Resha Caner

I'm not sure where this topic belongs. If one of moderators wants to move it, that's fine with me. I've developed an obsession with the philosophy of science - I guess I need to get out more. But I seem to be in a very narrow niche. Of those interested in philosophy, few (some, but few) have a good grasp of science. Of those interested in science, few (some, but few) show any interest in philosophy. In my engineering education, we were brainwashed with an "it just is" view of how things work. So, here is my question: Did anyone participate in a science curriculum that acknowledged the philosophy of science?

And I didn't mean to sound ungracious. I appreciate your help, and enjoyed the discussion.

Excellent. Thanks, John. It finally clicked for me, and I get what he's saying. Very interesting. I didn't know that. Like I said, I'm weak in chemistry. So, I'm not trying to dispute the atomic model in any way. I agree the evidence is overwhelming. But I think some of you are missing the point. First, you refer to Duhem as "that guy" as if he were a crank on the sidelines. Not at all. He was a highly respected scientist at the turn of the 20th century. It is interesting to see how we learn our science history. Not too long ago I was in the same boat, where I didn't appreciate the extent of the debate over some of these issues. The textbooks only teach you about the winners, and we accept the winning models without question. We put the winners on pedestals (Dalton, Bohr, etc.) and forget the losers (Duhem, etc.). Just don't forget that Newton was the accepted winner for centuries until Einstein came along. Maybe I was not clear. Duhem was aware of the atomic model. He was trying to refute it. And I mentioned that it was an old Greek idea. The thing is, the Greek model had supposedly been debunked (if I remember by history correctly) until it was revived by Dalton (At least I think the revival started with Dalton. You could probably find others between B.C. and the 19th century that played with the idea.) I didn't mean to start a debate. I expected more people would have heard of this. But, I got my answer, so thanks.

OK, I guess no one is familiar with the argument. You seem just as confused as I am. Let me give some historical context. First of all, Duhem died in 1916, only 3 years after Bohr introduced his model. So, his opposition to the atomic model is not as "flat earth" as it may seem. The atomic idea was not at all obvious when it recurred (and it was a recurrence - what some viewed as a resurrection of ancient Greek mysticism). Duhem was active in opposing the atomic model and the onset of quantum physics. Of course he "lost" the battle, so it appears he has been largely forgotten in science textbooks. But, he has not been forgotten on the philosophical side of science. The "Duhem-Quine Thesis" is a big deal. His antiatomism is only an example of the thesis, not the thesis itself, which has significant weight to it. Another example involves gravity, and that one I get. Gravitation says that a body accelerates toward the earth at a constant rate. Duhem asks what it would take to refute such a law (that's easy for us to imagine post-Einstein, but it was a revolutionary question for Duhem's day). He claims that if someone found a body was not accelerating at a constant rate, they wouldn't assume the law was wrong, but that some other force acted on the body. Therefore, the law never gets challenged. He is trying to pose a similar argument for the law of multiple proportions. He's saying that since we assume it to be correct, we explain away the deviations, thereby reinforcing the law rather than refuting it. But his argument confuses me, and I don't see how his example demonstrates that an alternative explanation exists. I wonder if I'm locked into a paradigm and that's why I can't see what he's saying, or if he's just spouting nonsense. It seems no one has heard of him before. Maybe posting more of the essay from the book I'm reading would help, but that seems a copyright infringement. I've been hunting to see if it's available online somewhere.

Is anyone familiar with Pierre Duhem's resistance to the atomic model? He is often quoted amongst philosophers of science, and I understand most of his argument, except the one against the atomic model. Be gentle with me. I've never been good with chemistry, and that may be why I'm struggling. Here is his quote about the "law of multiple proportions": "The masses of bodies A, B, and C combining to form the compound M are to one another as the three numbers a, b, and c. Then the masses of the elements A, B, and C combining to form the compound M' will be to one another as the numbers xa, yb, and zc (x, y, and z being three whole numbers). ... Now, in whatever relations the elements A, B, and C are combined within the compound M', we can always represent these relations with as close an approximation as you please, by the mutual relations of three products xa, yb, and zc ... in other words, whatever the results given by the chemical analysis of the compound M', we are always sure to find three integers x, y, and z."

