I am glad NASA scientists have spoken up about the predicted end of the world on December 21, 2012. Check out responses to some of the main threats non-scientists keep yapping about at http://news.yahoo.com/apocalypse-not-now-2012-doomsday-predictions-debunked-nasa-055304813.html. Looks like we will only need to suffer through the election year nonsense instead of an apocalypse.
At least I can wish everyone a Happy and Healthy 2012!!!!!
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
A 'Smoking Gun' Regarding Climate Change - Yep, We are Responsible for Increased CO2 Levels
I have not been able to watch the Republican presidential debates with any regularity, as time and a lack of cable channels do not permit. However, even if I were to watch these, I would find it difficult to keep the TV on when they begin any discussion of climate change. I would not be able to stomach it when Rep. Bachmann or Gov. Perry say the science is not there - that this is a hoax - that humans have nothing to do with increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. This is either simple, blind ignorance of the actual science that exists, or a blatant disregard of scientific facts in order to cater to certain interest groups and get their money and support.
If there is one thing in the science of climate change that is not in doubt, it is that human beings are largely responsible for the dramatic increase in carbon dioxide (a leading greenhouse gas) since the second half of the 19th century to the present. Now, THE question that is correct to ask is how do we know this? How do we know that humans burning carbon-based materials like coal, oil, and natural gas has led to increased carbon dioxide levels, and that the increased levels are not due to natural causes?
A series of tests provide the answers to this question. There are multiple, independent tests that all lead to the same conclusion. And what's more, these tests rely on basic, fundamental science principles that are not disputed...yes, there are basic, science facts that the conspiracy believers simply have to ignore if they continue their rhetoric.
A brief summary is provided below, but a better, more detailed explanation is found here.
One way of thinking about human contributions to the rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which have increased from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to 380 ppm in just the past 150 years is human activity, i.e. the industrial revolution. One can calculate the amount of carbon burned over that time span, and one finds that humans have put enough carbon in the atmosphere that could place CO2 at some 500 ppm. So why do we measure only 380 ppm? This is because the earth is a complex system, and there are natural carbon sinks such as forests and the oceans, which absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere. These sinks have been able to absorb some of the excess CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere, but in the end we are putting greenhouse gases into the air at a rate faster than natural sinks can absorb it. We are not in chemical equilibrium, and as we now have more humans on the earth than ever, and burning even more carbon materials at faster rates than any other time in human history, it is a natural prediction that this increase in greenhouse gases will rise and put us in a larger non-equilibrium state with carbon sinks.
There is another way to test whether or not humans and the burning of carbon materials are responsible for the increase in CO2 during the last 150 years. It is the measurement of the relative abundance of carbon-13 to carbon-12. The most abundant carbon is carbon-12...this is the form of carbon we are made of, as well as plants. Carbon-13 is an isotope of carbon, with one extra neutron in the nucleus.
There is a natural concentration of the different isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere that is accurately measured. Scientists use the ratio of C-13/C-12 to quantify this concentration of carbon types. Carbon-14, which is radioactive and used in dating many different types of objects, is much more rare than carbon-12 or -13. So Nature has a basic value for the C-13/C-12 ratio in the atmosphere, that has been effectively constant for hundreds of thousands of years with minor variations due to events such as major volcanic activity. By the way, how do scientists measure this over long time periods? Water, ice, and plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Ice core samples from the poles can be dug out and measured and dated. CO2 levels have increased to levels never seen in at least the last 400,000 years, for instance. And this rise has occurred in the last 150 years.
But here is one last aspect of the isotope ratio. The ratio has one value for the atmosphere. But when you burn stuff, there is a significantly different ratio in the CO2 produced from that combustion process! So the study to do, and has been done multiple ways and by independent groups, is to measure the present ratio of Carbon-13/Carbon-12 and compare it to past values. The expectation is that as carbon-based materials are burned, there will be a rise in CO2 (this is simple chemistry that one cannot get around...sorry, no true clean coal exists...if you burn it, CO2 will be produced). but at the same time, the C-13/C-12 ratio should decrease. This is because plants favor absorbing the lighter C-12 from the atmosphere more than C-13. And coal, gas and oil are made from plants that die. Plants, and therefore coal, gas and oil, have a lower C-13/C-12 ratio than the atmosphere.
