Luke Davis | August 23rd, 2011

Insights arising from the atomic theory of matter

Insights arising from the atomic theory of matter

By Luke Kristopher Davis

(Last article)

The theory does not coincide with everyday experience

   Take a few seconds to look around your present environment; the laptop or PC in front of you, the grass or buildings outside your window, the objects that sit on your table and the body that is you. You can touch the table and it feels quite smooth. Nothing from this experience tells you that matter itself consists of small units called atoms. Objects seem intact and their surfaces seem whole… if they were made of small spherical units surely we would see them?  This is not true however.

Humans and their sensory equipment have evolved to deal with the environment around them, our eyes have merely coped with this layer of reality. Our brains find it easier to see objects as big solid objects, not made of tiny tiny particles.

It was in the age of the Athenian philosophers, including Democritus, that the concept of indivisible units of matter arose. The concept arose from the simple empirical fact that objects change; they decay, break, melt and evaporate. They simply asked the question; how can things change if they are completely whole? why doesn’t an object, when broken, simply vanish?  The answer to this was atomos: which is Greek for ‘indivisible’. Objects are comprised of very small spheres which are themselves impenetrable.

Many thinkers simply  disagreed with this absurd hypothesis for three reasons; 1) There was no obvious physical evidence for it  2) It went against everything already known (in those times conservatism was strong)  3)  It didn’t change how they lived.

In 1800′s John Dalton proposed an Atomic theory of matter, which basically stated that substances are made of atoms and that different substances are made of different atoms.  His theory was an explanation of many experiments from different scientists. His paper presented strong evidence for the atomic theory.

It seemed that primitive instinct had failed to reveal the truth about the world. Only precise experiments could detect the molecular structure of matter.

Our coarse senses have a limited power in revealing the structure of the universe, experiments that were invented beyond the atomic theory opened a new layer of the universe. They explained so much about where we live and how it works.

The Modern Atomic theory

   What Dalton proposed was mostly correct, however he did not present any insight into the structure of these so called atoms. He only said they were there, which at his time was a great achievement. It had taken many physicists and chemists since Dalton to delve deeper into the atom.

J.J.Thomson, through his experiments on Cathode rays, discovered the electron.  Which was later found to be a particle orbiting around the nucleus at different energy levels. This finding was partially due to a consequence of the experiments performed by Ernst Rutherford and his assistants (really it was performed by his assistants).  The experiment consisted of a gold foil with a detector of helium nuclei around the foil. The assistants fired helium nuclei at the gold foil and most of the helium nuclei past straight through the foil. There were however some unexpected results, some (a statistical value exists) of the nuclei were reflected back to the firer and some deflected their paths. This result was incredible as Rutherford himself explains:

It was quite the most incredible event that has ever happened to me in my life. It was almost as incredible as if you fired a 15-inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came back and hit you. On consideration, I realized that this scattering backward must be the result of a single collision, and when I made calculations I saw that it was impossible to get anything of that order of magnitude unless you took a system in which the greater part of the mass of the atom was concentrated in a minute nucleus. It was then that I had the idea of an atom with a minute massive center, carrying a charge.
—Ernest Rutherford
This disproved the plum-pudding model of the atom (everything existing in a sphere with no concentrated points). This experiment revealed the nature of the atom and this itself opened a new world.
Protons where thereby given there name, a particle existing in the nucleus with a positive charge. From this knowledge of the atom ,elements could be described accurately using atomic numbers (A) and proton numbers (Z).
This modern interpretation of atomic theory gave rise to a plethora of scientific knowledge and legacy. Nuclear fusion and fission arose after the creation of the atomic bomb made at Los Alamos. Radiation and the weak decay force could be described. The photoelectric effect, discovered by Einstein was born.
Delving deeper into the atomic world, now known as the subatomic world, has brought us invaluable knowledge. It has also brought us the modern life which we now live.
Interesting explanations
Einstein discovered what is called Brownian motion: the random jiggling of molecules in gas, liquid and solids (minimally). This led to an interesting explanation of what heat actually is. Most of us when we are young, think of heat as some kind of energy that hot things seem to possess and radiate. Heat is actually the amount of jiggling that occurs in a group of molecules. The more hotter something is the more jiggling its molecules experience.
The states and phenomena of H2O can be explained through this jiggling of atoms. Imagine a blob of water that is on your desk. It is stationary and it is sort of spherical. You may ask… what keeps this damn water blob … a blob!?  What stops it from just spilling everywhere?  The atoms of the water are vibrating slightly… in a random manner. The atoms are also attracting each other so that they stay sufficiently close to one another. The atoms that are on the outside are vibrating… not as much as the ones inside (as they lose kinetic energy colliding with air molecules and are not bombarded as much by other water atoms) but are trying to get in to the center of the blob. This is because they are attracted to other atoms inside the blob and next to it and this attractive force is much stronger than their forces due to motion. (As they come too close to one another they repel due to the strong nuclear force).  This is how a blob of water stays a blob… it is due to surface tension.
If there is not a thermal equilibrium between the air and the water blob, the blob may lose thermal energy. The atoms and molecules of the blob will jiggle and vibrate with less rapidness.  If they lose enough energy they may come to a point whereby the atoms form a structure in which the vibration cannot overcome. This is called a freezing point, we know this to be 0 degrees Celsius  for water. In the case of  ice, the atoms form an hexagonal structure with empty centers. These empty spaces create an expansion of the overall system causing water to expand when frozen.  In the case of water, the empty spaces are normally filled with vibrating atoms.
Also the burning sensation and the mark left on the skin by touching something hot can be explained through atoms and molecules. Say for example you have a hot pan, which we know has molecules vibrating and jiggling very fast. When we place our finger tip on the pan, these fast moving molecules come into contact with the cells on our skin and literally pound the hell out of them. The molecules damage the cells due to their momentum and surrounding cells produce a chemical which sends an electrical impulse to the spinal cord, which produces a signal to a motor neuron which then causes our finger tip to move away. (This reflex is sometimes unconscious).  All this happens in such a short amount of time, yet so much is happening. The universe is such an amazing system, such an intricate and complex system.

Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Digg Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Environment, Science, Technology | No Comments

Luke Davis | August 7th, 2011

A Facebook interview with: Nat Eguchi

The Facebook interview: Nat Eguchi

by Luke Kristopher Davis

    Louis and Nat Eguchi have had their Ipod application featured in the Banbury Guardian. I am curious about their success and how Nat has built up a curiosity for computer science.  We also discuss other issues that we find important in our lives.