Cool. I guess I'm wondering, though, whether there is some type of "averaging" effect such that the differences wouldn't be noticable. I wouldn't expect that all the electrons would skew in the same direction, but that the variations in charge would be randomly distributed. So, isn't it more likely that there would simply be some scatter in the spectrum? Which might be dismissed as measurement error. Or am I missing something about what you said? How about this. Instead of using Protium, maybe we would need to oxidize the hydrogen to strip off the electon (I think that works). I don't know if you have to create some kind of ionic compound to keep it stable (or maybe even go the other way and make a hydride). But, once charged, then maybe you could separate the heavier charges from the lighter charges by flowing the gas between charged plates. Once that's done, then you'd be able to see a definite shift in the spectrum between the separate gases. Is that a plausible experiment? Or, do I need to take this to the chemistry forum? Caner

I'll look up your references ... and hopefully I'll be able to understand them. But maybe it would be fun to do this from a different angle with a little thought experiment. Let's suppose two electrons are different. Say we are studying hydrogen gas that is pure protium (one proton, one electon, and no neutrons per atom). Within the gas, the charge of the different electrons varies. What would we expect to see that is different from a protium gas where all the electrons have the exact same charge? Is anything different?

My statement was more a hypothetical one than something I firmly believe in. In fact, I believe the opposite, but didn't have enough confidence in my knowledge of physics to state it. You guys have helped a lot, and I greatly appreciate that. Thanks.

Yes, we're inching toward what I'm looking for. But I still don't feel I have a solid answer. Maybe there isn't one. Don't be afraid to direct me elsewhere. For example, if there's a book I need to read because of an obvious hole in my background, that's my responsibility. I'm not asking you to teach me physics. On the other hand, if you don't mind continuing the conversation, and slogging through this with me, I greatly appreciate you helping me to understand. So, let me ask this in a different way. I open up my college physics book, and it tells me an electron has a charge of 1.602176487 E-19 C. Further, it tells me this is a fundamental physical constant. If I found an electron with a charge of 1.6021764871 E-19 C or 1.6021764869 E-19 C, then I should assume my measurement was in error, not that the fundamental constant was imprecise. So my question, then, is how do we know this is the exact fundamental charge? I didn't see this before I made my post. I do have a physics book with the constants in them, and I've browsed through Wiki - but that doesn't mean it's accurate. In any case, I think you just answered my question. Thanks. In fact, your hint led me to this article in wiki (now we'll just hope it's accurate). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles Thanks, Caner.

Thanks again. And I'm sorry if I'm appearing a bit anal retentive about this, but I find the idea that each electron is identical fascinating. For some odd reason, my intuition says each would be unique. So, I need to dig at your reply a little bit. You say we know this "mathematically". Does that mean: 1) we measure the properties of an electron directly, or do we 2) deduce their properties from other phenomena ... or do we 3) deduce them from theory? If we measure the properties directly, to how many significant digits have they been measured? Do people strive to measure them more accurately? I guess I am asking if electrons can be "proven" to be identical, or do we merely assume so because we can't measure them any more accurately than we have? Would it shake any theories if it turned out they weren't identical?

Thanks for the reply. I know of the uncertainty in observing any specific electron. And I assume we're saying the one electron universe has been disproved. That takes me back to my original question, then. Are the properties of an electron fixed? In other words, is every electron EXACTLY the same as another in mass and charge?

I came across an intriguing quote from Betrand Russell written in the mid 1930's. "An atom is now merely a convenient way of grouping certain occurences; it is convenient, up to a point, to think of the atom as a nucleus with attendant electrons, but the electrons at one time cannot be identified with those at another, and in any case no modern physicist thinks of them as 'real.'" Is this truly the current view of an electron? I ask because I have wondered for some time if the constants associated with electrons (electric charge of −1.602E−19 C, mass of 9.11E−31 kg) are "fixed". In other words, are these "universal constants" associated with some theory, are they approximate values of a physical reality, a concept that is completely out of date, or something else? Until coming across Russell's statement, I had thought of electrons as real, and wondered to what accuracy their properties had been measured, and if it was possible for those properties to vary to some extent. Any help would be appreciated. Caner

Sometimes analogies are helpful - at least they are for me. Here is a website that gives analogies between electrical, mechanical, and thermal systems. http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/analogy.html

Ahhhhhhhh! I just wrote a really long reply, but it didn't take! That sucks! Now I'm too pissed off to try to duplicate it all. But I'll give you a summary, and maybe we can tease out the details with a little back-and-forth. 1. Don't know anything about the small companies that file for you. I suspect some are legit and some are frauds. Check them out with the BBB and websites that track scams. 2. My patents were filed by my company (which is Fortune 500). Even then it took 2-3 years, so it's not a slam dunk. You have to really want it. So, your best bet is to get hired by somebody in the industry. If not a lawn company itself, then a supplier, customer, or consultant to lawn companies. You need to learn the industry. 3. If you decide to do it yourself, make contacts. I bet there is a conference of some kind these companies go to. Go yourself and make contacts. Do your homework. The U.S. Patent Office website lets you read all existing patents. Find all the ones close to yours and read them. That will help you: 1) learn the legal language (yes, it's a legal language, not technical), 2) learn how to distinguish your idea from others with "claims", 3) prepare you for the challenges the patent office will undoubtedly raise, 4) make you look like you know what you're talking about. You don't necessarily need a patent to approach a company. But, if you don't have one, you'll need to get them to sign a "non-disclosure" agreement.

