How to explain the concepts of electrical energy and electrical power

[TimFox]

That's what I said:  Cavendish measured the Earth's mass centuries ago.
This discussion is about how to teach novice students about energy, power, etc.
Prior to a useful discussion thereof, the student needs to understand the difference between mass and weight.

[m k]

Normal coordinate system.
Draw a rectangle, V * I, turn Z-axle from back to the right, draw a box, W * s.

Newton is not working, nor is Watt.

How do you visualize kgm2/s2, I can't.
On the other hand, torque is pretty clear.

[Picuino]

Hey, good luck and hope it goes well for you.  Tell us how it went after, many here likely would like to know.

This is how the automatic translation into English has turned out for now. I still need to add the explanation of some calculation exercises, translate also the exercises and correct the translation to consider it finished.

https://www.picuino.com/en/electric-energia.html   (English version)

Thank you all for your help.

[Rick Law]

Some suggestion for improvement here if you like:

(1)
You have "Potential mechanical energy" and "Kinetic mechanical energy" -- both are miss-titled, you need to get rid of the word mechanical in both cases.

Mechanical energy is something like a rubber band or spring.  It stores the energy in a mechanical manner.  A Spring need not move or does it need gravity to pull something in or push something away.  Flywheel is a bit different, that one is kinetic (in the way it stores energy only, input and output are mechanical, typically).

(2)
Potential Energy is due to position relative to another body (note the word gravity is not present).  You can have electrical potential energy such as anything electrically-negative charged attracts something electrically-positive charged.  No gravity involved, but electrical or magnetic attractive forces are zillion (and zillion and zillion...) times stronger that gravitational attraction force.  Example could be static electric in the winder, rubbing a plastic ruler could attract tiny bits of paper demonstrating the attraction force.  Van de Graaff Generator on the other hand just continuously build up the electrical charge (on the ball) and the Potential Energy of the electrical charge (on the ball) is used directly rather like the static electricity discharge shock one can get in the winter.

Your example of the dam, while it uses potential energy - actually use kinetic energy in the final step to spin the generator.  The falling water moves (fall=motion) and the moving water spins a wheel of a dynamo/generator of some sort to convert that water flow.

(3)
Your kinetic energy example is windmill.  The only difference between the dam and the windmill is water vs air.   One use water motion to spin the generator, the other one use air motion to spin the generator.  A flywheel is probably a better example of use of kinetic energy.  One can store (water behind the dam), the other one cannot store.  You may need to rethink this.

(4)
Almost all power generation may involve multiple conversion.  Your example of Chemical Energy of burning fuel producing (convert it to) thermo energy is right, but that is only if you are consuming the heat such as in heating the house.  Electricity generation via natural gas or oil may use thermo to convert water to steam.  Diesel can also be use but in this case is using fossil fuel to drive a engine (spinning the shaft via gas explosion).  The mechanical energy of the spin (like water from dam) spins the wheels of the electrical generator to get electricity.

On the other hand, electricity generation by nuclear fuel use nuclear fission also create thermo energy (via a thermo transfer liquid) to heat up water to steam.  The expansion of water to steam spins the wheels of the electrical generator.   So, a nuclear sub or nuclear carrier are really steam ships.  The only difference here is nuclear use atom splitting for heat instead of burning oil/natural gas for heat.

So, you should consider this "multiple conversion" and integrate into your descriptions between each type. 

(5)
For sure, you need to say "here are some of the examples, there are many other forms of energy we left out since they are less common in electricity generation."  Something like that to cover other energies you don't want to discuss.

(6)
Lastly, spinning a generator is almost always the final step in typical electrical generation.  So I think each type "potential, whatever" should clearly say that they are just the first step.  They all get converted, some multiple times, into the spinning of the shaft of the generator, typically anyhow.

Sorry, a bit rushed since I am delaying dinner.  I hope what I wrote here are helpful and please excuse typos.

[MrAl]

Normal coordinate system.
Draw a rectangle, V * I, turn Z-axle from back to the right, draw a box, W * s.

Newton is not working, nor is Watt.

How do you visualize kgm2/s2, I can't.
On the other hand, torque is pretty clear.

Hi,

Sometimes you can 'step' the variables and do the math.  Instead of 0 to 10 and all fractions in between, do just the integers 1,2,3,etc which gives you just 10 results to look at.  You can even reduce that to 2,4,6,8,10 and look at just 5 results to see if it makes sense.
When you do it that way it may be a rough approximation but still lets you get a good idea what is happening.

[Picuino]

Some suggestion for improvement here if you like:

Thank you very much, I really appreciate all the suggestions.

