Is fundamental physics dead for the coming generations? (Including my own) - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: LeoTech
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2018, 02:58:10 pm
content: So, here is the thing:I am currently in High School majoring in Math and Physics - I'm in Denmark, so it works a bit different than most of you probably are used to. My complete class is majoring in Physics and Math as well, so the interest in these subjects are understandable pretty high - outside of school as well.Unfortunately I'm the only one who "dreams" about becoming an engineer, and the majority of people want to study something fancy like Quantum mechanics, string theory or whatever is all the rage right now.The problem with this is the fact that most people are no longer interested in fundamental physics like Newtonian Mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism, Oscillation and Waves, etc.Instead of actually learning these rather fundamental subjects, they jump right onto YouTube and watch some "educational video" of some hot-shot scientist about stuff like String Theory, Quantum Mechanics and so on.Then in the next physics class here in High School, honors program or whatever, about some fundamental subject they think they know and understand it, because they "understood" the advanced subject, so they start talking pure bullshit about the topic at hand! (Excuse my language, it annoys me as hell) They literally comment on every thing the teacher says or does, and there comments are far, far to often completely incorrect - which is insanely annoying.And yes I know, "I am just in High School, so I can't really judge whether or not they talk bullshit". Well that is partly true, when it comes to "fancy" science topics like string theory I can't, but when it comes to basic fundamental mechanics I defenietly can at least at High School level, as I spend my time studying physics as well, but fundamental stuff, such as Newtonian mechanics and electricity, instead of whatever is all the rage right now, so I actually know what is thought in school and understand it - which for me is a pleasure.This post has been pretty angry, and partly aggressive, but I would like to get your opinion on this problem, as it currently expands far beyond my High School class, and I encounter it everywhere outside of High School in places like honorary science programs and so on.Many young people engaged in science nowadays no longer take the time to understand the fundamental aspects of physics, but jump right into the "fancy" stuff, believing that they therefore understand anything else. This leads to them talking pure bullshit when it comes to fundamental elements of physics believing that they completely understand it. This drives me, and many others, crazy because they have the feeling that they need to comment on anything the teacher or someone else says, and their comments are simply wrong!So, I'd like to hear from you what you think about this, does this behavior drive you crazy as well? Do you find it annoying? Or do you don't find it necessary to focus on the fundamentals of physics?Any thoughts are appreciatet!Leo(I'm terribly sorry for any offensive or angry parts in this post, as I was pretty steamed while writing this - guess why? Secondly, it may be a bit confusing, so feel free to ask for clarification about what I wrote)

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2018, 03:09:50 pm
content: You're in high school. When I was in high school I "dreamed" I wanted to be a character in a William Gibson novel. No one is going to be "string theorist".I went to school with a math wizard who became a physicist. He's a mental wreck now. The kids that broke into houses and stole TVs, cut classes, and took drugs are all successful people now who own car dealerships, import/export business, etc... while the "smart" people are scraping by on shitty precarious engineering jobs.So be careful what you wish for.Print this message out, laminate it, and keep it in your wallet. Read it in thirty years and marvel at my wisdom.

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2018, 03:14:38 pm
content: Quote from: LeoTech on September 19, 2018, 02:58:10 pmWait till you learn "fundamentals" good enough to understand there is BS in it too here and there, some things are a bit simplified if you will. Then you will feel true anger because you'll realize that soon there will be nobody to fix things. And why would be there anybody, there is no profit in truth. But there is in propagating for various "feel good" BS so fuzzy headed ones could feel smart while milking  money. Moreover if you try to talk too loud you'll be leveled with ground by fuzzy headed ones because you endangering their profit and comfort zone. So prepare for lonely but honorable journey.

author: tpowell1830
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2018, 03:22:22 pm
content: Hi Leo, I think I understand what you are saying, but let me try.I think you are saying that the fundamental engineering is very important and you are a bit frustrated hearing from wannabe physicists in your high school who think they know everything, but really don't and try to be a bit snobbish when you try to explain that the fundamental engineering is important too.Here is my take on where you need to direct your energy and thought processes, although it may sound a little patronizing. You are in high school and most people in high school don't really realize what the world is actually like. When you get to the point that you are working in an actual engineering environment, engineers do not give a thought to what physicists are doing as far as their jobs go. However, as engineers are interested in new technology, they will read technical publications that reveal some new technology that perhaps a physicist has developed. This in no way makes engineers jealous or wish they were physicists, but as practical engineers do, they may sometime scoff at the new tech with great doubt and say show me the numbers. Engineers are very practical like that.Bottom line, just ignore them and keep focused on what interests you without so much as a negative thought as to what these other guys are saying or doing. If you keep your focus and go forward, soon you will be in the workforce as an engineer and those folks that were doing the talking will either have gone down their path and achieved their hopes of being physicists or not. What matters is that you would have become the engineer that you wanted to be.Hope this helps...