(Luke is in Italics)

What do you think of your recent success on your app?

it’s just proof that a simple app, with very modest marketing can achieve world wide reach in very little time. this, admittedly, has also been proven by the apprentice, but with our success it shows that a little known company can have the same impact.

The App, as you imply, brings to the world a whole new enterprise for companies wanting a quick entry into the world of E-business. Do you think Apple has had a significant change on the internet and business? If so how?

Before the opening of Apples mobile application market place the “App Store”, mobile applications were very much few and far between, with a market place dominated solely by games and simple utilities such as currency converters. with the advent of the Apple iPhone, 3G mobile internet and larger screen sizes, mobile smartphones such as the iPhone have been able to have more feature rich applications with dynamic and stunning content. the Apple iPhone has forced mobile application developers to make functional, well designed applications for smart phones, with fewer bugs and better experiences. Apple has managed to do this by entering the market place with a feature rich set of tools, content and support for developers to create applications for their device. this kind of all in one approach has not yet been reached on platforms such as android. the audited, high quality nature of the App Store makes for a very high number of repeat purchases from consumers and this is the key business model that apple has hit.

Apple has indeed become a ‘tour de force’ in the computing and technology area. Their ‘all in one approach’ as you say and their dedication to design quality has resulted in them having more collected dollars then the U.S government.  Moving on from Apple and onto your own personal curiosity. Why do you create Apps and learn about the mechanics of computers?  When did you start this interest?

My interest in computers apparently started from a very early age, when i was 3 years old, my dad used to bring has laptop (more like a PC back then) back from work every day and he would let me type random garbage on it (usually pages of G’s and F’s). I would then format it and make it look all pretty and he would print off these pages of rubbish when he went back to work the next day, I think it was probably the excitement of getting these back the next day that really got me into computers from a very early age. As i grew up and progressed through primary school it became apparent to the teachers that I knew a lot more than them about the computers and they would often call on me to help with their lessons. It’s rather funny when i look back through all my old school reports they were so scared that I knew so much, I think they thought I was some sort of spy. It was at the end of the summer of 2008 that i got my first real break into the world of programming.. We (my brother and I) were commissioned to create a website for a rally team. It was decided that it was going to be visually stunning and needed a database for all the content. Not knowing anything about this I did what I usually do when I hit a problem and googled it. A couple of months later and I had learnt Actionscript 2, PHP, SQL and created a website. And that is where i really got into programming. It was earlier this summer that my brother came to me with the app idea for totty and asked me whether I could do it, I said “Come back in an hour and i’ll see” so he did and i’d built the majority of it. it was such a simple idea, that it was easy to execute. I think the nice thing about programming is that you can see the results of your hard work almost instantly and that is most satisfying

i am terrible with this!

That is very interesting, I did a lot of research (for the world’s greatest brains series… which is still going) on great mathematicians, scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs and Nobel laureates and I found that, in their childhood they had an emotional attachment to their subject area, or they were completely filled with awe with nature or their own ability. I am not saying with certainty that you’re going to be successful, I am merely saying you fit the already established pattern. This funnily enough happened to me when I was about 7, my grandad bought me a light bulb, he pointed out the window and said ‘the sun gives us light and so does a light bulb’ I was like… yeah.. it does, ‘ he then said how can light come from two different things’. That question which at first seems simple but has fundamental physical importance, unleashed a curiosity for the governing dynamics of things.

What are your other interests? Are you an advocate of science?

I have interests in D.I.Y and Electronics, I fix everything in our house and am currently trying to repair a 1970′s pen plotter, which is extremely difficult as it has thousands of wires, components and switches and it didn’t come with a manual! I am interested in the way things work and especially how existing online systems work, I have previously hacked SAM learning to make me the “Top Learner” in our year and also hacked spotify to be able to download any song. The other day I managed to create an exact copy of 4ODs ad-serving infrastructure so I could replace the adverts on 4oD with my own, it’s these little fun things that really interest me. using existing systems to do something they weren’t designed for.

Classic stuff! Teach me how to download anything on Spotify! (obviously outside the interview) Just a pre-warning though, the FBI and UN are cracking down on hackers e.g. lulzsec which could be classed as a threat to national security. However, I don’t think they are too bothered with 40d atm. You seem very practical minded with your approach to ‘finding things out’, which is brilliant! I tend (try and will continue to for the rest of my life) to find ‘existing systems’ in nature and to try and understand these and find ways to use these systems for pleasure or for the benefit of humans. It may seem dull to others, but, as you well know, finding things out is a kinda fun.

What do you think of obstacles that restrain curiosity and learning… parents and teachers can sometimes be restraining? Do you think Religion is a restraint on progress.. on finding things out?

I, Surprisingly, find very few obstacles to my curiosity bar time, money and the amount of time i can stay awake before my mind turns to a boiled egg. I have been blessed with fairly “Of the reigns” parents. Another nice thing about the things I do is that religion rarely falls into the lines of what I do, and if it did, i would have to take a thoroughly atheistic argument. I think that some fundamentalists can be stuck in the past about what they accept of science and technology (but then again, isn’t the past the definition of fundamentalism?). I am not worried about this in respect to the pace at which we are finding things out as many of the key nations leading the discovery of new things in science and technology have a very “Hands off” approach when it comes to religion and science, putting the two in very distinct boxes. I think that there is a way of having both coexist. but everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

A very mature and respectful attitude you hold. On my ipod I have a weird facts app ( oh yes another app), one of the facts states that the rate of gain of knowledge is so fast that 90% of what we know in the next 50 years will be discovered in those 50 years. I am glad you are able to explore your curiosity with minimal limits. Just one more question which I will ask future interviewees too… 

what do you think of mattjwaller.com ?

It appears to be a very well written and edited blog, on par with a magazine for the quality of the articles. It’ll get you and matt far.

Thank you very much Nat! Let’s hope it does… we also hope you enjoy more success with your talents. Thank you for taking part in our first facebook interview, stay tuned for more! Adios Nat and readers!

I better get back to packing now!!

 


Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Digg Email

Tags: , ,
Posted in Environment, Reviews, Science, Technology, Uncategorized | No Comments

Luke Davis | August 4th, 2011

An exploration into: Our brain and central nervous system

Our brain and central nervous system

by Luke Kristopher Davis

An introduction

    As you follow the evolutionary history of life on earth you will see that organisms grow in their complexity and efficiency. This complexity is a consequence of minute alterations to DNA which result in complex organs, this alteration is a result of natural selection. Natural selection is a process which sieves out genes that  are no longer useful, are faulty or another gene for a similar function is a much more adapted gene for that environment. Fast forward this process for a couple of billions of years then as a consequence of natural selection, a vast array of complex organisms will have formed.

