Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Render

People reject science because...

236 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

spacecowboy342

Yes, but that does not automatically suggest the electron is a wave-like phenomenon until observed. It merely suggests the classical view of the electron is incomplete.

That makes sense I suppose. That why it is the theory of quantum mechanics and not the law of quantum mechanics. Still, as I said the theory explains things well and has certainly not been disproved. I am definitely no expert in the field so I rely on what I read and watch on videos and science programs and I know there are many different views on the meaning of these experiments. It is confusing sometimes. I have heard some pretty bizarre conjecture about this. I think it was Arthur Eddington who said the universe is not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we can imagine.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Ah, yes,more of the propaganda about qm. I've read that the transistor developed by Schockley et al would not have been possible without the sputtering developed by a couple of particle physicists back in the mid-1930s. Among other nonsense. Just for information about things like that, I have in my posession two reprint manuals, the 1872 Wagner Chemistry Manual and the 1907 Handbook of Experimental Physics. Both those books show laboratory methods of sputtering just about anything that can be sputtered, assuming you know what sputtering is. Further into that little myth, the first transistor was demonstrated at the Chicago World Fair in ~1930 - a fact most people either won't state or don't know. More, germanium diodes were in widespread use in the early 1900s, well before the Copenhagen papers on qm. As a further disproof, Schockley's transistor, as demonstrated, was nothing more than a piece of galena with some gold leaf contacts. You're welcome to look that up, but for your own sake, find it somewhere other than wikipedia, which is useless except to find real reference material, sometimes. Having spent much of my life in electronics engineering, including working with intel, Fairchild, Chips, AMD and others, I can assure you that there isn't a single one of those companies that placed faith in qm in order to do their development. The fellows that left Schockley's labs to form Fairchild (considered the great granddaddy of integrated circuits, since they produced the first viable ICs) weren't in the least concerned about qm, and were too busy doing real work to bother with it.

The awestruck writers of qm seem to thrive on putting words into people's mouths, so I suggest you never listen to those writers except for entertainment. Those writers neither know particle physics, nor do they understand it.

Einstein didn't really "work" for years to discredit qm, since qm utilizes Einstein's theories to the point of weariness, what with their relativistic approachs, time dilation/contraction and all the rest of that crap. What he did state on several occasions was that he considered qm a "silly" pursuit, and considering the gyrations used to "prove" things, I'd be forced to agree. Even such stuff as the fundamental Bell test has major flaws, specifically that it belongs to the tester to determine the statistical probability of his theoretical stuff, whatever that might be. Frankly, if any engineer designed anything the same way, he/she wouldn't be an engineer very long, more likely flipping burgers at McDonald's. You design something electronic, you damned well better know almost exactly what it's going to do, all of it, or you and your company just bought a pile of carbonized parts. There are, of course, times when things happen unforeseen, but those things are many times better explained by something other than qm, since those many times qm simply ignores that sort of thing since the qm people can't explain them. And yes, I can provide examples.

As to the other you mentioned, I don't give much of a rat's ass how the universe started, if in fact it did have a beginning, which I doubt. I have no problem with the concept of a universe that has always been and always will be, nor do I have any problem with an infinite universe. I do have a problem with people telling me that initially the universe was an infinitesmally small point of condensed matter than somehow exploded, and yea, verily, came about the universe as we know it. That strikes me the same way it struck Hubbell in one of his last communiques, which qm has changed so that Hubbell claimed to prove the red shift was due to the big bang. What Hubbell actually said was that in his opinion, there was no big bang, and the universe is infinite, and the red shift is due to something other than an expanding universe. I can find the quote if you wish, but what's been done is that qm writers claim something that is simply untrue.

So long as there are egos and money involved, the effectiveness of the revered scientific method is limited. While it is true that it can be effective, it is not now so. I can relate stories of building stuff that defies the so-called "laws" of physics, having those devices instrumented by well qualified engineers and scientists, and then having those same witnesses tell me the stuff didn't really work. In other words, if it goes against the current paradigm, it cannot be, even though that paradigm is filled with contradictions itself.