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2018, 03:42:19 pm
content: Work (not to be mistaken as workplace) is usually what separates people that just talk along from people that can do the work. Just memorizing things heard yesterday is not that big of an achievement in itself, it is helpful and a base to derive an understanding for a topic. Anecdotal knowlegde should also not to be mistaken for an actual practical approach to the problem.There are many things taught in High School that are de-simplified in higher grades. So better don´t dream about becoming an engineer, but become someone that does engineering work maybe. Being able to connect the right dots in the right moment or at least knowing how to find them is half the rent.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2018, 03:51:32 pm
content: All I wanted in HS was to go fast and turn left and all I wanted out of HS was me! I did well but I hated school. It took several years after HS graduation before I took college seriously.Fundamental physics (Mechanics) leads to Statics and Dynamics and these two topics are the reasons that building don't fall down. Kind of important in the bigger scheme of things. Even physicists need a lab!Somebody is going to need to engineer things. Even the physicists don't design the magic machines, engineers do. The physicist describes what is supposed to happen and the engineer makes it happen (along with a host of technical people - machinists, welders, electricians and even programmers).There are some fascinating ideas coming out of particle physics but it's going to be a while before I can play with a box full of string theory. OTOH, I always liked playing with Erector Sets.Check the truss in the upper right corner of this page and compare to what you learn in Statics:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erector_SetThe EE program had only 2 semesters of Physics but they were my favorite classes.Will there be enough engineers in the future? Of course there will!A Computer Hardware Engineer with a Bachelor's Degree earns about the same as a Physicist with a Doctorate.https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/physicists-and-astronomers.htmhttps://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/computer-hardware-engineers.htmThere are geographic variances in earnings. You can drill down to individual states and even regions.None of which applies outside the US but I imagine there are similarities.It's fun to know things but it is even more fun to make a good living for knowing them.Oh, BTW, look at the number of jobs in each of the categories and the number of new jobs. It would seem intuitive to want to sign up for the job that has the most openings. It's easier to be one of a bigger number.

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2018, 04:24:51 pm
content: Some oldschool physics to cheer up discussion a bit:Rest of them, will kill a week worth of evenings easily:https://www.youtube.com/user/dramaticphysics/videosThis one got me hooked on RF:Did not find peace untilthis bumpwas onmy screen also...

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 03:37:22 am
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on September 19, 2018, 03:09:50 pmThe people that I know of who broke into houses, stole TVs, cut classes and took drugs are in jail. Or dead.Some of my colleagues in engineering went on to become high executives or businesspeople. Some decided to dedicate themselves to an academic life. None of them, though, scraped by on precarious jobs. Fortunately. Not that I know.But, of course, YMMV.Quote from: LeoTech on September 19, 2018, 02:58:10 pmMadmen open ways which, later, sages will go through.Physicists are understandably focused on the leading edge of science.Classical physics gives support to many engineering solutions. Including computing.However, quantum mechanics is what made engineering produce many of our most recent wonders.Don't forget that John Bardeen, himself an engineer AND a quantum physicist, won the 1956 Nobel Prize for the invention of the transistor. And AGAIN in 1972 for his work on superconductivity, which is used, for example, in MRI scans.So learn both: classical physics and quantum mechanics. You'll need them if you take electronics engineering seriously.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 04:30:41 am
content: There is a difference between practicle and theoretical quantum physics. The real physicists we need are the ones that make semiconductors, quantum computers, superconductors, exc. The problem is most of these "dreamers" want to go study useless whims like string theory, hex bozons, and time/realativity. Well where's my force feilds, delorian, and hyperdrive?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 08:36:29 am
content: To the OP...You are perceptive.You don't like "know-it-all" bullshit.You know, roughly, where you want to go.You are prepared to take the more difficult path to get where you want to go.Those attitudes are a very good start; don't loose them.The only things I would suggest to someone that wants to be an engineer are:do maths plus the relevant science subjects at schoolconsider doing an engineering course at universitywork out how to choose a good university course for your chosen subjectThe last is difficult, but you have to trust your instincts. Universities vary widely in quality. Faculties within universities vary widely. Courses within faculties vary widely.Choose university with a generally good reputation, then universities with a good reputation in your chosen subject. Then work out what you want from a course (topics, theory, practical), and look at the syllabus for the courses. Make sure there is solid theory being taught, plus solid practical that enables you to demonstrate use of the theory.Visit several universities during their "open days" to "calibrate" your understanding and expectations, and to better understand what is (and more importantly isn't) on offer. At the end you will be more sure that your choice is right.Don't specialise too soon. For example "electronics" is fine for a degree, but "telecomunnication electronics" is too narrow and limiting.Do "more than is necessary", in the form of your own projects. That enables employers to distinguish those that love the subject from "timeserving wage slaves". Try to find a university that allows you to use the lab facilities for your home projects.(I'll leave you to decide how much weight to put on "In Vacuo Veritas"'s posting!)

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 01:43:40 pm
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on September 20, 2018, 04:30:41 amThe Delorian manufacturer is still around in a town close to you.https://www.delorean.com/Are the hex bozons hex hit and run clowns?