Homo-sapiens, as with sperm whales ( Physeter macrocephalus)  and the scorpion (Hadogenes troglodytes), are products of evolution. We have developed (as with our ancestor the chimpanzee) a complex nervous system and brain. Our complex nervous system has helped us in sensing our environment and equally in processing and acting upon it. Homo-sapiens in particular have a complex brain, we are able to communicate with other humans in enormous detail and we are capable of complex abstract thought. As you can see around you, the human brain is capable of understanding nature and its governing dynamics, enabling technology and a very complicated social structure.

In this article we will explore the mechanisms that underpin our interactions with the world (central nervous system) and our brilliant cognitive machine.

The Central Nervous System

  The central nervous system (CNS) is the body’s control center. It is analogous to the pilot’s cabin and the electronic system of radar and radio to a plane. CNS co-ordinates all the humans actions, both mechanical and chemical (working with hormones) and is made up of the brain and spinal cord. The millions of nerves that perpetuate throughout the body carry electronic impulses from certain tissues, through the spinal cord up to the brain and this happens in the opposite direction too.

The Brain

“The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up in the morning and does not stop until you get into the office.”
- Robert Frost

The brain is the organ that controls most of the body’s activities. It is responsible for advance cognition, conscious movement and unconscious activities e.g. controlling the food movement through the intestines. The brain is the only organ able to act ‘intelligently’ which is action based on past experience stored as information, present events and future plans. It is made of millions of neurons arranged into sensory, association and motor areas. The sensory areas receive information from all body parts and the association areas analyse the impulses and make decisions. The motor areas send messages (orders) to muscles or glands. The impulses are carried by the fibers of 43 pairs of nerves – 12 pairs of cranial nerves serving the head and 31 pairs of spinal nerves.

The parts of the brain:

The Cerebrum: The largest, most highly developed area, with many deep folds (which is a sign of complex neuron and lobe structure… advanced cognition). It is located above the cerebellum and the thalamus. The cerebrum is made out of two cerebral hemispheres, joined by a band of nerve fibers (corpus callosum) and its outer layer is called the cerebral cortex. This contains all the most important sensory, association and motor areas. It controls most physical activities (yes… even sex) and is the center for mental activities such as decision-making, speech, learning, memory hippocampus lobe and imagination.

The Cerebellum: The area of the brain which co-ordinates muscle movement and balance, these two are under the overall control of the cerebrum.

The midbrain: An area joining the Diencephalon, which is a collective term used for the thalamus and hypothalamus, to the pons. It carries impulses towards the thalamus, and out from the cerebrum towards the spinal cord.

Pons or Pons Varolii: A junction of nerve fibers which forms a link between the parts of the brain and the spinal cord (via the medulla).

Medulla or medulla oblongta: The area which controls the “fine tuning” of many unconscious actions (under the overall control of the hypothalamus). Different parts of the medulla control different actions.

Thalamus: This is the basic traffic center of the brain, it directs the oncoming nerve impulse traffic to different parts of the cerebrum. It also directs some outgoing impulses.

Hypothalamus: The master controller of most inner body functions. It controls the autonomic nervous system (nerve cells causing unconscious action) and the action of the pituitary gland. This gland is made out of two anterior and posterior lobes which produce hormones for the body, these hormones are mainly of the tropic variety, these hormones stimulate the action of other glands in the body. This part of the brain is vital for keeping our internal systems in order.

The lobes and parts of the cerebrum

The different hemispheres of the cerebrum focus on different cognition. The left is more analytically orientated, focusing on language and computation. The right is more creative and more focused on visual imagination.

The spinal cord

   The spinal cord is a long string of nervous tissue running down from the brain stem inside the vertebral column. Nervous messages from all parts of the body travel through it, some are carried away from the brain and some enter towards it. Others might be dealt with in the cord.

As you can see in the diagram spinal nerves branch from the cord through gaps in vertebrae. There are over 31 pairs of these spinal nerves. Nervous fibers branch from these nerves and so on around different organs and limbs. Each spinal nerve is made out of a sensory root and a motor root, the former sends signals into the brain, the latter sends signals to muscles or glands.

In the spinal cord exists neuroglia which are stiffened cells which support and protect the nerve cells of the central nervous system. Some produce a white, fatty substance called myelin. This coats the long fibers found in connective areas of the brain and the outer layer of the spinal cord, and leads to these areas being called white matter. Grey matter on the other hand consists of cell bodies and short fibers which do not produce myelin.

The neuron

On a molecular level, the governing dynamics of both the brain and spinal cord are greatly caused by the structure and mechanisms of a nerve cell or neuron.

The neuron is made up of a cell body, nerve fibers, dendrites and sometimes axons. The cell body is the part of the neuron containing its nucleus and most of its cytoplasm. The cell bodies of all association, some sensory and some motor neurons lie in the brain and spinal cord. Those of the other sensory neurons are found in masses called ganglia.

Nerve fibers are extensions of the sytoplasm of the cellbody and carry vital nervous impulses to other neurons, muscles or parts of the brain. Most of the lond nerve fibers which run out round the body are accompanied by neuroglial cells which produces myelin around each fiber. Dendrites are the fibers carrying impulses in towards the cell body, axons are the long fibers which carry signals away from the neuron in query.

There are three different types of neurons: sensory, motor and association. Sensory neurons carry information to other neurons, they are detectors and are vital for the bio-mechanical system, they fire signals when stimulated. Association neurons are special linking neurons present in vast quantities in the brain and spinal cord. They pick up information and interpret the sensory information and pass this to the right motor neuron. Motor neurons are responsible for action, they receive information and when stimulated cause muscle contraction or the chemical production of hormones in glands.

Between nerve endings is a synapse which is a small gap between the dendrite and axon of two neurons. A neuro transmitting chemical is produced from the axon to stimulate the continuation of the electrical signal.

An insight

The human body as you can see is beautifully complex yet astonishingly efficient. This is why human consciousness seems so ethereal and quite incomprehensible,with time however neuro-scientists, physicists and biologists may come to model the complex process of consciousness. We have also gained an insight into nature, how nature builds intelligence. We may as humans learn from this and when building artificial intelligence use the phenomena witnessed in the human brain as an example.

A question is raised however, is this the only way nature can produce biological intelligence and complexity? Is there another way which an alien life form may take?

