A Conversation for Wave-Particle Duality
de Broglie and his balls
Jan^ Posted Sep 27, 1999
Thank you - it is time the division between Science (note the capital S) and engineering was healed. I've been on both sides, and while the philosophy is differnt, the ends are the same.
de Broglie and his balls
Dudemeister Posted Sep 27, 1999
So have I - I am an engineer at present. Not only do people seem to think that technology and engineering are science, they don't seem to realise that an Engineer is a trained professional - ie they had to lean a load of science to be able to apply it. So we get it at both ends!
de Broglie and his balls
Jan^ Posted Sep 28, 1999
Toooooo true. Most of the people I have worked with in engineering have degrees in maths or physics anyway. Engineering seems to conjure up images of greasy hands and oil-stained overalls, which is far from the truth. But you know that. I fear it will be a long time before the word 'engineer' is socially acceptable. (unless you want your computer decoked, of course!)
de Broglie and his balls
That Wicked Person Posted Sep 28, 1999
Hard for me to relate to that. I got an Arts BA in literature, and have not found related work. I am working as a test operator at Nortel Networks in Ottawa. In a place like that, engineers are mysterious wizards with individualistic knowledge beyond the ken of managers and operators alike. When one leave the company, no one can figure out what he was doing, so people have great trouble picking up where he or she left off. They also make double my salary. To me the word means that someone has the theory and daily works with the reality, inches away from invention at all times. I guess I'm a starry-eyed romantic.
de Broglie and his balls
Dudemeister Posted Sep 29, 1999
In University we used to call beer "Engineering Milk" hence the starry eyed bit. There was some stuff about quantum mechanics and solving wierd equations in multidimensional space as well.
de Broglie and his balls
That Wicked Person Posted Sep 29, 1999
In University, the "artsy" people thought the engineers were uncultured, drunken boors who were good at math and science, who would take a Shakespeare course with us, loudly proclaiming how little work it was to do Arts courses, then dropping out after a month because they "couldn't get it" and had trouble with opinions and reactions as opposed to "the right answers". That's just a general impression we had. Now, in a hi-tech job, those of us with BA's in various things are the "do you want fries with that?" people with rusting cars(but who know all about Shakespeare, the opera or Sociological theory.) Strange, huh? I don't think our civilization is willing to spend money and interest on much that isn't technology-related right now. Even the entertainment industry is dependant heavilly upon technology to get people's interest. If you've got a band, you need lasers. If you have a film you need explosions and morphing software. "The Classics" end up being "Alien" and "Terminator" instead of Troilus and Cressida(which is probably a car by Toyota now)
de Broglie and his balls
Jan^ Posted Sep 29, 1999
Back to the Two Cultures again......
From the opposite direction, so perhaps this is a circular argument. To break the circle a bit of cross-cultural fertilisation is required.
'H2SO4 professor, and the reciprocal of Pi to your dear wife', as Michael Flanders once said. It is unfortunate that scientists and artists do not communicate, but effort is required on both sides. It is a cliché to say that maths is difficult, but I have also met an engineer who refuses to read fiction, so the ignorance is two-way. SOMETHING must be done - any ideas?
de Broglie and his balls
Dudemeister Posted Sep 30, 1999
Getting philosophical - Is the human nature that different in the persuit of science and art? A scientist tries to understand the world and how we can explain it, then communicate that in a way that other folks can understand - all in the effort to expand knowledge and understanding of the Universe. An artist tries to understand the world and express that in a personal way that strives to communicate a better understanding of an interpretation of something in the universe.
Some engineers are closet artsies too and are often into science in a big way. One way not to distinguish yourself from the other badly dressed drunken boors at places like (McGill U. for example), is to dress badly and drink lots of engineering milk (in plastic cups, glass is a bad idea, as someone gets hurt when hit by it) - Saving the appreciation of art to spare times in between pub nites and having to get up at 6 to prepare for a project presentation or go to that intern job inbetween classes - sleeping in those Shakespeare 101 classes (read it before).