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 04:05:59 pm
content: String theory is more math than physics.Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on September 19, 2018, 03:09:50 pmI went into business. Ran a small company for a few years. Burned out before I was 30, thought I could handle it myself, burned out a second time. Ten years ago, at 32, I was a burned out husk of a man. Now, I can domostnormal stuff, although I have zero tolerance for stress (not just mentally; I also get hives and other physical issues).I did go back to university, but being much older, and definitely not suited to the current-era Social Justice/Political Correctness that is overbearing in western European universities at least, I'm having severe difficulties. I'm pretty smart and capable, and still failed. Hard.Quote from: tggzzz on September 20, 2018, 08:36:29 amThis is what saved me. I was not tied to a single career path, but could (after soul-searching) switch from IT business to physics research, because I have a well-rounded set of skills.Having well-rounded skills in widely different areas is much better than being the very best in a single subject. Not only do you have alternatives if you find a path undesirable, but there are an increasing number of tasks that require understanding in more fields than one. The competition at the very top in any subject is not on merits, but on surface and presentation, and is the place for socially oriented people.You will derive more happiness from being a trusted, dependable member of a team, carrying your responsibilities, than being the best at something.Do not let any single thing monopolize all your time. Have time for hobbies, preferably things where youdostuff, and develop your skills in, even if they are irrelevant to your career right now.

author: LeoTech
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 04:08:50 pm
content: Hallo everyone,A huge thank you for the really motivational answers from you guys!They helped put things in perspective, and showed me that it wasn't me who was getting all crazy.But there is one thing I would like to clear up anyway:When I said that they talked a lot of bullshit I didn't mean to call String theory, or whatever they were interested in, bullshit - that's a completely different discussion for another time and forum. I mean't that what they were saying about fundamental physics, such as Kinematics, was bullshit.As an example: The teacher says that if you were to throw an object straight forward and up, like this pen, you would need a two dimensional coordinate system two describe it's position in space, which is true. Then someone starts shouting/commenting loudly that you need three dimensions to describe the position, which is simply wrong, but the person doesn't understands this, because "Space is relative, and we don't now if we really live in 3D and not 4D, or whatever, blah blah blah...."And the arguments is started.Anyway I really appriciate your answers,Leo

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 05:08:59 pm
content: Quote from: LeoTech on September 20, 2018, 04:08:50 pmThere are two ways of modeling atomic and molecular structures, in computational material physics, computational chemistry and quantum chemistry, and molecular biology: classical, andab initioor quantum mechanics.Quantum mechanical models model the electron density, and are very computationally intensive. At this point in time, in 2018, you can model systems with maybe a few thousand interacting electrons (only the outermost electrons in atoms interact), and the system must have periodic boundaries in all directions.Classical models use mathematical approximations to describe the interactions between atoms. They are less precise (or rather, each model is limited in the situation they can model), and are usually derived from a combination of theory and practice, there being a theoretical basis for theformof the equations, but theparametersare fitted experimentally, to best fit the situation being modeled. You can easily model chunks of matter with billions of atoms; this is done for example to find new, durable alloys for hard environments like natural gas turbine pumps and fusion reactor chamber coatings; or finding useful layered materials for use in mass-produced thin layer vapor or chemical deposition, where each layer can be as thin as a single molecule thick. Those are ubiquitous in e.g. all kinds of displays.Classical models use Newtonian kinematics to model atom movement.Thus, a large fraction of materials physics and chemistry simulations rely on approximating Newtonian kinematics.It sounds like the people who were arguing about the importance of some subfields of physics were basing their arguments on emotion, not on practice or utility.Quote from: LeoTech on September 20, 2018, 04:08:50 pmVector algebra and linear algebra in general, as well as unit quaternions (AKA versors, describing orientation in 3D), are extremely useful tools in physics, computational physics, and computer programming (both graphics and physics modeling in e.g. games). They should be your basic tools in modeling such problems. The number of dimensions is then just a detail that depends on the model. Arguing about the number of spacetime dimensions is then like arguing that the proper solution to allhedge mazesis to use a helicopter.There is so much left to do and fix even in basic models, it sometimes overwhelms me.As an example, consider the WikipediaTrilaterationarticle. It describes how you can determine the position of an unknown point relative to three known points, if you know their distances. (It looks like EvilFish deleted the formulae in June 2018 as "original work". I don't see how any well-known math formula is "original work", but then again, Wikipedia is a social media, not an encyclopedia.) For three known points, and their distances to an unknown point, you can find the solution very easily using basic vector algebra, by using a coordinate system based on the fixed points. The result is a pair of points, symmetrically on both sides of the plane formed by the three known points. Many guides and tutorials use a complicated trigonometric function sequence to convert between coordinate systems (because they really only know about Euler and/or Tait-Bryan rotations, which IMO are evil and should not be used), but if you know the properties of 3D rotation matrices, it it really trivial to do. Just compare the "Preliminary computations" between theMay 2010andFebruary 2018versions of the article.There is no end to that kind of "cutting through the crud" work, making things simpler, more robust, and more reliable, because it seems very few people know (or care about) more than one way of doing things. All it requires is a willingness to do the work to learn the details of the problem at hand, listening to those who have practical experience to learn the ropes, and then doing work necessary to find a better solution.Similarly, even if you don't know much (other than the general basics of many subjects), but are willing and able to learn, and have that reliable team-working attitude, there are an increasing number of employers (in smaller companies, mind you; not the big conglomerates who have HR departments that do the hiring, and know nothing about the actual jobs they select people for) who are desperately trying to find such employees.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 07:35:05 pm
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on September 20, 2018, 04:30:41 amI understand that. But the OP gave me impression that "Quantum mechanics" is just a fancy topic and has nothing to do with engineering.Quite the opposite. Do study quantum mechanics. Go for it. It'll serve two purposes: 1) you'll be able to cut through the "bullshit" and 2) in the process learn the theory behind many engineering principles.Quote from: LeoTech on September 20, 2018, 04:08:50 pmFor situations of low gravity like we have here on earth, speeds much less than the speed of light and macroscopic objects, Newtonian physics is a pretty good approximation for modelling phenomena.So, if you're going to fire a gun and wants to know where your bullet is going to end up, you won't sit down and speculate whether we live in a 3, 4 or 11D world.That's why we still learn classical physics at school AND college.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2018, 08:25:33 pm
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on September 20, 2018, 07:35:05 pmAs to the thrown ball, the assumption is that it travels in a straight line and two dimensions is sufficient.For the bullet example, we definitely think in terms of a 3D space because wind is a factor and can be quite significant at longer distances and with lighter bullets.The thing is, we are going to get all those vectors, phasors and such in Calc 3 - Linear Algebra. EE students will spend quite a bit of time with vectors in 2 and 3 dimensional space. Maxwell's Equations come to mind.But Classical Physics is the fun course in the STEM sequence.