1) Changed

2) I don't quite understand what I should change here, but I have better described the process of energy conversion in a dam.

3) I believe that the energy stored in a dam is potential energy, while the energy stored by the wind is kinetic energy. Then comes the harnessing which is achieved by various intermediate conversions with other forms of energy.

4) I have included an explanation of energy conversion in several steps.

5) I have added mechanical energy and a note that these are the most common forms of energy. What other forms of energy are there?

6) I think this is clarified in the new section on energy form transformations.

https://www.picuino.com/en/electric-energia.html

Best regards.

[Rick Law]

Hey, good job!  I have round 2 of suggestions below.  But we are down to "refinements" instead of "corrections" already.

--------------------------------------
"Potential energy -
 It is the energy that an object has due to its position in a gravitational field."

A clarification before the statement may be helpful.  "While there are other forms of potential energy, but in the context of  electric generation we will typically be referring to Potential Energy in a gravitational field..."

--------------------------------------
"Kinetic energy
It is the energy that an object has due to its speed of movement."

The words "speed of movement" could be replaced with just "motion".  A statement such as "It is the energy of an object due to its motion.  The faster the motion, the more the energy.  Mathematically, the kinetic energy is proportional to "the Square of the Velocity".

--------------------------------------
"Thermal energy
... ...
This is the most degraded form of energy and it is the most difficult to transform, especially if it is at low temperatures."

This statement bugs me since "degraded form" is not well defined.  Bugs me, but I think I understand what you are saying.  It may be adequate but can easily lead to wrong interpretation.  You can eliminate that statement without affect the content of that paragraph.  An alternate way to saying what I think you want to express may be: "Typically, wasted energy eventually dissipate as heat without performing useful work."

--------------------------------------
"Chemical energy
....
To release this energy it is necessary to cause chemical reactions, which in most cases consist of burning fuels with oxygen."

While using the word "burning" can be technically correct, but "burning" suggest fire and flame to most audience.  There is no flame they can see when their ATP molecules are oxidized.  Thus, I suggest replacing "...burning fuels with oxygen..." with "...the fuel reacts with oxygen releasing energy in the process..."

--------------------------------------
"Electric energy
...A disadvantage of electrical energy is that it cannot be easily stored, it must be consumed at the moment it is created. In order to store electrical energy, it is necessary to convert it into chemical energy in batteries or into mechanical energy in pumped hydroelectric plants."

Your statement is entirely correct.  But from prior paragraphs, your target audience is not likely to know what is "pumped hydro storage".  You may expand that with an added line "Pumped Hydro is essentially excess energy from solar or wind farms are used to pump water back above a dam to store, and when needed re-convert it back to electrical energy like any other dam"
--------------------------------------

Speaking of dams, I am thinking you may want to point this out as well:

There are risks with dams too, regular dam -- pump or no pump.  Earthquake due to a dam is not unusual.  After all, you are adding a lot of weight to that little area behind the dam.

Take a look at this article and decide for yourself if you want to add a word or two about that.
https://archive.internationalrivers.org/earthquakes-triggered-by-dams

Windmill kills birds, solar farm has its own drawback, nature doesn't give us anything for free I suppose.

--------------------------------------
Hey, good job there!  We can refine till kingdom comes, but even if you don't include any of these round 2 improvements, there isn't much one can complain about.

[IanB]

"Thermal energy
... ...
This is the most degraded form of energy and it is the most difficult to transform, especially if it is at low temperatures."

This statement bugs me since "degraded form" is not well defined.  Bugs me, but I think I understand what you are saying.  It may be adequate but can easily lead to wrong interpretation.  You can eliminate that statement without affect the content of that paragraph.  An alternate way to saying what I think you want to express may be: "Typically, wasted energy eventually dissipate as heat without performing useful work."

I think "degraded form" is somewhat well defined especially in engineering and thermodynamics.

First of all, heat is the eventual destination of all other forms of energy, and it is something of a one-way trip. Once energy is dissipated as heat, it is not possible to get all of it back again. Some of it is lost forever.

Secondly, it is common in engineering to talk of "low grade heat", which is heat at a low temperature. The lower the temperature, the less the usefulness of the energy content. This somewhat corresponds to higher entropy, but it is not appropriate to introduce entropy at this level of discourse.

[Picuino]

Hey, good job!  I have round 2 of suggestions below.  But we are down to "refinements" instead of "corrections" already.

--------------------------------------
"Potential energy -
 It is the energy that an object has due to its position in a gravitational field."

A clarification before the statement may be helpful.  "While there are other forms of potential energy, but in the context of  electric generation we will typically be referring to Potential Energy in a gravitational field..."

