Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Crazy electrical engineer

  1. Dec 1, 2005 #1

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    is it just me or do electrical engineers think they are physicists? I've gotten in quite a few arguments with people over the validity of special relativity, cold fusion, etc and it seems like the only people who will use their degree as backup are electrical engineers and they are fully convinced either SR is wrong or cold fusion has been done (adn in some cases, is being covered up by the government) or that the face on mars is an alien sign.... ugh... whats with these people! I think you need a logic exit exam in order to get a degree...
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 1, 2005 #2

    mezarashi

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Woah. Not looking good for me then. I'll be graduating with such a degree >.<
     
  4. Dec 1, 2005 #3

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    *grabs your shoulders and shakes you violently*

    SPECIAL RELATIVITY WORKS, COLD FUSION DOESNT, UHM... WHATEVER THE THIRD THING I SAID!!!! AHHHHHHH
     
  5. Dec 1, 2005 #4

    mezarashi

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

  6. Dec 1, 2005 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Most engineers that I have known don't really want to accept the core of modern physics. I had a buddy who was just sure that once we got into Relativity in physics, he would prove that I was all wrong about time dilation and "all of that nonsense". He just knew this had to be wrong. And try discussions of non-locality, or worse [God forbid], the Many Worlds Theory! :biggrin:

    I don't know about electrical engineers in particular, but for me this has been true with electrical, industrial, chemical, and ME/Aerospace engineers. I think modern physics and the typical engineering mindset are contradictory by nature.
     
  7. Dec 1, 2005 #6

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    haha you know what i find hilarious about these idiots who make webpages like the ones found on there... they won't just say one theory is wrong... they'll attack like, 10 or 15 different theories trying to say they are all wrong. I mean come on, very few people who are taken seriously are ever wrong so many times...
     
  8. Dec 1, 2005 #7

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  9. Dec 1, 2005 #8

    mezarashi

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Oh yeah, those discussions get real messy. I have this highschool friend of mine who was one of those "UFO's are real, believe in the Roswell" kind of people. We have constant 'discussions' on MSN regarding anti-gravity and the possibility of faster than light travel. It can become entertaining in many ways.

    Alot of engineers end up in careers not even related to engineering. My school's career counseling section says more than half. It's no wonder they couldn't care less about physics. Many engineering jobs related to front end design can be done without much science, and that seems to be the kind of job most of my friends in school want.

    But for engineers who value engineering, especially electrical engineering, I don't see why modern physics can be so rejected. Quantum physics is the core of designing micro and now nano-electronic devices. Quantum weirdness like electron tunelling or the wave nature of particles need to be well acknowledged. Those in satellite communication need to acknowledge special + general relativity to correct timing errors in transmission. The nuclear part would be the most irrelevant I would suppose, unless you're in nuclear engineering...

    ROFL. I'm serious, after reading some of these, you can become convinced. I remember this other guy who wrote a 500 page 'thesis' showing that all the math we know now is WRONG!
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2005
  10. Dec 1, 2005 #9

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Oh dear lord...Thanks for that link Peng.
     
  11. Dec 1, 2005 #10

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Are you sure about this? Id like to see some proof that it is theoretically impossible.

    Actually save your googling. http://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/v29/115.pdf

    cold fusion does exist, its just not as viable as we all hope it was today.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2005
  12. Dec 1, 2005 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I disagree, but I will say that a big part of what makes a crank a crank is lack of knowledge in the area that he/she is exploring. So by default, it is extremely difficult for a physicist to be a crank physicist (otherwise he/she would never have succeeded in becoming a physicist in the first place). But scientists often become cranks in other areas of science - Pons and Fleishman, for example, where chemists who thought they could rewrite physics.

    All it takes is ignorance in one subject and arrogance due to competence in another - it doesn't matter where they actually come from. And as others pointed out, engineering requires science - if science didn't work, engineering wouldn't either.

    (I realize you were separating the way engineers do think from the way they should think - I still disagree)

    cronxeh - it is difficult to categorize muon catylized fusion as "cold fusion", and in any case, the term doesn't really mean anything scientifically - it's a term mostly just used by cranks. What is clear, however, is that what Pons and Fleischman were trying to accomplish (fusion via dissolving hydrogen in a metal matrix) is theoretically impossible.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2005
  13. Dec 1, 2005 #12

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    http://meson.riken.jp/ral/muCF.html

    Its very much a scientific term. The muons orbit very close to the nuclei, shielding the positive charge of the nuclei and allowing them to move close enough to fuse -- to me, thats as best a definition of a catalyst as it gets. Even at poor yields and small sticking probability, it is still a topic worth researching into.

    On the other hand, as chemistry is moving more and more into 3D we will see more advanced explosives and perhaps one day, imho, we'll see nuclear fusion done by biological entities.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2005
  14. Dec 1, 2005 #13
    Hmm..I was planning to go to college for electrical engineering. I don't doubt modern physics or anything, I don't believe in cold fusion...

    I wonder why it'd be engineers that think that way?
     
  15. Dec 1, 2005 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm not sure we connected there: I said "cold fusion" is not a scientific term - "muon catalyzed fusion" most certainly is. All I was saying is that they aren't necessarily the same thing.
     
  16. Dec 1, 2005 #15

    Lisa!

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I want to ask a fair question as a well let say a physicist: what's cold fusion? :shy:

    Don't explin it please. Iknow what's it. But I thought engineers might give me some money if I ask this question!
     
  17. Dec 1, 2005 #16

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    I agree. However, I'd like to have cold fusion be synonymous with muon catalyzed fusion or at least be defined as fusion under STP conditions. Of course Stanley Pons and M.F's work is not cold fusion because, well technically there was no nuclear fusion.

    I just dont agree with people who say "cold fusion is impossible" - because it does exist, it is possible, and it is the way of the future.
     
  18. Dec 1, 2005 #17

    Lisa!

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  19. Dec 1, 2005 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The problem is that "STP conditions" still isn't a good enough description. When dealing with processes on an atomic level, the concept of temperature doesn't have any meaning (which is why the better term is "low energy nuclear reactions"), so the very term "cold fusion" - regardless of what it is meant to describe - is unscientific.
    That's circular reasoning, though. It's like saying the sound barrier was a real barrier until it was broken - it's either possible to break it ahead of time or it isn't (just like what you say below about cold fusion). And what P&F claimed they did, they didn't, and not for lack of trying - what they claimed was possible, isn't. If it had worked, it would have meant that cold fusion works - since it failed and it's theoretical basis is nonexistent, it means that cold fusion (what they described as cold fusion) doesn't work.
    Well, aside from the question of definitions, there's a pretty steep uphill burden of proof that doesn't appear likely to be overcome any time soon.

    And yeah, we're kinda getting OT here...
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2005
  20. Dec 1, 2005 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well that's more than a little scary. Aside from the statement that the current physics is incomplete hence there could be surprises, what exactly do you spend so much time discussing?
     
  21. Dec 1, 2005 #20

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If his arguments are anything like what I tend to notice... they probably argue the same crap over and over and over again :P "No no, i'm right because physics is incomplete which means theres a way to make anti-gravity", "no you're wrong, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean everything you want does indeed exist"
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Crazy electrical engineer
  1. This is crazy! (Replies: 3)

Loading...