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 12:28:31 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on September 19, 2018, 03:09:50 pmSO freaking true!An engineer job sucks sometimes, because you solve other pepole (difficult) problems and you don't make money, who make the money is your boss/enterprise, not you...

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 04:52:07 pm
content: What's wrong with helping others make money?Jim Williams once said :The HP 200 [...] answered a market need with a superior solution. The contribution was genuine, with the rewards evenly divided between Hewlett-Packard and its customers. The HP 200 is the way mother said things are supposed to be--the good guys won and nobody lost.HP decided to charge less than the competition, instead of more, despite having invented a far superior product.Jim Williams himself helped countless people make money and it doesn't seem he was destitute.Linus Torvalds is a more recent example. He made a career out of giving away the product of his work. Corpos are making truckloads of money with it. Torvalds lives in Dunthorpe. An affluent suburb of Portland. Doesn't seem to be living in the gutter, as far as I understand.So instead of having thieves of TV sets as role models, why not get inspired by Bill Hewlett, Jim Williams and Linus Torvalds?Edit: correcting misspellings

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 07:34:59 pm
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on September 21, 2018, 04:52:07 pmNothing. It is just that it can happen when the work environment is excellent, or it can happen because you are exploited and manipulated.I'd love to help others make money off my work, if and only if it means they'll ensure I can concentrate on my work without having to involve in any kind of office politics, and have the necessary resources and authority to actually solve the problems, and not just paper over them. Assign me a personal assistant to handle my timetables, monitor and report on my progress and resource use, and who has the social skills to manipulate people when office politics are involved, and I'll be happy as a clam with moderate wages, while my superiors make millions.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 07:45:58 pm
content: QuoteI think he is saying his classmates have an incorrect understanding of newtonian physics, but they believe they understand it because they are studying "higher level" courses in quantum physics. And hence, we have potentially future quantum physicists explaining and correcting other people including their own instructors, using incorrect information.This is the "standing on the shoulder of giants," problem. It is a real problem. I think 99% of college graduates do not understand basic newtonian physics, calculus, and integrals. And I think most human beings actually can't, despite learning equations and passing tests and getting degrees.If you can't understand it, you adjust the subject to your own way of thinking until you can remember it long enough to pass a course. Without constant practice, you will make incorrect assumptions and errors down the line. If you truly understand it, you will refine the way you actually think and understand things, because you appreciate the error of your initial thinking.Newton was a genius. He didn't just come up with equations. He adapted his understanding of the physical world based on his calculations and observations. Most people can't do that.OTOH, we have only so many brain cells. We need people to understand complex things to progress. And we don't have that many super geniuses. It's perfectly fine to stand on the shoulder of giants and to focus on a specialty. As long as these future quantum physicists don't try to build bridges or rockets, we will be fine. They will do fine as stand-ins until the next true genius arrives. We need people to maintain and pass on our massive body of knowledge.

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 08:01:51 pm
content: Quote from: KL27x on September 21, 2018, 07:45:58 pmEasy to test - will patient fasten seatbelt unless under social pressure or forced by technical means

