• balsoft@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    When was this written?

    Given it has a (good quality) color photo attached to it, it was definitely published when we already understood the theory of electricity really well, so it doesn’t get a pass.

    We don’t know what any of the fundamental forces (electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) really are

    I’d argue that for fundamental forces, “what they are” and “what they do” is the same, by definition.

    And in any case, mains supply in your home is not just electromagnetic waves vibing around, it’s electrons engineered to move through wires in very specific ways, transferring power from a moving magnet or (increasingly) a photon falling on a semiconductor junction, to move another magnet, heat up some metal, or (increasingly) bounce around some electrons between some semiconductor junctions and then emit photons from other semiconductors junctions.

    Finally, most of the text is bullshit even if you don’t think we know what fundamental forces “are”:

    No one has ever felt it

    You can easily feel electric discharge. Just rub your hair on some wool.

    No one has ever heard it

    Just be around a thunderstorm. Thunder is the sound of an electric discharge.

    We cannot even say where electricity comes from

    You can see where the energy that moved the electrons in your wires came from: https://app.electricitymaps.com/

    It was written by a complete and utter buffoon, and it can’t be redeemed with any amount of handwaving or philosophizing over what it means to “know” or what things “are”. Either that or it’s satire (which might well be the case).

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 months ago

      Given it has a (good quality) color photo attached to it, it was definitely published when we already understood the theory of electricity really well, so it doesn’t get a pass.

      It’s even worse than that. Electric lighting predates the photo camera by several decades

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          The first arclamp is from the 1800-1810s. They weren’t exactly selling them in stores by then, but they had been invented.

      • balsoft@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’d argue we didn’t fully understand the theory of electricity until we understood the atomic structures of metals and semiconductors, and that was properly developed in the early 20th century.

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          You could place “understanding” at many points in history, and several in the future:

          Building an arclamp powered by a portable generator is damned impressive.

          Sending a message via electromagnetic waves shows very impressive understanding of electricity too.

          Having a small electromagnetic particle accelerator in your house to show moving pictures is pretty damned amazing.

          Using electricity and basically sand to do maths is insanely impressive.

          On the other hand, you might argue we don’t understand electricity because we don’t have a unified field theory.