XPost: sci.physics.relativity
From: jl@glen--canyon.com
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 03:51:17 +1100, Bill Sloman
wrote:
>On 14/02/2026 2:23 am, john larkin wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 09:50:59 +0100, Thomas Heger
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am Mittwoch000011, 11.02.2026 um 19:47 schrieb Liz Tuddenham:
>>>> john larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Why are physics types so often insulting and obnoxious?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been to physics meetings that shocked me with their brutality.
>>>>> That mentality is terrible for brainstorming and inventing things.
>>>>
>>>> Physicists are particulary careful to prove that they are NOT inventing
>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course physicist could invent whatever they want and have the ability
>>> to invent.
>>>
>>> Science isn't organised in 'guilds' and everybody has the right to
>>> invent, which would include physicists.
>>>
>>> But mainly the engineers invent things, because they have more training
>>> in the use of the required means.
>>
>> Training teaches repetition. Dogs are trained.
>
>The only physics course I took didn't involve a lot of repetition.
>What's taught is how to recognise a situation, and how to look at it in
>way that lets you do something constructive with it. Even training sheep
>dogs involves more that instilling repetitve patterns of behavior.
>
>> Inventing things is a separate skill. It involves being crazy,
>> exploring the extremes of the solution space, staying confused.
>
>Not for me, or the inventive people I've known. Alan Dower Blumlein
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Blumlein
>
>had clocked up 128 patents before he died at age 38. He wasn't at all
>crazy, or confused. One patent I got struck me as entirely obvious until
>I'd had to explain it to enough people to realise that it wasn't obvious
>to people "skilled in the art".
>
>>> Also the usual job description of engineers is more related to invention
>>> than those of physicst.
>>>
>>> But there exists no laws, that would prohibit inventions by physicists
>>> -at least not in Germany. US laws are different, however, and nobody
>>> actually knows, what they forbid or demand (besides a set of
>>> 'sorcerers', which charge insane fees for legal informations).
>>
>> There's no legal restrictions on inventing things here in the USA.
>> Lots of people do it, amateurs included.
>>
>> The vacuum diode (Edison effect), the triode, the airplane, the
>> klystron, electronic TV, the personal computer, lots of stuff was
>> invented by unauthorized people.
>
>Electronic TV, as opposed to mechanically scanned systems, was invented
>by people who had academic training - Blumlein at EMI certainly had, and
>the crew at RCA who invented much the same system weren't amateurs.
>
>> But I think there is a negative correlation of inventing vs advanced
>> degrees.
>
>You would. Advanced degrees are about learning stuff. The more you know,
>the more likely you are to see an unexpected connection which can be
>exploited in a patentable way. My father had a B.Sc. and got about 25
>patents, my boss at EMI had a Ph.D. and got 25 patents, and my friend
>from my undergraduate days took quite a while to get his B.Sc. and an
>M.Sc. and has clocked up just as many.
>
>Nothing about academic training strikes me as likely to make you less
>likely to invent something.
Given that cathode ray tubes existed in 1890, it's astounding that the
triode amplifier was invented by de Forest in 1905. He never
understood how it worked.
Academics seem to enjoy ridiculing people that they see as wrong; you
can see that here. That's a bad environment for inventing stuff.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