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 10:03:05 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on September 19, 2018, 03:09:50 pmI partially agree. Slightly OT: I think this is called life balance. We all struggle in that regard, and there are ones who get it right and ones who do not, plus anything in between. There are people that feel themselves "beaten" when they need to ask others for help or advice. But I think especially in engineering and science college, there are highly intellectual people that are so tangled up in their rational world that they neglect their mental state severely. It also doesn't help that some people think they will start to feel better once they work harder or more.I think in my classes people that have taken drugs usually ended up worse. In particular when it was the case in secondary school; they either have no or very low education, no drive to get a job (or unable to "get" one), and are stuck in this vicious circle.OTOH I also have seen many people in university taking drugs (I include alcohol at study associations for convenience sake). But that's perhaps linked to my previous mention - look after yourself instead of pushing on 110% 24/7.WRT OP: yes I agree, start at the basics. It's good that you understand you can't run when you can't walk yet. Part of school and university is learning to learn. Learn to be overwhelmed by a new subject is OK; it just takes time to read the first chapters, practice the math and exercises, understand the concepts and then move onto more advanced material.I think we're seeing the Dunning-Kruger effect in full effect though:If I may be ignorant as well, and label the educational levels of this curve:- "Huh?" - kindergarten- "I know everything" - slightly more kindergarten- "There's more to this than I thought" - end of highschool- "I'm never going to understand this" - freshman in uni- "It's starting to make sense" - bachelors- "Trust me. It's complicated" - extension into the field, either graduate or years of experiencePerhaps this is an unwanted side-effect of popuscience? Some programs try to dumb things down to make science accessible, but meanwhile skip the unbelievably hard grind it takes to become knowledgeable in any field.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 10:18:25 pm
content: I don't think you should take too much stock in what high school kids say they are gonna do. If they knew what they want to do and what their passionate about, you would not have absolutely ridiculous switching rates between majors. A EE degree has similar attrition rates to a special forces program for some reason.In high school I thought I was going to study pure mathematics and topology or chemistry. Between college and high school I thought for sure I was going to become a miner. Then I became a EE that's interested in the same stuff you seem to be. And people also said I was focused. I don't know what its like for the 'unfocused' kids.And my subspecification of EE was determined by what classes are not in the morning or on friday.If you want a laugh take that curve in this graph and overlay it with a curve about how to get out of doing certain labor at work.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 11:18:36 pm
content: Quote from: KL27x on September 21, 2018, 07:45:58 pmIt's the exact same thing with respect to programming languages. Developers who are used to one language, one framework, one environment, see all problems and their solutions in terms of that environment: in terms of their own experience.It's particularly funny when such people start critiqueing other programming languages for not supporting the one approach they are used to.Quote from: hans on September 21, 2018, 10:03:05 pmNo, something like that happens in many human situations. Consider, for example, theuncanny valley. It seems to be easier to perceive emotions for quite abstract faces, compared to human faces. (Ignore the fit, look at the distribution of the individual samples.)In visualization in general it crops up in that if you minimize the amount of extraneous information in an illustration, you can better convey the core concepts to the observer. Consider line drawings, cell shading, various comics styles. There are important reasons traffic signs are so abstract. When visualizing e.g. molecules using rendered images ("photorealistic", as if atoms were marbles), observers easily make conceptual assumptions that were not intended. (Such as"Hey, what kind of noise do atoms make when they collide?"or"What happens if two atoms' electron orbits are perpendicular, and the two atoms collide?".) Controlling the information conveyed by a visualization image is hard, but if done right, potentially extremely valuable for conveying correct concepts. (Delocalization is one of my favourites. For example, how electron orbitals are actually different ways the electron is delocalized.)Only when the situation gets complex enough so that there is a valid analog in reality, do photorealistic visualization work better than the abstract alternatives. There is a very similar dip in the usefulness/validity of information conveyed, as a function of abstraction/realism.Quote from: coppercone2 on September 21, 2018, 10:18:25 pmSome really, really smart people do manual labor, and do science or research as a hobby. It's not a bad option at all: that way you don't get mentally stressed at work, or bring work home with you, or have to do the academic competition thing; and anyone who has ever worked out regularly knows manual labor can be quite fulfilling in its own way.Dead-end jobsonly exist if you value career or money over fulfillment and happiness in life.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 11:22:22 pm
content: i meant like a mine engineer/blaster type guy thoughI imagine your work description as a mining engineer is vastly different based on the size of the mine. Even in a small engineering company you often have engineers used as manual labor (in times of 'crisis' which are frequent) that does not interrupt the assembly line. I heard its really bad in semiconductor fabs where downtime is expensive. I imagine that the 'technican' jobs that engineers often do are pretty much heavy labor in a mine, so I just said miner.Unless there is a union that prevents you from picking up a hammer. This is often the case.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 03:40:42 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 21, 2018, 07:34:59 pmRight. You help company A make money. Then you go to company B and tell them that if they hire your services, they'll make as much as company A. They'll hire you instantly. There will be no shortage of opportunities for those who help others make money.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 07:02:04 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 21, 2018, 11:18:36 pmOr insisting on coercing the tool they know into into doing something badly when other tools would make it easy. The using a hammer to insert screws syndrome.The most amusing I saw was one soft realtime C process on one machine requesting a result from another soft realtime C process from another machine. The obvious way would be to open a comms channel over TCP/IP. Our hero added a row to a database table, had the other process poll the database and insert the result in the database, and the original process polled the database for the result. WTF territory!QuoteVery true.My favourite (probably apocryphal) anecdote of a maths graduate who got himself a job assembling vacuum cleaners. After a while the company realised was capable of far more, and repeatedly tried to get him into "better" jobs. He refused, saying "I deliberately chose a job I could learn in 30 minutes and do without thinking. While I am working I am also doing what I really enjoy: playing chess".For me money is a "hygiene factor".

author: palpurul
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 07:50:35 am
content: Quote from: LeoTech on September 19, 2018, 02:58:10 pmThat's actually a good thing. The principles of basic physics is crucially important to understand how something works or how something is built. Because there very few people like you, you are unique. That a good thing.Quote from: LeoTech on September 19, 2018, 02:58:10 pmAnnoying right? When I was studiying electrical engineering there were a lot of these people. They usually have crap grades. Most of them "understand" and some of them claims to "intuitively understand" modern physics, yet they fail to understand very basic concept like impedance and this about electrical engineering. I remember LIGO first detected gravitional waves and there was this person who won't stop talking nonsense about gravitional waves ( I don't claim to know about gravitional waves, but it was kind of obvious that he didn't have a clue because he said something about how advanced satellites are used to detect gravitional waves), we were taking a course about communication systems with this guy, and our professor was reviewing fourier series, basic mathmatical concept explaining how every periodical signals can be expressed as sums of different sinewaves. This guy was asking a lot of questions about it and complaining how complicated this concept is. From the questions he asked it was obvious that he was clueless. I think our professor realized the guys "understanding" of gravitional waves and asked him "you understand how gravitional waves work and not this?... what a bummer.Yes there are know-it-all posers like this.Quote from: LeoTech on September 19, 2018, 02:58:10 pmKeep it up

