Philosophy of Science and Business - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / beginners

author: olsenn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2011, 06:20:19 pm
content: It might be proven correct in the future, and it cannot be proven incorrect today... GOOD ENOUGH!Does anyone get the impression that all the bullshit you learn in school is just some made up, nonsensical crap that we all pretend to understand in order to come off as being smart, and don't like to find out when we're wrong because we've invested too much time thinking to ourselves it must be right? What if there are no electrons?What if electrons are not all the same size or same mass, and there is nothing special about them besides the fact that they are small enough (but no limit to how small) to move through some material when a force (voltage is applied). Little pieces of copper moving through larger pieces of copper.Is Ohm's law really a law? As far as I can tell, it is just a definition. We DEFINE resistance to be V/I, so how come we say V=IR is a law... it's just inferred by what we define. What electrical laws do we really have besides power is conserved?Buck Futter!

author: don.r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2011, 07:40:52 pm
content: Everything in science is an approximation. Luckily, these scientific approximations are sufficient to allow us to apply them with a high probability of predictability. That is what we call a "law". And just as Einstein found Newton wanting in the extrema, so too these "laws" are found wanting occasionally but they are good enough most of the time. The real nonsensical crap is trying to imagine what things like electrons actually are without doing research and gaining insight.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2011, 08:01:59 pm
content: Quote from: olsenn on December 09, 2011, 06:20:19 pmReally not. Maybe you were not taught well, or you didn't understand what you were taught.

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2011, 09:09:24 pm
content: Quote from: olsenn on December 09, 2011, 06:20:19 pmThen I will have to change my Job title as elec..trician --> to magician. LOL

author: Armin_Balija
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2011, 09:47:50 pm
content: Everything in science is observable and testable. There are certainly electrons just as certainly there is gravity or light.

author: olsenn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2011, 10:05:54 pm
content: "And just as Einstein found Newton wanting in the extrema, so too these "laws" are found wanting occasionally but they are good enough most of the time."This is exactly what I mean. I understand the application of the study of the electron, but I long for a more concrete understanding (Newton went insane for this same reason). As far as I am concearned, the electron may as well be a hypothetical way of understanding the phenomina frequently encountered in the study of electricity, but I know of no concrete evedense to suggest it does in fact exist as a particle of matter. I have a theory of my own which suggest that no two atoms (same isotope) are exactly the same, which means even things like the electron have variance to their properties. The values we study are mere averages, which for most applicable purposes is...once again... good enough

author: Armin_Balija
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2011, 10:33:07 pm
content: Quote from: olsenn on December 09, 2011, 10:05:54 pmMy only suggestion would be to look through a high powered microscope.

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2011, 11:10:40 pm
content: There is no spoon? Whoa.

author: don.r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2011, 11:30:18 pm
content: Quote from: olsenn on December 09, 2011, 10:05:54 pmThere is plenty of "concrete" evidence of the existence of electrons. We even know what they are made of, up to a point. Although they are not particles, they do behave like particles sometimes. Do you have any evidence to support your hypothesis that no two atoms are exactly the same? Ultimately everything is energy but appears solid enough for our purposes as applied scientists.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2011, 11:36:02 pm
content: Quote from: olsenn on December 09, 2011, 10:05:54 pmThese questions have been studied and tested experimentally in tremendous detail. It is strongly determined that all subatomic particles of the same kind are identical and indistinguishable from each other (given that they have the same properties such as spin, etc.).When you suggest electrons might have a variance to their properties you are questioning quantum theory, which is the most precisely and exactly tested theory in the whole of physics.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 09, 2011, 11:36:39 pm
content: Quote from: olsenn on December 09, 2011, 06:20:19 pmThis is similar to debates about existence, what if we don't exist? Does this change reality? If there are no electrons, does your computer stop working?Quote from: olsenn on December 09, 2011, 06:20:19 pmThen quantum theory would be wrong and there would be a lot of excited theoretical physicists developing new models. Until we come up with experiments that show this to be the case, however, my money is on current physics. Our current understanding is likely oversimplified, but does it matter for most purposes? Does Newtonian mechanics fail for common problems? You're free to apply quantum physics to calculate the resistor for a LED, but don't expect to finish anytime soon. You're also welcome to join the physicists attempting to come up with better models.Quote from: olsenn on December 09, 2011, 06:20:19 pmEver heard of a guy called Maxwell? Quantum physics describes the behavior of individual electrons.