You see, my reputation was that of a troubleshooter who could make things work, albeit somewhat unorthodox. And that, sir, is why I never wanted for contract work. It is also why I refused, for all those years, to prostitute myself in favor of some company profit nonsense. And there are stories about that, too.

As stated, I will not attempt to convince anyone of anything, other than to actually learn about something and then make his/her own decision as to the validity thereof. To do otherwise makes no sense. And I will guarantee that there have been many times I've discovered phenomena that have rattled my own scientific foundations, something which is no fun at all, but does come with the territory. My problem is with the ones who know everything is as stated. 'Cause it's not.

By all means of respect, but you don't seem to know as much as you would like to think about QM, semiconductors, the design of same and their history. Needless to say that Intel, AMD et. al. use QM every single day in their design and production, it is how they find optimum gate lengths/widths, material depositions, etc.

Oh, and please do source the reference for the transistor being presented at the world fair in Chicago in 1930. It is, naturally, not correct.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I read above what sound to me like efforts to reject the wavelike nature of particles (in this case electrons) and to assert that this is just some sort of mathematical convenience, that it really is a particle all along. I also think I am reading a suggestion that "tunneling" is not what it seems but again just a mathematical convenience.

If this is what I am getting, it is contrary to my meager understanding. The wave-particle duality and the ensuing "collapse" of this probability value to a specific particulate value upon observation seem well established, and, while counterintuitive, are nevertheless seen as real things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave

It is certainly possible to interpret the wavefunction, and the collapse, as convenient mathematical tools.

Bohm-de Broglie theory is the one that springs to my mind (there is a list on the wiki, naturally); here the wavefunction is still a ``thing'' that objects have, but there is no wave/particle duality (for example; an electron is always a particle, but it has a guiding wavefunction).

Unfortunately a lot of interpretations of quantum mechanics venture too far - at least in the public sphere - into new age mysticism and pseudoscience, and I think that is one of the reasons why scientists are reluctant to really study them.

(For example, the ``many worlds theory'' isn't really a legitimate theory any more, but everyone has heard about it.)

It is also difficult to find ways of testing these theories. Even legitimate theories (like Bohm-de Broglie) tend to be mathematically more complicated and typically give the same predictions as regular old quantum mechanics.

-----------

However I don't think you can discard both wavefunctions and wave/particle duality.

The solutions to Schrodinger's equation for a Coulomb potential (i.e. the electron states of a hydrogen atom) are quite different for particles and waves; only the wave solutions match what we observe.

So either an electron can really become wavelike in the correct situation, or it is a particle that is influenced by some unobservable wave-like entity (the ``wavefunction'').

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat

By all means of respect, but you don't seem to know as much as you would like to think about QM, semiconductors, the design of same and their history. Needless to say that Intel, AMD et. al. use QM every single day in their design and production, it is how they find optimum gate lengths/widths, material depositions, etc.

Oh, and please do source the reference for the transistor being presented at the world fair in Chicago in 1930. It is, naturally, not correct.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Never worked in a chip house, have you? Needless to say, if you should ever get inside one, you won't find a quantum physics department. You'll find an applied materials lab of some sort, and a whole lot of microcode, firmware, software departments; you'll find some high end computer science people, and a whole lot of people working in darkened rooms laying out ICs, and a whole lot of theorists working on how to better accomplish such wondrous things as hyperthreading, hypertransport, virtual cores or other stuff way out of your league. Fact is, when I was working in Silicon Valley such places as Berserkely (sp intentional) were looked on pretty much as jokes, where theories likely as not originate in the minds of people smoking illegal stuff.

Sorry, but quantum physics is the last subject in the minds of those who do real life work, and more than likely they couldn't care less what qm says or does, or what qm claims to be.

