It really does not matter.
If you think you come anywhere near to understanding either, you're only fooling yourself.
You must remember these are only models, just an approximation.
Use a model that works best for your application.
Always a problem to give the examiner what he wants, especially if it turns out that the student is brighter than the examiner or simply thinks differently. Modern rigid marking schemes make this problem worse, as the marker is no longer free to award marks for a good answer to what the question actually said but only for the specified answer to what the examiner meant to ask. To make excuses for the examiner, it can be quite difficult to set a question and steer the student without the question including (for at least the brighter students) a clear hint as to the answer.SY said:
I saw an interesting event a few years ago. I was at the time working as a postdoc in a 'new university' which had not long before been just a technical college. I was supervising a class who had been set some problems by their teacher. For some reason I can't remember another class with the same problems joined us once, with their teacher. One of the problems involved sine waves, which seemed to baffle them.
To help them, the teacher asked them what was the most general form of the sine function? My thought was that this is not very helpful, as the answer is sin(x) where x is anything you like - then I thought sin(z) where z is complex, afterwards I thought sin(Z) where Z is a complex matrix. It turned out that what he had in mind was
y = A sin( wt + theta )
which to me is an extremely restricted form of the sine function! I learnt then something of the difference between an engineering teacher in a tech college and a mathematician/physicist.
You obviously have a very different philosophy of science from me. I think you must be an instrumentalist?myhrrhleine said:
Read David Deutsch "The Beginning of Infinity" for an alternative view. He argues that real science produces real explanations, even though they may be incomplete. Only an explanation can be a good model.
The latter for sure. David Grant was a much smarter fellow than I, but my research obsession at the time was the QM of molecular bonds and theoretical solid state chemistry. In my hormone-addled 25 year old mind, I couldn't even begin to conceive that any question on a P-Chem qualifying exam wasn't about that!
Obviously, gravity isn't curved space its an aether density gradient.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0011/0011003.pdf
First semester physics experiments prove gravity isn't curved space. If it was curved space then projectiles moving through a gravitational field would all follow the same path regardless of velocity. As the experiments show, it doesn't work that way.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0011/0011003.pdf
First semester physics experiments prove gravity isn't curved space. If it was curved space then projectiles moving through a gravitational field would all follow the same path regardless of velocity. As the experiments show, it doesn't work that way.
Last edited:
The only support is Snell's law ? 😕
It seems to me or is badly written ? 😕
Ah, I understand, good joke !
Last edited:
Well, I went to school in W. Va. Maybe that explains it.
I thought the Planck temp was only relevant to atomic levels, not quantum. You have provided me with more reading.
Anyway, I have more entertaining things today as I just downloaded DipTrace and have a ton of practical stuff to learn. I will leave this with one more uninformed thought:
We seem to have one set of rules for the macro, one for the quantum and the bridge between seems shaky. Could one use an analogy to describe this conflict as looking at two stable systems where you see no relationship between other that triggering their chaotic state and at that point you change form one system to the other? The truth being they are actually the same rule sets, but the "dimensional seed" causes the systems to behave differently and what we now call the rules are really only two solutions to a system whose real rules we are still clueless about? There could be more that two solutions. I have a hard time believing in two sets of fundamental rules. Nature likes things simple. For me, two sets of rules is a lot harder to accept than entanglement or what our macro view says is weird.
I think that's the root cause of your trouble. There is frighteningly little science content in the Discovery shows. Of a 60-minute show, about 20 minutes are consumed commercials, another 20 minutes by "in case you're just joining us, this is what we're talking about", leaving about 20 minutes of content. I'm not impressed.
I used to watch a lot of Discovery shows, but the quality degraded rapidly. I then realized how little content they had and how little I got out of them. I decided to design audio circuits instead... 🙂
~Tom
Not so much. In fact, macro systems follow the same quantum laws, it's just that the equations reduce to classical ones when sizes get larger; the change is smooth and continuous, not at all chaotic.
One of the keys to judging whether or not a theory is crank is whether it follows the Correspondence Principle, i.e., does one reduce to the other in the limit. Relativity versus classical mechanics is another example of Correspondence in action- as velocities get small compared to c, the equations of relativity reduce to Newtonian. If there's no correspondence, the theory is worthless.
This confuses me because it seems so obviously wrong. How can you choose "years and light-years" as the speed of light? (It is 44 degrees today, no, not Fahrenheit.)
Abs
To be extremely simple it is like looking through a window into a house.
Then, walking around to the other side of the house and looking inside.
The house will seem very different from the different view point.
Yet it is the same house.
You guys are watching the wrong science shows (I have her first CD).
Fiorella Terenzi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I actualy had dinner with Carolyn, very enthusiastic about her research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Porco
Last edited:
Thank you for that! Sums it up pretty well.
And now the Animal Planet channel wants to be about.... people. 🙁
Sy,
Ah, that makes sense. No one has pointed that out before. They go on and on about how strange the quantum world is and how the "laws break down".
Back to trying to get Bode plots at higher currents in Spice so the AC simulation matches the transient simulation. My "Reasonable" amp project has been very educational. Finding out how cheap prototype 2-layer boards are has opened up a lot if ideas I was too lazy to do on vector board.
Why can't the Animal planet be about People? CNN, Fox and MSNBC are titled as news channels and have had nothing but op-eds for years. How ironic is it I get better American news from BBC and AlJizara? I get my weather from the internet as the Weather channel has mostly reality TV. Reality? and it is mostly scripted!
Ah, that makes sense. No one has pointed that out before. They go on and on about how strange the quantum world is and how the "laws break down".
Back to trying to get Bode plots at higher currents in Spice so the AC simulation matches the transient simulation. My "Reasonable" amp project has been very educational. Finding out how cheap prototype 2-layer boards are has opened up a lot if ideas I was too lazy to do on vector board.
Why can't the Animal planet be about People? CNN, Fox and MSNBC are titled as news channels and have had nothing but op-eds for years. How ironic is it I get better American news from BBC and AlJizara? I get my weather from the internet as the Weather channel has mostly reality TV. Reality? and it is mostly scripted!
Vlad The Astrophysicist - YouTube
A perfect explanation of the Drake equation. This is science education as it should be done.
A perfect explanation of the Drake equation. This is science education as it should be done.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.