Scientists detect dark lightning linked to visible lightning

Apr 24, 2013
Three images, left to right, of the same thundercloud depict a less-than-10-milliseconds-long sequence of events: (left) formation within the cloud of a small channel, or ‘leader,’ of electrical conductivity (yellow line) with weak emission of radio signals (ripples), to (middle) a burst of both dark lightning (pink) and radio waves (larger ripples), to (right) a discharge of bright lightning and more radio waves. Credit: Studio Gohde

(Phys.org)—Researchers have identified a burst of high-energy radiation known as 'dark lightning" immediately preceding a flash of ordinary lightning. The new finding provides observational evidence that the two phenomena are connected, although the exact nature of the relationship between ordinary bright lightning and the dark variety is still unclear, the scientists said.

"Our results indicate that both these phenomena, dark and bright , are intrinsic processes in the discharge of lightning," said Nikolai Østgaard, who is a space scientist at the University of Bergen in Norway and led the research team.

He and his collaborators describe their findings in an article recently accepted in Geophysical Research Letters—a journal of the .

Dark lightning is a burst of produced during thunderstorms by extremely fast moving colliding with . Researchers refer to such a burst as a terrestrial gamma ray flash.

Dark lightning is the most energetic radiation produced naturally on Earth, but was unknown before 1991. While scientists now know that dark lightning naturally occurs in thunderstorms, they do not know how frequently these flashes take place or whether visible lightning always accompanies them.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

In 2006, two independent satellites—one equipped with an optical detector and the other carrying a gamma ray detector—coincidentally flew within 300 kilometers (186 miles) of a Venezuelan storm as a powerful exploded within a thundercloud. Scientists were unaware then that a weak flash of dark lightning had preceded the bright lightning.

But last year, Østgaard and his colleagues discovered the previously unknown gamma ray burst while reprocessing the . "We developed a new, improved …and identified more than twice as many terrestrial gamma flashes than originally reported," said Østgaard. He and his team detected the gamma ray flash and a discharge of radio waves immediately preceding the visible lightning.

"This observation was really lucky," Østgaard said. "It was fortuitous that two independent satellites—which are traveling at 7 kilometers per second (4.3 miles per second)—passed right above the same thunderstorm right as the pulse occurred." A radio receiver located 3,000 kilometers (1864 miles) away at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina detected the radio discharge.

The satellites' observations combined with radio-wave data provided the information that Østgaard and his team used to reconstruct this ethereal electrical event, which lasted 300 milliseconds.

Østgaard and his team suspect that the flash of dark lightning was triggered by the strong electric field that developed immediately before the visible lightning. This strong field created a cascade of electrons moving at close to the speed of light. When those relativistic electrons collided with air molecules, they generated gamma rays and lower energy electrons that were the main electric current carrier that produced the strong radio pulse before the visible lightning.

Dark and bright lightning may be intrinsic processes in the discharge of lightning, Østgaard said, but he stressed that more research needs to be done to elucidate the link.

The European Space Agency is planning on launching the Atmospheric Space Interactions Monitor (ASIM) within the next three years, which will be able to better detect both dark and visible lightning from space, said Østgaard, who is part of the team that is building the ASIM gamma-ray detector.

Dark lightning has remained a perplexing phenomenon due to scientific limitations and a dearth of measurements, Østgaard explained.

"Dark lightning might be a natural process of lightning that we were completely unaware of before 1991," he noted. "But it is right above our heads, which makes it very fascinating."

Explore further: Understanding oceanic earthquake precursors

More information: "Simultaneous observations of optical lightning and terrestrial gamma ray flash from space" onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10… 2/grl.50466/abstract

Related Stories

Firestation: Preparing to study lightning

Nov 06, 2012

(Phys.org)—An experiment to study the effects of lightning flashes on Earth's atmosphere has taken its first steps on its journey to space. The Firestation experiment has undergone numerous tests to make ...

Cassini spots daytime lightning on Saturn

Jul 19, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Saturn was playing the lightning storm blues. NASA's Cassini spacecraft has captured images of last year's storm on Saturn, the largest storm seen up-close at the planet, with bluish spots in ...

Firefly Mission to Study Terrestrial Gamma-ray Flashes

Feb 02, 2010

High-energy bursts of gamma rays typically occur far out in space, perhaps near black holes or other high-energy cosmic phenomena. So imagine scientists' surprise in the mid-1990s when they found these powerful ...

Recommended for you

The ocean's living carbon pumps

17 hours ago

When we talk about global carbon fixation – "pumping" carbon out of the atmosphere and fixing it into organic molecules by photosynthesis – proper measurement is key to understanding this process. By ...

User comments : 84

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

_ilbud
1 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2013
A terrible blow to the psychic pets camp.
Astricus
1 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2013
gamma elastic recoil....
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (18) Apr 24, 2013
This is where circuit theory is important. It's readily obvious the "dark lightning" (electric current) and the normal lightning are part of a larger circuit.

"From the smallest particle to the largest galactic formation, a web of electrical circuitry connects and unifies all of nature, organizing galaxies, energizing stars, giving birth to planets and, on our own world, controlling weather and animating biological organisms. There are no isolated islands in an electric universe."

~David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill
Vyhea
4.2 / 5 (15) Apr 24, 2013
This is where circuit theory is important. It's readily obvious the "dark lightning" (electric current) and the normal lightning are part of a larger circuit.

About as "readily obvious" as confirmation bias.
Telekinetic
1.6 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2013
If the visible lightning we're familiar with produces antimatter that flies off into space, will dark lightning produce something else, like dark antimatter?
LarryD
1 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2013
Oh come on!, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Lightning...What's next? If Dark Lightning is electric current why not call it that. Mind you, it puts an appropriate meaning to '...I'm in the dark about...'
verkle
1 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2013
Why do we need more satellites to continue this investigation? When we have terrestrial thunderstorms all around us, it makes a lot more economical sense to place earth based equipment to observe this phenomena.

vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2013
Plasma Regulated Electromagnetic phenomena in magnetic Field environment. TGF is part of this process . next dimensional Science dawns upon through close observations.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (16) Apr 25, 2013
Why do we need more satellites to continue this investigation? When we have terrestrial thunderstorms all around us, it makes a lot more economical sense to place earth based equipment to observe this phenomena.