Look up some history for once. And have a jaded view of it, so you actually get all the facts, not some crud from a bunch of wide-eyed wannabes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Was it not possible for you to adequately make the point you wished to make without resorting to stroppy attitude?

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Never worked in a chip house, have you?

Sadly to say I work with such and deal with such designs every single day.

Needless to say, if you should ever get inside one, you won't find a quantum physics department.

Didn't say that you would and the need to state such merely emphasizes that you don't really know that much about QM or anything about semiconductor materials. How do you think the Fermi-Dirac distribution is derived for doped semiconductor materials? Indeed, from QM. And guess what, that is used every single day in semiconductor design. And so are many other design aspects the result of QM.

You'll find an applied materials lab of some sort, and a whole lot of microcode, firmware, software departments; you'll find some high end computer science people, and a whole lot of people working in darkened rooms laying out ICs, and a whole lot of theorists working on how to better accomplish such wondrous things as hyperthreading, hypertransport, virtual cores or other stuff way out of your league. Fact is, when I was working in Silicon Valley such places as Berserkely (sp intentional) were looked on pretty much as jokes, where theories likely as not originate in the minds of people smoking illegal stuff.

Now I know how little you actually know about such.

Sorry, but quantum physics is the last subject in the minds of those who do real life work, and more than likely they couldn't care less what qm says or does, or what qm claims to be.

Never claimed that these people cared about QM. Yet, they are using it every single day and those really doing the designs understands those aspects of QM very well!

Look up some history for once. And have a jaded view of it, so you actually get all the facts, not some crud from a bunch of wide-eyed wannabes.

I know my semiconductor material history very well, thank you and it is very obvious who of us doesn't. If you really knew what you were talking about you would have refuted my points in detail, yet you didn't.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat

Based on several thousands of hours dealing with these things at intel, AMD, Chips Inc, TI and Motorola, including several custom houses, Badeskov, put bluntly I simply do not believe you.

Since it is useless to attempt to convince you otherwise, and you will believe what you want to believe, I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. Hasta luego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Based on several thousands of hours dealing with these things at intel, AMD, Chips Inc, TI and Motorola, including several custom houses, Badeskov, put bluntly I simply do not believe you.

Since it is useless to attempt to convince you otherwise, and you will believe what you want to believe, I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. Hasta luego.

Don't believe what? That QM is the basis for the Fermi-Dirac distribution or that the Fermi-Dirac distribution is extensively used in the design of semiconductors?

What did you do there? Change light bulbs? You sure didn't do anything semiconductor related, that much is obvious.

Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not, the facts are pretty selexplanatory - and not on your side.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

<snip>

Since it is useless to attempt to convince you otherwise, and you will believe what you want to believe,

Since you haven't even tried, that statement is rather moot. But to add a little bit, I will post a few links (albeit I have very little hope you actually understand what they mean):

List of equations in quantum mechanics (Wiki).

Probability Distributions Property or effect Nomenclature Equation Density of states 7093c9ebf3a369067126ec3e04690172.pngFermi-Dirac distribution(fermions)
  • P(Ei) = probability of energy Ei
  • g(Ei) = degeneracy of energy Ei (no of states with same energy)
  • μ = chemical potential

da7b9920f2195049bf358eab9380afe6.pngBose-Einstein distribution(bosons) 1c501d4447080c3885b36b57eb5968b1.png

The equations for both the density of states and the Fermi-Dirac distribution are widely used in semiconductor design. They may be embedded in simulation tools, but they nonetheless form the basics of semiconductor design. As described below:

Fermi levels:

The conduction band in a piece of semiconductor consists of many available, allowed, empty energy levels.

When calculating how many electrons will fill these levels and thus be counted in n, contributing to

conductivity, we consider two factors:

• How many energy levels are there within a given range of energy, in our case the conduction band, and

• How likely is it that each level will be populated by an electron.

The likelihood in the second item is given by a probability function called the Fermi-Dirac distribution

function. f(E) is the probability that a level with energy E will be filled by an electron, and the expression

is: ...