Time will tell.

Thanks goes to ADAM for images


Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Digg Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Environment, Science, Uncategorized | No Comments

Luke Davis | July 30th, 2011

In reply to ‘The case for Religion’

Firstly, I think my colleague’s article deserves a lot of respect and appreciation as it is well written and well argued. Though his article and some of the conclusions drawn are in-valid and some are based on misunderstanding.

1) The graph in his article is a sketch, that is, it is not based on collected data. The curve representing the gradual increase in scientific knowledge is too simplified, it does not represent the true nature of science. The progress of science is chaotic and does not follow a strict linear pattern. The growth of science between Newton and the 29th century was fast, showing a sharp growth in scientific knowledge. However the growth can halt for a few years. There are two patterns in the progress of science- paradigm shifts and actual knowledge.. paradigm shifts are where we have to change our complete view of nature e.g. Einsteins relativity and quantum mechanics (which were both unpredictable). Scientists gather knowledge on small scales nearly everyday, this is more gradual, but it also depends on the technology available at the time.

Scientific knowledge is unpredictable, maybe there will be less paradigm shifts occurring per unit time than before. This was the view 100 years ago and plenty revolutions have occured.

Also Matt had shown that Religion, as a body of knowledge, increased sharply at times. However what sort of knowledge occured? Surely Religion is absolute, it is in its nature to not change… surely the curve should be way less steep than shown.

One could question Matt’s assumption that religion and science started at the same time, for we know religion occurred before the scientific method. The knowledge that science has brought us in its life span is far far greater than what religion has brought us. Also what knowledge has Religion brought us? It has not bought us mathematical or empirical knowledge… so what has it brought?

Surely Religion is not supposed to be a body of knowledge. Religion is a body of faith and reassurance.

2) ‘In my opinion the best way in which the human race to advance is to have a mix of both science and faith. Use science for questions that are answers beyond doubt and use faith for all the gaps.’

Matt is basically saying that science should be used to explain events that faith cannot answer. Faith should be used for events that science has YET to explain. Surely this is a paradox.

What criterion does one use to establish what is beyond faith and what is beyond science? Matt still has to give this criterion for humans to use his principle efficiently. I also predict that on Matt’s principle, we would not progress at all.

Here are my reasons; At the frontiers of science, researchers encounter some new phenomena which they cannot adequately explain with old theories or models. This is a gap in scientific knowledge. If we follow Matt’s reasoning we should say God intervenes in this case or start providing mythical explanations. If this happens continuously then science will not progress because religious myth will fill in all the gaps that science could have explained if its scientists formed new theories.

On this basis we should not do what Matt is saying. We shouldn’t allow religious myth to fill in the gap (which is a psychological defense mechanism anyway). We should trust science (evidence from the past suggests that new incomprehensible  phenomena can be explained through new theories) to explain new phenomena, we do not need myth to fill in the gap.

This itself is a logical inconsistency anyway, if Religion has to fill in the small gaps in science surely this is a desperate attempt for its own survival. Why use the scientific method to explain the world and then use religion to fill in what seems incomprehensible. This is lazy.

3) ‘If there was no spiritual meaning of life then I do not believe that the human race or, ironically, science would be where it was today’

Science is independent of faith. In the equations of physicists or the biological models of our genome there is no quantity of faith… no variable of spirituality. There is no need for it.  Scientific theories only take into account what is observed, spirits, ghosts, gods, Zeus, invisible teapots are not observable and therefore are not taken into account.

Science would be far ahead if it wasn’t for Religion and fundamentalism. Most of america is still religious… a court case against teaching evolution took place which to our sanity Evolution won. This however puts restraints on children’s (future generations) belief in science… the belief that it works and it works very well.

We do not need spiritual guidance to explain the universe scientifically. As Richard Feynman said…  ’we should take pleasure in finding things out’,  that pleasure and desire for precise knowledge is what guides the scientists today.

4) ‘The fact is that neither science or religion is right about most questions that have been or will be asked but in most cases they will try and provide answers that their supporters will believe’

This is a quite disappointing comment. If science has not been right about the questions we humans ask about the world, we would be stuck in the caveman era, science is right until falsified. What this means is… a scientific theory is correct until evidence is shown against it… it changes to fit the evidence and continues to do so ( a paradigm shift might occur also).

Science provides answers that fit with experiment, scientists do not care what they think, if it doesn’t agree with experiment then it is wrong. Matt, yet again, has a misunderstanding of what science is and what science does.

Religion has not been right about a lot of things, such as… the world was created in 6 days (evidence suggests that universe was created from a subatomic explosion and continues to expand). The bible says that the universe should be about 60, 000 years old, however dinosaurs (from fossils) existed before it. The bible says that women are inferior which is not true, women are capable of great things.

Matt also claims that science is fundamental. If this were true then it would not progress because scientists would not change theories even if evidence is against it. Science is the opposite, it is fallible and its students understand that. Fallible meaning ‘could be wrong’.

Religion is fundamentalist, only because its students believe they are not fallible.

Religion and Science are two different ‘schools of thought’ (Science is technically a school of thought and experiment). Religion is based on faith and God, Science on reason and experiment.

We are humans though, biological creatures. Religion is a social phenomenon and so is science. What is true is ultimately relative to our race and our brain infrastructure. However, science is providing us with longer and better quality lives. If we are a species to progress it is a no brainer to which one we should invest in. I say this out of what has happened in the past (empirically) not on faith.

 


Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Digg Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Religion, Science, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Matt | July 26th, 2011

The Case For Religion

The last few articles by my fellow writer Luke Davis have attracted a lot of attention through his staunch attack on religion and what he seems to imply is the opposite of “reason”. While I can see the logic in many of the points he makes, I find it hard to agree that the voices of logic, reason and science are, without question, the least harmful to the human race and that religion should be ignored.

The argument is used by what I ironically call “fundamental scientists” (due to the fact that they refuse to acknowledge that there may be other answers other than science) such as Richard Dawkins that religion always goes against rational thought and all reasoning. However there are specific cases where rational thought and reasoning are not able to give an answer, at least at present. In some cases science is able to give theories but these shouldn’t be taken as definitive proof as in a lot of cases in the past they have turned out completely wrong. An example of this is the old time theory that the earth was flat. If you were a “voice of reason” at this time then you would have believed this theory but technically you would have been a fundamentalist. I see no reason why this still can’t be the case today. While I agree, on the most part, with theories such as the theory of evolution, it still wouldn’t be earth shattering for me if they were proven wrong. Obviously it would take quite a discovery and a lot of explaining but if you look at the progress of science throughout time a reversal of a theory of this magnitude is not something too far out of the ordinary.