ASIM monitors are not stand-alone satellites, but devices mounted on the International Space Station, which is better placed to observe high altitude phenomena over a wide area than are Earth based monitors.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2013
In referring to lightning being "dark", the author & researchers clearly point out that "dark" is in reference to "gamma radiation" as the frequency of the energy spectrum under discussion.

Gamma radiation is a frequency that is not within the range of human eyesight commonly referred to as "visible light". We need scintillation detectors to detect the presence of the higher frequencies of the electromagnetic energy spectrum.

In recent years "dark" has unfortunately become an umbrella terminology rather than a scientifically meaningful choice or words, thus rendering the term "dark" as a pointless description of anything to which the word has become attached, the author is just trying his best to get your attention, oftentime it works.

antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (13) Apr 25, 2013
"Dark" is not a trademarked word and used for different things in different fields.
If you are interested in a certain field (which is sort of a prerequisite for reading about it - especially if you feel like you can comment on it) then it is no hardship to be expected to be aware of the most basic terminology used in that field.

It's sort of ridiculous that you accuse people who study a field day-in and day-out of obfuscating the language when your entire expertise with it is limited to reading one journalistic piece based on one article (and that only superficialy)

If your lack of knowledge leads you to interpret things wrongly (i.e. it leads you into attaching a wrong significance to a word) then that's YOUR problem.
Stop blaiming the authors for your shortcomings.
QuixoteJ
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2013
[the article]But last year, Østgaard and his colleagues discovered the previously unknown gamma ray burst while reprocessing the satellite data. "We developed a new, improved search algorithm…and identified more than twice as many terrestrial gamma flashes than originally reported,"
"This observation was really lucky," Østgaard said. "It was fortuitous that two independent satellites...passed right above the same thunderstorm right as the pulse occurred." A radio receiver located 3,000 kilometers (1864 miles) away at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina detected the radio discharge.
The satellites' observations combined with radio-wave data provided the information that Østgaard and his team used to reconstruct this ethereal electrical event, which lasted 300 milliseconds.
This is such a great example of large-scale distributed instrumentation and data analysis coming together to confirm and pinpoint an interesting observation.
CreepyD
3 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2013
Is this the same thing as "Sprites"? Looks it to me. Why have they come up with a new name all of a sudden?
drhoo
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2013
Dark is just used to indicate ya can't see it.
It does imbue a kind of dramatic tone to things via its connotation of evil but no harm is done in trying to make science interesting to the lay public.
QuixoteJ
2 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2013
Is this the same thing as "Sprites"? Looks it to me. Why have they come up with a new name all of a sudden?
It's different. Seems to be a phenomenon that comes before both the lightning and the sprite.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (12) Apr 25, 2013
When it was suggested that radio waves might be originating from the Milky Way, the idea was so preposterous to astrophysicists that they suggested it must either be an error or a hoax.

About 60 years ago, observations seemed to indicate that we lived in a mechanical universe. Then we sent probes up, and discovered charged particles everywhere we went.

We see all of the hallmarks of an electrical universe -- a highly active EM spectrum, plenty of synchrotron emissions, large-scale magnetic fields. None of these things naturally follow from the mechanical universe we expected.

We already know that "Lightning in clouds, only a few miles above the ground, clears a safe zone in the radiation belts thousands of miles above the Earth" (http://www.nasa.g...lt.html)

The mechanistic worldview from which astrophysics and cosmology emerged has repeatedly failed to predict our observations of cosmic E&M, and yet people still use it to infer.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2013
Well, then, Hannes... Which came first? Is electrical activity a product of matter interaction? Or the other way around? Or are they completely dependent on one another's existence - like matter and gravity?
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2013
"From the smallest particle blah blah blah, an electric universe."

~David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill


So say David Talbott, M.C. (Master Crank) And oddball sociologist.

And Wallace Thornhill, M.Cp. (Master Crackpot) And failed physicist.

HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 2013
Re: "Well, then, Hannes... Which came first? Is electrical activity a product of matter interaction? Or the other way around? Or are they completely dependent on one another's existence - like matter and gravity?"

The point that I'm making is that we should be looking at our observations and asking specific focus questions which do not depend upon the mechanistic worldview that has been underperforming for many decades now.

There is ample reason by now to suspect that our solar system can at times become highly electrical ...

"The famous Hadley's Rille, amongst others, simply disappears for a short interval, then reappears. Other rilles travel both up and down across considerable distances. The most extraordinary example is the Baltis Vallis on Venus, which rises and falls dozens of times, with some two kilometers separating its high and low points along its 6,800 kilometer length."

(http://www.thunde...lle.htm)
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 25, 2013
"From the smallest particle blah blah blah, an electric universe."

~David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill


So say David Talbott, M.C. (Master Crank) And oddball sociologist.

And Wallace Thornhill, M.Cp. (Master Crackpot) And failed physicist.


It wouldn't be a proper Phys.org comment section without the typical ad hominem attacks, Q's irrelevance in full effect.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 25, 2013
While geologists regularly assemble to debate the enigmatic observation that the Colorado River punches straight through the Grand Canyon's Kaibab Upwarp plateau, simple experiments of multiple discharges into wood demonstrate a mildly unexpected sequence of events when the discharges interconnect ...

http://www.huffin...=science

While physorg pundits ridicule the asking of questions which stem from an alternative electrical worldview, others use science and mathematics to judge the idea ...

