Yes, that's true. If you look at what is done at places like CERN most of it is engineering, yet being done by research scientists. This is partly because they understand the science too, so can assess engineering solutions without always needing 'translation' between the two domains. There isn't much particle physics (or even quantum mechanics) in the average EE course, but a physicist will have been taught electronics, transmission lines etc. I have a Masters in EE but the overlap in electromagnetism was with second year undergraduate physics (antennas, waveguides etc.). Third year physics stuff goes way off the engineers' radar!
for a good quote consider this:
"..all science except physics is but stamp collecting" (at least that is the quote I got when in uni). Apparently Rutherford was pissed that he got a Nobel in Chemistry rather than in Physics.
For all that somehow think that engineering is science, yes in a limited manner. Engineers look at specific practical solutions to existing problems and to overcome limitations in equipment that may not allow the practical solution to come to fruition. They rely on primary science generally for their solutions. Pure Mathematics is a science into itself, but in Physics and Engineering, and everywhere else, it is used as a language---that's it. A compact form to express a relationship of one value or object to another (or several depending on the level one might be involved in). Mathematics occurs for its own sake. To me this is what differentiates pure science to practical science. Anything considering the macro environments only is what I consider "practical", whilst any science that considers micro (as in sub-atomic levels), such as particle physics (theoretical and otherwise), physical chemistry (which has more in common with the Physics rather than "Chemistry"). Regardless, just because something is "discovered" it does not negate the validity of any of the previous work.
In this specific case, Einstein's work will continue to hold up, to prove otherwise is truly "relative". Based on Einstein's (and others') ability to present thought experiments, and considering the extent of total knowledge available at the time and having separate "experimentalists" verify or deny the anticipated behaviours, how can he (or any, except true "quacks") be criticized? For all that matters, anyone who has observed, developed and experimented within all sciences will be proven wrong. It is just a matter of time. We may think we know how things work completely, until such a time as that idea is proven wrong (particularly at the quantum level)
How many here truly understand what quantum mechanics and quantum behaviour is? (Excluding those that do have a good grounding in Physics). Most lay (non-scientific) people have no clue at all, if they did it would possibly "blow their minds". Just consider how many times the word "quantum" is used in popular advertising. (I cringe every time I hear that word in advertising), or how about something as simple as understanding primary units in science. A pet peeve: units of torque are given in "force"-"displacement" terms and are vectors, not "displacement"-"force" (energy, not torque) which is a scalar. (Assuming of course that force is meant to be "force lbs" or similar)
So guys, relax. Unless you are at the forefront of both theoretical physics and experimental fields, none of us may truly understand "things" for more than a few seconds (as by then everything will have changed, and someone else will disprove it anyways). Perhaps when one finds out for sure whether "God doesn't play dice" or not, we might know. Unfortunately by then we won't be attributed with the discovery.
Please don't get too concerned about a "new" speed of light. For all intents (and practical) purposes it is what it has always been. Any could give very good examples of a "new" speed of sound based on references other than "through air at standard temperature, elevation and pressure".
☮
"..all science except physics is but stamp collecting" (at least that is the quote I got when in uni). Apparently Rutherford was pissed that he got a Nobel in Chemistry rather than in Physics.
For all that somehow think that engineering is science, yes in a limited manner. Engineers look at specific practical solutions to existing problems and to overcome limitations in equipment that may not allow the practical solution to come to fruition. They rely on primary science generally for their solutions. Pure Mathematics is a science into itself, but in Physics and Engineering, and everywhere else, it is used as a language---that's it. A compact form to express a relationship of one value or object to another (or several depending on the level one might be involved in). Mathematics occurs for its own sake. To me this is what differentiates pure science to practical science. Anything considering the macro environments only is what I consider "practical", whilst any science that considers micro (as in sub-atomic levels), such as particle physics (theoretical and otherwise), physical chemistry (which has more in common with the Physics rather than "Chemistry"). Regardless, just because something is "discovered" it does not negate the validity of any of the previous work.
In this specific case, Einstein's work will continue to hold up, to prove otherwise is truly "relative". Based on Einstein's (and others') ability to present thought experiments, and considering the extent of total knowledge available at the time and having separate "experimentalists" verify or deny the anticipated behaviours, how can he (or any, except true "quacks") be criticized? For all that matters, anyone who has observed, developed and experimented within all sciences will be proven wrong. It is just a matter of time. We may think we know how things work completely, until such a time as that idea is proven wrong (particularly at the quantum level)
How many here truly understand what quantum mechanics and quantum behaviour is? (Excluding those that do have a good grounding in Physics). Most lay (non-scientific) people have no clue at all, if they did it would possibly "blow their minds". Just consider how many times the word "quantum" is used in popular advertising. (I cringe every time I hear that word in advertising), or how about something as simple as understanding primary units in science. A pet peeve: units of torque are given in "force"-"displacement" terms and are vectors, not "displacement"-"force" (energy, not torque) which is a scalar. (Assuming of course that force is meant to be "force lbs" or similar)
So guys, relax. Unless you are at the forefront of both theoretical physics and experimental fields, none of us may truly understand "things" for more than a few seconds (as by then everything will have changed, and someone else will disprove it anyways). Perhaps when one finds out for sure whether "God doesn't play dice" or not, we might know. Unfortunately by then we won't be attributed with the discovery.