I think that the reason why science is perceived to be the most likely answer to absolute truth is that it is making consistent progress towards it. My theory about how science and religion compete for the absolute truth can be best shown by a simple diagram.

In the above diagram the x axis represents time and the y axis represents “perceived” knowledge. The word “perceived” is critical as it represents that the amount of knowledge is only the amount that people think the rivalling schools of thought can prove. The red, stepped line on the diagram represents religion is shaped as such due to the fact that religion tends to benefit from big jumps in believers, popularity and thus perceived knowledge. These jumps could be due to the uprising of a new religion such as Islam, the creation of a new denomination in a religion such as the surge of Mormonism in the United States or a large supernatural event which makes people question their perceived reality (for instance a large volcanic eruption in ancient times would have been seen as a sign from the gods).

The black line on the diagram represents the timeline of science and shows how it benefits from continuous discoveries that give reason for people to think it is knowledgeable. The science curve asymptotes towards the perceived absolute truth because as science becomes more knowledgeable people expect greater discoveries which won’t be possible as we approach a point close to absolute truth and so the perceived rate of gain in the knowledge of science will slow.

I, like many others, find it hard to believe that either of the two schools of thought will ever reach perfect absolute truth as with every new discovery there are new questions to be answered which effectively raise the perceived absolute truth line and put the human race further away from it.

In my opinion the best way in which the human race to advance is to have a mix of both science and faith. Use science for questions that are answers beyond doubt and use faith for all the gaps. For instance, science cannot answer what happens to the human consciousness after death with any proof whereas faith provides an answer that gives people motivation. I asked Luke before he posted his last article what he thought the scientific answer would be in this scenario and his answer was the the human brain dies and decays and so the human consciousness must also. In many faiths there are answers which provide images of judgement days and an afterlife which is based on people’s actions in this life. The question I will ask is which is better for the human race to believe?

Should we give people unproven theory or motivation? If there was no spiritual meaning of life then I do not believe that the human race or, ironically, science would be where it was today. People need to feel like they will be personally rewarded for their actions. One of the failings of the communist regimes around the world is that in most cases people aren’t motivated enough to work just to help their country. Either they become lazy, less productive or rebellious as in the soviet union or they are given a spiritual motive as in North Korea where Kim Jong Il is promoted as almost a living God. Which of these two communist states is still around? That’s right, the one that provided spiritual motivation.

The fact is that neither science or religion is right about most questions that have been or will be asked but in most cases they will try and provide answers that their supporters will believe. In this sense they are both fundamentalist schools of thought but they are both needed for the advancement of our race.


Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Digg Email

Tags: , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Religion, Science | 1 Comment

Luke Davis | July 24th, 2011

Science vs. Fundamentalism

“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.” – Albert Einstein

In the ancient battle between science and religion, evidence versus revelation and reason versus faith, many intellectuals and writers may have not explicitly highlighted who the mastermind behind religion and totalitarianism (dictatorships) really is. In this article I will introduce each position, explain its nature and effects on humans. I will also determine which position is more useful, less harmful, more productive and most importantly… which position is true. I will not merely show my opinion and say that such and such is true because I feel like it, but I will be as objective as I can, using evidence from research and surveys which are legitimate (readers can correct me).

Fundamentalism

“I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.” - Bertrand Russell 

Fundamentalism is believing, using and protecting an ideology without questioning it or supporting it with evidence. For example, if I never stop believing that walking under a ladder brings me bad luck even when there is evidence against this, then I am taking part in fundamentalism (There is no physical link between you walking under a ladder and say you getting fired from your job. You got fired because of what you did on the job). This type of belief system, one that is absolute and superstitious, has many different appearances. It wears the cloak of religion, indulges in the dress of superstition and dresses in the attire of dictatorship and monarchy.

In genesis, we witness the creation of Adam and then subsequently Eve. God tells Adam that he is not to eat an apple from the tree of knowledge which would give him reason (An analogy for learning about the world), Eve becomes tempted to do so and eats an apple from the tree. God banishes Adam and Eve and all their descendants from the garden of life. This story is at the start of the christian holy bible. It promotes ignorance of anything other than Gods word. This story is sending a message to Christians: If you; Learn science, question God, challenge preachers etc. you will go to hell (or something disastrous will happen). This is an example of fundamentalism in a religion. The whole bible, Koran and pretty much every religious scripture or text is said to be the words of a divine prophet or of God. To question any commandments or teachings is a sin. This again is fundamentalism. Believers and preachers do not accept people questioning their religion because their religion is infallible (always right).

What about superstition? Well firstly a superstition is a prejudice, that is, it is not based on use or logic but based upon an instinct or emotional reaction to something. The prejudice could also just be a random guess.

Here is a list of random common supersitions:

  • Friday the thirteenth is an unlucky day
  • A rabbit’s foot brings good luck
  • An apple a day keeps the doctor away
  • To find a four-leaf clover is to find good luck
  • If you walk under a ladder, you will have bad luck
  • If a black cat crosses your path you will have bad luck
  • To break a mirror will bring you seven years bad luck
  • To open an umbrella in the house is to bring bad luck
  • To find a horseshoe brings good luck
  • Step on a crack, break your mother’s back
  • You can break a bad luck spell by turning seven times in a clockwise circle
  • Garlic protects from evil spirits and vampires
  • Our fate is written in the stars
  • At the end of a rainbow is a pot of gold

I do not believe or make use (if there is one) of these sorts of superstitions. The reasons for this is that these superstitions have not been empirically verified. You could conduct an experiment… have 200 different sorts of people who live a set distance away from the other participants, have each person ‘step on a crack’ or ‘open an umbrella inside’ and test whether those who stepped on the crack have had their mothers backs broken or with umbrellas whether they have had bad luck. The former is easy to test… see whether their backs break. However… there is no specific allotted time for this to happen. Also how do we make clear the relationship between opening an umbrella and something bad happening… it is hard to rid the experiment of other possible causes. So it is non-demonstrable. Also it is more likely that a mother breaks her back due to a slippery floor or a prior slipped disk and a minor fall (at what point does luck play its part?). Yet people believe in superstitions. I tell my friends that this is nonsense and that no evidence supports it, yet some fundamentally believe in it.