From http://www.youtub...1rGeqXBg

"Paul Anderson will present his current research utilizing fractal analysis in an effort to differentiate fluvial and electrical morphologies. His initial analysis revealed there to be no statistical difference between the fractal dimensions of certain geological structures and laboratory based electrical discharges ..."
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2013
"From the smallest particle blah blah blah, an electric universe."

~David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill


So say David Talbott, M.C. (Master Crank) And oddball sociologist.

And Wallace Thornhill, M.Cp. (Master Crackpot) And failed physicist.


It wouldn't be a proper Phys.org comment section without the typical ad hominem attacks, Q's irrelevance in full effect.


There was nothing ad hominem about my comment. It was 100% accurate. They even post pages of gobbledegook in their own words on the internet for all the world to see. It's almost as if they proud of their gobbledegook and their stature in crankery and crackpottery.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 25, 2013
Regardless of your opinion of accuracy, you continue to show your irrelevance in the inability to show how they are incorrect in their assessment. The only argument you cling to is name calling like a child. Crank indeed, but you supposedly learned from the master crank Feynman, so there is no surprise.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 25, 2013
"... However, he found a significant difference between the fractal dimension of known fluvial erosion and known electrical discharges. Such data strongly supports the hypothesis of extreme electrical events on the earth's surface."

The conventional theory for lightning postulated their energy source to, again, be the result of a mechanical phenomena near the surface of the Earth. And then, after many years of pilots reporting it, scientists finally observed lightning -- sprites -- above thunder storms leading to space.

We tend to use our worldviews to ask questions. But, what do we do when we repeatedly encounter surprises? And what if a common thread can be observed to link all of these surprises?

The choice to ridicule those who ask such questions, in light of the increasing realization that we can construct a new electrical paradigm, is a window into how a society of humans can so easily kill innovation in science.

Luckily, some of us are actually paying attention.
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 2013
Crank indeed, but you supposedly learned from the master crank Feynman, so there is no surprise.


Yeppers, I agree. If they were such that Feynman was then they would find a much larger audience, and one not just restricted to the fringe internet sites. Shoot, if they were even half as good as Feynman, they would have science things and places named after them (crank theories not withstanding).
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (16) Apr 25, 2013
The choice to ridicule those who ask such questions, in light of the increasing realization that we can construct a new electrical paradigm, is a window into how a society of humans can so easily kill innovation in science.


Sir, I must correct ya on one fine point. It's not the "those who ask such questions" that I ridicule. No, it is the cranks and crackpots with the ridiculous answers to such questions that I ridicule. Try to keep them separate. I ridicule the answerers not the questioners.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 25, 2013
Re: "Sir, I must correct ya on one fine point. It's not the "those who ask such questions" that I ridicule. No, it is the cranks and crackpots with the ridiculous answers to such questions that I ridicule. Try to keep them separate. I ridicule the answerers not the questioners."

Implicit in your judgment is the notion that conventional paradigms don't also offer us ridiculous answers, and that there actually exists a reasonable cosmological paradigm. All cosmologies are ridiculous when the best that conventional cosmologists can do is identify 4% of the universe's matter.

But, you reserve your ridicule, in particular, for those who stick their necks out to suggest that perhaps we should consider this alternative framework to ask questions from. They are suggesting the framework. It's up to the world to see if it can be elaborated. This is an expensive interdisciplinary endeavor that will require the assistance of thousands of people in order to formulate a meaningful opinion.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 25, 2013
"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it." Richard Feynman
Yeppers, as long as one parrots to the "larger audience", he doesn't even have to understand what the hell he teaches.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
Mark Twain
"I don't imagine you will dispute the fact that at present the stupid people are in an absolutely overwhelming majority all the world over." Henrik Ibsen
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." Bertrand Russell

Contrary to your beliefs, consensus in science is no different.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (15) Apr 25, 2013
Implicit in your judgment is the notion that conventional paradigms don't also offer us ridiculous answers, and that there actually exists a reasonable cosmological paradigm.


Paradigms change but that requires workable models, not dreaming. If ya could get Zephyr to stay on his meds his work would be as workable as some of the cranks, crackpots and internet doctors that ya so blindly follow.

But, you reserve your ridicule, in particular, for those who stick their necks out to suggest that perhaps we should consider this alternative framework to ask questions from. They are suggesting the framework.


And their framework is found lacking.

This is an expensive interdisciplinary endeavor that will require the assistance of thousands of people in order to formulate a meaningful opinion.


Judging by the google returns, those thousands(?) are busy at it (talking among themselves). But the fact remains, few take them seriously. I'm thinking conspiracy, right?
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 25, 2013
As best I can tell, David Talbott's cardinal sin has been to propose that (a) we should not ignore the first 3,000 years of human storytelling; (b) ancient people appear to report a different sky than we now see, in numerous regards, and from numerous different cultural sources; (c) we can look to the similarities between the archetypes to identify leads for asking questions in cosmology using laboratory plasma physics. I'm not really sure how this makes him a sociologist; he seems to go by comparative mythologist.

Wal Thornhill routinely publishes on EU principles within IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science. IEEE remains the world's largest scientific institution. Electrical cosmology was not invented by Wal. It's the result of many decades of work (including Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven), and just like the conventional theory, it has changed in response to observations over time.

If Wal is a "Master Crackpot", then we are forced to modify our definition of what a crackpot is.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (15) Apr 25, 2013
"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it." Richard Feynman


That is a false quote. Took some very free editing to get that. Is that your original editing? Or was the person who posted it on one of your "PC" sites the person who edited it and fooled ya into thinking that is something Feynman might have actually said?

The others? I don't know. Maybe they said the words ya quoted, maybe not. A humorist/fiction writer? A philosopher? Those two genres have a very poor track record when it comes to figuring out reality.

Contrary to your beliefs, consensus in science is no different.