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2011, 11:39:11 pm
content: Quote from: don.r on December 09, 2011, 11:30:18 pmThe magic to this, is the conversion, if you can turn energy in to ice-cream, you will be my hero scientist.

author: A-sic Enginerd
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2011, 12:03:19 am
content: I get what you're saying.......but you're thinking too hard.My age and experience (and battle scars) have turned me into the krusty kermudgeon that says "I really don't give a crap." Regardless of what and "electron" really may or may not be.......meh......no matter. Thing's like Ohm's law at least give a predictable model for how "stuff" will behave which lets me do my job and collect my paycheck. And in the end, that's all that really matters.Screw it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 10, 2011, 01:12:56 am
content: Start with quantum entanglement, and then it only gets worse from there, until you end up in the funny farm wearing a straightjacket...Dave.

author: olsenn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2011, 01:46:12 am
content: I hate everything about quantum mechanics; and before you go and say well I'm just stupid and don't know what I'm talking about (I'll aggree I have no idea what most of quantum mechanics really means, despite getting a B+ in the course), can you describe what these theories mean DIFFERENTLY then what the textbook says. How does anyone measure/observe something like quantum entaglement? What is the colour of an electron?I'll stick with things I really underdstand and can apply in a practical fashion. I have no problem admitting that there are things I simply don't know. The cat's dead, I'm buying a dog!

author: don.r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2011, 01:53:30 am
content: Quote from: olsenn on December 10, 2011, 01:46:12 amSorry to be rude but if you cannot grasp quantum mechanics (and very few people can properly) then you really have no business formulating alternative theories on the structure of matter.

author: ivan747
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2011, 02:01:10 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 10, 2011, 01:12:56 amThat man is awesome. BTW, if you search for "that asian scientist from tv" on Google (no quotes), he shows up on the first place.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2011, 02:34:03 am
content: Quote from: olsenn on December 10, 2011, 01:46:12 amYou're in good company:I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.-- Richard Feynman.QuoteNo, but I am not a theoretical physicist.QuoteThere you have some research you can do. There's no shortage of information out there in these days of the Internet age.QuoteThat would be unfortunate, since the whole of modern electronics design is underpinned by quantum physics, from semiconductors to microchip design to lasers and almost everything electronic.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 10, 2011, 03:46:54 am
content: Dear Olsenn:--What if Solar Systems are really atoms and galaxies are really molecules and..., Puleeeze. There is a reason why some inquiries are called sophomoric. If you want to study in an area where they just make it up as they go along, you would be better off studying Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, Global Climate Change or any of the other "soft sciences" where rigorous proof is not the standard.--Question to Richard Dawkins:"Is global warming a threat to the human species?" ROBIN THOMPSON, Oxford"Yes. You could say that the human species is a threat to the human species. I recommend Al Gore's film on global warming. See it and weep. Not just for the human species. Weep for what we could have had in 2000, but for the vote-rigging in Jeb Bush's Florida.""There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers."Richard Feynman 1918 1988Best RegardsClear Ether