de Broglie and his balls
That Wicked Person Posted Sep 30, 1999
I think there is genuine problem of snobbery on both ends of things(arts and sciences). This may be because an emotionally immature or insecure(whatz thuh diff?) person who has spent a lot of time and money pursuing something they may possess a natural aptitude for may wish to feel that the other things(the ones they haven't tried, the ones they don't feel they have a natural aptitude for) are *unimportant* things. If they were important things, then that person might feel they aren't well-rounded because they haven't explored them. There certainly is a significant amount of "Arts is EASY! Compared to the sciences, you guys do nothing!"(and I have to say that from the vantage-point of Art, Science and Engineering are pretty close-together looking.) There is always a societal dichotomy between those that study and those who create things. I suppose the snobbery of those who think almost all written fiction sucks, but who can't write a paragraph themselves is mirrored in the world of Somethingologists, versus Whoozit Engineers? I guess this is the same dichotomy between those who do things(called "practical") and those who think about things(called "theoretical"). The usefulness of the "practical" is soon and easilly-seen by the average man, and the lofty theoreticians are affronted by having to prove their usefulness when immediate usefulness is not the strong-point of their field. Or something. Hope you didn't go over all of this before I joined in. (by the way, almost every science/engineer person I know, when asked "Do you read?" says scornfully "Well, not FICTION!" That's snobbery for you!)
de Broglie and his balls
The Jester (P. S. of Village Idiots, Muse of Comedians, Keeper of Jokes, Chef and Seraph of Bad Jokes) LUG @ A458228 Posted Sep 30, 1999
de Broglie and his balls
The Jester (P. S. of Village Idiots, Muse of Comedians, Keeper of Jokes, Chef and Seraph of Bad Jokes) LUG @ A458228 Posted Sep 30, 1999
Billy Jones is dead
We will see him no more
For what he thought was H2O
Was H2SO4
de Broglie and his balls
That Wicked Person Posted Sep 30, 1999
to people who don't like to think, and possibly to yourself, if you don't do a good job of it...
de Broglie and his balls
Dudemeister Posted Oct 1, 1999
A very real problem - is that those in the engineering field probably do not read or wite enough - they are often pretty bad at it. I see lots of this in practice - turning pages upside down in an attempt to understand some cryptic memo written in some strange language remotely resembling English. Those who can communicate may enjoy an occupation in Sales/Marketing for Engineering companies, as people can understand what they are trying to say.
To be a professional in any field it helps to have a good general well rounded background - especially if you have to communicate with more than a computer keyboard.
de Broglie and his balls
Irene Posted Oct 1, 1999
I can't say I know much about Engineers, being a Physicist. However, I have found that most Physicists (certainly the better ones) are quite capable artistically - most will play musical instruments, draw, speak several languages, or be involved in something else which is generally considered to come under the Arts umbrella. I believe that being a scientist is a very creative activity and, as a result, those who have no artistic sensitivity will struggle when it comes to original research.
As for wave-particle duality, my take is that ALL matter has this wave-particle duality, however, the de Broglie wavelength of a bus, for example, is so small compared to the size of the bus that there is no way to make one diffract when aiming it at a wall containing a couple of slits. Exactly what matter is is not understood. All we know is that in some circumstances sub-atomic particles behave as though they were particles, and in other circumstances they behave like waves. As we do not live life in the quantum regime, we do not experience these things on a day-to-day basis and so they do not behave in a manner we would consider to be common sense...isn't mother nature marvelous!
de Broglie and his balls
Jan^ Posted Oct 1, 1999
Being a physicist does require a bit of an artistic temperament, I agree. As you say, we don't live in a world where the subtleties of sub-atomic physics are apparent - but then try explaining that to a non-physicist! Welche Schade!
de Broglie and his balls
Dudemeister Posted Oct 1, 1999
I shall always be a scientist, artist and engineer until I die - like in the quote a few post ago from I. Newton - Wondering in what is and why it is. Also as an artist trying to express something and appreciate the work of others. As an engineer applying that in the commercial world and making a living (I guess). Perhaps an engineer by profession to a "pure" scientist is a similar analogy to a graphic designer and "pure" artist.
One of things I remember most from being a child was the wonder of discovery and studying the sciences and the creative genius of invention and engineering. I had the fortune at a young age to attend a lecture by the late E. Laithwaite at the engineering company my father worked at. At the time he was one of my idols (an engineer) - being into antigravity, linear motors and doing things like recently demonstrating to preteen children, like me, on national UK TV things that may call into question Newton's 3rd law (in the Royal Academy) - explaining the physics of gyroscopes and explaining and questioning that.., and the marvels of magnetism and application to super-efficient rapid transport.