What is the result of such studies? C-13/C-12 is flat for thousands of years in the atmosphere...natural atmospheric concentrations. But in the last 150 years, CO2 has increased, and C-13/C-12 has decreased, just as predicted. So multiple tests confirm that the burning of carbon-based materials by humans (because there have not been any constantly burning forest fires during this same period, or any other natural process) in the past 150 years has occurred, and this corresponds, over the same time period, to the unprecedented increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Yes, humans are responsible for at least a significant portion of the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 traps heat, and can cause warming of the atmosphere. These are basic facts of chemistry and physics. It is not a hoax. The more difficult problem to solve is the longer-term consequences on the global climate. This is done via computer simulations. The global climate system is an unbelievably complex system, and as climate models improve of time we may have a better grasp of what will eventually happen.
If CO2 levels continue to increase at increasing rates, which will be the case if developing nations like China and India continue to rapidly increase automobile use and coal-burning plant production, and the US does not do anything to decrease its CO2 deployment into the atmosphere, obviously we will continue to see further changes in the natural climatic cycle.
How do we get the general population in tune with the science? When will policymakers accept science facts instead of ignoring them for political gain? And when does it become too late, where even if we cut off all carbon combustion, there will be no turning back the clock on climate change and potential disastrous consequences of high greenhouse levels? That part is debatable; but human responsibility for increased CO2 levels is no longer debatable.
If there is one thing in the science of climate change that is not in doubt, it is that human beings are largely responsible for the dramatic increase in carbon dioxide (a leading greenhouse gas) since the second half of the 19th century to the present. Now, THE question that is correct to ask is how do we know this? How do we know that humans burning carbon-based materials like coal, oil, and natural gas has led to increased carbon dioxide levels, and that the increased levels are not due to natural causes?
A series of tests provide the answers to this question. There are multiple, independent tests that all lead to the same conclusion. And what's more, these tests rely on basic, fundamental science principles that are not disputed...yes, there are basic, science facts that the conspiracy believers simply have to ignore if they continue their rhetoric.
A brief summary is provided below, but a better, more detailed explanation is found here.
One way of thinking about human contributions to the rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which have increased from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to 380 ppm in just the past 150 years is human activity, i.e. the industrial revolution. One can calculate the amount of carbon burned over that time span, and one finds that humans have put enough carbon in the atmosphere that could place CO2 at some 500 ppm. So why do we measure only 380 ppm? This is because the earth is a complex system, and there are natural carbon sinks such as forests and the oceans, which absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere. These sinks have been able to absorb some of the excess CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere, but in the end we are putting greenhouse gases into the air at a rate faster than natural sinks can absorb it. We are not in chemical equilibrium, and as we now have more humans on the earth than ever, and burning even more carbon materials at faster rates than any other time in human history, it is a natural prediction that this increase in greenhouse gases will rise and put us in a larger non-equilibrium state with carbon sinks.
There is another way to test whether or not humans and the burning of carbon materials are responsible for the increase in CO2 during the last 150 years. It is the measurement of the relative abundance of carbon-13 to carbon-12. The most abundant carbon is carbon-12...this is the form of carbon we are made of, as well as plants. Carbon-13 is an isotope of carbon, with one extra neutron in the nucleus.
There is a natural concentration of the different isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere that is accurately measured. Scientists use the ratio of C-13/C-12 to quantify this concentration of carbon types. Carbon-14, which is radioactive and used in dating many different types of objects, is much more rare than carbon-12 or -13. So Nature has a basic value for the C-13/C-12 ratio in the atmosphere, that has been effectively constant for hundreds of thousands of years with minor variations due to events such as major volcanic activity. By the way, how do scientists measure this over long time periods? Water, ice, and plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Ice core samples from the poles can be dug out and measured and dated. CO2 levels have increased to levels never seen in at least the last 400,000 years, for instance. And this rise has occurred in the last 150 years.
But here is one last aspect of the isotope ratio. The ratio has one value for the atmosphere. But when you burn stuff, there is a significantly different ratio in the CO2 produced from that combustion process! So the study to do, and has been done multiple ways and by independent groups, is to measure the present ratio of Carbon-13/Carbon-12 and compare it to past values. The expectation is that as carbon-based materials are burned, there will be a rise in CO2 (this is simple chemistry that one cannot get around...sorry, no true clean coal exists...if you burn it, CO2 will be produced). but at the same time, the C-13/C-12 ratio should decrease. This is because plants favor absorbing the lighter C-12 from the atmosphere more than C-13. And coal, gas and oil are made from plants that die. Plants, and therefore coal, gas and oil, have a lower C-13/C-12 ratio than the atmosphere.
