Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/17/05
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Androcles asks for Derivation of LT"
- Previous message: Dr. Jai Maharaj: "Re: PROFILE OF NET ABUSER ALAN SCHWARTZ aka 'Uncle Al' <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com> (Was: IS WAVE POWER...)"
- In reply to: Richard Herring: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Richard Herring: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:21:15 GMT
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. Statistics
are descriptive not mechanical explanations as to how they get out.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Androcles asks for Derivation of LT"
- Previous message: Dr. Jai Maharaj: "Re: PROFILE OF NET ABUSER ALAN SCHWARTZ aka 'Uncle Al' <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com> (Was: IS WAVE POWER...)"
- In reply to: Richard Herring: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Richard Herring: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|