Hmmm, consensus? Or crackpots? Hard choice I know. Feynman? Or Zephyr? I'll take Feynman if it's all the same to you.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2013
Re: "Paradigms change but that requires workable models, not dreaming."

But, you seem to think that your job is to pre-judge these models before we, as a society, put the effort into elaborating them which we have other more popular models. The application of labels -- "Master Crank" and "Master Crackpot" -- seem designed to undermine the creation of the very models which you also demand to see.

There is an obvious process here: In order to build good, functional models which will stand the test of time, we all need to clearly see the common thread of logic which runs through all of the disciplines. The problem is that electricity is oftentimes difficult to observe (as the current article plainly suggests), and we are all in need of people who are fluent in plasma physics principles to make suggestions on how to apply those laboratory observations to the cosmos.

We have yet to create all of these models. So, why undermine the process? We're not even close to done here ...
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2013
David Talbot
(a) we should not ignore the first 3,000 years of human storytelling;


3000 years of storytelling is science how?

(b) ancient people appear to report a different sky than we now see, in numerous regards, and from numerous different cultural sources;


They also reported dragons, flat earths, pink unicorns & my personal favorite, leprechauns..

(c) we can look to the similarities between the archetypes to identify leads for asking questions in cosmology using laboratory plasma physics.


Archetypes of what? Unicorns? Leprechauns?

I'm not really sure how this makes him a sociologist; he seems to go by comparative mythologist.


By all means "comparative mythologist". Even more worthy of ridicule & derision if he applies THAT to physics.

Now let's go search for the leprechauns, unicorns, Bigfoot, the dragons, & ethereal spirits, we know they must be there,,,, since humans have been talking about them for 3000, nay 15000 years.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2013
Here is a link to the U of St. Andrews that attributes that quote to him, once again you are completely wrong. Surprise!
http://www-histor...man.html
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2013
Part of the problem here is a failure to recognize just how difficult it is to create these models. The existing MHD plasma models make many assumptions which basically electrically neuter them, and they oftentimes don't apply to collisionless scenarios.

There remain big questions about an electrical sun, which hopefully laboratory experimentation can help us to resolve. This is why the EU group has launched the SAFIRE project. Many concepts which were fairly clear within a mechanistic universe -- like temperature -- are surrounded by questions within an electrical paradigm.

So, not only do we have to question the existing models, but we have to make sure that -- before any models are even attempted -- that we clearly understand the meaning of each of the concepts which are being used to make the model.

And on top of that, it's not 100% clear what the solar and galactic circuitry would look like. Yet another unknown ...
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2013
Wal Thornhill routinely publishes on EU principles within IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science. IEEE remains the world's largest scientific institution. Electrical cosmology was not invented by Wal. It's the result of many decades of work (including Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven), and just like the conventional theory, it has changed in response to observations over time.

If Wal is a "Master Crackpot", then we are forced to modify our definition of what a crackpot is.


His fits our definition very well. Electrical Engineering is NOT astrophysics, It is not cosmology. It is only peripherally a body of science,,,,, a very small and limited area of science. A small SUBSECTION of a sub-discipline physics. That is what makes him a crank.

The IEEE are not astrophysicists, they are not cosmologists, they are not even scientists. They are engineers, very specialized group of engineers.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 2013
Here is a link to the U of St. Andrews that attributes that quote to him, once again you are completely wrong. Surprise!


Surprised? That ya could pick a few words and place YOUR context in them?

Get ready to be surprised again, and amazed.

I'd like to talk a little bit about understanding. When we have a lecture, there are many reasons why you might not understand the speaker. One is, his language is bad - he doesn't say what he means to say, or he says it upside down - and it's hard to understand. That's a rather trivial matter, and I'll try my best to avoid too much of my New York accent.


HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2013
Re: "3000 years of storytelling is science how"

Scientific research is a process of trying to propose answers for questions, right? But, where do the questions come from? The questions come from scientists who possess knowledge of concepts, which they form into propositions, which in turn can be used to make models that generate predictions. These concepts, propositions and models do not exist within a philosophical vacuum. Their meaning is contextualized by the scientists' worldviews, which is -- carefully defined -- a philosophy that is intended to make a simplifying statement about how the universe works.

What you seem to want us all to believe is that worldviews emerge purely from a scientific basis. This is nonsense. Scientists develop their worldviews from all sorts of non-scientific phenomena: psychology and sociology included. And these worldviews are expressed with each question asked and every inference proposed.

Science is a tool both used and affected by humans.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2013
Now let's go search for the leprechauns, unicorns, Bigfoot, the dragons, & ethereal spirits, we know they must be there,,,, since humans have been talking about them for 3000, nay 15000 years.


First ad hominem attacks, now to where your expertise lies, the straw man argument. Followed by appeals to authority and widespread belief.
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (16) Apr 25, 2013
Feynman continues:

Another possibility, especially if the lecturer is a physicist is that he uses ordinary words in a funny way. Physicists usually use ordinary words such as "work" or "action" or "energy" or even, as you shall see, "light" for some technical purpose. Thus, when I talk about "work" in physics, I don't mean the same thing as when I talk about "work" on the street. During this lecture I might use one of those words without noticing that it is being used in this unusual way. I'll try my best to catch myself - that's my job - but it is an error that is easy to make.


Now for the important part to place YOUR quote into context.

The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that. I can't explain why Nature behaves in this peculiar way.


He was distinguishing between "HOW" and "WHY" in physics.
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (16) Apr 25, 2013
Now let's go search for the leprechauns, unicorns, Bigfoot, the dragons, & ethereal spirits, we know they must be there,,,, since humans have been talking about them for 3000, nay 15000 years.


First ad hominem attacks, now to where your expertise lies, the straw man argument. Followed by appeals to authority and widespread belief.