What is the result of such studies? C-13/C-12 is flat for thousands of years in the atmosphere...natural atmospheric concentrations. But in the last 150 years, CO2 has increased, and C-13/C-12 has decreased, just as predicted. So multiple tests confirm that the burning of carbon-based materials by humans (because there have not been any constantly burning forest fires during this same period, or any other natural process) in the past 150 years has occurred, and this corresponds, over the same time period, to the unprecedented increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Yes, humans are responsible for at least a significant portion of the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 traps heat, and can cause warming of the atmosphere. These are basic facts of chemistry and physics. It is not a hoax. The more difficult problem to solve is the longer-term consequences on the global climate. This is done via computer simulations. The global climate system is an unbelievably complex system, and as climate models improve of time we may have a better grasp of what will eventually happen.
If CO2 levels continue to increase at increasing rates, which will be the case if developing nations like China and India continue to rapidly increase automobile use and coal-burning plant production, and the US does not do anything to decrease its CO2 deployment into the atmosphere, obviously we will continue to see further changes in the natural climatic cycle.
How do we get the general population in tune with the science? When will policymakers accept science facts instead of ignoring them for political gain? And when does it become too late, where even if we cut off all carbon combustion, there will be no turning back the clock on climate change and potential disastrous consequences of high greenhouse levels? That part is debatable; but human responsibility for increased CO2 levels is no longer debatable.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Little Sue and the Rock
I am looking for feedback. I have a children's story that tries to get the concept of atoms and ultimately quarks across to children. I see kids in the age range of 4-8 or so as the target group.
If you have kids and want to read it, or if you have any comments of your own as to what you think about it, please let me know! If you have any experience with children's books, also let me know as I have a number of questions for you. I can see some interesting illustrations that could be produced for the story. Thanks.
Here goes:
Little Sue and the Rock
By Mark Vondracek, Ph.D.
It was after school, and Little Sue was walking down the street,
when she noticed a pretty little rock down by her feet.
She picked it up, looked at it, and wondered what was inside,
when all of a sudden she was going on an amazing ride.
Little Sue began to shrink,
and she did not know what to think.
Was she really getting smaller,
or was the rock just getting taller?
Whatever the case, she quickly began to see,
sparkling crystals appear, like when the sun shines on the sea.
And while these crystals were simply amazing,
little Sue knew this was only the surface of the rock she was grazing.
Ever smaller did little Sue grow,
before she was in a world she did not know.
Those beautiful crystals disappeared,
into a number of balls forming patterns, that much was clear.
The balls were bound together, which to little Sue was very cool,
when she realized she was seeing objects her teacher called molecules.
But she also wondered what was with those once little balls,
which seemed to be getting bigger as her size continued to get small.
Even though little Sue’s height was still decreasing,
she could not help but think this new world was pretty pleasing.
She kept approaching those balls, and it was becoming a little cloudy,
and the balls seemed to be shaking, and even seemed a little rowdy.
“Those balls must be atoms!” exclaimed little Sue to herself,
she knew this because she had read that science book on her shelf.
As she shrunk into one of the clouds it seemed a little fuzzy,
and as she struggled to see, smaller specks flew by and sounded a little buzzy.
Little Sue was checking out the electrons flying by,
moving very fast, so fast she could not even say “Hi.”
And before long little Sue shrunk into a place,
where the electrons were now gone and all she saw was empty space.
It seemed like forever that little Sue kept on shrinking,
seeing nothing around caused her to start thinking.
“Is there nothing else around here that will stop my fall?”
when suddenly in the distance she could see another little ball.
Atoms have a second part, little Sue seemed to remember,
with electrons whizzing and circling the outside, and a nucleus in the center.
Little Sue kept shrinking and suddenly was able to see,
a bunch of smaller balls in the nucleus, glued together so perfectly .
“Wow, these little balls are protons and neutrons! This is really cool!”
as little Sue was remembering that science lesson from school.
She was now seeing the smallest pieces of that rock she had been holding,
at least this is what she thought before she got a little scolding.
Little Sue heard voices complaining as she shrank a little more,
falling inside one of those protons that were at the atom’s core.
Even smaller balls were inside and finally had a chance to make their mark,
by introducing themselves to little Sue, saying, “Hello, we are the quarks!”
