"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?

[penfold]

Your noted misconceptions about the development of the transistor do not alter the fact that it was still advanced hacking.

What those guys did was what physicists do all the time. If you want to change its name to "advanced hacking", I have no problem with that.

A Nobel Prize in advanced hacking sounds way cooler than a Nobel Prize in physics, anyway.

I'm just against the 'physics is the source of all engineering' claptrap, as if it's an unavoidable 1-way street.

OK. So name an engineering field that doesn't have its origin in--and/or whose current tenets weren't shaped by--science. Civil engineering, perhaps? Certainly not electronics. Electronics is drenched with physics and math.

For the benefit of those in the audience, can you clarify the point you're arguing?

It appears that you're attempting to argue that physicists are better at physics than engineers are at physics - I simultaneously hope and hope-not for that to be the case.

[TimFox]

Before I retired, I generally found that others were better at their jobs than I was at their job, but I was better at my job than they were at my job.

[bsfeechannel]

For the benefit of those in the audience, can you clarify the point you're arguing?

Sure.

It appears that you're attempting to argue that physicists are better at physics than engineers are at physics - I simultaneously hope and hope-not for that to be the case.

No. What I'm trying to dispel is the idea that physicists made some important discoveries a while ago, engineering took over and now physics lags behind the advancements made by engineering with incomplete theories.

This is far from the truth. Physics is not only at the origin of modern engineering, but also still drives important advancements and even revolutions.

[TimFox]

By the way, I do not believe that the 20th Century was the "dark age of science", based on my life during the second half of the century, my reading of the history of science, and my use of "modern physics" in practical situations.

[SiliconWizard]

I think the main question is: how can I use your theory to reduce my electric (or is that electic) bill?

Since electrons are apparently some kind of hugging photons - if I got it right - you could probably get free electricity by asking those photons to give free hugs.

[penfold]

[...]
This is far from the truth. Physics is not only at the origin of modern engineering, but also still drives important advancements and even revolutions.

Isn't that a bit of a chicken and egg argument? Surely to prove it you would need to demonstrate that each physicist could have managed each of those discoveries without any work of an engineer and that all engineers were incapable yet still attempting it nonetheless?

[aetherist]

By the way, I do not believe that the 20th Century was the "dark age of science", based on my life during the second half of the century, my reading of the history of science, and my use of "modern physics" in practical situations.

Einsteinian stuff came into play after Einstein died, ie due to advances in instruments, & computers, etc.
Luckily most areas that used Einsteinian stuff were mainly fun playtoys for the boysngirls.
But for sure a  lot of time & money was & still is being wasted on LIGO & the CMBR etc.
Lots of silly Nobels for silly particles. No real harm done.
I feel sure that the real brains know that Einsteinian stuff is krapp. It’s a state secret. Spy versus spy stuff.
As instruments get even more accurate we are finding moreso that Einsteinian stuff is krapp.
There is nothing Einsteinian used in GPS.
The Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end. With a whimper. Koz really nothing much is gonna change much.
It’s a side show.

[aetherist]

I think the main question is: how can I use your theory to reduce my electric (or is that electic) bill?

Since electrons are apparently some kind of hugging photons - if I got it right - you could probably get free electricity by asking those photons to give free hugs.

(1) My new (electon) electricity is due primarily to hugging electons (on the surface of wires).
(2) However my new (electon) electricity does indeed also include the secondary effect (secondary electricity) due to hugging electrons (on the surface of wires). Electons saturate the negative plate of a capacitor, & free surface electrons saturate the positive plate.
(3) And my new (electon) electricity does include the old (electron) electricity, ie drifting electrons (inside a wire) (but says that this is insignificant).

A trouble with electons is that they are difficult to find. What i mean is that if u google electons u will get 637,000 results, mainly links to papers etc that are re electrons, koz these papers tend to have at least one spelling mistake where they spell electron electon.
So, i/we might need to adopt a policy of including the word electoon, or electonn, in every electon paper, so that googlers can find it.
Krapp – i googled electoon & got 13,000 results. And i googled electonn & got 1090 results.
Electooon gets 7 results. Electonnn gets 61 results. That’s better.

Physics hasn’t done much for Civil Engineering, except for computers, & laser surveying say.
But Civil Engineering has given us new (electon) electricity, ie electons.
Faraday Maxwell Heaviside & Poynting & Steinmetz & Co would be impressed. But u guys'n'gals aint.

