Nevertheless it's not the whole story
During the summer semester I will be taking a course on something regarding applications of linear algebra, plus another course on regression analysis. This last one sounds very interesting, apparently, it involves using a software called STATA to handle huge data sets and create regression analysis out of it, plus other stuff, I have to check the syllabus more carefully. I guess it might have some Data Science orientation, which is like a very hot topic today in many industries. I honestly have zero interest on learning anything regarding machine learning or AI.
Very nice!! Sounds interesting, I remember now why I am an engineer and not a physicist. Don't get me wrong, I find it interesting, but I am really not that interested on going that deep into the rabbit hole.
Hey 5v333, so what's next for this semester?
Wow! So you are a going from Sweden to Switzerland as a group? That sounds amazing. Also, when you say solid state physics, does that involve semiconductor physics? I've take several courses in semiconductor physics, and, even though the theory definitely works, I still think it is a fantasy. The whole idea of the Schrödinger's wave function solution being the probability density function used to compute the probabilities of finding a particle, or the energy band theory, etc.... seems to me a good idea that somehow works, but that doesn't really explain the truth of what is happening.Same as before but rel mechanics comes after christmas. Instead we will have solid state physics this semester.
It will basically be material physics from molecules through gases and solids.
Loads of quantum physics, combinatorics and distributions.
We are going to visit Cern aswell!!!!
Spin is a made up fantasy in order not to discard Pauli's exclusion principle, simple as that, you can either say that Pauli's exclusion principle was wrong, or you can invent the idea or analogy of electrons spinning to make sense of it. Sorry, quantum theory is a patched theory to make things agree with the real world. In terms of semiconductor physics, Quantum Theory as taught is not really used in the real world, everyone uses some type of behavioral modelling, which consists of taking measurements and using some fancy curve fitting, that is basically it; it is not much different from trial and error.
Spin is a fantasy. Yes there is something that can be related to spin, there is no doubt about it, but it is still a fantasy, the concept that is.
It is not the same fudging in my opinion, Quantum is a theory patched up all over the place, Maxwell works as is, I can attest that FEM gives very, very precise results; I can't say the same about Quantum theory, specifically speaking when applied to semiconductors.
Well, nothing in science can explain what anything is at the fundamental level, like gravity, or if you even go further, nothing in science can say why 1 is 1, that is in the realm of philosophy, but that is not my point. My point is that Maxwell equations work perfectly well, theory matches reality, not so with Quantum Mechanics, you get some equation for a semiconductor, and reality differs by several orders of magnitude from the results of the equation, then they add an "empirical constant" and suddenly the theory matches reality. That is my point. It is an extremely patched theory. And just to be clear, I am talking here about QM in the context of semiconductor physics.Maxwell cant explain what induction is, just how to do some calculations where it is involved.
Im not even sure if anybody can explain what a field is. It is just a patched up theory as you say but a theory that follows some theorems and can be proved in many ways. Just like in quantum theory.
I think it is like you said about engineers and physicians. We are interested in things on different levels.
But it is also worth noting that quantum and relativistic theory is just about 100y old. While most things in classical physics goes back about 400y's.
Some things are impossible to discover because, as my friend says, it would take a particle accelerator that goeas al the way to the moon and back. Sounds like heisenberg actually.
I wasn't trying to create an argument, it was meant as friendly conversation. I was mocking engineers, but perhaps you felt I was attacking physicists. In any case, it wasn't my intention. Why would you say I reason in a "loop way" with lots of contradictions, I don't know, what is "loopy" about my reasoning? I thought we were just chatting and having a light conversation; I even mocked my own job.
To be fair, my jokes weren't that good either. Good day to you too.