--------------------------------------
"Kinetic energy
It is the energy that an object has due to its speed of movement."

The words "speed of movement" could be replaced with just "motion".  A statement such as "It is the energy of an object due to its motion.  The faster the motion, the more the energy.  Mathematically, the kinetic energy is proportional to "the Square of the Velocity".

--------------------------------------
"Thermal energy
... ...
This is the most degraded form of energy and it is the most difficult to transform, especially if it is at low temperatures."

This statement bugs me since "degraded form" is not well defined.  Bugs me, but I think I understand what you are saying.  It may be adequate but can easily lead to wrong interpretation.  You can eliminate that statement without affect the content of that paragraph.  An alternate way to saying what I think you want to express may be: "Typically, wasted energy eventually dissipate as heat without performing useful work."

--------------------------------------
"Chemical energy
....
To release this energy it is necessary to cause chemical reactions, which in most cases consist of burning fuels with oxygen."

While using the word "burning" can be technically correct, but "burning" suggest fire and flame to most audience.  There is no flame they can see when their ATP molecules are oxidized.  Thus, I suggest replacing "...burning fuels with oxygen..." with "...the fuel reacts with oxygen releasing energy in the process..."

--------------------------------------
"Electric energy
...A disadvantage of electrical energy is that it cannot be easily stored, it must be consumed at the moment it is created. In order to store electrical energy, it is necessary to convert it into chemical energy in batteries or into mechanical energy in pumped hydroelectric plants."

Your statement is entirely correct.  But from prior paragraphs, your target audience is not likely to know what is "pumped hydro storage".  You may expand that with an added line "Pumped Hydro is essentially excess energy from solar or wind farms are used to pump water back above a dam to store, and when needed re-convert it back to electrical energy like any other dam"
--------------------------------------

Speaking of dams, I am thinking you may want to point this out as well:

There are risks with dams too, regular dam -- pump or no pump.  Earthquake due to a dam is not unusual.  After all, you are adding a lot of weight to that little area behind the dam.

Take a look at this article and decide for yourself if you want to add a word or two about that.
https://archive.internationalrivers.org/earthquakes-triggered-by-dams

Windmill kills birds, solar farm has its own drawback, nature doesn't give us anything for free I suppose.

--------------------------------------
Hey, good job there!  We can refine till kingdom comes, but even if you don't include any of these round 2 improvements, there isn't much one can complain about.

I have incorporated most of the suggestions, but two of them in the form of a footnotes so as not to overload the amount of text in each section.

https://www.picuino.com/en/electric-energia.html#f1

Thank you very much.

[Rick Law]

"Thermal energy
... ...
This statement bugs me since "degraded form" is not well defined.  Bugs me, but I think I understand what you are saying.
...

I think "degraded form" is somewhat well defined especially in engineering and thermodynamics.
...

Appreciate the heads-up.  Different perspectives brings different meaning to words.  I stand now more educated.

[MrAl]

The problem is that electrical energy and electrical power are interrelated concepts.

Electrical power can be defined as voltage times current, but that does not explain what it is. It can also be defined more intuitively as the amount of energy consumed per second.

Electrical energy on the other hand is defined as the total work done or the total heat generated, but its formula is power times time.

It seems difficult to explain one concept without the other. They must be explained at the same time, but you have to start somewhere.
I remember that I had a hard time understanding these two concepts at first because they were similar and related.

How would you explain these two concepts to someone who does not know anything about electrical power and energy?

Hello again,

One thing that helps i think is to understand that an understanding of mechanical energy is fundamental to an understanding of other forms of energy such as electrical energy.  Various things can be explained with the use of the motion of something like an object or a particle.  That's because all forms of energy break down into the motion of something.  For example, one electron volt is when an electron moves though a field of 1 volt.

[Picuino]

While all this is true, there is no such analogy for nuclear and radiant energy. In any case, I have given up trying to define energy. I think we all have an intuitive idea of what it is and in describing the different forms of energy I reinforce that intuitive idea. I don't want to go into more exact definitions which will always give problems and, besides, I don't need the students to know them at this age.

[MrAl]

While all this is true, there is no such analogy for nuclear and radiant energy. In any case, I have given up trying to define energy. I think we all have an intuitive idea of what it is and in describing the different forms of energy I reinforce that intuitive idea. I don't want to go into more exact definitions which will always give problems and, besides, I don't need the students to know them at this age.

Isn't radiant energy the motion of particles?
I think gravity is the only remaining open question.