[TimFox]

Do you know what the term "Civil Engineering" actually means?  see  https://www.britannica.com/technology/civil-engineering
Originally, the discipline of building roads and bridges was named "Civil Engineering" to distinguish it from "Engineering", which meant military engineering, as in the "Engineer, hoist with his own petard" mentioned in Hamlet.
Ironically, many professionial civil engineers are now in the military, as in the US Army Corps of Engineers, who have jurisdiction over navigable waterways and other civilian infrastructure.

[aetherist]

Do you know what the term "Civil Engineering" actually means?  see  https://www.britannica.com/technology/civil-engineering
Originally, the discipline of building roads and bridges was named "Civil Engineering" to distinguish it from "Engineering", which meant military engineering, as in the "Engineer, hoist with his own petard" mentioned in Hamlet.
Ironically, many professionial civil engineers are now in the military, as in the US Army Corps of Engineers, who have jurisdiction over navigable waterways and other civilian infrastructure.

I failed to explain that aetherist is a retired Civil Engineer.
CE's are happy to deal with dirt water concrete & steel, but are allergic to electricity.
But this little CE has overcome his fear of electricity & has given us electons.
U can't stop genius.

[TimFox]

I see.  It is the fault of civil engineering, who gave us Aetherist, who in turn revived the obsolete luminiferous aether.  I await the new ichor.
Yes, relativity made a minor contribution to GPS, which has had a large impact on civil engineering (properly defined).
Also, Einstein's theory of stimulated emission (due to his interest in thermodynamics) led to the invention of the laser, which also aided civil engineering, even though he was not happy with quantum physics. 
See  https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200508/history.cfm
The twentieth century was something that happened to other people.

[aetherist]

I see.  It is the fault of civil engineering, who gave us Aetherist, who in turn revived the obsolete luminiferous aether.  I await the new ichor.
Yes, relativity made a minor contribution to GPS, which has had a large impact on civil engineering (properly defined).
Also, Einstein's theory of stimulated emission (due to his interest in thermodynamics) led to the invention of the laser, which also aided civil engineering, even though he was not happy with quantum physics. 
See  https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200508/history.cfm
The twentieth century was something that happened to other people.

Relativity affects almost everything, including GPS. But Einsteinian Relativity is rubbish, there is no such thing as spacetime. The relativity that affects GPS is aetheric relativity, which is due to the aetherwind. However, there are different versions of aetheric relativity, my own is best. Aetheric relativity affects length contraction, & length contraction affects the ticking of clocks (all clocks).

[TimFox]

By the way, Heaviside is one of my favorites from that time in history. 
1.  There was a real problem.  Transatlantic telegraph cables were absurdly slow.
2.  "Everybody knew" that shunt capacitance and series inductance would slow down a signal.
3.  Heaviside demonstrated that adding a proper combination of inductances along the cable (with its inherent capacitances) would improve things greatly.
4.  While British authorities resisted this idea, Americans (working for AT&T) reduced Heaviside's loading coils to practice for trunk lines and the rest is history.
5.  Most modern installations use coaxial transmission lines instead of lumped-constant designs.

[aetherist]

By the way, Heaviside is one of my favorites from that time in history. 
1.  There was a real problem.  Transatlantic telegraph cables were absurdly slow.
2.  "Everybody knew" that shunt capacitance and series inductance would slow down a signal.
3.  Heaviside demonstrated that adding a proper combination of inductances along the cable (with its inherent capacitances) would improve things greatly.
4.  While British authorities resisted this idea, Americans (working for AT&T) reduced Heaviside's loading coils to practice for trunk lines and the rest is history.
5.  Most modern installations use coaxial transmission lines instead of lumped-constant designs.

Heaviside was a genius. And i don’t understand his solution for cables. But Heaviside failed to see the failures of his E×H slab (slab koz there is no rolling E to H to E bullshit going on) of energy current that propagated in the air outside wires, ie tween wires (ie which accords with the Poynting Vector explanation for electricity beloved by Veritasium). Heaviside failed to see that….
Electricity can propagate along a single wire.
Insulation on a wire slows electricity (which his E×H can't explain).

Heaviside would be happy with my new (electon) electricity. It solves the insulation paradox, whilst retaining his precious E×H. And Veritasium would be happy with my new (electon) electricity, it duznt explicitly deny his Poynting Vector contribution to electricity (except that it duz).

[TimFox]

Heaviside's solution for cables led further to the development of continuous transmission lines.
These are rather important things to understand in connection with speed of electrical information transmission.

[aetherist]

Heaviside's solution for cables led further to the development of continuous transmission lines.
These are rather important things to understand in connection with speed of electrical information transmission.

Heaviside found it easy to avoid the elephant in his room re the insulation paradox re the speed of electrical information transmission koz in his coaxial cables the insulation filled the whole space tween the core & the sheath.
But the elephant emerges when we have ordinary (non-coax) wires with thin layers of insulation.
At which time the speed of light in the thin layer of insulation trumps the speed of light in the air which fills over 99% of the space.

Yes, Heaviside would have been impressed with my electons (ie photons hugging the wire). At least he would be impressed after i explained what a photon was. But i wouldn’t have to explain aether, he knew about aether.

I would have to explain that in the modern era Einsteinists don’t believe in aether, & that Einsteinist's had taken over science. Actually i wouldn’t need to explain much, koz Heaviside knew about Einsteinist's when Heaviside died in 1925, & i feel sure that Heaviside thort that STR & GTR were krapp, but Heaviside would have been shocked that Einsteinist's took over in the late 1920's, especially after Einstein died in 1955, & he would have been shocked that the Einsteinian Mafia were still in control in the 2020's.

[adx]

Belated and somewhat patchy or even redundant-ish reply, but here goes:

There is a degree of 'leap-frogging' between experimentalists (sometimes this includes the engineers) and theoreticians. For example, we knew about the photoelectric effect before Einstein's paper on it. And some physicists (namely Planck) were already toying around with the idea of discrete quanta. But I'd make a strong argument that this singular statement by Einstein changed the world,

Energy, during the propagation of a ray of light, is not continuously distributed over steadily increasing spaces, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta localised at points in space, moving without dividing and capable of being absorbed or generated only as entities.

Of course it wasn't immediately accepted - new experiments were needed to verify this interpretation. But, it predicted the effects of Compton Scattering. And this explanation of the photoelectric effect not only underpinned quantum mechanics (the basis for transistors) but also gave basis for the engineering of image sensors, phototelegraphy, etc etc.

On one hand yes, a basis. But what is a basis? Theoretical? Foundational? Occupational?

Selenium cells were in use 30 years before that, and in futuristic 'practical' applications like the photophone in the same year as Einstein's paper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ernst_Ruhmer,_Technical_World_cover_(1905).jpg

These cells were also apparently in use as rooftop PV solar in 1884:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fritts
(Although I am a bit sceptical of the references because some claim it was thermopile based - Wikipedia isn't always right.)

It's a weak argument to say that the subsequent quantum theory gave basis for extant devices and applications - even if those applications later benefited enormously. Just because it was noticed and described, doesn't mean it works any different at any time. The theory becomes a guide for unchanging empirical behaviour, once people are on its scent. I don't accept that this 'scent' is academic theory, except in special cases where it is.

I accept the leap-frogging effect, I accept the greater advances, I even accept that a technology could stall at some point without the theory. But I can't accept that the latter is unavoidable, and I think that things like Wikipedia articles which begin and end on the equations are a disservice to the field(s).

Your example of the iPhone is not an example of an advancement in physics. No new laws or phenomena were discovered or predicted by its creation. Quite the contrary - the iPhone is a culmination of the application of many diverse phenomena well-established and predicted by physics.

The latter is what I meant. That the iPhone doesn't definitively owe its existence to predictions of physics and academic process, unless you want to take the position that any one link in the chain could be undone if it wasn't for some glorious crystal of theory (like Maxwell's equations, say, or something which 'makes' fets work especially at 5nm). People tend to push through those kinds of things if they can see a way past. Or if you want to say we wouldn't have the iPhone today, which is obvious.

I certainly don't want to say physics had no part or is dead. The only thing I want to target is this (I assume) taught notion that science begat physics begat engineering that doesn't seem to exist outside of academia and governmental ivory towers. The commercial world is completely indifferent to that, and simply assumes that physics is one of the parts of engineering.

Claims that "physics had to come before technology" can be made arbitrarily, eg fax machines might have stepper motor drivers, image sensor chips and even lasers. But when it's said that optical fax existed in the late 1800s, those claims need adjustment. They might still be correct, but it doesn't have much meaning.

Re Heaviside, he usually is called a physicist, but before that was recognised, he was shunned by just about any institution (but not person) that could exist. He was an electrician (possibly more in line with an electrical engineer today). Patenting the coaxial cable sounds awfully like engineering to me. So do eschewing some mathematical rigour, and getting into spats with an ignorant boss. And so on. My point being that this distinction can be imaginary (or perhaps arbitrary).

Denying physics would be completely silly, but I don't think that's what I'm saying. It's certainly not what I want to suggest or portray.

[Alex Eisenhut]

What property of electons and aether give the same size bare wire made of different metals have different resistance?

[aetherist]

What property of electons and aether give the same size bare wire made of different metals have different resistance?

Good question.
Naturally to give a good answer i had to firstly see (understand) how old (electron) electricity answered the question.
After that it was a good idea to see how new (electon) electricity compared, point by point.
Straight away i hit a snag, i had trouble understanding the old (electron) electricity Wiki explanation for resistance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity
In metals.
[000 ] Like balls in a Newton's cradle, electrons in a metal quickly transfer energy from one terminal to another, despite their own negligible movement.
[00 ] A metal consists of a lattice of atoms, each with an outer shell of electrons that freely dissociate from their parent atoms and travel through the lattice. This is also known as a positive ionic lattice.[10]
[0 ] This 'sea' of dissociable electrons allows the metal to conduct electric current.
[1 ] When an electrical potential difference (a voltage) is applied across the metal, the resulting electric field causes electrons to drift towards the positive terminal.
[2 ] The actual drift velocity of electrons is typically small, on the order of magnitude of meters per hour. However, due to the sheer number of moving electrons, even a slow drift velocity results in a large current density.[11]
[3 ] The mechanism is similar to transfer of momentum of balls in a Newton's cradle[12]
[4 ] but the rapid propagation of an electric energy along a wire is not due to the mechanical forces,
[5a ] but the propagation of an energy-carrying electromagnetic field [5b] guided by the wire.
[6 ] Most metals have electrical resistance.  [7] In simpler models (non quantum mechanical models) this can be explained by replacing electrons and the crystal lattice by a wave-like structure. [8] When the electron wave travels through the lattice, the waves interfere, which causes resistance. [9] The more regular the lattice is, the less disturbance happens and thus the less resistance.
[10 ] The amount of resistance is thus mainly caused by two factors. [11] First, it is caused by the temperature and thus [12] amount of vibration of the crystal lattice. Higher temperatures cause bigger vibrations, [13] which act as irregularities in the lattice.
[14 ] Second, the purity of the metal is relevant as a mixture of different ions is also an irregularity.
[15 ] The small decrease in conductivity on melting of pure metals is due to the loss of long range crystalline order. [16] The short range order remains and strong correlation between positions of ions results in coherence between waves diffracted by adjacent ions.

[000 ] says that electrons transfer energy, via bumping.
[0 ] says that a metal can conduct electric current.
[1 ] says that electons drift koz of an electric voltage field.
[3 ] says the mechanism is similar to bumping. What mechanism? Voltage? Drift? Transfer of energy? Who knows!
[4 ] is confusing. It says that [4a] bumping does not propagate electric energy along a wire. Or, [4b] it says that bumping does not produce the rapid propagation seen of electric energy along a wire. Or [4c] perhaps both.
[5a ] is a killer. Just when u were getting used to words like Newton cradle electron drift wire electric energy conduction voltage field etc, it suddenly foists on us an energy carrying em field. [5b] guided by the wire. Where is this field? In the wire? On the wire? Around the wire? Is this energy electric energy? Does the field carry the energy? Or is the energy in the field? In other words duz the field possess the energy or does it simply transmit it, or perhaps both?
[6 ] to [16] tell us that resistance is due to irregularities inside the wire. Good, i was starting to panic.

Anyhow, Wiki says that energy is transferred by electrons, & it says that energy is not transferred by electrons.
Wiki says that voltage makes electrons drift, & it says that bumping makes electrons drift, & (i think) that it says that drift makes voltage. However, (i think that) Wiki duznt say that drift makes bumping (phew)(i was starting to panic).

Wiki says that silver has the best conductivity, & some metals are worse by a factor of 10 (lets call such a metal Tendium). This sounds bad for electons.
Old (electron) electricity can of course say that the factor of 10 is due to irregularities in the metal/wire.
New (electon) electricity (being on the surface of a wire) needs to do some fast talking.
I suppose that the simplest answer is that the irregularities in the thin skin of the wire is much the same as the irregularities deeper in the wire.
But why would electons (ie photons) be slowed by irregularities in the skin of the wire?
Problem 1.   If Tendium has 10 times the resistance, it has 10 times the heat loss, & perhaps it should have 1/10th the speed of electricity. But i think that the speed of electricity is much the same in/on/for every metal (is it?).
The problem for electons is that extra resistance of a wire & extra heat loss duznt slow the speed of electricity along the wire.

Problem 2.   Does a photon passing through glass heat the glass? I think not (or perhaps it duz). But the photon is slowed by glass.
A photon (electon) passing along a wire heats the wire, but it is not slowed. Whats going on? Still thinking.

Problem 3.   An electon passing along an insulated wire heats the wire at the same rate as a non-insulated wire, yet the speed of electricity is say 2c/3.
Problem 4.   Shouldn’t the heating be 3/2 times the heating for a bare wire?
Problem 5.   Shouldn’t the extra ½ of heat be in the insulation? Is it? Still thinking.

My new (electon) electricity says that electons can saturate the surface of a wire. No more electons can fit on the surface, unless the voltage is increased.
Electons have a negative charge, hence they would tend to jump onto a surface & distribute on a surface much like free surface electrons might. Except that at equilibrium electrons might be static, whereas electons are always propagating at the speed of light (they are photons)(albeit semi confined, hugging the wire).

Problem 6.   Electons are a surface dweller, hence u would think that doubling the dia of a wire would halve the resistance. If doubling the dia results in a ¼ resistance then electons are in trouble.  For DC current.

New (electon) electricity is a work in progress. I need to find the boxes [problems], & then i need to work out how to tick the boxes.

[adx]

[5a ] is a killer. Just when u were getting used to words like Newton cradle electron drift wire electric energy conduction voltage field etc, it suddenly foists on us an energy carrying em field. [5b] guided by the wire. Where is this field? In the wire? On the wire? Around the wire? Is this energy electric energy? Does the field carry the energy? Or is the energy in the field? In other words duz the field possess the energy or does it simply transmit it, or perhaps both?

I agree. The description is completely opaque at this point. I don't accept any argument that the only way of explaining it jumps to mathematical at this point. If the phenomenon is a physical phenomenon, it can be described without discontinuity, otherwise a leap to mathematics could be called "hand-waving" at some level similar to "trust us, this is how the theory works, and it does". Whether our minds wish to find that description "intuitive" or not is another matter. This is not a popularity contest, as far as I am concerned the theory works and should be describable.

I suppose that the simplest answer is that the irregularities in the thin skin of the wire is much the same as the irregularities deeper in the wire.
But why would electons (ie photons) be slowed by irregularities in the skin of the wire?

That doesn't work if the surface is plated with a highly conductive metal, eg silver on steel. The resistance except at very high frequencies (skin effect) is that of the bulk steel wire.

Problem 2.   Does a photon passing through glass heat the glass? I think not (or perhaps it duz). But the photon is slowed by glass.

Consider a transmission line, lumped model is ok. Energy propagates via transfer between Ls and Cs. Adding resistance doesn't fundamentally slow that.

Problem 6.   Electons are a surface dweller, hence u would think that doubling the dia of a wire would halve the resistance. If doubling the dia results in a ¼ resistance then electons are in trouble.  For DC current.

Well spotted.

[HuronKing]

On one hand yes, a basis. But what is a basis? Theoretical? Foundational? Occupational?

That the phenomena observed is explicable and predictable. Engineers just use that phenomena to solve problems.

Selenium cells were in use 30 years before that, and in futuristic 'practical' applications like the photophone in the same year as Einstein's paper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ernst_Ruhmer,_Technical_World_cover_(1905).jpg

These cells were also apparently in use as rooftop PV solar in 1884:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fritts
(Although I am a bit sceptical of the references because some claim it was thermopile based - Wikipedia isn't always right.)

Your story about selenium is missing the preamble - namely physicists doing experiments on selenium, making determinations of its behavior, and making predictions about future behavior:
https://books.google.com/books?id=JbNK9lRLHPEC&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstl.1877.0009#:~:text=The%20light%20of%20an%20ordinary%20lucifer%2Dmatch%20was%20found%20to,Effect%20of%20Moonlight%20on%20Selenium.

They didn't have quantum theory yet to explain its behavior (which doomed them to never be terribly practical) - but let's not necessarily suggest Maxwellian physical theory had nothing to do with it either... Maxwell was one of the people doing experiments on solar cells!

It's a weak argument to say that the subsequent quantum theory gave basis for extant devices and applications - even if those applications later benefited enormously. Just because it was noticed and described, doesn't mean it works any different at any time. The theory becomes a guide for unchanging empirical behaviour, once people are on its scent. I don't accept that this 'scent' is academic theory, except in special cases where it is.

Those devices weren't innovated much further without the 'scent' of academic theory. Maybe it would've happened anyway (we can never know of course) but let me tell a story:

In one of my advanced photonic courses there was pretty rampant cheating amongst a group of students. The professor was, for better or worse, too nice a guy to actually do anything about it. But, he did say this about it after an exam,
"In science... there is an infinite number of wrong answers but only one, maybe two, right answers... so how come you all got the same wrong answer?"

I guess they were somewhat incompetent at cheating which is why he didn't care. 

My point in this story is that we can, and have, fumbled our way forward by 'brute forcing' or 'advanced hacking' as you put it earlier to create inventions and slog technology forward. But there are a lot more wrong answers than there are right answers.
You could try 1000 different materials to build something... but applying just a little physics takes one forward in a BIG way. While the first 1925 FET patent didn't get noticed, it's remarkable how clearly Lilienfeld defines its operation is based on nascent quantum theory,

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/035202468/publication/US1745175A?q=pn%3DUS1745175
"The basis of the invention resides apparently in the fact that the conducting layer at the particular point selected introduces a resistance varying with the electric field at so this point; and in this connection it may be assumed that the atoms (or molecules) of a conductor are of the nature of bipoles. In order for an electron, therefore, to travel in the electric field, the bipoles are obliged to become organized in this field substantially with their axes parallel or lying in the field of flow. - Any disturbance in this organization, as by heat inovement, magnetic field, electrostatic cross-field, etc., will serve to increase the resistance of the conductor; and in the instant case, the conductivity of the layer is influenced by the electric field. Owing to the fact that this layer is extremely thin the field is permitted to penetrate the entire volume thereof and thus will change the conductivity throughout the entire cross-section of this conducting portion."

I accept the leap-frogging effect, I accept the greater advances, I even accept that a technology could stall at some point without the theory. But I can't accept that the latter is unavoidable, and I think that things like Wikipedia articles which begin and end on the equations are a disservice to the field(s)

I can only go off what I know about history. The unfortunate thing about history is that there is no "control" in the experiment of our history to tell whether something would or would not have happened without X-Y-Z.
What I do know is that MASSIVE technology advancements ALWAYS follow a PARADIGM SHIFT (term from my History of Science class) in theory.

People have been building mechanical devices for 1000s of years but no one knew how to build really good stuff until Newtonian Mechanics. There is a unique power that the paradigm shift from Aristotelian physics to Newtonian physics gave humanity. I'd say that's the most compelling case that technology absolutely stagnates until a MUCH better theory comes along. I'm not suggesting people in Aristotle's time were stupid or didn't make some clever engineering decisions... but when you believe objects fall at different rates, even while practically true most of the time, is fundamentally limiting in what anyone tried to create.

And I'd say we got the ol' 1-2 punch from the paradigm shift from Maxwellian Theory (that made global, wireless communications and AC power possible) to Quantum Theory (that made transistors possible, enough said!).

I don't know what the next paradigm shift is going to be... maybe quantum gravity? Don't know. But it'll be exciting!

The latter is what I meant. That the iPhone doesn't definitively owe its existence to predictions of physics and academic process, unless you want to take the position that any one link in the chain could be undone if it wasn't for some glorious crystal of theory (like Maxwell's equations, say, or something which 'makes' fets work especially at 5nm). People tend to push through those kinds of things if they can see a way past. Or if you want to say we wouldn't have the iPhone today, which is obvious.

I'm not certain we'd have the iPhone ever. There are a lot of 'wrong' ways to make an iPhone. It's much more likely we'd find all the wrong ways before the right ways without a governing theory to predict what to do in the next experiment... which is in the physics.

I certainly don't want to say physics had no part or is dead. The only thing I want to target is this (I assume) taught notion that science begat physics begat engineering that doesn't seem to exist outside of academia and governmental ivory towers. The commercial world is completely indifferent to that, and simply assumes that physics is one of the parts of engineering.

I work in both academia and the commercial world. The predecessor to ABET defined engineering as,
"The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property."

Emphasis mine. So, if physics isn't foundational to what we do, what even is engineering??? 

Perhaps it might be helpful if you elucidate on that question. 

Claims that "physics had to come before technology" can be made arbitrarily, eg fax machines might have stepper motor drivers, image sensor chips and even lasers. But when it's said that optical fax existed in the late 1800s, those claims need adjustment. They might still be correct, but it doesn't have much meaning.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Re Heaviside, he usually is called a physicist, but before that was recognised, he was shunned by just about any institution (but not person) that could exist. He was an electrician (possibly more in line with an electrical engineer today). Patenting the coaxial cable sounds awfully like engineering to me. So do eschewing some mathematical rigour, and getting into spats with an ignorant boss. And so on. My point being that this distinction can be imaginary (or perhaps arbitrary).

Denying physics would be completely silly, but I don't think that's what I'm saying. It's certainly not what I want to suggest or portray.

You're getting close here.  Heaviside is a strange but interesting case though so I'd rather speak more generally towards the end of my post. The whole 'physicists vs engineers' vibe I've seen around the net since Electroboom's KVL videos is really what's riled me to be more outspoken in the various forum I've lurked in. It's gotten a resurgence since Veritasium's video for different reasons. And in my line of work as both a working engineer in industry AND someone educating future engineers from within academia, it makes me sad to see these kinds of ridiculous attitudes filtered down into my students. 

Probably the real "physicists versus engineers" debate is whether to use i or j for the complex number. And the answer is obviously j because what the heck do you call current then? 

[penfold]

[...]
Probably the real "physicists versus engineers" debate is whether to use i or j for the complex number. And the answer is obviously j because what the heck do you call current then?  [...]

Let's not forget that engineers and physicists have very different job descriptions. That doesn't necesarily prelude a person of either primarily physics, primarily engineering, or primarily mathematics background from working either job function or using i, j, I, J, i, j, I or J as a complex unit or 'current-(density)' variable. The interesting question there would be: which scientific descoveries arrived from which practice of which principals by a practicioner of which background?

[aetherist]

I suppose that the simplest answer is that the irregularities in the thin skin of the wire is much the same as the irregularities deeper in the wire.
But why would electons (ie photons) be slowed by irregularities in the skin of the wire?

That doesn't work if the surface is plated with a highly conductive metal, eg silver on steel. The resistance except at very high frequencies (skin effect) is that of the bulk steel wire.

Do u know of any papers re tests re the DC resistance of copper clad steel wire (or silver or gold)?
Hmmm – the DC resistance of steel clad copper wire would be even more interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper-clad_steel
https://mwswire.com/copper-clad-steel-wire/
https://publications.waset.org/10011187/conductivity-and-selection-of-copper-clad-steel-wires-for-grounding-applications

Problem 6.   Electons are a surface dweller, hence u would think that doubling the dia of a wire would halve the resistance. If doubling the dia results in a ¼ resistance then electons are in trouble.  For DC current.

Well spotted.

Looking ahead for good excuses. If new (electon) electricity was very sensitive to temperature then that could explain the further doubling of resistance, to make it 1:4 instead of 1:2 (if indeed the 1:4 exists).

[TimFox]

From the major manufacturer of copper-clad steel wire:
https://www.copperweld.com/application/files/7115/3833/2605/Welded_Copper-covered_Steel_CCS_Strand_Electrical.pdf

[aetherist]

From the major manufacturer of copper-clad steel wire:
https://www.copperweld.com/application/files/7115/3833/2605/Welded_Copper-covered_Steel_CCS_Strand_Electrical.pdf

The tables for ohms per mile show lower resistance for DC than for 60Hz.
That is the opposite of what might be expected.
It must be a quirk of the temperature ratings or something.
Anyhow, it tends to support my electons.
I wonder if there are any papers that deal with thickness of copper (or silver or gold) cladding, i mean very very thin cladding/coating.