Please don't get too concerned about a "new" speed of light. For all intents (and practical) purposes it is what it has always been. Any could give very good examples of a "new" speed of sound based on references other than "through air at standard temperature, elevation and pressure".
☮
The quote I heard (I forget where) "All of science is physics or philately". Guaranteed to annoy non-physicists!
I once tried to explain the two-slit experiment to a friend. He was a perfectly normal intelligent person, yet he simply refused to believe what I was saying. In his view a dental technician (him) understood reality better than a physics graduate (me), because non-classical reality is so counter-intuitive that 'normal' people simply don't get it.
I once tried to explain the two-slit experiment to a friend. He was a perfectly normal intelligent person, yet he simply refused to believe what I was saying. In his view a dental technician (him) understood reality better than a physics graduate (me), because non-classical reality is so counter-intuitive that 'normal' people simply don't get it.
For many years I refused to accept biologists as real scientists! I remember reading a slightly-tongue-in-cheek article in New Scientist about cross-cultural aspects of leaving university and starting work. The writer (probably a physicist) said that a biologist thinks he has explained something when he has merely described it, and may confuse correlation with causality. These days many of them are really chemists, so OK.
A useful criterion is that if it has "science" in the title, it isn't really science. (e.g. social science, political science).
A useful criterion is that if it has "science" in the title, it isn't really science. (e.g. social science, political science).
Boy! Would my daughter be hitting you about the head with a wet fish
Research Profile Dr. Lucy Forrest | Dr. Forrest | www.biophys.mpg.de
Hi All
I only can say that Planck Surveyor had confirmed c is constant, is not a function of time, is not a function of energy....and uncle Albert was right.
WMAP had demonstrated that the Universe is Flat (Euclidean Geometry) and again uncle Albert was right.
Let me say that Physics was nice until Bohr, Heisenberg, and so on apears.
Then Physics went to Hell.
Quantum Mechanics Interpretations sometimes are like a bad Sci-Fi movie.
Much Modern Relativistics Theories too.
Einstein said "God is Subtle but not Malicious"
Hard work we have with 4 dimentions, Imagine 128!!!
Take a look at the experiment of Afshar.
If the Photon were a Particle AND a Wave?
Quantum Mechanics will pull down.
Cheers
I only can say that Planck Surveyor had confirmed c is constant, is not a function of time, is not a function of energy....and uncle Albert was right.
WMAP had demonstrated that the Universe is Flat (Euclidean Geometry) and again uncle Albert was right.
Let me say that Physics was nice until Bohr, Heisenberg, and so on apears.
Then Physics went to Hell.
Quantum Mechanics Interpretations sometimes are like a bad Sci-Fi movie.
Much Modern Relativistics Theories too.
Einstein said "God is Subtle but not Malicious"
Hard work we have with 4 dimentions, Imagine 128!!!
Take a look at the experiment of Afshar.
If the Photon were a Particle AND a Wave?
Quantum Mechanics will pull down.
Cheers
Boy! Would my daughter be hitting you about the head with a wet fish
Fish slapping isn´t an exception to relativity...
Fish slapping dance in Gmod - YouTube
guys, I wasn't trying to start an arguement...
as I stated in my post, I believe there to be what I call "pure science" and "practical science".
Biology is its own science, as it does answer some questions that can only be answered by itself. Yes it does rely on primary science (ever "looked" at what the liquefaction of Hydrogen resulted in? Add that to Wilhelm Röntgen's serendipitous discovery of X-rays, and pretty much every imaging capability that has been discovered and every discovery relying on any micro imaging can attribute some if not all of it's parentage to either or both). So in a macro sense, it is a practical science. In regards to bio-chemistry, it is a "pure science" as well (well I think so), for example: in regards to DNA genome, etc., the mechanisms and responses of living cells at or near the single cell limit,. The list can go on, and on, and on...
I gues the only "science" that is more or less truly stamp collecting is probably engineering in that it relies completely on the primary work of others to offer up solutions. It is a rare engineer that looks for truly creative and original solutions. Engineers are encouraged to not "re-invent" the wheel, even when (perhaps) it could do with a "re-invention".