The ultimate answer is we only describe things in nature in relation to other things so no definition stands alone.  To that end we describe energy in relation to matter with the seemingly ageless equality:
e=m*c^2

If you still have questions with respect to your target audience, just pick up an edition of a high school physics textbook.

[RJSV]

   Two ideas.  First would be discuss force being invisible which applies to electric or more correctly electrostatic forces.  Then a casual intro into 'work' and 'energy' concepts, like work = force X distance.
   You could caution that the concept of 'work' when it is electricity or explicitly a current flow, that the matter flowing (electrons) isn't the real work, the real work is the force, being carried down the wire; confusing because both the fields and the currents flowing.
   I think it may be same issue, with water flow, where the force of pressure does the work...unless I guess it's the case of water wheel buckets responding to gravity from the water mass.

[RJSV]

   A second concept, or group of concepts, is the complementary relation between inductance and capacitors.
   Now, most advanced trainers know, it's ok to introduce some very advanced concepts, to a raw beginner,...much like a virtuoso violin teacher could have students take on material much more advanced, than beginning level.  You just need to closely avoid overstressing or overwhelming the new student.
That's maybe like saying; "I'm going to play this piece, one of the most advanced harpsichord arrangements ever produced...so don't worry about getting the notes right, just enjoy for now...".

   So the example I'd give after a brief mention of electric and magnetic fields, is an example radio frequency circuit capacitor, experiencing inductance by way of long-ish leads.  Those capacitor leads, you'd say, are going to have inductance, and possibly cause an un-wanted resonance side-effect.
Notice those are pretty advanced ideas, but you just tell the student that, and let them start with questions there.
   I got this idea while reading about Jim Williams application note #47, featured in the 'Technical Subject's section.
   Student probably won't get all of the RF circuit things right away, but at least you can focus on 'self inductance' in the leads, to zoom in on some details, to teach.
   Kind of like saying, to a mature student, here is the whole mess of details, but perhaps the worst it can be, learning for a while.  Student can gaze up, and realize a good bit of learning is not so 'impossible'.
   Ditto for teaching the Calculus.  (I worked as a student tutor in college).

[Picuino]

I love Jim Williams' application notes.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/application-notes/an47fa.pdf
The problem is that they are overly complex concepts and get away from the topic, which is to understand the sources of electricity generation and the electric bill.

[RJSV]

Like to argue a tiny bit on that, although I see what you mean.
   Starting with very basic concepts, is better off in some formal classroom, but in less formal venues, quoting OHM's Law gets to be boring and disconnected.  Same thing with (isolated) components like a capacitor or inductor.
But I see your point, if it's electric power system; I think there I might explain what AC or alternating current is, and a couple of concepts involving transformers.
Also, could include gravity field example, of forces being invisible, but still active.
The Jim Williams notes would be in other context, of RF circuits.

[Rick Law]

  ...
   Kind of like saying, to a mature student, here is the whole mess of details, but perhaps the worst it can be, learning for a while.  Student can gaze up, and realize a good bit of learning is not so 'impossible'.
 ...

That is key right there.  If it is one-to-one, the teacher can observe the reaction of the student and adjust accordingly.  When one-to-many, that becomes more difficult.

Good music one can appreciate without knowing how do play it.  One can enjoy "Swan Lake" (Ballet by Tchaikovsky) without even being able to stand on one's own feet.  Science is rather different.  Some would appreciate the wonder, others would "gaze" then shuts down.  When "brain overloads" occurs, it may turn the student into rejecting the subject altogether.

Many (particularly the younger students) do not realize some questions can't be answered yet.  Some has "current standard" answers but the answers require a lot of learning before it can be understood.

The wonders of nature...  I believe the wonder will never stop.  In the time of Archimede, one can perhaps learn all the Physics known to humans in a few years.  That leaves a lot of time for a student to learn, then to research and expand the knowledge in the field.  Knowledge have been expanding for centuries now and the expansion continues.  There comes a point when the time the necessary to acquire the "foundational knowledge" for a sub-field consumes all the brain's productive years leaving no time to develop new knowledge for that sub-field.  Then, advancement will stop -- unless human develops a way to acquire knowledge by other means rather than the time consuming method we called learning.

[MrAl]

  ...
   Kind of like saying, to a mature student, here is the whole mess of details, but perhaps the worst it can be, learning for a while.  Student can gaze up, and realize a good bit of learning is not so 'impossible'.
 ...

That is key right there.  If it is one-to-one, the teacher can observe the reaction of the student and adjust accordingly.  When one-to-many, that becomes more difficult.