For little Sue this was unexpected and really quite the surprise,
as she began to look around and rub her wide-open eyes.
“Quarks,” she said, “were not mentioned in my science book.”
and she closed her eyes for a moment, then opened them for a second look.
The quarks explained to little Sue they aren’t very well known,
but they do exist and are real, with identities all their own.
“Our names are Up and Down,” they said to little Sue,
“but the protons and neutrons are more popular, so what can we do?”
Just then little Sue realized she was no longer shrinking,
for now she had reached the smallest piece of the rock, and she was left thinking –
I have seen the smallest piece of the rock….or have I not?
could there be something smaller than the quarks, as small as a dot?
For now, little Sue will need to wonder about that question,
but as she grows back up in size I leave her this suggestion.
For little Sue, as well as all her little school friends,
if you don’t know the answer to your questions do not leave that as the end.
Keep asking your questions, and don’t leave any of them to silence;
look around, try to find an answer – and before you know it, you will be doing science.
It doesn’t matter what it is, from the smallest atom to outer space,
because you will find questions that still need answers all over the place.
If you have kids and want to read it, or if you have any comments of your own as to what you think about it, please let me know! If you have any experience with children's books, also let me know as I have a number of questions for you. I can see some interesting illustrations that could be produced for the story. Thanks.
Here goes:
Little Sue and the Rock
By Mark Vondracek, Ph.D.
It was after school, and Little Sue was walking down the street,
when she noticed a pretty little rock down by her feet.
She picked it up, looked at it, and wondered what was inside,
when all of a sudden she was going on an amazing ride.
Little Sue began to shrink,
and she did not know what to think.
Was she really getting smaller,
or was the rock just getting taller?
Whatever the case, she quickly began to see,
sparkling crystals appear, like when the sun shines on the sea.
And while these crystals were simply amazing,
little Sue knew this was only the surface of the rock she was grazing.
Ever smaller did little Sue grow,
before she was in a world she did not know.
Those beautiful crystals disappeared,
into a number of balls forming patterns, that much was clear.
The balls were bound together, which to little Sue was very cool,
when she realized she was seeing objects her teacher called molecules.
But she also wondered what was with those once little balls,
which seemed to be getting bigger as her size continued to get small.
Even though little Sue’s height was still decreasing,
she could not help but think this new world was pretty pleasing.
She kept approaching those balls, and it was becoming a little cloudy,
and the balls seemed to be shaking, and even seemed a little rowdy.
“Those balls must be atoms!” exclaimed little Sue to herself,
she knew this because she had read that science book on her shelf.
As she shrunk into one of the clouds it seemed a little fuzzy,
and as she struggled to see, smaller specks flew by and sounded a little buzzy.
Little Sue was checking out the electrons flying by,
moving very fast, so fast she could not even say “Hi.”
And before long little Sue shrunk into a place,
where the electrons were now gone and all she saw was empty space.
It seemed like forever that little Sue kept on shrinking,
seeing nothing around caused her to start thinking.
“Is there nothing else around here that will stop my fall?”
when suddenly in the distance she could see another little ball.
Atoms have a second part, little Sue seemed to remember,
with electrons whizzing and circling the outside, and a nucleus in the center.
Little Sue kept shrinking and suddenly was able to see,
a bunch of smaller balls in the nucleus, glued together so perfectly .
“Wow, these little balls are protons and neutrons! This is really cool!”
as little Sue was remembering that science lesson from school.
She was now seeing the smallest pieces of that rock she had been holding,
at least this is what she thought before she got a little scolding.
Little Sue heard voices complaining as she shrank a little more,
falling inside one of those protons that were at the atom’s core.
Even smaller balls were inside and finally had a chance to make their mark,
by introducing themselves to little Sue, saying, “Hello, we are the quarks!”
For little Sue this was unexpected and really quite the surprise,
as she began to look around and rub her wide-open eyes.
“Quarks,” she said, “were not mentioned in my science book.”
and she closed her eyes for a moment, then opened them for a second look.
The quarks explained to little Sue they aren’t very well known,
but they do exist and are real, with identities all their own.
“Our names are Up and Down,” they said to little Sue,
“but the protons and neutrons are more popular, so what can we do?”
Just then little Sue realized she was no longer shrinking,
for now she had reached the smallest piece of the rock, and she was left thinking –
I have seen the smallest piece of the rock….or have I not?
could there be something smaller than the quarks, as small as a dot?