Generally, if I were you, I would get my basics lined up before running off and trying to lecture others on subjects they are evidently much more familiar with. Frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jsowersby

Then obviously you didn't pay attention to the list you just posted, most are harmful. Yet you're here trying to spin vaccines are more harmful.

And yet the majority of untreated HIV/AIDS result in death from the disease.

Sorry, all you've done is skipped from hypothesis to fact.

Science has reduced some diseases. It has also kept them in deep freeze so they are not totally extinct. Some of the diseases that were supposed to be eradicated are now weaponized.

Science itself is a valuable service to mankind. Scientists are a whole other story. Scientists, including medical doctors, or any other "logist" are not above corruption. They are bought and sold routinely to conduct "studies" for anyone who has the cash to line their pockets with. Scientists said xrays were safe, DDT was harmless, the list of things that have proven to be harmful is very long. Science has lost some cred due to scientists who have no moral fiber. There is also the gruop think aspect of the medical establishment. Many scientists won't risk their reputation to blow the whistle on other scientists with less than altruistic motives. There also needs to be a major paradigm shift in the materialist world view.

Matter, according to quantum physics, is dependent on our own consciousness to change it from wave to particle. Meaning what we see as real is just a reflection of us, our awareness. Thuis view is virtually the same as Taoist and Buddhist cosmology. TO hold on to the view that Western science has the ultimate understanding of the universe and reality is naive. It's like saying only one view can be right. There are many views with many perspectives and alll have their strong points and serve a purpose. Western science is great at catagorizing the material, studying the physcial but it lacks in seeing past the end of the microscope into the unseen. If it can't be measured it's not real is the mantra of many scientists. Theoretical physicists say matter is just a possibility. What the scientist is actually measuring is an illusion made solid by his own consciousness.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Matter, according to quantum physics, is dependent on our own consciousness to change it from wave to particle. Meaning what we see as real is just a reflection of us, our awareness.

Actually no, quantum physics has stated NO such thing. However I have heard this argument before, consciousness causes collapse, quantum mysticism, quantum quackery, pseudoscience.

Do you even bother to research these claims before posting such garbage under the guise of science?

"Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts.

However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations."

http://www.csicop.or...antum_quackery/

Thuis view is virtually the same as Taoist and Buddhist cosmology. TO hold on to the view that Western science has the ultimate understanding of the universe and reality is naive. It's like saying only one view can be right. There are many views with many perspectives and alll have their strong points and serve a purpose. Western science is great at catagorizing the material, studying the physcial but it lacks in seeing past the end of the microscope into the unseen. If it can't be measured it's not real is the mantra of many scientists. Theoretical physicists say matter is just a possibility. What the scientist is actually measuring is an illusion made solid by his own consciousness.

A direct contradiction to the research being done at CERN.

What you're actually doing is presenting your misinformed opinion as a scientific fact. Numerous experiments with non-conscious "observers" have refuted this solipsistic nonsense.

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Insaniac

Some reject Science because the most popular scientist's are pseudo know-it-all ignoramus' who believe Science should give the explanation of the un-investigated, rather than an investigation of the unexplained.

This is my reason atleast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Some reject Science because the most popular scientist's are pseudo know-it-all ignoramus' who believe Science should give the explanation of the un-investigated, rather than an investigation of the unexplained.

This is my reason atleast.

Kinda like you, except for the popular part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Some reject Science because the most popular scientist's are pseudo know-it-all ignoramus' who believe Science should give the explanation of the un-investigated, rather than an investigation of the unexplained.

This is my reason atleast.

For the life of me I can't think of a prominent scientist who fits that description.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Insaniac

Kinda like you, except for the popular part.

lmao!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jsowersby

Actually no, quantum physics has stated NO such thing. However I have heard this argument before, consciousness causes collapse, quantum mysticism, quantum quackery, pseudoscience.