Nothing strawman about it. Ya'll are the ones that suggested that David Talbot, the "comparative mythologist" should direct scientific inquiry according to 3000 years of story telling.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2013
Re: "Electrical Engineering is NOT astrophysics, It is not cosmology. It is only peripherally a body of science,,,,, a very small and limited area of science. A small SUBSECTION of a sub-discipline physics. That is what makes him a crank ... The IEEE are not astrophysicists, they are not cosmologists, they are not even scientists. They are engineers, very specialized group of engineers."

But, if cosmologists and astrophysicists refuse to construct alternative models, based upon alternative paradigms, what does that say of them? What authority is there in refusing to acknowledge the investigation of something which they, themselves, have refused to investigate?

As far as I can figure, that would pretty much position astrophysicists and cosmologists at the very top of our social order. We might as well put robes onto them ... For, if nobody else is allowed to touch that which they refuse to touch, then they seem to exhibit godlike status.

Can I ask: Who is allowed to question them?
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2013
Re: "Ya'll are the ones that suggested that David Talbot, the "comparative mythologist" should direct scientific inquiry according to 3000 years of story telling."

And yet, the story you look to for your own worldview isn't any less speculative. You can extend the science back many billions of years, but you can only do so by recourse to a creation event, which marks the beginning of science and which cannot be explained by science itself.

Science runs into limits regardless of the paradigm. This is the nature of our investigations at the two ends of the scales of existence. At each end of the scale, our ability to observe becomes that much more challenged. Parallax only works to 1% the diameter of the Milky Way, and there are many orders of magnitude we still can't see at the bottom as well. We desperately need to know what is happening at those two ends in order to formulate our worldviews, and yet we are forced to look to the paradigms to infer beyond our instruments.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (15) Apr 25, 2013
Can I ask: Who is allowed to question them?


ANYONE is ALLOWED to question ANYTHING. But in having the freedom to question anything, does not confer the RIGHT or EXPECTATION that everyone drop what they are doing, and DO the THING ya QUESTIONING.

If they are interested, they'll give ya sometime. If they are not interested, they'll continue doing the thing that they are interested in.

If someone isn't interested in YOUR science. That's not THEIR fault in being uninterested. It's YOUR fault for not presenting something they are interested in.

Ya can't demand interest. Ya can't command someone stop what they are doing to do your thing.

Make it interesting, make it practical,,,, then they will get interested.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (15) Apr 25, 2013
Sorry Hannes/cantdrive,

Ya have now started down that philosophical, quasi-God, metaphysical road to endless sophistry. Ya'll have to seek another playmate I'm not interested in your "questions" so ya have to find another, not me, to ponder the possibilities of the meaning of "is".
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 25, 2013
When the questions can't be answer, Q gets going... This is the same MO of the astrophysicists when asked to explain magnetism and other questions that can't be explained by the standard theory.
yyz
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2013
"This is the same MO of the astrophysicists when asked to explain magnetism and other questions that can't be explained by the standard theory."

What a timely question. Check out this paper, to appear in Physical Review Letters and posted today on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.6534

(And keep in mind this but one of many papers published on the origin of cosmic magnetic fields)
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2013
Re: "Ya have now started down that philosophical, quasi-God, metaphysical road to endless sophistry."

You're essentially closing your eyes to the limits of science.

Re: "Make it interesting, make it practical,,,, then they will get interested."

You're discussing the society of scientists as though they lack any inherent sociology which might lead them to ignore potentially fruitful ideas. Researchers have been studying the sociology of science via case studies of paradigm changes for more than half a century now. We can plainly see that many now-successful theories were initially rejected during peer review.

You're also failing to acknowledge the inherent risk of refusing to hedge bets through the creation of multiple models. To continue to construct just one model, even after it becomes apparent that another one is possible, is a form of risk-taking. After all, the very point of building the models is to see if it can be made to work. By not building one, you never know.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (15) Apr 25, 2013
You're essentially closing your eyes to the limits of science.


No, I'm essentially closing my eyes to limitless gobbledegook.

Re: "Make it interesting, make it practical,,,, then they will get interested."

You're discussing the society of scientists as though they lack any inherent sociology which might lead them to ignore potentially fruitful ideas. Researchers have been studying the sociology of science via case studies of paradigm changes for more than half a century now. We can plainly see that many now-successful theories were initially rejected during peer review.


But ya see, I'm sure all those sociologists are good at sociology, But they are not the "go-to" guys for determining the direction that physicists should take. And neither are philosophers.

Why not let the professions decide how to practice their area of expertise. Physicists should do physics. Sociologists should write papers with endless squiggling about what the study shows but not physics
RickZemen
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2013
I wonder if the (micro) mechanism at the heart of forming these pre-dark lightning events is similar to a RFP, reverse field pinch, a sort of Tokamak shaped (toroidal) flow of current that tends to confine and compress a magnetic field and the charged particles therein (the application for this that I worked on is a type of fusion reactor). If a pulsar can shoot a beam of x-rays, perhaps a spinning RFP could emit a beam of ionizing radiation that creates the path for the (visible) lightning - and it would be conceivable that the endpoint of such a micro-RFP would be an event that yields Gamma rays.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2013
Q-Star: Your conception of science as a collection of unrelated disciplines probably undermines your ability to act as a spokesperson for mainstream science. Most people would likely agree that psychology is relevant to how science is done because science is a tool which can be both used and abused by the mind; psychology shows us how this tends to occur.

Sociology is relevant to how science is done because science is practiced by communities of people who, unlike robots, are susceptible to social pressures, authoritarian institutions and the systems which are designed to educate and qualify scientists.

Philosophy and paradigms are relevant to how science is done because they help to guide our reasoning, questions and inferences. Science studies have importantly advanced our understanding of the inherent interconnectedness of all of these disciplines.