For now, little Sue will need to wonder about that question,
but as she grows back up in size I leave her this suggestion.
For little Sue, as well as all her little school friends,
if you don’t know the answer to your questions do not leave that as the end.
Keep asking your questions, and don’t leave any of them to silence;
look around, try to find an answer – and before you know it, you will be doing science.
It doesn’t matter what it is, from the smallest atom to outer space,
because you will find questions that still need answers all over the place.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Gaming in Education
OK, something many of my students may have been waiting for. Here is a TED talk about how gaming makes kids smarter, and argues that gaming should be a major part of school. While I agree that there are certain skills that are captured in playing computer and video games, such as being able to process large amounts of information, analyze it and make quick decisions based on that information, and in many games this could be a collaborative activity, let's remind ourselves that this is a different skill set than, say, being able to have patience and focus on a complex problem that requires long periods of time to collect information, keep records and notes, stay organized with ideas as they come up in this thought process, perhaps, in the case of science, develop a physical experiment to test ideas, or build a device or object or model to further investigate aspects of this complex problem, find other information about it from numerous sources, and develop logical conclusions from all this work. Gaming does not really jive with such a skill set.
My point is this: this video, while making a good point, is not a silver bullet. I will always argue that there is no single solution to the optimal education of any individual. There are so many good ways to learn, and it is a useful exercise to experience multiple ways of learning a topic or subject. In real life, one is faced with countless possible problems at a moment's notice, and depending on the type of problem and the environment you are exposed to that problem, some solutions will fall back to what you learn in a 'classical' or traditional manner, while others will make use of a skill set developed best through video gaming systems. Others will require the use of physical tools such as hammers and nails and saws, which one will never learn through gaming. Do NOT fall into the trap that you need to do all of one thing over none of some other things...learn about both methods and have a broad set of intellectual approaches to take on any problem! Remember, if you can talk about an idea or concept in multiple ways with multiple examples, chances are you have mastered the information.
My point is this: this video, while making a good point, is not a silver bullet. I will always argue that there is no single solution to the optimal education of any individual. There are so many good ways to learn, and it is a useful exercise to experience multiple ways of learning a topic or subject. In real life, one is faced with countless possible problems at a moment's notice, and depending on the type of problem and the environment you are exposed to that problem, some solutions will fall back to what you learn in a 'classical' or traditional manner, while others will make use of a skill set developed best through video gaming systems. Others will require the use of physical tools such as hammers and nails and saws, which one will never learn through gaming. Do NOT fall into the trap that you need to do all of one thing over none of some other things...learn about both methods and have a broad set of intellectual approaches to take on any problem! Remember, if you can talk about an idea or concept in multiple ways with multiple examples, chances are you have mastered the information.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Remember 9/11/01
Ten years ago to the day, I was greeting students for first period. It was a different feel, however, to any other day, as colleagues were walking quickly through the halls with very distressed faces. I asked if something had happened in school, and the quick response was that New York City was supposedly under attack. Rumors were spreading rapidly. I and a handful of students ran into our computer room and pulled up CNN, only to see both towers of the World Trade Center ablaze. Reports had other planes attacking Washington, DC. Within about 15 minutes from when we started watching, we saw the towers collapse.
Anyone who was alive and old enough to remember that day can tell a story like this, for they, too, know exactly where they were and what they were doing. I can only hope those who lost loved ones have found time as a healer of some of the pain, and hope the souls of those who were lost have found peace.
My dear friend, Zenpundit, has a wonderful post. In it, he lets us know his great hope and lesson from all this, which is something we have talked about numerous times together - that our generation stops the trend we have been in, which is reactive to events. We need to try to develop a longer-term strategy, and build to reach the goals of whatever that strategy is. I am not sure how this will ever happen in today's combative, completely partisan political environment. With 2-year election cycles, long-term thinking, proposals, and action are nearly non-existent. This is why, literally for decades, people have brought up the issues with Medicare and Social Security, and that it needs to be fixed to remain solvent for future generations, and yet NO ONE in either party has had the political spine and will to do what we already know must be done. Again, it is a known problem with some known solutions, been there for decades, and no action at all.
Will we be able to do better? Who will come out of the crowd to help lead a new era of strategic thinking in the near-, mid- and long-term perspectives, rather than simply near-term for political gain? When will the tipping point take place that will create the level of public outrage for this era to begin? Time will tell, and let's hope it does not take another 9/11 scale incident to bring us back to this same discussion.