Good music one can appreciate without knowing how do play it.  One can enjoy "Swan Lake" (Ballet by Tchaikovsky) without even being able to stand on one's own feet.  Science is rather different.  Some would appreciate the wonder, others would "gaze" then shuts down.  When "brain overloads" occurs, it may turn the student into rejecting the subject altogether.

Many (particularly the younger students) do not realize some questions can't be answered yet.  Some has "current standard" answers but the answers require a lot of learning before it can be understood.

The wonders of nature...  I believe the wonder will never stop.  In the time of Archimede, one can perhaps learn all the Physics known to humans in a few years.  That leaves a lot of time for a student to learn, then to research and expand the knowledge in the field.  Knowledge have been expanding for centuries now and the expansion continues.  There comes a point when the time the necessary to acquire the "foundational knowledge" for a sub-field consumes all the brain's productive years leaving no time to develop new knowledge for that sub-field.  Then, advancement will stop -- unless human develops a way to acquire knowledge by other means rather than the time consuming method we called learning.

Hello there,

That last paragraph is very interesting.
I always tell people not to take anything as written in stone when it comes to physics, because it is still evolving and has been for many years as you noted.  Combined with this, i like to mention that when we look back at various notable figures like Newton, we see a smart person who made some keen observations and they were taken as fact and the absolute final answer on the problem at hand.  Years later, many years, we find out it isn't exactly true even though it may work as a good approximation.  Of course it was Einstein who changed that, and there is work now that suggests even that may not be the final answer.  This begs the question, is there any final answer.  It seems that all we ever do is 'render' nature into a theory, we don't actually know what nature really is completely.  In that light it appears Science is just another religion in that we 'believe' certain things are true and righteous until we find out something else.  Once we find out that something else, then that becomes the true and righteous dogma.

[Picuino]

In electric power, there is little dogma and much opinion.
Just look at the endless discussions about nuclear production or the arguments for and against wind power.

Batteries to store the surplus of intermittent alternative energies also bring conflicts. The lithium runs out, they are very polluting or generate a fire risk impossible to extinguish, etc.

Fossil energies are also at the heart of many discussions. With the war in Ukraine, the supply of Russian natural gas to Europe has become a topic of endless debate.

On the subject of electricity production, and energy in general, it is difficult to give dogmas and it is very easy to fall into political opinions.

[Doctorandus_P]

To nOObs, it's easier to grasp if it's somthing they can relate to, or use their imagination to further grasp the concept.

Take an (electric) space heater as example. There are small heaters that get a bit warm, and higher powered heaters that get really hot.

But at the end of the year, you have to pay for the energy, so the amount of hours that the heater is on does also count.

[Rick Law]

  ...
   Kind of like saying, to a mature student, here is the whole mess of details, but perhaps the worst it can be, learning for a while.  Student can gaze up, and realize a good bit of learning is not so 'impossible'.
 ...

That is key right there.  If it is one-to-one, the teacher can observe the reaction of the student and adjust accordingly.  When one-to-many, that becomes more difficult.

Good music one can appreciate without knowing how do play it.  One can enjoy "Swan Lake" (Ballet by Tchaikovsky) without even being able to stand on one's own feet.  Science is rather different.  Some would appreciate the wonder, others would "gaze" then shuts down.  When "brain overloads" occurs, it may turn the student into rejecting the subject altogether.

Many (particularly the younger students) do not realize some questions can't be answered yet.  Some has "current standard" answers but the answers require a lot of learning before it can be understood.

The wonders of nature...  I believe the wonder will never stop.  In the time of Archimede, one can perhaps learn all the Physics known to humans in a few years.  That leaves a lot of time for a student to learn, then to research and expand the knowledge in the field.  Knowledge have been expanding for centuries now and the expansion continues.  There comes a point when the time the necessary to acquire the "foundational knowledge" for a sub-field consumes all the brain's productive years leaving no time to develop new knowledge for that sub-field.  Then, advancement will stop -- unless human develops a way to acquire knowledge by other means rather than the time consuming method we called learning.

Hello there,

That last paragraph is very interesting.
I always tell people not to take anything as written in stone when it comes to physics, because it is still evolving and has been for many years as you noted.  Combined with this, i like to mention that when we look back at various notable figures like Newton, we see a smart person who made some keen observations and they were taken as fact and the absolute final answer on the problem at hand.  Years later, many years, we find out it isn't exactly true even though it may work as a good approximation.  Of course it was Einstein who changed that, and there is work now that suggests even that may not be the final answer.  This begs the question, is there any final answer.  It seems that all we ever do is 'render' nature into a theory, we don't actually know what nature really is completely.  In that light it appears Science is just another religion in that we 'believe' certain things are true and righteous until we find out something else.  Once we find out that something else, then that becomes the true and righteous dogma.