Do you even bother to research these claims before posting such garbage under the guise of science?

"Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts.

However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations."

http://www.csicop.or...antum_quackery/

A direct contradiction to the research being done at CERN.

What you're actually doing is presenting your misinformed opinion as a scientific fact. Numerous experiments with non-conscious "observers" have refuted this solipsistic nonsense.

Dr. Amit Goswami in the movie Quantum Acitivist spells it out. http://youtu.be/azYJnsXNzPM

I don't expect you to watch it, it is not materialist science you're defending, it's your ego you're feeding. I've seen your posts in here before pretty much always egotistical, arrogant, and rude. You propbably enjoy p***ing people off in a chat room with no risk of facing someone face to face. And you're right it is my opinion based on my own observation, education, and spiritual beliefs. The mind does not control reality itself only its perception/awareness of it (Taosim, Buddhim, Toltec philosophy, Nagualism agree on this) The universe IS one connected whole. The separation is an illusion created by the mind of the observer. I can't see, with my eyes, my connection to to my environment but it is there. The molecules and atoms in the food I eat grown on the Earth I live on are a part of my body. How am I not connected to the Earth and the universe if every atom im my body at one time was in a star? We are all connected to everything in the universe, nothing exists independent of the rest of creation. The ego, buddhist ego, does not like this idea and will condemn and dismiss anything that threatens its dominance in the mind it inhabits. Or, maybe I'm full of **** and this is all delusional thinking brought on by too much LSD. I don't cling to anything I believe. Clinging to any belief halts our evolution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

Posters, please dial down the name-calling. You're all reminded to remain civil and to avoid ridicule. Do not make it personal.

kmt_sesh

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Dr. Amit Goswami in the movie Quantum Acitivist spells it out.

And that is? QM therefore God? That's not science. Not one experiment has shown this.
I don't expect you to watch it, it is not materialist science you're defending, it's your ego you're feeding. I've seen your posts in here before pretty much always egotistical, arrogant, and rude. You propbably enjoy p***ing people off in a chat room with no risk of facing someone face to face. And you're right it is my opinion based on my own observation, education, and spiritual beliefs. The mind does not control reality itself only its perception/awareness of it (Taosim, Buddhim, Toltec philosophy, Nagualism agree on this) The universe IS one connected whole. The separation is an illusion created by the mind of the observer. I can't see, with my eyes, my connection to to my environment but it is there. The molecules and atoms in the food I eat grown on the Earth I live on are a part of my body. How am I not connected to the Earth and the universe if every atom im my body at one time was in a star? We are all connected to everything in the universe, nothing exists independent of the rest of creation. The ego, buddhist ego, does not like this idea and will condemn and dismiss anything that threatens its dominance in the mind it inhabits. Or, maybe I'm full of **** and this is all delusional thinking brought on by too much LSD. I don't cling to anything I believe. Clinging to any belief halts our evolution.

None of this is scientific.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
Matter, according to quantum physics, is dependent on our own consciousness to change it from wave to particle. Meaning what we see as real is just a reflection of us, our awareness.

This is completely and utterly wrong. And that's not my opinion - the people you've chosen to believe have misread the science drastically (and probably for some not inconsiderable profit).

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I guess "quantum" is a pseudo buzz word now. It's too bad these things happen, and tends to mislead the gullible and weak minded, I guess, but they would be mislead anyway.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

I don't expect you to watch it, it is not materialist science you're defending, it's your ego you're feeding. I've seen your posts in here before pretty much always egotistical, arrogant, and rude. You propbably enjoy p***ing people off in a chat room with no risk of facing someone face to face. And you're right it is my opinion based on my own observation, education, and spiritual beliefs. The mind does not control reality itself only its perception/awareness of it (Taosim, Buddhim, Toltec philosophy, Nagualism agree on this) The universe IS one connected whole. The separation is an illusion created by the mind of the observer. I can't see, with my eyes, my connection to to my environment but it is there. The molecules and atoms in the food I eat grown on the Earth I live on are a part of my body. How am I not connected to the Earth and the universe if every atom im my body at one time was in a star? We are all connected to everything in the universe, nothing exists independent of the rest of creation. The ego, buddhist ego, does not like this idea and will condemn and dismiss anything that threatens its dominance in the mind it inhabits. Or, maybe I'm full of **** and this is all delusional thinking brought on by too much LSD. I don't cling to anything I believe. Clinging to any belief halts our evolution.

