Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Richard Herring (junk_at_[127.0.0.1)
Date: 02/18/05 

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:00:56 +0000

In message <42160c66.135675534@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:53:41 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
>in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>>In message <42150a85.124806639@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
>><lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:50:24 +0000, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
>>>in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <4214d506.116850600@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
>>>><lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>>>>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:29:48 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
>>>>><nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Albert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, it played a part in the invention of transistors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Transistors were invented at Bell Lab. A direct consquence of the
>>>>>>quantum theory of solds. Check out the history of how the transistor was
>>>>>>developed at Bell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no classical theory that correctly accounts for how charges
>>>>>>move in semi-conductors.
>>>>>
>>>>>But there is for how they move vacuum tubes or valves as the British
>>>>>call them.
>>>>
>>>>How they move, yes. How they get out of the cathode is another story.
>>>
>>>There isn't any QM theory for that either in mechanical terms. QM just
>>>maintains they get out according to a certain probability.
>>
>>Your ignorance is showing again. Unlike classical physics, QM tells you
>>how to derive that probability. Some cathode materials are very much
>>better than others. That same solid-state application of QM tells you
>>why.
>
>My ignorance, Red? Nothing you say in the above paragraph is
>responsive to anything in my paragraph. It doesn't even contradict
>anything I said.

Oh? So when you said "just maintains..." you really meant "maintains
this and a lot more besides..."? I see. 

-- 
Richard Herring

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>There isn't any QM theory for that either in mechanical terms. ... >>maintains they get out according to a certain probability. ... My ignorance, Red? ... Nothing you say in the above paragraph is ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>There isn't any QM theory for that either in mechanical terms. ... >>maintains they get out according to a certain probability. ... My ignorance, Red? ... Nothing you say in the above paragraph is ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>There isn't any QM theory for that either in mechanical terms. ... >>maintains they get out according to a certain probability. ... My ignorance, Red? ... Nothing you say in the above paragraph is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>Your ignorance is showing again. ... Unlike classical physics, QM tells you ... >>how to derive that probability. ... Nothing you say in the above paragraph is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>Your ignorance is showing again. ... Unlike classical physics, QM tells you ... >>how to derive that probability. ... Nothing you say in the above paragraph is ...
    (sci.math)