Is there a tutorial for that somewhere?

I have no idea what this is. This, though, sounds intriguing. Any papers you can point me to? One mechanical device that I have done some development on uses a viscoelastic fluid. It's not what I tried to apply fractional calculus too, but I'm always looking for new ideas. Yeah, that was my experience too. But let's not give up yet. P.S.: I haven't tried coding in an equation yet. Do you have to do it by hand, or is there a WYSIWYG editor? I remember coding equations for my thesis in LaTex. Yuck.

I once gave fractional calculus a brief look to see if it could help solve a problem of mine. Since it didn't apply (as far as I could tell), I moved on. Still, it's a cool idea. So, does anyone know of any "practical" applications of fractional calculus, or is it only a mathematical curiosity?

tvp45, an interesting observation.

Your little dissertation doesn't really go with your question. As far as "burying" a patent, that isn't really possible. A patent is in the public record, so a company takes a risk by filing. They are sharing their idea, and if someone steals it, the company must spend money on massive legal fees to protect it. The government doesn't bring patent suits. The company who holds the patent must do that. Plus, most companys are willing to sell patents. So, if you see something you like, you can buy it. Even further, patents expire. Unless a company is willing to pay for a continuation (which ain't cheap), expiration means something in the public record becomes owned by the public domain. So, if it's a good idea, it will eventually make it's way into the market place. I don't think there is a patent buried in some company somewhere that would result in world peace. That's kind of an unrealistic "Area 51" paranoia. It sounds a bit like jealousy to me. - - - OK, to your question. Are you aware of Plato's Forms? Your question seems similar to the philosophical questions surrounding that idea. Things like: Does the number 2 exist as an entity in and of itself or is it merely a device of the human mind? My answer is: it depends. You'd have to give me a specific patent. If you're talking about a simple electric circuit, I'd say it was "discovered" because electricity flows in nature regardless of what people do. If you're talking about a computer, I would say it was "created" because they don't occur naturally.

I'm not a biologist, but this is an interesting question. I'll quietly follow along in the background.

Maybe it's just a semantic argument. But, if you have an example of doing an operation on infinity itself, I'd like to see that. In many cases I'll bet you'll find it's just shorthand for the more rigourous and proper process. If I recall, the idea of "infinitesimal" in calculus is technically wrong, though much easier to grasp conceptually than things like delta-epsilon proofs. And, in the end, both give you the same answer. Engineers take improper short cuts all the time that get us the right answer. Scientists hate us for that.

Alright, I'll do that. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=330477#post330477 The thread seems to have left off discussing whether any arithmetic operations can be done on infinity. It hurts my head a little, but I think the statement is correct that no operation can be done on infinity - basically because it is not a quantity. However, operations can be done that involve infinite concepts - a subtle but important difference. In calculus, an example is L'Hopital's Rule, where you can compare the rate at which two quantities approach infinity. In some cases, the result is a finite quantity, which is the beginnings of the concept of "levels of infinity".

I saw a very interesting thread in the archive on infinity. Why was it archived, which basically killed the thread? I would have replied, but I can't.

Didn't someone later modify Lagrangian mechanics to add non-conservative forces? I seem to remember someone doing that. Or is that just my heritage with engineering kluges? Caner

This is a fascinating idea, but incredibly complex. I have to ask a few questions. 1. Have you considered the cause/effect issue? Is music the cause of improved spatial reasoning, or are people with higher spatial reasoning simply more likely to like a certain kind of music? 2. Given that question, you need a "control". Maybe you have already done this, but you need some measure of the participant's ability before they take the test. That will help you determine if the music affected them. Then, you should also have a group take the test in complete silence - an absence of music. You may even want to ask participants before they take the test, "Do you like to study with music? If so, what kind?" 3. Then, what you are really after here, is not a Fourier analysis, but a statistical analysis. You need to have a proper sample size, and use statistical testing to determine if certain spectral lines in the music cause a statistically significant difference in the result. Does that sound scary? Have fun! Caner