Started May 1, 2012 | Discussions thread
FDecker Senior Member • Posts: 1,237
Re: Talking about giants

xionc wrote:

FDecker wrote:

I should have said it in a better way: half-educated in physics. See, it is quite a difference whether you really understand physics and learned to use its methodology or if you just read popular science books about it.

I have a PhD in physics and have been working in the field of solid state physics, QM and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance for the last 25 years.

So anything less than PhD and you're half educated in physics? I know no professor that would say this about any not-quite-fully-educated-as-him PhD.

Exaggerating may be a rhetorical mean but this is too obvious. I never said that less than a PhD equals half-educated. I was talking about people with no background in physics other than popular science books. There is nothing wrong with that per se. E.g., I am pretty much interested in music. I read books about music and of course I listen to it. But I would never state that Brahms had no musical imagination and has stolen everything from Beethoven.

I can easily imagine you as a typical solid state PhD, there is a great amount of authoritarian type of thinking in your posts, and I have personally encountered this in real life from few solid state division theoretists.

This is just your point of view. I see nothing authoritarian in my post. It is inapproriate to say that solid state physicist are authoritarian. And for sure not true.

The problem is that no cosmologist or any other physicist better suited to talk about Einstein would show such authoritarian point of view.

This is simple and plain prejudice. Show this thread to one of them (you seem to know some) and let them tell you something about Einstein's importance to the physical world. By the way, you don't see a flaw in your argumentation. You say that some other physicists are better suited to talk about Einstein. But you are accusing me for being authoritarian because I mention that a physicist may be better suited to talk about Einstein than someone with no background in physics??? Cool!


DMillier put it great - there is some kind of faith needed for accepting QM concepts, and from my point of view this generates much bigger field for imagination.

There is not more faith needed than for anything else. It is a physical theory. It uses some axioms and has a mathematical apperatus to work with. And it is able to explain most experimental results found so far.

I don't think that there is a qualitative difference between the general relativistic theory and QM in terms of imagination.

Unfortunately, this is slowly getting too personal even though we don't know each other. I stated my point and stick to it. You have a different point of view. That's OK with me.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow