Comment by ordu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ordu | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> In order to build a MOSFET, you need to know how do electrons react in the presence of thin barriers, and how thick should the gate oxide be to prevent breakdown while still keeping the field strong.

Here you are speaking using words like "electron", "thin barrier", "oxide" and so on. So you are thinking in a framework of our culture and our variant of STEM. Doing so you are trying to prove that there is no way to invent another variant of STEM. I believe, that such an approach could achieve nothing.

I mean, to speak "electron" you need to rely implicitly on a whole mountain of theories about reality. So even if you proved that one cannot build MOSFET without QM, it would mean that he cannot do it while relying on this mountain of theories. It wouldn't prove that there are no other mountains allowing to invent MOSFET.

> Can it be different, can you do QM without Schrödinger Equation? Sure, but it will still be QM.

It is a trivial proposition. "QM without Schrödinger Equation" is QM by definition. The question is if it possible to build some other models of reality that allow to invent MOSFET. As I see it you are trying to remove QM from the mountain of theories and to think what could replace QM. It is completely possible that nothing but QM could replace QM in such a setup. But what would happen if you remove all of the mountain of theories and start from scratch?

I do not know. To see what would happen I need to design an empirical research that would involve some millions of people and a few millennia. To be sure I would need to repeat this at least 50 times.

The fact that the electron exist is not culturally dependent. As much as the fact that stars exists.

Any alien civilization capable of studying the behavior of atoms must also be able to express concept that are compatible with ours.

Maybe the do not use numbers, calculus, or maybe they do not even use unit of measures. Yet the result of our experiments will have to be the same and since we can develop experiments that show specific operations they must also be able to express those operations.

Electrons are a perfectly adequate model for reality. I do not read the previous poster as disputing this point.

Instead, they appear to be asking, “is there another model for reality which would also work well enough to build a MOSFET?”

I do not know either.

That said, people keep telling me that both QM and GR are known to be incomplete, so perhaps electrons are no more real than phlogiston? I would certainly be surprised, but that’s besides the point, and even if someone is currently rolling their eyes and preparing to explain why I am wrong and electrons can’t possibly be “like phlogiston” (not a position I actually hold so don’t waste your time), an alien civilisation could make an analogous mistake and fill the electron-shaped gap in their physics model with something completely different analogous to the way phlogiston filled the oxygen-shaped gap in chemistry.

The good thing is, it does not matter. It is entirely possible the electrons are not "real" -- so what? The electric field is not "real" either (in the sense that there is no corresponding physical object), and the magnetic field is even less "real", it is just a change in electric field.

As long as there is predictive power, we can use a theory. And once we discover there are unpredicted cases, we can update the theory.

In particular, the reason phlogiston theory was discarded was not some philosophical reasons -- it was because it made bad predictions (specifically, that things always lose mass when burned).

There is a beautiful exercise in where you take two very basic physics rules (electrostatic force between two individual charged particles and speed of light equation), and derive basically entire electromagnetic theory from it. Really drives the point that underlying physics is simple, and most of the formulas, especially introductory ones, are just shortcuts to make reasoning and computation easier.

In my vague understanding, you can consider objects like electrons as either particles or as amplitudes in a field. Although these two (currently known) ways of viewing it lead for the most part to similar intuitions, these paradigms can be somewhat misleading.

For example, the fact that we viewed elementary particles as particles, analogous to macro physical objects, for so long meant it was hard to get a grip on wave-particle duality of light and quantum teleportation. In normal life, small particle-like objects don't tend to pop in and out of existence or move around spontaneously. But in many ways, electrons do in fact behave as discrete particles.

Physical realists, like most of us on the board probably, don't dispute there is a single physical reality (possible multiverses aside). However there are multiple theories and models that can describe the same reality. These models tend to have different strengths and weaknesses. So we do not know how many possible ways of looking at these things there are, and to what extent aliens might see them similarly or differently.

I completely agree, but if they are able to properly (as in with predictive power for variations) build a MOSFET or anything of similar complexity they would likely be able to understand our concept of an electron.

I believe that is very unlikely as it is very unlikely to miss atoms and then it is very likely to miss electrons. Of course I also do not think that it is provably impossible.

> The fact that the electron exist is not culturally dependent. As much as the fact that stars exists.

I'm not so sure about it. All I know is I'm unable to imagine how to think about Universe without splitting it into stars and electrons. But my inability doesn't prove anything.

> Any alien civilization capable of studying the behavior of atoms must also be able to express concept that are compatible with ours.

Is it necessary to study atoms to build a MOSFET transistor? Or maybe it is possible to discover, for example, some macro-theory which would give enough precision of predictions to build a MOSFET?

> the result of our experiments will have to be the same and since we can develop experiments that show specific operations they must also be able to express those operations.

To stage experiment you need a theory, you need to watch reality first and to perceive it in a specific way. The way you perceive reality based on how you interact with reality. For example to see person and his hat as a different objects there must be a reason to see them as a separate objects. If hat changed nothing, than you wouldn't be able to see a difference between person in a hat and person without a hat. As an anecdot: I mostly cannot describe people I met. Do they wear glasses? Skirt or pants? I do not know, because I'm not paying attention for such unimportant details. To see difference between apple on tree and apple falling on your head, it must be important in some ways to you. For example, falling apple could inflict pain and may be eaten, while apple on a tree is hard to reach. It is enough difference to notice it and to start searching for correlates: like pain on the head correlates with the apple fall, probably there is a causation. (Though correlation/causation are also concepts from our culture, they may be unnecessary to build a MOSFET.)

If you perceive reality some other way and rely on other theories your experimental setups would be completely alien. Moreover, experimental method is the best known to us, but didn't you think that there are possibly other superior methods to explore reality?

People invented experiment after tenth of thousands years of their history. So it is not a trivial and obvious discovery. It is a complex find, which based on tenth of thousands years of culture evolution. We need to assume that this evolution could go in convergent ways, if we want to state that experimental method is necessity for any advanced civilization.

I do not state that process is not convergent, but I do not state that it is convergent either. I do not know and I wish to share my ignorance. Perceived ignorance is the most valuable kind of knowledge. ;)

Some things are common no matter where you are and how you perceive the reality.

You have objects which interact. Find a type of interaction which works at macroscopic distances and does not depend on inertial mass. You can call it "electromagnetic interaction". Note that some objects interact stronger, and some weaker. Call this property "charge". Find the smallest unit of "charge" and try to split it further, until you cannot split it anymore. Choose the smallest particle of this kind. Congratulations, you found "electron"!

Note nowhere in the previous paragraph I have specified how you perceive the reality. Maybe you were looking at the charged oil film on the water surface with human eyes, or maybe you were using your telekinetic senses to feel zorks on the bazzer, or maybe you were sentient gas cloud observing startdust falling in the black hole. It does not matter, once your culture starts exploring interaction of atoms, they will the same physical law, that there is a minimum charge unit, and arrive to the same physics.

(or they might not discover that branch of physics at all -- but then they are unlikely to be an interstellar civilization)

You seem to think that knowledge of electrons (regardless of what we call them or how we arrive at that knowledge) has some cultural significance or requisite, which it does not.

Oxidation is a chemical process - any entity on any planet with a laboratory will be able to mimic and study that same chemical process (regardless of the chemical makeup of them or their world).

Culture is irrelevant in both of these.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com