Philosophy of Science and Business

[olsenn]

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!

[don.r]

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.

[IanB]

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?

Really not. Maybe you were not taught well, or you didn't understand what you were taught.

[Kiriakos-GR]

What if there are no electrons?

Then I will have to change my Job title as elec..trician --> to magician.  LOL 

[Armin_Balija]

Everything in science is observable and testable. There are certainly electrons just as certainly there is gravity or light.

[olsenn]

"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

[Armin_Balija]

"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

My only suggestion would be to look through a high powered microscope.

[george graves]

There is no spoon? Whoa.

[don.r]

"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

There 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.

[IanB]

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

These 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.

[alm]

What if there are no electrons?

This 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?

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.

Then 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.

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?

Ever heard of a guy called Maxwell? Quantum physics describes the behavior of individual electrons.

[Kiriakos-GR]

Ultimately everything is energy but appears solid enough for our purposes as applied scientists.

The magic to this, is the conversion, if you can turn energy in to ice-cream, you will be my hero scientist. 

[A-sic Enginerd]

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.

[EEVblog]

Start with quantum entanglement, and then it only gets worse from there, until you end up in the funny farm wearing a straightjacket...


Dave.

[olsenn]

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!

[don.r]

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!

Sorry 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.

[ivan747]

Start with quantum entanglement, and then it only gets worse from there, until you end up in the funny farm wearing a straightjacket...


Dave.

That man is awesome. BTW, if you search for "that asian scientist from tv" on Google (no quotes), he shows up on the first place. 

[IanB]

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),

You're in good company:

    I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. -- Richard Feynman.

can you describe what these theories mean DIFFERENTLY then what the textbook says.

No, but I am not a theoretical physicist.

How does anyone measure/observe something like quantum entaglement? What is the colour of an electron?

There you have some research you can do. There's no shortage of information out there in these days of the Internet age.

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!

That 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.

[SgtRock]

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 1988

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[JohnnyG]

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 exist

Pessimistic 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 exist

Miracle 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.

[Alex]

What if there are no electrons?
/quote]

We don't. If you can live with that you become an engineer, if you can't live with that you become a physicist. Simple as that.

[vk6zgo]

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

[IanB]

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.

[vk6zgo]

Was Archimedes a Scientist,an Engineer,or a Philosopher?

Was Da Vinci an Artist,an Engineer,or a Scientist?

VK6ZGO

[IanB]

In a book I am currently reading, God's Philosophers by 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?