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 02:02:03 pm
content: uhh did you do basic research on gravity waves and satellites?https://www.dw.com/en/ligo-vs-lisa-the-race-for-gravitational-waves/a-39717919

author: palpurul
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 03:03:22 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on September 22, 2018, 02:02:03 pmHe was talking about LIGO.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 03:16:26 pm
content: its related

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 06:08:11 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on September 21, 2018, 10:18:25 pmJust a wild guess: mathI think that is going to be the case for any STEM degree.I'm seeing part of the problem (again) in my grandson's ME program. You need to take the math classes before you get to the class where the skill is required. This makes sense, you shouldn't be learning calculus while you take physics. The problem is that while you are taking the math there is no context to explain why you would use some particular technique.What I do like about his Calc II course is that nearly all the problems are 'word problems'. The very first thing it teaches is the need to draw a picture. Engineers can't even talk without drawing a sketch.

author: ferdieCX
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 06:51:35 pm
content: I learned at the technical High School basic electronics, that included how to solve AC circuits in steady sinusoidal state using complex numbers.When I reached the college level and learned Calculus, the applications of it where obvious to me.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 06:58:05 pm
content: Quote from: KL27x on September 21, 2018, 07:45:58 pmPeople tend to think that classical physics is a piece of cake. It is not.There may be little research in classical physics nowadays, however its applications are far from being thoroughly explored. Here is a big picture of where the various domains of physics make sense.Source: Wikipedia

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 07:12:03 pm
content: To expand on what bsfeechannel is saying, some of the most exciting stuff that has been accomplished in the last couple of decades has its basis in purely classical physics. The MEMS IMUs that are causing a revolution in navigation and enabling quadcopter flight stabilization and the like are applications of ideas familiar to physicists of the early 19th century. But with lots of detail and refinement. Same thing with the infrared imagers that are becoming quite affordable. No fancy quantum physics, just a simple bolometer and temperature coefficient of resistance. 19th century concepts refined greatly. There are many other examples.There is much yet to learn about the world and how to manipulate it. Those who think they understand everything are clearly not paying attention. Follow your interests and remain curious about everything.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 11:08:37 pm
content: To the OP in particular, and to all...I had similar confusion at one point in my life. I now think it is easier to understand the distinction not as fundamental vs fancy, but as a scale of "how close is it to reality that we can experience (feel, see, hear...) directly". Whether it is fundamental or not is a different question. Your chosen field determines if that is fundamental or not.Quantum mechanics, string theory, electromagnetism, classical mechanics etc, etc... they are all equally real and equally unreal. Their importance is to the extend your field demands it, and their "fundamental-ness" is to the extend that your field requires it. Quantum mechanics is not in our everyday reality and it is not fundamental forphysicianto understand, but it is fundamental to mostphysicistandsome computer engineers. Engineers of Quantum Computing will see quantum mechanics as dearly fundamental. Quantum mechanics is also seen as a way to secure data communication - the whole new field ofQuantum-secured data transmission.Back to reality we can experience (I call that "experiencible directly" for the purpose of discussion)It is easy to see Newtonian mechanics at work. Every time a coffee cup slips out of your hands, you see gravity at work, you see how energy is converted. So Newtonian mechanics is high on the "directly experienciable reality" scale. It is a lot harder to experience quantum effects directly, so it is very low on the "directly experienciable reality" scale.The less directly experienciable, the more we rely on mathematics to understand what is under the hood. Both Newtonian physics and Quantum physics are quantified and described by mathematics. Newton invented calculus so as to describe Newtonian mechanics mathematically. That mathematics allowed us to do predictions.Calculus was/is by no mean easy to understand, but with Newtonian physics, you can relate it to everyday experience. So "everyday" it is that we have common sense guiding us - you let go and the cup drops, very common sense, right? But untrained human beings can never reach into their common sense to figure out quantum mechanics. With good training, a physicist can have a sense of how the answer is going to look. That sense is something I call physics-sense, not common sense.When you entirely leave the realms of direct-experienciability, you are in the world of mathematics.1+1=2, you can experience that. You can grab an egg, grab another one, here you have two. You can visualize that and experience that. You are in both worlds.y=1/x, you are beginning to leave the world of direct-experienciability. How many times do we see infinity in real life? We do have common sense about "very large" but not about "infinity".y=(pi*c*i)/sine(x), now you are gone from reality - square root of negative one? Definitely no daily experience (common sense) can guide you with that. But you will see the "imaginary number" sqrt(-1) notated as "i" all over the place in electronics or physics.Quantum mechanics, string theory, black holes, they are all fundamental to some fields. They are also very low on the "directly experiencibility" scale so more math than reality you can feel. They are not so much fancy, but they offer the appearance of knowledge giving the ones who know some level of smugness. Shall we say, these topics are high on thesmug-appeal index.Those are my views and my way of thinking about them. I hope helps in drawing light to the distinction.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 11:17:58 pm
content: I don't think its smug I think its just the idea that we might be wasting our time on this basic calculatable easy to comprehend shit rather then getting teleporters, shrink rays, worm holes to other universes, etc. When you think of mechanical engineering, is it easy, without really studying the shit out of it, to imagine something 'amazing' like teleportation or faster then light travel?Alot of people just think 'yea some brackets gonna get thinner and the gear system is gonna wear less, eventually' when they think about 'fundamental' design studies like mechanics. Once you are well acquainted with any field it becomes pretty obvious that corporate influences and groupthink basically prevent some kind of kinda cool maybe useful sub field from being studied. On the contrary, it might be a waste of time to do so at this time as a civilization for our own sake, since other things related to earthly problems are more important at this time. It is non the less apparent and you can find tons of 'abandoned' research directions that might prove very interesting from a intellectual standpoint. On the other hand, sometimes, if you have some balls, it might turn out someone made a mistake and you are the right person to handle some job (expect hell though).Like, maybe some really cool jaw dropping steampunk stuff can be made, but in the next 100 years trying to figure out other stuff is more useful.There is fear of a 'dead field'. Some people might say EE is still in its golden age but fields like mechanical engineering or especially thermodynamics are past their golden age of easy/radical discovery. Useful to know, but who the hell thinks they are gonna get a noble prize studying thermodynamics? Think of it like bit coin. Some stuff is just mined out (or at least people think it is and there is groupthink and corporate pressures to fund other areas).There is also a lack of trust and transparency, so its very easy for someone to not want to study an older field because they think they won't have jobs because 'everyone figured everything out' and it feels much safer to study something super complicated thats being worked on constantly. Look how many EE's are in software. From a higher level standpoint it could explain why kids want to study the whizzbang stuff.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 11:34:44 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on September 22, 2018, 11:17:58 pmEE is certainly in its golden age from a scientific development stand point. As to job market, it has all the appearance of dead in some developed economies. They are moving off shore to some place cheaper. So it is unclear to me if scientific development of the field and job market for the field are related when you put geography into play.For those spending their time thinking about teleportation (and the likes), they will probably be researchers and academics. In the world of research and academics, a nobel price is gold. Smugness is certainly dependent on the individual, but getting a nobel price certainly has some smug-appeal to it.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 11:48:48 pm
content: Yea but I think they weigh the noble prize in its contribution to humanity, i.e. it does something useful