Colonel Qaddafi, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and King Jon Il  are labelled as dictators. They ruled there territory through force and they dismissed any political opposition through force and fear. In North Korea there is a concerning concentration camp named No. 22. This camp is the size of small British town. It was designed to correct North Koreans who disagreed with King Jon Il and his establishment. King Jon Il believes that he is infallible and believes he is right without question… even his governmental advisers say he does not listen to any advice… even theirs. Hitler believed that he had found the perfect race and that his perfect race was absolute and unquestionable. Bin Laden believed that the Western secular establishment was spreading evil around the world, he believed this without giving it a second thought, without thinking ‘oh guys, let’s just check what the western world has achieved, lets make a poll and see if they really want the Middle East obliterated…  lets conduct tests before we enter into terrorism’.

Fundamentalism which has caused dictatorships has also bought lots of death and violence with it. Violence that can be avoided because bombing or shooting anyone can’t solve problems… it only destroys. If the dictators thought themselves fallible, if they were critical of their own beliefs and if they had used scientific judgement and evidence their own dictatorships would not have formed. They would have reasoned that a society full of questioning, inquiring, intelligent and politically active humans would be the most useful and efficient society to date (I do not fundamentally believe democracy is the best, we ma, in the future, construct a more efficient political infrastructure). Fundamentalism in Religion has caused a lot of harm and unnecessary conflict. It has caused conflict over who gets to live in the holy land in Jerusalem, it has caused anti-gay, anti-black and anti-women attitudes which have caused grief and violence around the western and still in the Eastern hemispheres. Religion also continues to restrain scientific development as many believers may not vote in favor of science funding or a real scientific policy.

Fundamentalism does not work with how we as humans decide what is true. We decide what is true based on mathematical logic or through observation (yes, there can be no such thing as a vague moral truth based on feeling). Fundamental beliefs are not justified by observation or logic (which is quite trivial anyway). So it seems logically improbable to verify any fundamental beliefs, even it one has been verified over time science may prove it false yet he fundamental believer won’t accept the evidence against it.

Fundamentalism above all hasn’t brought us much good, it has briefly brought us reassurance when we where primitive beings who feared nature and the universe around us. However fundamentalism has bought us religion, which in this modern world brings us prejudice against humans who are ethnically and sexually different. The overall effect of Religion is bad. The overall effect of dictatorship is horrifically bad. Fundamentalism just isn’t good. Can science do better?

Science

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”- Richard Feynman

Science is very different from Fundamentalism. Scientists do not believe in absolute notions or principles, they are willing to change or discard certain beliefs about the universe we observe. They do not just pick and choose however, they have a criterion which establishes which laws and models of nature hold true. This criterion is experiment, technically it is called empirical verification. A theory is false or incomplete if it does not explain natural phenomena detected by experiment. For example Newtons (classical physics) failed to explain the probabilistic nature of the subatomic world.  Quantum mechanics had to take its place for those sorts of problems. Evolution to this date has evidence for it, but more importantly has no scientific evidence against it so therefore it is a legitimate scientific theory. Researchers often delve into a new problem or area with certain predispositions and preconceptions about what will happen, which could be based on prior experiment or just intuition. Sometimes they get it wrong, experiment disagrees with their model. They must accept this and move on, if they ignore the experiment they will not make progress… they will not make good scientists.

Probing the atomic and quantum world through the physical and chemical sciences has given us the Godlike ability to manipulate our surroundings to prolong our lives and to increase our life quality. Through the curious inquiry into electrons and certain mechanical devices the television was invented. Through Edison’s practical science, the light bulb, telegraph and many more useful gizmos came into existence. Physics has also enabled minuscule things such as sunglasses (polarized lenses), remote controls, doors, locks and electrical wiring. Physics has changed how humans transport ourselves through airplanes, cars, rail and….. skateboard. Physics has landed man on the moon and it has enabled us to probe the vast cosmos that envelopes our small existence. Chemistry has revolutionized pharmaceuticals, steering away from useless and empirical falsified herds and weird ointments. Biology has helped humans progress in sport, in health and in medicine. Science has pushed humans away from what we used to be… a confused, superstitious and slow homo-sapien. Science has bought us the internet and the glories of digital entertainment. I could go on listing great achievements.

Some argue that science has bought us nuclear weapons and other hazardous equipment that humans would be better off without. The fact is, science has bought us the knowledge and humans have put this knowledge to erroneous use. Science is merely innocent and so are most scientists.

If we apply our scientific knowledge ethically, that is, to the best of the health of all humans, then we will get rid of any harm science could bring. However science itself is not at fault.

We also use scientific reasoning in our legal systems. Barristers accumulate empirical evidence for their case, they infer what happened in the crime scene or point towards a certain conclusion. You would not here a barrister say ‘My client is appealing for an ‘intervention of God’, that is, my client did not commit this crime but God intervened with my client during this crime and therefore… because God is the causation of everything my client cannot be guilty.’ judge- ‘Case closed’. It just wouldn’t happen. You need good evidence.

Many still think that science cannot answer moral questions… such as: how should we live? What is good? However such questions can be answered by science… we should live in such a way as to increase the chemical endorphin in our bodies, increase health and the health of other animals and to increase scientific progress. To fulfill each of these to the best of our ability, we make use of biology, medicine and the knowledge of other great sciences.

We do not need religion for our morals. We should live according to fact not fiction. To live critically and without superstition.

One must realize that fundamentalism and science clash on the practical level and the abstract level. They contradict one another and contradictions are not useful, they are a sign that one or both positions are false. From the evidence presented and from the utility and progress of science we should present science with the winning trophy. Science at present is the best method to explain the universe and everything inside it. Fundamentalism is not.  Fundamentalism has had its time in the spotlight for over 2000 years. It has been proven false (the universe was spawned according to the big bang model) and as a scientist we must discard such a view.

It will take years for humans to collectively digest this. One cannot quickly eradicate a belief system, especially one as big as fundamentalism.

Let’s hope for the sake of curiosity, courage for discovery and for simple rational thinking that we will never hear someone say ” I am 100% correct” even on some mathematics problems (as Godel has proven).

Saying this… I am not 100% correct, evidence may go my way but I could be wrong. But the fact is… I can live with that.


Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Digg Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics, Science, Uncategorized | No Comments

Luke Davis | July 19th, 2011

Four books you need to read before university

                                             “An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.”                                                        - Benjamin Franklin

Reading is important. It shapes our thought processes and feeds our hippocampus lobe with facts and our frontal cortex with puzzles. Without the ability and drive to read, our ancestors efforts to store knowledge and stories will go unrewarded. If at an instant all of humans lost the ability to read, we would literally be transported back into the prehistoric barbarian times, for all of recorded history, knowledge for us to live and build and social networking sites that intertwine humans will cease to have purpose.