There is some limited truth in some of what you state.

For example: "The mind does not control reality itself only its perception/awareness of it..." is true, but not in the context in which you place the claim.

And, "The universe IS one connected whole..." is only true in a causal sense, but not in the sense of 'consciousness' which seem to be the thrust of other claims you make.

Howevere, statements such as "The separation is an illusion created by the mind of the observer." is not true at all.

It's ironic that you accuse someone of "feeding their ego" in promoting materialism, when what you promote is actually far more egocentric - because it presumes the observer is intimately responsible for the state of reality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat

Don't have much time so I'll make this quick.

For those who believe in all that about how qm is so necessary and everything is because of it, try dosing with a little reality, not from the junk that abounds on the web these days. For instance, earlier there was a flap on how electronics is so dependent upon qm. Here's the reality, and since I haven't time to do this you'll need to do it yourselves:

Find a newspaper on the web, preferably one from an area heavy in electronics. San Jose Mercury would be a good one, since Silicon Valley still is the leader in the field, or one from Massachusetts or perhaps Dallas-Fort Worth. Use your imagination.

Now go to the classifieds. If qm is in such heavy use and the industry depends on it so much, there should be a lot of jobs requiring a base in that "science". Find the technical jobs, preferably the higher end ones in engineering or science in one form or another. In the Mercury there will probably several hundred, perhaps in the thousands (I haven't looked in a year or two, then only out of curiosity).

Once you've found those, look at the job descriptions and requirements. Make note of all the jobs that require quantum physics in any form and compare that number to those that don't have the requirement.

If anybody actually cares enough to do that, why not pop your results into this thread? Perhaps other people might like to read about what you find,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Don't have much time so I'll make this quick.

For those who believe in all that about how qm is so necessary and everything is because of it, try dosing with a little reality, not from the junk that abounds on the web these days. For instance, earlier there was a flap on how electronics is so dependent upon qm. Here's the reality, and since I haven't time to do this you'll need to do it yourselves:

Find a newspaper on the web, preferably one from an area heavy in electronics. San Jose Mercury would be a good one, since Silicon Valley still is the leader in the field, or one from Massachusetts or perhaps Dallas-Fort Worth. Use your imagination.

Now go to the classifieds. If qm is in such heavy use and the industry depends on it so much, there should be a lot of jobs requiring a base in that "science". Find the technical jobs, preferably the higher end ones in engineering or science in one form or another. In the Mercury there will probably several hundred, perhaps in the thousands (I haven't looked in a year or two, then only out of curiosity).

Once you've found those, look at the job descriptions and requirements. Make note of all the jobs that require quantum physics in any form and compare that number to those that don't have the requirement.

If anybody actually cares enough to do that, why not pop your results into this thread? Perhaps other people might like to read about what you find,.

When you look for a mechanic to do a smog test for you, are you looking for one with an advanced degree in chemistry? No, I didn't think so, but said mechanic is still using tools based on chemistry. Does the same mechanic need to know mechanical engineering to change a tire? No, but the fellow designing the load bearing parts certainly does.

Likewise with Intel, AMD, Broadcom, IBM, etc. You can have a bunch of designers doing logic design flows to generate a given function, however, that flow is based on physical designs by engineers using QM extensively. It is basic solid state physics and knowledge of how semiconductor materials work, which is based on QM. And I can promise you that the materials lab at any such facility knows their QM derived formulas very well. Otherwise they wouldn't be working there.

https://jobs.qualcom...=Indeed_organic:

- 10+ years of design, simulation, testing and verification of both analog, mixed-signal circuits.