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2018, 11:02:33 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 21, 2018, 11:18:36 pmThere is major difference, though. Programming languages are an entirely artifical construct. In the beginning, they must follow somewhat the structure of the cpu, which itself is made with many compromises and arbitrary decisions. And tbe higher the level of the language, the more arbitrary decisions are baked in. A programmer really doesnt need to understand a CPU or assembly programming. It will help in niche circumstances, only. It would be an interesting world where humans actually take newtonian physics for granted, because everyone actually "gets it."There is nothing arbitrary about physics. Understanding newtonian physics and thermodynamics has broad ranging benefits to logical thinking and design and engineering and problem solving. I wouod wager the majority of physics majors in the US do not understand physics.Newton discovered and proved this stuff long time ago. Perhaps he imagined that one day every man, woman, and child would be able to see the world they way he did. In such a way that is, as far we we know, empirically correct everywhere in the universe. That day is far, far away. He shared this knowledge. But studying does not equal understanding.Here's a personal anecdote: I was part of a debate where a member posted a link to a post in a "physics forum." In this (dead)"physics forum," 3 people answered a very simple leading question. They all incorrectly assumed the question was correct to begin with. They the answered it with some obscure phenomenon that wasn't even applicable. There is no place for a physics forum in todays world because most of the people that actually understand it are doing something more important. This forum was just a place for educators to hang out and display their degrees.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2018, 06:07:11 pm
content: Quote from: KL27x on September 26, 2018, 11:02:33 pmThat is completely incorrect. See e.g.programming language theory,lambda calculus, orLisp,Haskell,Forth, orPostScriptprogramming languages. There are no such universal ties at all.Of course, many programming languages havesometies to the hardware they are run on, but there is nothing universal about those; they vary a lot. You could say the concept ofstackis the closest thing (as most programming languages and hardware architectures rely on such an abstract data type), except that there exists both hardware and programming languages that do not have any stack (or comparable structures) at all. (Shadersare probably the most common ones.)The exact same"artificial construct"argument applies to mathematics. Look atmetamathematicsto understand why. Everything we can conceive, is "an entirely artificial construct". Every single thing, even mathematics, include underlying assumptions or axioms that are not obvious, but must be accepted as Given Truth for the thing to have any meaning, applicability, or utility. Everything a human being is able to "know", is filtered through their experiences and limited understanding.Quote from: KL27x on September 26, 2018, 11:02:33 pmOf course there is!One of my favourite examples is basic optics. You can think of light rays (simplified models of photons, that exclude absorption and emission events; as if we used perfect mirrors or lenses) as vectors from a light source to a surface (or vice versa), that reflect (with original and reflected rays being on the same plane with the reflecting surface normal, and those rays having the same angle to the surface normal) and refract (as defined bySnell's law) at surfaces between isotropic materials. Or you can think of light rays as a geometric object that minimizes the time of flight between any two points in space, as described byFermat's principle. The two approaches are mathematically equivalent, in that the former can be derived from the latter,so both equally describe physical reality. The first is easy to apply using basic vector calculus, the latter is related tocalculus of variations, an equally powerful but very different mathematical tool.It is theunderlying mathematical modelthat is not arbitrary. The way we humans interpret that model, allows us to see different facets of the behaviour of the model. We are not intelligent enough to see all those facets at the same time, simultaneously.Because programming languages are created by humans, their construction "encodes" one or more of such facets. Researchers can use tools like programming language theory or lambda calculus to analyse and compare programming languages, and try and reveal those facets. Most programming languages have retained their viewpoint during their evolution, but some, likePHPin particular, have either added or switched their viewpoint. (Adding object-oriented features is the most common one.) One of the reasons PHP is so reviled, is that humans are not good at changing their viewpoint, so code that is written in a mismash, is perceived as "messy", "unclean", and "difficult to understand".Note: The core of my argument is that there exist more than one viewpoint to the same "fact" or phenomena. Viewpoint is a human tool to abstract and limit the "fact", so that our limited perception and rational logic abilities can utilize it. When anything is codified by a human, that viewpoint is embedded in the definition. My claim is that the ability to switch viewpoints, especially the viewpoint to the same "fact" or phenomena, enhances the usefulness and possibilities for application. Thus, limiting oneself