Anyone who was alive and old enough to remember that day can tell a story like this, for they, too, know exactly where they were and what they were doing. I can only hope those who lost loved ones have found time as a healer of some of the pain, and hope the souls of those who were lost have found peace.
My dear friend, Zenpundit, has a wonderful post. In it, he lets us know his great hope and lesson from all this, which is something we have talked about numerous times together - that our generation stops the trend we have been in, which is reactive to events. We need to try to develop a longer-term strategy, and build to reach the goals of whatever that strategy is. I am not sure how this will ever happen in today's combative, completely partisan political environment. With 2-year election cycles, long-term thinking, proposals, and action are nearly non-existent. This is why, literally for decades, people have brought up the issues with Medicare and Social Security, and that it needs to be fixed to remain solvent for future generations, and yet NO ONE in either party has had the political spine and will to do what we already know must be done. Again, it is a known problem with some known solutions, been there for decades, and no action at all.
Will we be able to do better? Who will come out of the crowd to help lead a new era of strategic thinking in the near-, mid- and long-term perspectives, rather than simply near-term for political gain? When will the tipping point take place that will create the level of public outrage for this era to begin? Time will tell, and let's hope it does not take another 9/11 scale incident to bring us back to this same discussion.
Friday, August 26, 2011
The East Coast Earthquake Discussed by NU Professor
I just wanted to share a segment from Chicago Tonight, a daily show on Chicago's local PBS station, WTTW. A professor I know from Northwestern University, Suzan van der Lee, was the guest who spoke about the recent magnitude 5.8 earthquake on the east coast. She does a very nice job of explaining some of the details about the geology of the east coast and how this event produced the strongest recorded tremor (at least on NU's seismometer) in Chicago over the past few years.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Mathematics - Both Discovered and Invented
There are two Scientific American links of interest to me.
One of the Scientific American articles is about the beauty of mathematical structures. There are some wonderful pictures in this slide show. The second article is in the August edition of Scientific American, which looks at 'Why does math work?' This goes to the age-old question: Is mathematics a natural entity that is there for us to discover, or is it invented by humans to satisfy our ability to quantify bits of our world? The author, Mario Livio, argues that it is both, and I tend to go along with this view.
There is a type of mathematics, pure math, that is analogous to pure science. This is where mathematicians investigate math for the sake of doing math, with no applications necessarily in mind. It is playing with curved surfaces, like Riemann investigated. Or when Galois was checking out the properties of various groups to solve polynomial problems. At their respective times, there were no real-world problems to which these mathematics were related. Perhaps one could say these topics were 'discovered.' Later on, years after the math was understood, scientists found new phenomena in Nature where the non-euclidean geometry (general relativity) and group theory (such as in particle physics) were important and necessary to describe.
Another type of math is applied math, where math is 'invented' to solve specific problems in the world. Newton developed calculus in order to solve gravitational problems, such as proving that a planet's mass can be reduced down to a single point, or the laws of motion, that required formal connections between displacement, velocity and acceleration. The rules of geometry were formulated in order to help quantify items being traded, or in designating property lines and areas. This is analogous to applied science, which places a focus on investigating real problems and finding solutions or producing a new tool or product that will be useful to humans.
An interesting thought experiment presented in the Livio article goes like this: If the intelligence of the world resided in a jellyfish that lives deep in the ocean, where it is generally isolated, would the concept of numbers exist? If there is nothing to count, and nothing discrete about the environment in which one lives, do numbers make any sense at all? So does this mean numbers are a natural concept of Nature, or that numbers are an invented entity because humans have a need to count things? Perhaps the jellyfish thought experiment leads to a conclusion that numbers are an invented concept. This is an interesting 'battle' to think about.
One of the Scientific American articles is about the beauty of mathematical structures. There are some wonderful pictures in this slide show. The second article is in the August edition of Scientific American, which looks at 'Why does math work?' This goes to the age-old question: Is mathematics a natural entity that is there for us to discover, or is it invented by humans to satisfy our ability to quantify bits of our world? The author, Mario Livio, argues that it is both, and I tend to go along with this view.
There is a type of mathematics, pure math, that is analogous to pure science. This is where mathematicians investigate math for the sake of doing math, with no applications necessarily in mind. It is playing with curved surfaces, like Riemann investigated. Or when Galois was checking out the properties of various groups to solve polynomial problems. At their respective times, there were no real-world problems to which these mathematics were related. Perhaps one could say these topics were 'discovered.' Later on, years after the math was understood, scientists found new phenomena in Nature where the non-euclidean geometry (general relativity) and group theory (such as in particle physics) were important and necessary to describe.