One of the great ironies of the soft sciences is that those who refuse to pay attention to their findings usually need to the most.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2013
It's probably worth mentioning that people study the process and society of science for the very reason that the current paradigm has failed to answer some of the biggest questions we've asked of it. And that's despite throwing an astounding amount of money, technology and talent at those questions. The risk of having models which are underperforming is, like it or not, to be assaulted by neverending jet flows of philosophers, historians, sociologists, education reformers and alternative theorists (some of them, yes, cranks and crackpots) all trying to figure out what's going wrong. You seem to not be aware of how large this body of critique is by now, nor how urgently the world is attempting to fix science education.

In fact, if the world was to actually adopt your advice and use measurement and experiment alone, without any guidance from the soft sciences whatsoever, the endeavor of science would become incalculably expensive and ineffective. It would actually guarantee failure.
LarryD
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2013
Wow, some discussion..about what? Didn't see a lot about dark lightning. Some don't seem to like the idea of philosophers being involved in certain topics but persist on spouting about the 'philosophical issues' concerning science. Come on lads, the two can't be separated; philosophy gives rise to some science and vice versa.
Mentioning 'cranks and crackpots' this dicussion has missed an important group. Greedy, self opionated, arrogant and nasty @#$%&*. From what I've read about Sir I. Newton I wouldn't have liked him as a friend or 'crossed' him. Had he lived in another ealier time he might never have survived. Yet his contributions to science rank as Great;@#$%&*, 'cranks and crackpots' are all part of the scientific landscape and add to its character, disagree with them but don't deny them.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (11) Apr 26, 2013
philosophy gives rise to some science and vice versa.

That hasn't been the case for a long time. When there was practically no science (read. ancient Greece or thereabouts) philosophy - in the form of common sense ponderings and everyday observations - could give some initial ideas to work on.

Since then we've long gone on to work in the realms where our everyday 'common sense' views fail (relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology, ... ). Philosophy is woefully inadequate to make any input at that depth of understanding.
LarryD
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2013
antialias, you are wrong. You should read Bridgman and others more recent.
Most working scientists don't have the time to debate socislistic and philosophical raminfications (which SR, GR and QM most definitley have) and that's where Logicians and Philosophers can be useful. As you know, not every scientist is like R. Feynman capable of communicating to the general public and if the general public don't understand something they blame the scientist. A Philosopher, who knows the essentials, can bridge that all important gap. Don't forget many journals ask for support from the public domain and that support won't happen if people don't understand.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2013
I'm not sure what you are referring to by 'socislistic'.
But if you mean impact on human society/ethics - then yes: that is something where philosophy still is valid (precisely BECAUSE social/ethical issues are still within the range of our everyday experiences).
But arguably that isn't science. Eve if one were to allow for that being science it certainly isn't patricle physics, cosmology, etc.

These types of philosophers debate about what ramifications such things have wh put in context of our society - but they have no relevant input on what these things actually ARE.

A Philosopher, who knows the essentials, can bridge that all important gap.

That's sort of the problem. There aren't any that that really are able to dig down enough. And "bridging the gap" isn't useful, as the nature of QM or GR can't really be put in layman's terms. There just are no analogies you can map them to without causing massive confusion because that stuff is far removed from experience.

LarryD
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2013
antialias, yeah, sorry about that, 'socislistic' should read 'socialistic', got disturbed and didn't check before posting.
Don't misunderstand me. It is just as much the laymans (like me) responsibility to ask the right questions of both scientist and philosopher and also to do, at least some study of any difficult theory etc. under question. I don't really agree that some theories are '...far removed from experience...' is the problem, it is the 'change' that's difficult and people, like inertia, resist change. Both sides need to work at it
Oh and just to add a bit of humour, one bit of everyday life far harder to understand than R or QM...love. Many years later I'm just as ignorant now as when I first collided with it!
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 26, 2013
Re: "philosophy gives rise to some science and vice versa ... That hasn't been the case for a long time."

The irony is that this is a social phenomenon in itself. There is nothing at all scientific about abandoning philosophy. Science without philosophy will naturally run amok into the very soft sciences which you imagine you can avoid in the first place. Part of the reason we study these things is because they help us to do science proper.

Re: "Since then we've long gone on to work in the realms where our everyday 'common sense' views fail (relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology, ... ). Philosophy is woefully inadequate to make any input at that depth of understanding."

There's just no logic to what you're saying here, because philosophy was used in the construction of said theories. Philosophy, psychology and sociology are like the heart, eyes and voice of science. All three are also required to teach science properly, so nobody would ever even learn it without them.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 26, 2013
Re: "'cranks and crackpots' are all part of the scientific landscape and add to its character, disagree with them but don't deny them."

Honestly, the words crank and crackpot are being overused online to define a whole host of barely related activity. There are, for instance, people who observe that conventional scientists don't abide by common sense nor philosophy, and they will imagine that they can simply emulate them.

There are people who have observed that conventional theory is really more society than science, and so they have gone off on their own to attempt to do science more purely.

There are people who simply don't believe that it's possible to observe or experiment your way to truth (free induction, what animals do), and so they diverge from mainstream science in order to force induction (try everything, see what works).

There are also people who simply don't believe conventional claims.

There are also of course legitimately insane people. In fact, lots of them.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 26, 2013
A rebuttal online to a review from crank.net, from http://ebtx.com/o...knet.htm ...

"If the "ship of science" (or one of its smaller boats) decides to drop anchor and wait for the truth to come to it ... they will stagnate and you will find that many more "cranks" pop up to point out the paucity of perpendicular progress ... at the same time offering new and evermore bizarre solutions to present problems.

This is actually the present situation. The physics establishment has decided that they can proceed by experiment alone (data gathering) and that the data will tell them what to "induce" next.

In fact, it will.

But this is the method of the animal population ... free induction. It is highly accurate but it takes forever to get where you want to go. Hence, humans have opted for "forced induction" (they try everything and see what works ... fast progress with lots of mistakes). So their relative stagnation has engendered a new "raft" of adventuresome "cranks"."
drhoo
4 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2013
what in gawds name are U people talking about..