I was agreeing with you till your last point.  I'll response in the order you have, we will get to the last point.

re: "...Of course it was Einstein who changed that..."
I largely agree with your point about Newton & Einstein.  Einstein didn't "change it", it is more a refinement to account for speed of light not being infinite and when speed of objects in question is a significant percentage of light speed.

re: "...and there is work now that suggests even that may not be the final answer..."
That suggestion is not recent.  Relativity and Quantum mechanics doesn't work together.  The math just doesn't work (as in xyz divide by zero or infinite*xyz/infinity, that kind of "math blow up").  Both relativity and quantum mechanics are "proven". Proven here is defined as "it accurately describes nature and accurately predicts nature".  They are each proven in their own realm, but as yet "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics" doesn't yet work.

re: "...This begs the question, is there any final answer...."

That would depend on what "final" means here.

This is not different than being a taxi-driver before GPS.  You can have a taxi-driver who is familiar with NYC, but take him to San Francisco he could be totally lost.  He will need a map of San Francisco instead of using the map of NYC inside his head.

Substitute NYC for "Newtonian", and San Francisco for "Relativistic".  Physicist needs a new map (set of rules) for each realm.  That two maps solution works independently yet correctly in their own realm. Do you consider that final?  Or must we integrate the maps before we consider it final?

Now mix in the Quantum realm.   Nature is not allowing us to integrate everything into one map for now, mixing quantum mechanics and relativity, the rules blew the math up.  We may be able to find a way around that.  So if integration into one map is part of being "final" than we are not there.

If I include the "very large" galaxy size.  We know it is not working -- stars orbiting the galaxy are going too fast.  So we introduce something which we call "dark matter" to explain/adjust that.  Dark matter (in my opinion) is a kludge but may not be the right one.  This is one realm we didn't know until recently. So even if we allow "final" to be "separate maps", we don't know what other realm(s) may be there.   If they are unknown, we don't know to include them.  So as most we can think of "final" is "work in all known realm(s) only".

re: "...In that light it appears Science is just another religion..."

This is where you and I depart from our agreement.  Science is based on measurable criteria and repeatable measurements.    Math is the means to express the relationship and rules to quantify.

V=IR.  In that mathematical formula, I convey to you that the relationship observed is Voltage equals Current times Resistance.  Applied the science and you can now describe and predict what happens to the Current if you double the Voltage while keeping Resistance the same.  It is based on facts every practitioner can observe and validate.

Religion is based on faith.  No observation or measurement is used.  Doesn't mean it is wrong, it just mean you can't measure it or repeat it.  Where as scientific laws and principals can be observed and measured at will (with equipment of course).

Here comes where my legs are getting shaky...  My own reservations and doubts.

Now with "big science" like LHC (Large Hadron Collider) and LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory), we moved away from something that every practitioner can observe and verify.  There is only one LHC, and one pair of LIGO.  Repeatability is an issue -- did you actually saw something or is that very very small signal random or an artifact of the way the system is functioning?  Higgs particle discovery was  "5 sigma".  That is 1 in 3.5 million probability that the observed event is a random error.  You can of course build your own LHC to satisfy "every practitioner can observe and repeat" but I can say with better than 5-sigma that it is NOT viable for the average EEVBlog members to build their own LHC.

Add to that, data filtering adjustment(s) is used and getting to raw data is not a readily available path.  Adjusted enough, you can make the weather forecast radar signal look like a picture of Holy Mary or rings of Jupiter.    So the guys getting the million(s) dollar grant(s) said they measured it.   You decide if confirmation bias is an issue or not...

[MrAl]

  ...
   Kind of like saying, to a mature student, here is the whole mess of details, but perhaps the worst it can be, learning for a while.  Student can gaze up, and realize a good bit of learning is not so 'impossible'.
 ...

That is key right there.  If it is one-to-one, the teacher can observe the reaction of the student and adjust accordingly.  When one-to-many, that becomes more difficult.

Good music one can appreciate without knowing how do play it.  One can enjoy "Swan Lake" (Ballet by Tchaikovsky) without even being able to stand on one's own feet.  Science is rather different.  Some would appreciate the wonder, others would "gaze" then shuts down.  When "brain overloads" occurs, it may turn the student into rejecting the subject altogether.

Many (particularly the younger students) do not realize some questions can't be answered yet.  Some has "current standard" answers but the answers require a lot of learning before it can be understood.