to a subset of viewpoints limits one in both understanding, and the ability to utilize the "facts" and phenomena.Quote from: KL27x on September 26, 2018, 11:02:33 pmI believe that is the effect of having learned a completely new set of viewpoints, not because of the particular set of axioms, laws, and phenomena involved.Quote from: KL27x on September 26, 2018, 11:02:33 pmDo you see what you did there?One could say they can, if they want to, but that is probably not true. I believe there is a large fraction of people who are unable to change their viewpoint on anything: they are essentially "stuck" in the viewpoint they get when they first learn a thing. I don't think it is related to intelligence per se, but to some fundamental difference in how people learn and integrate things into their understanding; closely related torote learning.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2018, 08:53:29 pm
content: QuoteWhen I say, "in the beginning" I mean the level of the language. At the core, in assembly, before any subroutines were written and dispersed throughout the programming world, the language must have exactly followed what the CPU was built to do. And as you go beyond that, there is not necessarily any correlation, anymore.QuoteYes, you make a point. Either way to look at it is fine. I'm saying that most people can't look at it in either of these ways. Many people can't see the logical connections that are present in basic physics. They have no ability to apply it. I have been witness to many physics debates where people whip out their degrees, but they misapply the physics from the word go. They sadly try to spread fancy terminology as if were peanut butter, into the huge logical holes they cannot see, in a pathetic attempt to corroborate what they intuitively but incorrectly feel is correct. If they understood physics, they would intuitively know what is correct. It's a chicken and an egg problem. Most people can't use physics.QuoteI completely disagree with this part. There is no comparing math/physics to programming. If we meet intelligent aliens, they will have math, that will overlap ours. Maybe more or less complete in certain areas. They will have an understanding of physics that overlaps ours. Maybe more or less complete in some areas, but the parts that overlap with either be identical; or one of us will be right and the other will be wrong, and it will be demonstrable. (Perhaps one will be less comprehensive. In the way that Newtonian physics is 99.9999999999% correct when it comes to mass and speed of objects on earth, but it doesn't account for relativity... perhaps there are more layers of complex math needed to accurately represent physics at the extremes of the universe). And as you have said, they may prefer an approach or viewpoint that is different than our own, but if you understand it, you realize it is the same thing. That is of no major consequence. At the core, newtonian physics is cause and effect. It accurately describes the effects of objects at various distances/pressures/temperatures on each other through the universal forces.. But there is no way they will have C or java. If they have computers, their chosen CPU architecture and higher level programming languages could be vastly different. Our programming languages are completely a human construct, the same way that language is. Romanians speak a different language from Chinese. Even if we went back in time to the 1950s and replayed history, the languages we use today would be different in some ways. There are somewhat arbitrary decisions made along the way. Expecting the same result is like thinking that two different english speaking countries completely isolated from each other would come up with the exact same qwerty keyboard, independently.C isn't empirical. It is tailored specifically to the human mind. And not a "universal human mind." It was made to some extent by a very small committee of humans and tailored to their own preferences and presuppositions. It is full of human artifacts and judgment calls that could have gone one way or the other, based on compromises between different advantages and disadvantages that were perceived at the time. It is a handful of nerds deciding where to put the Q, making that decision, and moving forward.In programming, it is a practical necessity to stand on the shoulder of giants (so to speak. It's not actual information that is hidden in there, so much as arbitrary crap. It is no use to worry about why they Q or Y are on the keyboard, and similarly it is not super necessary to learn assembly programming to be proficient at a higher language.) In physics, it is entirely practical and useful to learn and understand newtonian physics if you want to work in nuclear physics. In programming, burnout is a major problem. I think it's because programmers work in an artificial construct. It has no empirical connection to the real world. It is a challenge to do efficient coding, but in the end it's just gaming a game with arbitrary human-set rules.QuoteThis is exactly my point. I'm not talking about memorizing equations. I'm suggesting actual knowledge and understanding of the gross relationships and interactions. The formulae are not important. You can look those up if and when necessary. But you won't know if and when to use them if you don't understand physics.QuoteYes. I am suggesting that Newton could view things correctly. It doesn't matter how you get there, as long as it's correct. When it comes to physics, you can't fudge things to fit your own point of view.Metamathematics? Unprovable != arbitrary.