Isaac Newton believed he was ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’. His discoveries were built on his predecessors works, he did this through reading.

I am a rational believer in the saying; ‘mistakes are things to be learnt from’. One mistake that I think we should all learn from is the mistake of Religion. The irrational and delusional superstitious belief in a creator has led to some, quite frankly, irrational and delusional behavior. One book that offers objective, rational and a well balanced case to why we should learn from and forget religion is the God Delusion.

The God Delusion

by Richard Dawkins

           I read this only a year ago, stumbling upon on it whilst I was in need of some decent arguments against God and all its derivatives. I had a few of my own arguments against it but I wanted to read a balanced book.

Richard seriously owns Religion in this book. His arguments are tantalizingly clear, simple and grounded in reason. He offers arguments from both sides, but any human trained in reasoning knows whose won (just in case you don’t know… it’s science).

Even if you are agnostic and ‘are on the fence’ this book will teach you how to argue and how to do it well. I have learned a great deal about religion itself and its history. You will realize the affects religion has had on our world (you can check for yourself).

This will enable you to become a mature thinker and above all will show you how to argue and reason (essential for any degree).

9/10     A MUST

The Rules of Wealth

by Richard Templar

    ‘The rules of wealth analyses the behaviours, the mind-sets, the lifestyles and the financial know-how behind becoming a richer, happier and more prosperous you.’

I have to admit… this book does not guarantee you billions of pounds. It is a guide. It is not clustered with too much economic jargon, graphs and formulas. It is written in a conversational style with plain and simple English.

The book is set out in Rules (as the title suggests), with each rule being important to you becoming more competent in your own finance. For example… Rule 59 – ‘Control spending impulses’. This may seem simple but Templar guides you into the know-how of actually using these simple rules.

If you follow Templar and use the rules to the best you can, you will definitely feel more in control of your own finance. This control is essential for university and will help you save money.

7/10   Go ahead.. nothing to lose !

 

Chaos : The amazing science of the unpredictable 

by James Gleick

 

      For any young prosperous mind, Chaos is a must read. At its heart it is an historical and simplified mathematical exploration of the amazing new science of chaos. This book is clear, fascinatingly interesting and will simply change the way you perceive and interact with the world.

You will journey through the origins of chaos and begin to build an understanding of it and of its significance not just in science but to human kind.

Chaos is at the brink of discovery, it is a new paradigm… a ground-breaking idea that will change everything. If your going into an academic world, loading yourself with at least some sort of understanding in it will help you become radical and it may affect how you form your higher education.

 

9/10 –  Pretty shmexy read

 

On Liberty

by John Stuart Mill

   On liberty is a political tour de force. Even to this day the insights into liberty and its importance are phenomenal.

Mill is an extraordinary author in this political nutshell. He argues for the individual and his/her right to live a life full of flourishment and interference from tyranny. Most of our justice system is based upon these foundations, that the individuals freedom is of utmost importance and any impingement of it will result in legal sanction.

It is quite a challenge to adjust to the lanaguage, but it is definitely worth it.

Entering university this will enable a liberal outlook on politics, science and life in general. You will become a much stronger defendant in liberties as you will understand its fundamental importance.

8/10  A graceful, important and essential read for any young intellect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Digg Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Education, Reviews, Science, Uncategorized | No Comments

Luke Davis | July 17th, 2011

Nature and disorder: Chaos theory

Chaos

 

The clockwork Newtonian world recedes in the intellectual horizon. Its time at the frontiers of our science and intuition has come to an end, the gradual rise of a new science has already begun. The seemingly orderly universe which we encounter every second is more liberal than what we thought, instead of being completely predictable and deterministic  nature is unpredictable and chaotic.

Does this mean Newton’s laws of motion and all the work derived from them are useless? Shall we hammer out our linear intuition? The answer is simply no. Simplifying data by formulating linear relationships is still useful, it still governs most of our science and economics. We cannot immediately discard what has granted us so much power and delve into a uncertain and new mathematical world. Linear science, that is, simple linear and exponential mathematical equations predicting natural phenomena is still a good investment. It is still reaping returns. Though like a new idea or business chaos deserves an investment; as it succeeds and evolves its share on the scientific market will grow.

You’re still asking the question… what is chaos? Okay I will briefly introduce it, though the concept and formulation of chaos itself is still growing.

Chaos can be defined as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. This means that a system which could be within nature e.g. organisms resulting from small changes in DNA or the weather is greatly dependent on how it starts. If you or nature changes how a system starts or tweak a factor in its initial conditions, you will observe a great difference in the behaviors of the system and as time continues the difference becomes greater. In a lecture about his paper on the chaotic behavior of the weather: ‘Non-periodic flow’ Edward Lorenz named this sensitive dependence as the butterfly effect. The effects of the butterfly on the surrounding air albeit minuscule may cause a tornado on the other side of the globe. This sensitive dependence plus the nonlinear laws that govern a system make it a chaotic one.

 

 

Here we have two images, one represents a butterfly the other a lorenz attractor (a 3 dimensional graph with lines representing variables accross time). The Lorenz attractor is determined by the other picture, that is, the variables represented on the graph is determined by the butterfly effect. The system is sensitive to its initial conditions. The graph is chaotic, it may look predictable but the variables oscillate un-predictably over time.

So why do we need to use chaos when it is unpredictable? Surely it is not very useful? It may seem that way when chaos is over-simplified. Chaos is merely a non-linear science which forms relationships and laws of nature, economics and other systems from non linear geometry and equations of a special kind. New medical research into predicting heart attacks contains chaotic methods. The pace-maker cells, blood flow and cholesterol all at first glance seem to be periodic and simple, however as small changes in the cells or small environmental or diet changes may change the conditions of this biological system. Over time chaos may perform it’s role… what at first seems minuscule may become a momentous heart attack. Like the butterfly causing the tornado.

Non-linear science arises when linear science fails to adequately explain natural phenomena. As classical physics failed to explain the wave-duality of particles and the characteristics of spin, quantum mechanics was born. The genre of phenomena that non-linear attempts to explain what linear science couldn’t is ‘self organisation’.  Self organisation is where a system which is independent of external equipment or major forces behaves in patterns that are random. Linear science needs to know the forces acting on the system… but we don’t know it… the drive of the system is in the system itself. So we need to have a science that explains how certain systems can behave randomly in patterns by themselves.

