of all the bros. 🫠

[–] db2@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Schrödinger's Cat is the new E = mc²

Maybe.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 4 hours ago

It is and isn’t.

Only when it doesn't matter because there's no observer. Once observed it's one or the other.

[–] LeapSecond@lemmy.zip 45 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Don't forget the wormhole explanation of folding a piece of paper and passing a pencil through it.

[–] Archimedes@sh.itjust.works 10 points 22 hours ago

Sam Niel did it best.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago

Schrodinger's experiment dates from 1935. Anyone that still thinks the cat is alive close to 100 years later is a blatant fool. Just open the box already.

[–] remon@ani.social 20 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

E = mc^2^ was always normie shit, you need at least know E^2^ = (pc)^2^ + (mc^2^)^2^ to qualify for Rick and Morty.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Don't talk to me unless you know E=mc^2^+AI

[–] Snazz@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago

Any other equation from physics would impress me more than knowing E = mc^2^. Even something basic as F = ma.

[–] kewjo@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

I've felt similar in the past but I've come to see it more as trying to spark interest. as a child of the 90s the thing that got me into the sciences was how cool it was portrayed in the media, from bill nye to movies like hackers.

make science and education cool again!

[–] PiraHxCx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 22 hours ago

I remember an old tweet of a guy saying that in college the professor asked if anyone had heard of Pavlov and he said "it rings a bell" and was sad no one laughed and he was too smart for that class... but I bet everyone just rolled their eyes at how basic he was.

[–] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I've moved on from Schrodinger's Cat, all my friends are talking about dinosaur bones in a parking garage.

[–] wry@sh.itjust.works 1 points 15 hours ago

This is where the real science is at.

[–] janewaydidnothingwrong@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

I read the book and it was okay, not great but not bad. I feel like a show could be fun, is it any good?

[–] PiraHxCx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 hours ago

I dropped the series at episode 4. Overused theme, I found the approach pretty generic, and I was frustrated by bad logic and dumb characters.

[–] skeesx@piefed.social 1 points 19 hours ago

I felt the same way about the book, and the show is fine as well. The story closely follows the book until the very end of Season 1. There’s more characterization, and we get to see how Jason1’s wife is faring with Jason2, but the pacing feels a bit slow. Also, I just don’t like the look of Jason’s face.

Season 2 is currently airing, and while it’s nice not knowing what will happen, I’m still not thrilled about it.