The wonders of nature...  I believe the wonder will never stop.  In the time of Archimede, one can perhaps learn all the Physics known to humans in a few years.  That leaves a lot of time for a student to learn, then to research and expand the knowledge in the field.  Knowledge have been expanding for centuries now and the expansion continues.  There comes a point when the time the necessary to acquire the "foundational knowledge" for a sub-field consumes all the brain's productive years leaving no time to develop new knowledge for that sub-field.  Then, advancement will stop -- unless human develops a way to acquire knowledge by other means rather than the time consuming method we called learning.

Hello there,

That last paragraph is very interesting.
I always tell people not to take anything as written in stone when it comes to physics, because it is still evolving and has been for many years as you noted.  Combined with this, i like to mention that when we look back at various notable figures like Newton, we see a smart person who made some keen observations and they were taken as fact and the absolute final answer on the problem at hand.  Years later, many years, we find out it isn't exactly true even though it may work as a good approximation.  Of course it was Einstein who changed that, and there is work now that suggests even that may not be the final answer.  This begs the question, is there any final answer.  It seems that all we ever do is 'render' nature into a theory, we don't actually know what nature really is completely.  In that light it appears Science is just another religion in that we 'believe' certain things are true and righteous until we find out something else.  Once we find out that something else, then that becomes the true and righteous dogma.

I was agreeing with you till your last point.  I'll response in the order you have, we will get to the last point.

re: "...Of course it was Einstein who changed that..."
I largely agree with your point about Newton & Einstein.  Einstein didn't "change it", it is more a refinement to account for speed of light not being infinite and when speed of objects in question is a significant percentage of light speed.

re: "...and there is work now that suggests even that may not be the final answer..."
That suggestion is not recent.  Relativity and Quantum mechanics doesn't work together.  The math just doesn't work (as in xyz divide by zero or infinite*xyz/infinity, that kind of "math blow up").  Both relativity and quantum mechanics are "proven". Proven here is defined as "it accurately describes nature and accurately predicts nature".  They are each proven in their own realm, but as yet "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics" doesn't yet work.

re: "...This begs the question, is there any final answer...."

That would depend on what "final" means here.

This is not different than being a taxi-driver before GPS.  You can have a taxi-driver who is familiar with NYC, but take him to San Francisco he could be totally lost.  He will need a map of San Francisco instead of using the map of NYC inside his head.

Substitute NYC for "Newtonian", and San Francisco for "Relativistic".  Physicist needs a new map (set of rules) for each realm.  That two maps solution works independently yet correctly in their own realm. Do you consider that final?  Or must we integrate the maps before we consider it final?

Now mix in the Quantum realm.   Nature is not allowing us to integrate everything into one map for now, mixing quantum mechanics and relativity, the rules blew the math up.  We may be able to find a way around that.  So if integration into one map is part of being "final" than we are not there.

If I include the "very large" galaxy size.  We know it is not working -- stars orbiting the galaxy are going too fast.  So we introduce something which we call "dark matter" to explain/adjust that.  Dark matter (in my opinion) is a kludge but may not be the right one.  This is one realm we didn't know until recently. So even if we allow "final" to be "separate maps", we don't know what other realm(s) may be there.   If they are unknown, we don't know to include them.  So as most we can think of "final" is "work in all known realm(s) only".

re: "...In that light it appears Science is just another religion..."

This is where you and I depart from our agreement.  Science is based on measurable criteria and repeatable measurements.    Math is the means to express the relationship and rules to quantify.

V=IR.  In that mathematical formula, I convey to you that the relationship observed is Voltage equals Current times Resistance.  Applied the science and you can now describe and predict what happens to the Current if you double the Voltage while keeping Resistance the same.  It is based on facts every practitioner can observe and validate.

Religion is based on faith.  No observation or measurement is used.  Doesn't mean it is wrong, it just mean you can't measure it or repeat it.  Where as scientific laws and principals can be observed and measured at will (with equipment of course).

Here comes where my legs are getting shaky...  My own reservations and doubts.

Now with "big science" like LHC (Large Hadron Collider) and LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory), we moved away from something that every practitioner can observe and verify.  There is only one LHC, and one pair of LIGO.  Repeatability is an issue -- did you actually saw something or is that very very small signal random or an artifact of the way the system is functioning?  Higgs particle discovery was  "5 sigma".  That is 1 in 3.5 million probability that the observed event is a random error.  You can of course build your own LHC to satisfy "every practitioner can observe and repeat" but I can say with better than 5-sigma that it is NOT viable for the average EEVBlog members to build their own LHC.