To my suprise - the lecture I attended was about the beauty of shapes in nature - particularly insects and the forms and apparati they have that we can't understand yet or explain - the perfection of a chamber pot design and the inapropriateness of the common teapot to it's job (the chamber pot's better). A brilliant speaker - and engineer.
de Broglie and his balls
Jan^ Posted Oct 2, 1999
Prof Laithewaite was a great teacher - I remember his Royal Institution lectures. Teaching is an art, some can do it, some can't, but teaching science is perhaps the most difficult of all. To enthuse students about something as dry as science can seem requires enthusiasm and a deep knowledge of the subject. Newton was apparently a rotten teacher, yet he discovered great areas of science, however he was no artist, so I think both traits are required to make a good teacher.
de Broglie and his balls
Dudemeister Posted Oct 2, 1999
And art teachers are another breed apart.
I met prof. Laithewaite at that lecture (not at the R.I. sorry mixed up names in haste) - and after more than 20 years remember many details about that lecture, and talking to him - that is something to be said - sometimes I can't remember someone I met last week. The art of presentation and making your point is an important ability - especially when you strive to achieve in a marketing capacity for an engineering company.
I also remember many of my University Engineering lecturers from engineers. mathematicians and other scientists. The best had unique personalities and lecturing techniques. Even though in my work today I rarely, if ever call upon such things as solving equations in complex spaces to describe system repsonses, I remember this stuff thanks to a few creative geniuses who sould make complex seem simple with a few pictures and (after all) really understood what they were talking about. Some of the best were great fun, and fun to make fun of (and they knew it).
Science is not dry - but a dry, uninteresting person can quickly make it seem so. Newton was, they say, a bit difficult with people, so he probably is not remembered for explaining things well, or listening - However, he is remembered not just for his work, and how he actually got someone to listen to him. Contrast that with Einstein who was quite the personality.
Young children are fascinated by any discovery and science is the wonder of discovery. A poor teacher simply can not understand that or be able to communicate it well - it's not easy I'm sure. Those adults who "hate" science probably had those bad teahcers or none at all.
de Broglie and his balls
Irene Posted Oct 3, 1999
I agree, teaching is an art as much as anything else, and to be good at teaching science also requires a deep understanding of the subject. Some people are extremely gifted, others should never attempt it...I've had my share of both.
A real difficulty we have in NZ is that most teachers of young children have virtually no understanding of science and, therefore, cannot impart a knowledge, respect, or love for the subject. I think when I was young I probably got my love of science via my Father - he had a great respect for it, although little understanding, and we watched lots of documentaries on TV which, 20-30 years ago, were plentiful and often very good. There does not seem to be as much of that around today, nor the demand.
Adults can be particularly difficult to convince of the "realities" of quantum physics and relativity. I recently had some indirect interactions with a collegue of my husband's who was asking about relativity. It seems he understands the concepts and I explained to him the evidence, all of which he accepted, but he just outright refuses to accept that relativity is real. He seems to be stuck in a thought process of "it doesn't make sense, therefore I refuse to accept it". I recently heard that he is now reading Schroedinger's Cat...
Key: Complain about this post
de Broglie and his balls
- 21: Dudemeister (Sep 27, 1999)
- 22: Jan^ (Sep 27, 1999)
- 23: Dudemeister (Sep 27, 1999)
- 24: Jan^ (Sep 28, 1999)
- 25: That Wicked Person (Sep 28, 1999)
- 26: Dudemeister (Sep 29, 1999)
- 27: That Wicked Person (Sep 29, 1999)
- 28: Jan^ (Sep 29, 1999)
- 29: Dudemeister (Sep 30, 1999)
- 30: That Wicked Person (Sep 30, 1999)
- 31: The Jester (P. S. of Village Idiots, Muse of Comedians, Keeper of Jokes, Chef and Seraph of Bad Jokes) LUG @ A458228 (Sep 30, 1999)
- 32: The Jester (P. S. of Village Idiots, Muse of Comedians, Keeper of Jokes, Chef and Seraph of Bad Jokes) LUG @ A458228 (Sep 30, 1999)
- 33: That Wicked Person (Sep 30, 1999)
- 34: Dudemeister (Oct 1, 1999)
- 35: Irene (Oct 1, 1999)
- 36: Jan^ (Oct 1, 1999)
- 37: Dudemeister (Oct 1, 1999)
- 38: Jan^ (Oct 2, 1999)
- 39: Dudemeister (Oct 2, 1999)
- 40: Irene (Oct 3, 1999)
More Conversations for Wave-Particle Duality
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."