GreyMamba

Thinking Allowed … (under construction)

Thinking Allowed … (under construction)

Science

Probably by luck more than judgement, I've got a PhD in Astronomy and have had a lifelong interest in Physics. Like most Physicist I know it is the king of sciences, Biology being mere stamp collecting and chemistry cooking. Don't get us started on the softer 'sciences' like geography (colouring in) and … Actually, I've got a bit of a soft-spot for the biosciences. I did an MSc in bioinformatics (using advanced IT methodologies to work with, mostly, genetic data) and really enjoyed the 'wet' labs we IT people did. What's not to like about splicing DNA information into a bacteria and seeing the result! Must write something on CRISPR.

Anyway, This section will be about interesting science I've done or read about - probably mostly Physics and Astronomy but also good stuff from the other, lesser, sciences (joke).

So what exactly is science? Well I see it as a bit of an iterative process based on curiosity and creative thinking. Someone makes an observation of something and wonders why or what caused the observed phenomena (the trick here is to be curious - how many of us look at the blue sky and think: why is it blue and not green or purple?). We need to explain things though (being mildly rational creatures) - and this is where creativity comes in.

OK, so let's give it a go. Ummm ... how about 'the sky is blue because each morning hobgoblins climb ladders and paint it with unicorn tears collected the previous night by little tiny elves whilst the unicorns sleep'. Pretty ingenious and creative ehh? - and it might be true! Or how about 'the small particles floating in the atmosphere selectively scatter short wavelength (blue) light into our eyes'? Not so much - but I suppose that just about could be true also.

Here's were the scientific method comes in. It goes something (forgive me Francis Bacon) something like this:

  1. Observe a phenomenon.
  2. Think up an explanation (hypothesis)
  3. Use this to predict some further phenomenon.
  4. Go and look for it.
  5. If we don't see it then the explanation must be wrong - go back to 2.
  6. If we do see it - great - use it to predict further phenomena and go an look for them. If we keep confirming the predictions then we might have hit on a pretty good explanation. Let's call this a theory.

This process has served us well and we have some pretty good explanations of how the Universe ticks. BUT NOTE - we can never prove a theory is right - only that it's wrong. And that's the problem with scientists - they'll never tell you that they're 100% sure of anything (other than a hypothesis must be wrong). But Quantum, Einstein's and Darwin's various theories' predictions have been tested so many times now without being disproved that we're pretty sure they're close to an accurate description of 'the truth'.

Let's give it a go with our competing blue sky theories.

What happens if we look towards the sun as it's setting - i.e. through a large 'path length' of atmosphere.

  • Hobgoblin hypothesis: Sky should still be blue - in fact perhaps a stronger blue because there is so much atmosphere.
  • Scattering hypothesis. By the time the light gets to us most of the blue should be scattered away so the sky will look reddish.

Let's see now, sunsets are orange/red/pink. Bugger, looks like the Unicorns can sleep unmolested. But the scattering idea rates a further look!

OK, pretty unfair and not really rigorous but I hope you get the point.
Scientific snippets

And Maxwell (also Faraday) said - 'Let there be Light'

Michael Faraday (1791 – 1867) did not have much of a formal education but became a consummate experimental scientist. He wasn’t a great mathematician but did have a brilliant ability to convey the concepts he uncovered with clarity and precision. As a chemist he discovered Benzene and developed a simple, early form of the Bunsen burner. He also worked on the production of optical glass but it is his contributions to our understanding of electricity and magnetism (the relationship between which was arguably initially ‘discovered’ by the Danish scientist Hans Christian Ørsted) that really marks him out. He produced an early form of electric motor and went on to demonstrate and measure the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction, using this to produce an electric dynamo the precursor to all our modern electrical generation. He went on to demonstrate that the current idea that there were several forms of electricity was wrong and that the various measurable phenomena were just manifestations of the same underlying physical force.

He developed the concept of lines of flux emanating from charged bodies and finally, not long before he died, he proposed that the electromagnetic forces he had measured and described extended away from the conducting media into ‘empty’ space. A truly revolutionary idea that was just not acceptrable at the time.

James Clerk Maxwell (1831 – 1879), unlike Faraday, was a consummate mathematicial scientist and could build on Faradays work to finally produce a beautiful mathematical model of the electromagnetic phenomenon, successfully combining electricity, magnetism and light. He showed that electrical and magnetic effects move through space as waves, traveling at a constant speed – the speed of light. His equations paved the way for much of our modern understanding of the physical world including special relativity and quantum mechanics.

Maxwell’s equations (there were orignally 20 of them) can be reduced and combined to just 4 using modern partial differential forms and here they are:

\[ \begin{align} \nabla & \cdot \vec{E} = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} \\ \nabla & \cdot \overset{\mbox{→}}{B} = 0 \\ \nabla & \times \vec{E} = - \frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t} \\ \nabla & \times \vec{B} = \mu_0 \vec {J} + \frac{1} {c^2 } \frac{\partial \vec{E}}{\partial t} \end{align} \]

Where \(\vec{E}\) is the electric field, \(\vec{B}\) is the magnetic field, \(\vec{J}\) is the total current density, \(\rho\) is the electric charge density. And we have some fundemental properties of space; \(\epsilon_0\) is the permitivity of free space and \(\mu_0\) is the permeability of free space. Finally, of course, \(c\) is the speed of light in a vacuum.

The meaning of each part of this set of equations can roughly be described something like:

(1) The electrical flux leaving a region is proportional to the total charge within it" (Gauss's Law)

(2) The magnetic flux through an enclosing surface is zero" - this precludes magnetic monopoles. (Gauss's Law of magnetism)

(3) If you have a closed loop, the voltage induced in this by a changing magnetic flux is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux enclosed by the loop." (Maxwell-Faraday)

(4) The magnetic field integrated around a closed loop is proportional to the electric current in it plus the rate of change of the electric field that the loop encloses." (Ampere's circuit law)

Back

Apples in Herefordshire. Apples ... Newton ... Scientce ....... geddit?

RapidWeaver Icon

Made in RapidWeaver