""This is actually the present situation. The physics establishment has decided that they can proceed by experiment alone (data gathering) and that the data will tell them what to "induce" next."

I don't think this is true, example ??
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (13) Apr 26, 2013
Science without philosophy will naturally run amok into the very soft sciences which you imagine you can avoid in the first place
The sad fact is that philos are irrelevant. Ask any scientist. Ask any honest philo if you can find one. Try Bart Ehrman. He abandoned philospeak because he found it to be 'worse than useless'.

The soft sciences are evaporating as well. Inquiry of true science into the mechanics of the brain for instance, has rendered gens of psychology utterly worthless.

But talking is good for the soul isn't it? Unfortunately, shrinking grant money and university budgets leave little room for pleasant chit chat. This cleansing effect is genuinely therapeutic in ways that psychoanalysis or deconstructionism never could be.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 26, 2013
"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." Daniel Dennett
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (18) Apr 26, 2013
"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." Daniel Dennett


Very good of example of philosophical gobbledegook. Thanks for sharing. Maybe we could spend then next ten days parsing exactly what he is REALLY saying and how it is REALLY germane and just how it REALLY means that endless philosophical discussion can REALLY provide the proper tools for laboratory science even if the scientists that are REALLY actually doing the work don't REALLY think it is essential to the outcome of the project that they are in REALITY working on in a REAL laboratory.

Dennett, isn't he the guy who judges his worth by the numbers of papers he produces multiplied by the number of questions posed in the papers, divided by the actual answers to his questions? Oops, my mistake, dividing by zero is not allowed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2013
You're right I meant dennett. Dennett is still a philo isn't he? And as such he owes allegiance to the fold. New gens of philos regularly trash the previous gen, taking care to do it in ways which strengthen the whole cult.

This is done because the theories of previous gens always fail scrutiny, but this takes time to work, and so new fashions will emerge to both agree with the skeptics and to divert attention from the whole SCAM.

This fashion-prone aspect of philosophy is one clue of it's specious nature. Another is that philos claim the freedom to postulate independent of EVIDENCE, like their counterparts the religionists.

This worked well in the past when evidence was hard to come by. But science has gotten very good at producing evidence. We can use it to examine past philo prognostications and declare them obvious gibberish.

This gives us less confidence in current prognosticators who employ the same word-rich and math-poor methods of describing how the universe works.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2013
Dennett, isn't he the guy who judges his worth by the numbers of papers he produces multiplied by the number of questions posed in the papers, divided by the actual answers to his questions? Oops, my mistake, dividing by zero is not allowed
Now now, dennetts real forte is in the valiant work he has done to damage religion. He can dabble in philobabble all he wants in order to pay the bills.

This is similar to the many philos who managed to do science while feeding philocrap to the masses for fun and profit.

Dennett has, by the way, done a fair share of damage to the philo community. He is like the jesuit who studies biblical archeology and ends up a minimalist. It's a start.
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (14) Apr 26, 2013
Now now, dennetts real forte is in the valiant work he has done to damage religion.


Damage them? Naaa, he became them. It's the main reason I find fault with most philosophers,,, Like religionists they never say anything that doesn't have a built-in exception, subject to interpretation, and never, ever, say anything that is wrong, even if it contradicts something they said five minutes ago, everything is correct, as long they are the one saying it.

Dennett has, by the way, done a fair share of damage to the philo community. He is like the jesuit who studies biblical archeology and ends up a minimalist. It's a start.


Listening to Dennett, et al on science would like the Pentagon seeking advice on how to wage total war from the Dali Lama.

Dennett, et al. can't get it through their heads that a physicist doesn't need their help planning their experiments. The scientist's greatest impediment is all the help non-scientists just know they need.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2013
Well sure. I think he knows he is stuck in a failed profession and is just trying to make the best of it. I think he identifies with the subjects of this study he did about atheist clergy:

""[Dennett] has been doing research into clerics who are secretly atheists and how they rationalize their works. He found what he called a "Don't ask, don't tell" conspiracy because believers did not want to hear of loss of faith."

Dennett attacks philosophy:
"[Others] note that my 'avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters' often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors."
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 26, 2013
"We should remember that there was once a discipline called Natural Philosophy. Unfortunately, this discipline seems not to exist today. It has been renamed science, but the science of today is in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect. Scientists tend to resist interdisciplinary inquiries into their own territory. In many instances, such parochialism is founded on the fear that intrusion from other disciplines would compete unfairly for limited financial resources and thus diminish their own opportunity for research." Hannes Alfven, 1986

Q, you profess such parochialism, I don't know whether it is because of limited resources, pride, ego, or some other reason but it is a decidedly unscientific approach. Why in the world could electrical engineers (IEEE) be significant to discoveries in cosmology? Because as it has been clearly proven countless times in these threads, astrophysicists don't know their plasma from a (hot gas) hole in the ground.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 26, 2013
Contrary to your beliefs, the "standard theory" is rife with philosophical beliefs. One of those beliefs is the importance of math to reality, math is a TOOL to be used by science, it's not a starting point. Ptolemaic epicyclces are a perfect example, mathematically correct, and elegant, but no basis in reality. After watching you and another Einsteinian disciple going back and forth about relativity on a different thread, it's clear reality has no meaning to you or the other relativists.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (12) Apr 27, 2013
"We should remember that there was once a discipline called Natural Philosophy. Unfortunately, this discipline seems not to exist today. It has been renamed science, but the science of today is in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect
Uh no dweeb it was just another name for the same thing. Did you know that NYC was once called New Amsterdam? Its true.
beliefs is the importance of math to reality
Uh no dweeb this connection was not conceived by guys sitting around in stuffy armchairs and TALKING about it. The connection was realized by a constant interplay of experimentation and analysis. It had absolutely nothing to do with Platos forms, kants ding an sich, or heideggers dasein.
astrophysicists don't know their plasma from a (hot gas) hole in the ground
Name one cosmic electrician who has made a substantial contribution to the field.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2013
There's the name calling again. Now Hannes Alfven (the real one) is a dweeb (you must be suggesting that because he made the statement, not I). I'll accept Alfven's POV, yours is worth absolutely nothing!
Name one cosmic electrician who has made a substantial contribution to the field.