Another important concept inherent in chaos is self similarity. This concept arose from one maverick genius…  Benoit Mandelbrot. Self-similarity is where a pattern repeats itself at smaller and smaller stages and doing so infinitely. The equation that governed this fractal pattern as he coined was… Z <> Z^2 + C.  The value of Z is continually used to create the pattern. A brilliant yet complex pattern has arose from a simple equation. Our linguistic and intuitive relationship between complexity and simplicity has been overturned. They are not distinct, they are interconnected.

A Mandelbrot set with beautiful geometry. Chaoticists argue that this fractal geometry is inherent in nature.

Chaos is an amazing mathematical discovery, it has applications in nearly every scientific discipline.

What wonders will it bring? Nobody knows. Scientific and mathematical discovery may itself be chaotic, dependent on its initial conditions. I do have intuition that the elegant mathematical butterfly of chaos may evoke an intellectual tornado, changing the landscape of knowledge forever.


Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Digg Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Education, Environment, International Affairs, Science, Technology, Uncategorized | 13 Comments

Luke Davis | June 12th, 2011

Worlds Greatest Brains: Richard Feynman

“Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation.” – Richard Feynman

 

The first quote on the Albert Einstein article was much more eloquent than this, though it does not contain more insight. Anyway who needs eloquence and fancy words, they are of no use and they just complicate everything. Feynman thought this way, he didn’t like liars or boasters or anyone who thought they were better than anyone else. Even with his fantastic insights: mathematical, scientific and about life in general, Feynman did not boast. He was an honest man in his personal and his academic life. The quote also neatly summarizes Feynman’s scientific perspective: he viewed mathematics as a tool to solve problems but it was not fruitful until applied to nature… the real world. When correctly and carefully applied to nature we can begin to truly understand it. This understanding brings not only the joy of knowing (a slightly platonic feeling) but also technology, medicine, economic structure… you get the point.

He was a fun, adventurous and a determined character. At school he was known as the ‘problem solver’, his friends and fellow pupils would give him their difficult math homework which he would solve even if it took him a while. Feynman would receive the same problem which he had solved before, he would solve it in seconds leaving his friends stunned, they perceived him as a genius (he sure fooled them). Throughout his life Feynman would follow his curiosity, try new things out, go to bars and charm women and win the Nobel prize. One unique characteristic of Feynman is that he was exceptionally intelligent and original with a huge dose of fun.

Feynman was born in Far Rockaway, Queens, New York and is an American citizen. His parents originated in Russia and Poland and were of Jewish descent, though          Feynman declared himself an atheist from an early age.

Similarly to Einstein, Feynman was a slow learner at a very early age. He didn’t speak a word until he was three. He eventually grew out of it but never lost his  determination to solve a problem or to find something out. Throughout his childhood Feynman loved to play and experiment. His house was quite large and this gave  him room to build mechanical devices such as radios and simple experiments. He once finely tuned a homemade radio and stumbled upon a show which he and his f- riends listened to. He listened to the broadcast before it had been played in his local area. As his friends came over for the actual broadcast he would predict what would happen and his friends would be astonished. He later shared his simple yet ingenious secret. Even when he was working on the atomic bomb with Hans Bethe at Los Alamos, he still played tricks. He would break into top secret filing cabinets and leave cheeky messages such as ‘guess who’.

His father played a vital part in nurturing Feynman’s genius, teaching him how to question common sense thinking and to develop a scientific mindset. His mother helped develop his character and sense of humor which Feynman never lost, he was always light-hearted in nature.

One mindset Feynman left home with just before he entered MIT was this;

“Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there.”

This insight is brilliant. I mean, sure, novelists and modern artists are creative but surely imagining natures inner workings requires another level of imagination because you have to really think about whats actually happening. A fiction writer just has to think of some wild plot and make it seem real enough to be read. That’s my opinion. Fiction is entertaining but I don’t think it’s creators are as creative as some of the top scientists.

Feynman entered Princeton university after applying to do a PHD with his life-long friend John Archibald Wheeler. His scores on the entrance exam were phenomenal. His thesis which John Wheeler advised was in the field of quantum mechanics. He successfully formulated the Wheeler-Feynman absorption theory which is an interpretation of electrodynamics, the theory solves the electromagnetic field equations (laws describing electric fields) using symmetry with respect to time-inversion. Don’t worry, I don’t have a clue what the theory is either. The mathematics in this theory was very complex and even Wheeler felt out of his depth. James Gleick wrote in his biography of Feynman:

“This was Richard Feynman nearing the crest of his powers. At twenty-three … there was no physicist on earth who could match his exuberant command over the native materials of theoretical science. It was not just a facility at mathematics (though it had become clear … that the mathematical machinery emerging from the Wheeler–Feynman collaboration was beyond Wheeler’s own ability). Feynman seemed to possess a frightening ease with the substance behind the equations, like Albert Einstein at the same age, like the Soviet physicist Lev Landau—but few others.”

This irreverent genius worked with Oppenheimer and the like on the Manhattan project. This project did unfortunately lead to the Hiroshima bombings, though the blame should never be thrown on the researchers but on the men and women who organised such an attack. I have always wandered why politicians, presidents and Military what nots get to decide how to use the technology and the science which they do not fully understand. It’s like giving a gun to a 4 year old boy and an Xbox to a grandad, they both don’t know how the gun and xbox work and both will cause a lot of disruption and havoc.

Feynman spent the rest of his life at CALTECH. Teaching his beloved physics to keen university students. They all called him the great explainer, as he could explain the most complicated concepts and equations with the most intuitive style. He was an amazing teacher!

His first lecture was quite big. Einstein, Pauli and the great Von neuman all attended. Feynman was nervous, but as he delved into the physics he felt calm and excited, he spoke with complete passion and with a great deal of understanding.

One of Feynman’s greatest creations is the Feynman diagram method. This is used by particle physicists as a language to describe what particles enter and exit during a collision, explosion or in an area of confined space.

 

 

 

 

A collision over time.

 

Feynman’s life was not limited to his science and his personal relationships. He took up art, the bongos and made videos popularizing physics and science.

He never stopped solving problems.

 

As his unsuccessful wife said during a divorce:

“He begins working calculus problems in his head as soon as he awakens. He did calculus while driving in his car, while sitting in the living room, and while lying in bed at night.”
—Mary Louise Bell divorce complaint[

 

What a magnificent brain Richard Feynman had.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Digg Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Environment, Science | 1 Comment

« Next

© MattJWaller