Now, this is not intended to heap it all on engineers.Without the practicality of their work, we'd all be dreaming of television, but never actually be able to watch one (or computers, ad nausea).
as I stated in my post, I believe there to be what I call "pure science" and "practical science".
Biology is its own science, as it does answer some questions that can only be answered by itself. Yes it does rely on primary science (ever "looked" at what the liquefaction of Hydrogen resulted in? Add that to Wilhelm Röntgen's serendipitous discovery of X-rays, and pretty much every imaging capability that has been discovered and every discovery relying on any micro imaging can attribute some if not all of it's parentage to either or both). So in a macro sense, it is a practical science. In regards to bio-chemistry, it is a "pure science" as well (well I think so), for example: in regards to DNA genome, etc., the mechanisms and responses of living cells at or near the single cell limit,. The list can go on, and on, and on...
I gues the only "science" that is more or less truly stamp collecting is probably engineering in that it relies completely on the primary work of others to offer up solutions. It is a rare engineer that looks for truly creative and original solutions. Engineers are encouraged to not "re-invent" the wheel, even when (perhaps) it could do with a "re-invention".
Now, this is not intended to heap it all on engineers.Without the practicality of their work, we'd all be dreaming of television, but never actually be able to watch one (or computers, ad nausea).
you might enjoy the viewpoint of Hestenes "rediscovery", modern formulation, popularization of Grassmann, Clifford's "Geometric Algebra" as a Language for Science, Engineering
http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/html/Evolution.html
http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~clifford/
http://www.geometricalgebra.net/
angular momentum, torque, angular inertia tensors all have bivector representations that keep them separate from "simple" vectors, avoids confusing axial and polar vectors from the cross product in Gibb's vector calculus which we all learn
I haven't gotten far but keep poking at the books - may end up buying a "3-D" mouse for CluCalc
Last edited:
For me engineering spans the gamut from cookie cutter application of basic principles to crossing the line into science and developing new knowledge. In every engineering organization I have had experience with a small percentage of the most talented and experienced engineers do the work of taking existing knowledge, expanding it where necessary and synthesizing the results into straightforward tools and protocols that can be used throughout the organization to improve the product. While it would be nice if scientists delivered all needed knowledge ready to be applied by engineers, in many cases science is not focused in all areas of needed knowledge. Often only those whose need for understanding is motivated by commercial imperatives bother to plow in some arcane fields.
Hi All
This is not Science, the Thread had became in Philosophy.
Anybody can make Science. An Academic Degree don't be people more inteligent.
There are real Scientists without any degree and Academics who are real Idiots!!!
In the Academic world "publish or perish" you can see people making "carrion" with papers of others, and they name himselves Scientists.
Not all is black or white.
Physicists and Biologists TOGETHER discovered the DNA structure, remember that?
Is like say Mozart was the most inteligent man in history. It is not Science.It is Philosophy.
Anybody can make Science and anybody can say Stupid Things.It is Philosophy.
This is not Science, the Thread had became in Philosophy.
Anybody can make Science. An Academic Degree don't be people more inteligent.
There are real Scientists without any degree and Academics who are real Idiots!!!
In the Academic world "publish or perish" you can see people making "carrion" with papers of others, and they name himselves Scientists.
Not all is black or white.
Physicists and Biologists TOGETHER discovered the DNA structure, remember that?
Is like say Mozart was the most inteligent man in history. It is not Science.It is Philosophy.
Anybody can make Science and anybody can say Stupid Things.It is Philosophy.
Reductio ad Absurdum
Based on false premises, we are always permitted to sweep-on to grand fallacies as well, e.g.:
For an ostrich, with its head in the sand, light and its velocity are not observable nor measurable, so they do not exist as well.
Or maybe while amongst the trees, it is impossible to discern the forest, so it does not exist as well.
And all dimensions have a tolerance (+ or -), implied or explicit, and because of this, they do not exist as well.
These assertions, like those beforehand, do not deserve the proof they demand; and so, their credibility does not exist as well.
E=MC^2, where C, the speed of light, is considered to be a universal constant.
This relationship does not depend on how we observe/measure C.
WHG
Based on false premises, we are always permitted to sweep-on to grand fallacies as well, e.g.:
For an ostrich, with its head in the sand, light and its velocity are not observable nor measurable, so they do not exist as well.
Or maybe while amongst the trees, it is impossible to discern the forest, so it does not exist as well.
And all dimensions have a tolerance (+ or -), implied or explicit, and because of this, they do not exist as well.
These assertions, like those beforehand, do not deserve the proof they demand; and so, their credibility does not exist as well.
E=MC^2, where C, the speed of light, is considered to be a universal constant.
This relationship does not depend on how we observe/measure C.
WHG
- Status
- Not open for further replies.