- Knowledge of pixel/array and display technologies.

- Troubleshooting and debugging circuit boards and test platforms.

- Experience designing integrated circuit products and bringing them to market

- Understanding of MOS device physics and transistor modeling for analog and digital simulations is important.

https://intel.taleo....51&src=JB-10400

You should possess a minimum of a Master degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering with 5-7 years of CAD development/support and/or VLSI product design experience or a Bachelor degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering with 9-11 years of CAD development/support and/or VLSI product design experience.

Additional qualifications include:

-- Demonstrate experience and expertise with industry standard CAD tools/flows for digital and/or analog design. Specific experience with Cadence Virtuoso and Spectre/Hspice is a plus.

-- Demonstrate experience in digital, mixed-signal, and/or analog circuit design, circuit optimization for low-power and high-speed VLSI.

-- Demonstrate experience in semiconductor device physics, models and technology scaling.

-- Demonstrate experience with software development/programming in high-level languages (e.g. C/C++, TCL, Lisp, Perl) and CAD tool scripting languages (e.g. Cadence SKILL, OCEAN).

-- Demonstrate experience working on with UNIX/Linux platforms.

https://microchip.tm...handler-Arizona

Successful candidate will have expertise in using unix based systems, solid understanding and experience in RTL and digital design using an RTL/Synthesis/APR methodology and use of state of the art VLSI CAD tools.

Also prefer that successful candidate have experience using transistor level simulators such as hspice or hsim and working knowledge of semiconductor device physics, transistor characteristics, and associated layout considerations.

That was just a small subset of job positions out there that requires knowledge of physics that is based on QM (again, electron mobility in MOSFETs, density of states, Fermi levels, etc.). And all are extensively used by design engineers. Any design engineer worth his/her salt knows of Fermi levels and why they are important.

Frankly, I would learn a little bit about the topic before parading ignorance.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jsowersby

I'm aware of the scientific method. The problem with it is it limited to what can be recreated in a lab. What I've said cannot be proven in the materialist paradigm. Consciousness is not a product of the material, in my opinion. Energy (matter) can never be destroyed, only transformed. I think Einstein said that, maybe Newton, not sure. If an ice cube melts does it cease to exist? Consciousness, like water, has more than one state. Does it cease to exist when the body dies? Or, does it return to it's source like the ice cube does, eventually? When the ice cube melts away and becomes water spread out across the ocean the paradigm of much of western science would say the ice cube does not exist, it can no longer be measured or recreated. What I'm saying is that since it has gone beyond the normal means of our perception our first inclination is to say it no longer exists. Someone dies, we think they are gone, we can't perceive them anymore. Our perception says they are dead, gone. This becomes the reality, people all agree, yes the person is gone. But since energy cannot be destroyed the atoms of the body return to the earth, the energy of consciousness is released. The ice cube melts. Stay with me, was the ice cube ever separate from the ocean? Am I separate from what I am perceiving as reality? When I said reality is a reflection of our consiousness I'm not saying I can bend the laws of physics to my will I'm saying what I feel, think, say and do will create my reality, as I perceive it. Not because my mind controls reality but because they are reflections of each other. I you wake up every day and say, "life sucks, I'm going to have a crappy day," and beleive that whole heartedly, chances are you will. How does this relate to QM you ask? Electrons. From what I undertand, (please correct me if I'm wrong) electrons don't seem to follow Newtonian physics. The show, "Through the Wormhole" talked about the slit experiment mentioned in another post. It talked about the wave and particle but also about electrons existing in two places at once, well here.

The ocean, on some level metaphorically speaking, responds to the ice cube's perceptions and feelings in a way that is imperceptible. Our minds, in very small imperceivable ways, influences our environment. [media=]

Not proof I know but interesting. And in no way scientific.

Edited by jsowersby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.