author: JohnnyG
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: December 13, 2011, 12:41:33 am
content: Most engineers are what we call "instrumentalists," which means that they don't care if theories are true or not; only whether or not they can be applied to solve problems.But if you're still curious, here are few simple arguments for both sides (realist and anti-realist):Antirealist:--> scientific theories aren't true and their entities don't existPessimistic Induction: Since all our past theories have all been proved wrong, our new theories must also be wrong (because they will be proved wrong in the future).Science is non-cumulative: Every time there is a new theory, it completely replaces the old theory because the old theory is now seen to be wrong.Realist Rebuttal: The above argument considers theories to be indivisible wholes. Real theories can be broken into chunks, and we can keep the correct chunks when new evidence presents itself. In this way, science is cumulative because a chunk is always be passed from one theory to the next.Underdetermination: Given enough creativity, there are infinitely many theories that fit any set of evidence, but differ when used to extrapolate. Therefore the theory we are using is likely false.Realist Rebuttal: The philosophers that said this were never able to give any examples.Realist:--> scientific theories are true and their entities do existMiracle Argument: The only way you can explain the success of science, is by realizing that the theories and what they say is true.Anti-Realist Rebuttal: It is a competition of the fittest. There are initially many theories, but only the strongest survive. They however are still not completely true.Overall:It is a difficult question because we can never prove any scientific theory to be right; you can only prove it to be wrong. I do however think that electrons exist, but I do not think we will never know everything about them. It was the height of human ignorance when Lord Kelvin said that there are only two things left to be discovered in science: black body radiation and the Michelson/Morley experiment. And since we will never know everything, doesn't this mean that we will always be working with approximations (as opposed to truths)? Remember, Newtonian mechanics (F=ma) are technically wrong, but they act as good approximations for 99% of the work out there. Only in certain cases do we need to consider relativitic physics or quantum physics.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 13, 2011, 02:04:11 am
content: Quote from: olsenn on December 09, 2011, 06:20:19 pm

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2011, 05:09:43 am
content: Science & engineering is originally based on empirical findings:-You find something works,& you make a theory of why it works!Your theory may imply that something else will happen,so you try it ,if it works,that implies that your theory is closer to correct than not.Many of the Mathematical tools used in Science & Engineering can trace their heritage to the efforts of practical artists & artisans to design pleasing patterns for mosaic tiles, etc.Philosophers performing "pure thought"experiments do contribute to the advancement of Science,but they are all creatures of their environment,& are influenced by the technological base that empiricists have already laid down.VK6ZGO

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2011, 05:25:24 am
content: I generally separate science and engineering as having different aims.Science is a process of investigation to discover how the natural world works.Engineering is a process of synthesis, using knowledge of how the world works to design useful things.In essence, engineering is the application of scientific principles. Of course engineers may do science, and scientists may do engineering, but on the whole there is a broad separation of the primary aims between the two.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2011, 08:50:57 am
content: Was Archimedes a Scientist,an Engineer,or a Philosopher?Was Da Vinci an Artist,an Engineer,or a Scientist?VK6ZGO

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2011, 09:25:18 am
content: In a book I am currently reading,God's Philosophersby James Hannam, he suggests one should avoid trying to view people from the past through the eyes of our own contemporary culture. They lived in quite a different world and would not recognize our modern definition and understanding of a word like 'scientist'. (One aspect of science being the importance of publication and sharing of findings for scrutiny and peer review, for example.)James has this to say about Leonardo da Vinci:When we hear about someone from the past who anticipated our own beliefs, we tend to label them 'ahead of their time’. In fact, no one is ahead of his or her time. On closer examination, we always find that people are rooted firmly into their own cultural milieu. The best example of this is probably Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519). A recent biographer, Michael White, even called him 'the first scientist'. But surprisingly, despite being a genius, Leonardo had no impact on the development of western science at all. His influence was entirely in the arts. His lack of focus and constant experimentation prevented him from having as much success even in that field as he could have had. The reason no one followed Leonardo's scientific ideas is that he didn't tell anyone about them. His reputation today as a man of science is based on his famous notebooks, but these did not become known until centuries after his death. His secrecy was nothing to do with fear of prosecution or a belief that the Church would try to curtail his work. It was simply a character flaw that made him refuse to share his insights. He even disguised his notes by using mirror writing to make them illegible unless they were seen reflected in a mirror. Consequently, and despite his enormous reputation, we will hear no more about him in these pages.So I guess that makes Leonardo a write-off?

