- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120954
45d
@Metal-Brain saidIf you accidentally stumbled drunk into the wrong type of club and found yourself bent over a table and sodomised you might not have observed it, but you’d certainly know it had occurred.
@shavixmir
How do you observe an electron? You cannot see electrons. You hit it with something to know it is there, right? Calling a collision an observation is silly, isn't it?
More seriously; black holes exist but cannot be seen, but their presence is observed.
Here’s a dilemma; cosmic rays cannot usually be seen, but astronauts do sometimes “see” them when they pass through the skull in any direction, and happen to interact with the retinal nervous apparatus. Is that an observation?
45d
@moonbus saidYes, exactly.
You are taking the word observation in a too restricted sense to mean only sensory observation. Our senses cannot detect infrared or x-rays, nonetheless, we have devised instruments which are sensitive to those ranges of electromagnetic radiation, just as our ears are sensitive only to certain ranges of frequencies, but we have instruments which can detect frequencies beyond ...[text shortened]... y at quantum levels. Electrons are not little billiard balls. They are packets of measurable energy.
But of course, @Metal-Brain has never shown any aptitude at all for science, let alone physics. He doesn't even understand relativity, as seen by his many ridiculous posts on the subject.
45d
@Metal-Brain saidAll observance with the eyes, and most instruments, is dependent on photon collisions.
No. You need to call it measurement. That is a more accurate term, but that still requires an interaction between a photon hitting an electron.
Observer is a misnomer. It is a measurement.
45d
@sonhouse saidI'm not sure one can bask in a thimble.
@Metal-Brain
Wow, we did not know that. We ALWAYS thought we could directly just see electrons. Who would have known?
Basking in your superiority again?
45d
@kmax87 saidSimilar to the Peter Principle?
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.
In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence instead of specific overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task.
45d
@Metal-Brain
The writer of the blog didn't know you couldn't see electrons.
So you figure one case like the means the entire human race thinks you can see electrons.
Bit of a stretch don't you think?
44d
@Metal-Brain saidWhat are you on about?
The human eye cannot observe an electron. When scientists say "observe" they mean they hit an electron with another subatomic particle, right? So the term "observe" really means a subatomic particle collision. Right?
Calling a subatomic collision an observation is stupid, isn't it? It is like saying two billiard balls colliding is an observation. Right?
If you are going for trying to discuss measurement: please define "Observation".
If you want to discuss electrons, pleas rpovide us with a reasonable alternate explanation why a computer works (or start with a light bulb).
If you want to discuss subatomic particles in general and the difficulties of how to find them, please show us that you actually understood basic physics and try to forumlate a good hypothesis.
I will get you one and ask: is this a good hypothesis:
"Since electrons can't be seen by the eye they don't exist."?
43d
@Ponderable saidGood idea, please define "Observation".
What are you on about?
If you are going for trying to discuss measurement: please define "Observation".
If you want to discuss electrons, pleas rpovide us with a reasonable alternate explanation why a computer works (or start with a light bulb).
If you want to discuss subatomic particles in general and the difficulties of how to find them, please show us that you ...[text shortened]... e and ask: is this a good hypothesis:
"Since electrons can't be seen by the eye they don't exist."?
When people write articles using the word "see" is that what is really going on when you detect an electron? Of course not. Nobody can "see" an electron. "Seeing" does not change anything. If observation means "seeing" no observation is taking place. If a photon interacting with an electron is observation then why are there so many idiots using the words "see" and "seeing"? That is not what is going on, is it?
Observe: interaction between photon and electron
That is your definition of observe, right? So where does "seeing" come into it? It doesn't, right?
43d
@Metal-Brain saidWhy do you disagree with the entire scientific community and dictionaries?
Good idea, please define "Observation".
When people write articles using the word "see" is that what is really going on when you detect an electron? Of course not. Nobody can "see" an electron. "Seeing" does not change anything. If observation means "seeing" no observation is taking place. If a photon interacting with an electron is observation then why are there so ma ...[text shortened]...
That is your definition of observe, right? So where does "seeing" come into it? It doesn't, right?
I already posted the definition of observe from the dictionary. In science it means something completely different than just using your eyes.
You are generally stuck down a rabbit hole and, alas, once again you seem to be stuck down one with your arse sticking out, just waiting to use as a bicycle rack.
43d
@Metal-Brain saidWhere would we be without logical pedantry. Nuance and imprecision are for losers.
Good idea, please define "Observation".
When people write articles using the word "see" is that what is really going on when you detect an electron? Of course not. Nobody can "see" an electron. "Seeing" does not change anything. If observation means "seeing" no observation is taking place. If a photon interacting with an electron is observation then why are there so ma ...[text shortened]...
That is your definition of observe, right? So where does "seeing" come into it? It doesn't, right?
43d
@Metal-Brain saidRight! Optical observation is just one way to observe.
Good idea, please define "Observation".
When people write articles using the word "see" is that what is really going on when you detect an electron? Of course not. Nobody can "see" an electron. "Seeing" does not change anything. If observation means "seeing" no observation is taking place. If a photon interacting with an electron is observation then why are there so ma ...[text shortened]...
That is your definition of observe, right? So where does "seeing" come into it? It doesn't, right?
However I am not pedantic on words or expressions. An astronomer who tells me that the sun rises is not a fool (she knowns very well, that the earth turns).