Add to that, data filtering adjustment(s) is used and getting to raw data is not a readily available path.  Adjusted enough, you can make the weather forecast radar signal look like a picture of Holy Mary or rings of Jupiter.    So the guys getting the million(s) dollar grant(s) said they measured it.   You decide if confirmation bias is an issue or not...

Hi,

I don't have the time or patience to reply to a lot of points at the same time, but the one that strikes me is your comment about Einstein vs Newton.
I hear this from time to time, that Einstein is just a 'refinement' on Newton.  That's entirely and completely wrong, and i don't think there is anything quite as wrong as that.

It was not a 'refinement' it was a total and complete paradigm change.  Newton based his calculation on pure algebra and a simple observation.  Einstein changed that entirely by showing that gravity is a property of spacetime, something Newton had absolutely no idea about.
The 'refinement' is just a nice coincidence which makes it possible to calculate things that were not known at the time of Newton or at least not studied.  In fact, Newton could have not calculated some things that Einstein could so it wasn't like Einstein got a better numerical result, he got a completely better understanding and was capable of MORE results that Newton never could.

But my point was not to bring this into careful scrutiny, it was just to show how much things can change.  Is it the end of all ends?  I don't think so, and if you consider some of the more recent ideas that have been coming up it may never be possible to understand the root causes of Nature, and part of that may be because the Universe is evolving itself.  That would mean that there are things we can not know right now because they don't even exist yet.  Only after they come into being will we be able to examine them and see what we can figure out.  The question that comes up then is of course can we figure out how it is evolving?  That may be possible some day, but we don't even have one clearly known example yet so it's going to be a long, long, way off.

Just to recap, for example it is not that Newton got a numerical result of say 1.235 and Einstein got a result of 1.2345 (which rounds to 1.235), Einstein came up with a completely different way of thinking about the Nature of gravity.  In fact, he may have gotten the same result 1.235 but the WAY and the REASON he got that was because of a completely different set of ideas.  I'm sure i don't have to go into detail about his theories, which are far from what Newton came up with.  The level of understanding changed by leaps and bounds.

Oh one more little thing and i quote:
"Religion is based on faith.  No observation or measurement is used.  Doesn't mean it is wrong, it just mean you can't measure it or repeat it.  Where as scientific laws and principals can be observed and measured at will (with equipment of course)."
See with that i can see you did not understand my point at all.  The point was that since the measurements and conclusions are time stamped and can change in the future, it is still a 'belief'.  It's not like gravity is going to disappear, but our understanding of it will change and thus what we believe right now is very likely not correct in its entirety.  That's very similar to a religion.  It's not like religion is wrong either though I'm not saying that.
Also, you can see the arguments on both sides of some quantum physics ideas.  Diametrically opposed.  Remind you of anything?  Yes, religion (chuckle).
A.  Do we have one universe or many universes (may worlds).
B.  Do we have one God or many Gods.
etc., etc. (chuckle).

[Rick Law]

...
I hear this from time to time, that Einstein is just a 'refinement' on Newton.  That's entirely and completely wrong, and i don't think there is anything quite as wrong as that.

It was not a 'refinement' it was a total and complete paradigm change.  Newton based his calculation on pure algebra and a simple observation.  Einstein changed that entirely by showing that gravity is a property of spacetime, something Newton had absolutely no idea about.
...

There are occasions I took the exact same position as yours above.  On this occasion, I choose to use a gentler description.  Net net is the same.

I would argue the "gravity is a property of spacetime" bit, but until we truly understand what is space and what is time, argument is a bit premature.   I like to see more work on fundamentals -- such as, where did big-G (universal gravitational constant, not little-g which is earth's gravity on the surface).

Then again, may be life will be very boring if there is no fundamental unknowns left...

[MrAl]

...
I hear this from time to time, that Einstein is just a 'refinement' on Newton.  That's entirely and completely wrong, and i don't think there is anything quite as wrong as that.

It was not a 'refinement' it was a total and complete paradigm change.  Newton based his calculation on pure algebra and a simple observation.  Einstein changed that entirely by showing that gravity is a property of spacetime, something Newton had absolutely no idea about.
...

There are occasions I took the exact same position as yours above.  On this occasion, I choose to use a gentler description.  Net net is the same.

I would argue the "gravity is a property of spacetime" bit, but until we truly understand what is space and what is time, argument is a bit premature.   I like to see more work on fundamentals -- such as, where did big-G (universal gravitational constant, not little-g which is earth's gravity on the surface).

Then again, may be life will be very boring if there is no fundamental unknowns left...

Hi,

Yeah i know what you mean, did we look at it this year, last year, or next year ha ha.