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2011, 02:26:39 pm
content: And Archimedes?VK6ZGO

author: olsenn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2011, 03:05:06 pm
content: "You find something works,& you make a theory of why it works!Your theory may imply that something else will happen,so you try it ,if it works,that implies that your theory is closer to correct than not."Absolutely Correct!!! However, the problem arises when we spend so much time thinking about what the consequences of our theories are, just to find that there are no testable consequences of our theories and we have no real reason to believe our theories are closer to correct than not. The problem is that we become so hopful that we will descover our theory is correct that when we don't discover it's correct we don't throw it out because we've become too attached to it. Sometimes we actually find that our theories are wrong, but because we don't want to throw them out we just augment them with more theories.I think we really need to get back to the basics and say what the hell can we use, and what can we take out of our science library and place in our philosophy one.

author: don.r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2011, 03:14:23 pm
content: Quote from: olsenn on December 13, 2011, 03:05:06 pmBut that is not science. If you are too attached to your theory, then it is you who has a problem and not science. Theories are discarded all the time because they are proved incorrect, especially when under peer review. Furthermore, just because a theory is not useful at the moment does not mean it is incorrect and should be removed from the scientific literature.

author: gregariz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2011, 06:10:34 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on December 13, 2011, 05:25:24 amI would agree with that. This is probably not the place to argue for/against quantum theory. Although I use electromagnetics quite regularly, I find classical electromag is sufficient for most synthesis problems. There are only a few places in engineering where I have run across a need to understand some aspects of quantum theory, areas such as NMR. I think its worth noting that science and engineering qualifications are somewhat recent inventions. Everynow and then you'll come across an older engineer or maybe pickup a book written before the war. Often those people had degrees in Natural Philosophy rather than physics or engineering. They still exist but are few and far between.Many of the victorian scientists we hail as genius's very often has broad philosophical interests, including social and natural philosophy. Engels of communist manifesto produced important works of mathematics, Maxwell was a poet and bible thumper. In fact many of the great victorian scientific discoveries were documented in the Journal of the Royal Society, named of course the Philosophical Transactions.

author: Time
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2011, 06:39:01 pm
content: Quote from: olsenn on December 13, 2011, 03:05:06 pmWhat? I don't know any scientists who function like this. Maybe a poor scientist will put his pride in front of knowledge. I have been involved in high level scientific research for awhile now and one thing you quickly learn is that the unexpected is just as useful and exciting as the expected. Reproducibility takes precedence over whether or not theory aligns with reality. Clearly the experience you are drawing upon is too limited for you to be taken seriously here.And as far as quantum entanglement is concerned, it was demonstrated in macroscopic diamond structures a few centimeters apart just this year. They are already considering schemes for using this phenomenon as a way for next generation communication. I believe the detection method is called the DLCZ scheme or something... the journal articles were put out in Science. I am sure google could figure it out if you took the time.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2011, 07:03:13 pm
content: hey! enjoy the dream! its only 70 years or so! and watch your step!

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 14, 2011, 11:50:05 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Once again I recommend that anyone who wants to understand more about quantum theory, should watch the Richard Feynman lectures on QED at the University of Auckland (see link below). In these lectures Feynman does not claim he understands quantum theory, but rather suggests he has come up with a "dippy way" to make all the calculations and predictions come out in correct fashion, in much the same way as the Mayans were able to construct an astronomical calendar. Pay particular attention to his discussion of transmission and reflection in glass and the "how does it know" question. Here he uses the old "Principle of Least Action" to telling effect. Fascinating!http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8"Get ready, little lady. Hell is coming to breakfast."Chief Dan George 1899 1981Best RegardsClear Ether

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 14, 2011, 12:24:37 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on December 14, 2011, 11:50:05 amDear Quote Master, quoting you with another famous quote ..........If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.....I bet you must know this one ...

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 24, 2011, 06:42:44 am
content: Dear BravoV:--Yes, Sir, indeed I am familiar with that quote. He also said, when arguing with Heisenberg at the October 1927 Fifth Solvay International Conference on Electrons and Photons:"I may have said something or other like that. Still it is all nonsense nonetheless.""I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled."P. G. Wodehouse 1881 1975Best RegardsClear Ether