Hannes Alfven, Kristian Birkeland. Any more softballs?

Name one aspect of GR that has added to technology or human progress. And you don't need to bother with the GPS fallacy, GR is NOT considered in the GPS system. It's nothing more than an urban legend used by relativists to give significance where there is NONE!

cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2013
In a pair of articles, Ron Hatch shows how GPS data provides evidence against, not for, both special and general relativity: "Relativity and GPS," parts I and II, Galilean Electrodynamics, V6, N3 (1995), pp. 51-57; and V6, N4 (1995), pp. 73-78. In his 1992 book, Escape From Einstein, Hatch presents data contradicting the special theory of relativity, and promotes a Lorentzian alternative described as an ether gauge theory.

This gentleman who actually implements the technology, he doesn't just philosophize over it. Here is a video for the reading challenged;
http://www.thunde...eu-2013/

GR=FAIL!
barakn
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2013
Oh, thank goodness, yet another stellar link:
http://www.thunde...eu-2013/
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2013
"Scientists Detect Dimwittedness Linked to Feeble Attempts at Humor"
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2013
"Birkeland joined the control commission of NSFPS (= Norwegian Society For Psychic Research). The 299 members of the society included, by 1922, people like prime minister Gunnar Knudsen, as well as a wide range of doctors, professors and shipowners. The society arranged circles experimenting with dancing tables and automatic writing, but attracted more attention arranging controlled experiments with invited foreign mediums."

-So in accepting some of the valid science which people do, we must by association accept all the crap they also generate? Let me be more specific: Name one cosmic electrician who has made a substantial contribution to the field in the context of an electric universe.
katesisco
1 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2013
New discovery: two crystals in one. I suspect that this shadow crystal discovered in vailite? will be applicable to the whole problem of where the dark energy resides. And no, there is no ZPE.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2013
There's the name calling again. Now Hannes Alfven (the real one) is a dweeb (you must be suggesting that because he made the statement, not I)
Well he apparently failed to appreciate the meaning and history of the term.

"...long-established Chairs of Natural Philosophy are nowadays occupied mainly by physics professors. Modern meanings of the terms science and scientists date only to the 19th century."

"The term natural philosophy preceded our current natural science (from the Latin, scientia, meaning "knowledge") when the subject of that knowledge or study is "the workings of nature""

-The name was most likely changed to further distance those who pursued knowledge via the scientific method from those who did so by inverting their eyeballs.

In other words alfven was exploiting the term 'philosophy' to impress the rubes. This is dweebish behavior. And since you endorse this behavior, you may be considered a dweeb by association.
katesisco
1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2013
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2013
Name one aspect of GR that has added to technology or human progress.

Space travel
http://www.physic...t=430954

Celestial mechanics
http://en.wikiped...lativity

"binary pulsar 1913+16. This binary star system consists of two neutron stars which are orbiting about their common center of mass about every 7.75 hrs. Over time, they are spiraling in toward each other, due to loss of energy via "gravitational radiation" - a prediction of general relativity."

Plasma physics
http://iopscience.../12B/S50

-And it will become more useful as we begin moving about in space.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Apr 28, 2013
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2013/04/25/vaterite.crystal.within.a.crystal.helps.resolve.old.puzzle


The metabolism of sea squirts, Boyo that is germane. Yeppers right on topic.

Pssst, if ya have a really interesting story for Show & Tell, at least do us the courtesy of a short description of what ya're interested in with link,,,, even cantdrive and Zephyr do that much.
PoppaJ
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2013
I wonder if the gamma ray bursts have all the same characteristics as the ones from potassium-40 or Pulsars and magnetars. If there is differences that are observable it would become a great tool to identify habitable exoplanets.
Horus
5 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2013
As a Mechanical Engineer and Computer Scientist who could have chosen a Ph.D. in EE, ME, Physics I find it unbecoming of anyone to mock any actual ABET accredited field of Engineering, especially EE/ME/ChemE/Materials and the more recent areas of MEMS/BioEngineering, etc. Doing my undergraduate studies I noticed all the top Math, Chemistry and Physics students certified in various disciplines of Engineering.

One commonality amongst us: If that doesn't work out we can always do Physics or Math.

Unlike Physics and especially Theoretical Particle Physics you will not last in a field of Engineering that produces nothing but theory and zero applications that produce advances in various fields and consumer/government sectors.

The quacks are quacks. Getting into an argument cheapens Feynman, Maxwell [Engineer], Galileo/DaVinci/[Engineers], Archimedes [Engineer], Bohr/Currie/Planck [Physicists], etc.,.

Grow up folks. The research is very interesting. It leads to new work.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2013
As a Mechanical Engineer and Computer Scientist who could have chosen a Ph.D. in EE, ME, Physics I find it unbecoming of anyone to mock any actual ABET accredited field of Engineering, especially EE/ME/ChemE/Materials and the more recent areas of MEMS/BioEngineering, etc. Doing my undergraduate studies I noticed all the top Math, Chemistry and Physics students certified in various disciplines of Engineering.

One commonality amongst us: If that doesn't work out we can always do Physics or Math.

Unlike Physics and especially Theoretical Particle Physics you will not last in a field of Engineering that produces nothing but theory and zero applications that produce advances in various fields and consumer/government sectors.

The quacks are quacks. Getting into an argument cheapens Feynman, Maxwell [Engineer], Galileo/DaVinci/[Engineers], Archimedes [Engineer], Bohr/Currie/Planck [Physicists]


And have you noticed, it's the non-science disciplines who post venom against us...