Another type of math is applied math, where math is 'invented' to solve specific problems in the world. Newton developed calculus in order to solve gravitational problems, such as proving that a planet's mass can be reduced down to a single point, or the laws of motion, that required formal connections between displacement, velocity and acceleration. The rules of geometry were formulated in order to help quantify items being traded, or in designating property lines and areas. This is analogous to applied science, which places a focus on investigating real problems and finding solutions or producing a new tool or product that will be useful to humans.
An interesting thought experiment presented in the Livio article goes like this: If the intelligence of the world resided in a jellyfish that lives deep in the ocean, where it is generally isolated, would the concept of numbers exist? If there is nothing to count, and nothing discrete about the environment in which one lives, do numbers make any sense at all? So does this mean numbers are a natural concept of Nature, or that numbers are an invented entity because humans have a need to count things? Perhaps the jellyfish thought experiment leads to a conclusion that numbers are an invented concept. This is an interesting 'battle' to think about.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Here Comes the Higgs?!?!?
A recently published article, summarizing new data presented at a high energy physics conference in Europe, show an excess of particles in the mass spectrum that may end up being the Higgs boson, as some like Nobel winner Leon Lederman have called the 'God particle.' This is a particle that has been predicted for some 45 years, from a theory known as the Standard Model. This is the theory that covers the known forces and particles in Nature, minus gravity. It has been wildly successful when compared with experimental data, and one of the key pieces is the Higgs boson and Higgs field. This particle and field are responsible for nothing less than the matter we are all made from. It is the theoretical mechanism that allows energy to transform into matter, which is summed up by Einstein's E = mc^2.
Physicists on the experiments producing these data do caution the world NOT to jump to any conclusions. In science, rumors are left just as that, rumors. There are strict statistical results that are needed before one can claim discovery. There are double and triple checks of analysis algorithms, calibrations of the detectors, fine-tuning theoretical programs called Monte Carlos to re-check the backgrounds for these types of particle decays, and many other checks before anyone would even think of calling a few excess events a discovery, especially something as vital as the Higgs. We will see over the next few months what the final conclusions are, but this provides a sense of excitement for the world of physics.
Physicists on the experiments producing these data do caution the world NOT to jump to any conclusions. In science, rumors are left just as that, rumors. There are strict statistical results that are needed before one can claim discovery. There are double and triple checks of analysis algorithms, calibrations of the detectors, fine-tuning theoretical programs called Monte Carlos to re-check the backgrounds for these types of particle decays, and many other checks before anyone would even think of calling a few excess events a discovery, especially something as vital as the Higgs. We will see over the next few months what the final conclusions are, but this provides a sense of excitement for the world of physics.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Mathematical Minds
From one of my favorite blogs, which has a focus on looking at brain functioning to understand all sorts of issues in education, learning, and life, there is a wonderful post about mathematical minds.
Gifted math minds really do 'light up' differently than average math minds when looking at math-related problems. And because of the way the brain is organized and behaves for different mental tasks, gifted math students can be difficult to identify from commonly used assessments and classroom behaviors. For instance, many truly advanced math students are not strong verbally, which can make them difficult to pick out of a crowd, and many like to 'do their own thing' when it comes to math and not at all be interested in the rote math memorization so often done in school. And likely the single most common trait is the love of solving problems of any type. This shows up not just in the 'numbers people,' but also tinkerers. Can you relate to any of these traits?
Gifted math minds really do 'light up' differently than average math minds when looking at math-related problems. And because of the way the brain is organized and behaves for different mental tasks, gifted math students can be difficult to identify from commonly used assessments and classroom behaviors. For instance, many truly advanced math students are not strong verbally, which can make them difficult to pick out of a crowd, and many like to 'do their own thing' when it comes to math and not at all be interested in the rote math memorization so often done in school. And likely the single most common trait is the love of solving problems of any type. This shows up not just in the 'numbers people,' but also tinkerers. Can you relate to any of these traits?
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Macrocosmic Object in a Quantum State
My last post was about making some sense out of what wave-particle duality is all about. Coincidentally, when I checked out TED videos just a little while ago, I saw the one below. Physicist Aaron O'Connell is the first to show a macrocosmic object go into a quantum state...it goes into a superposition state where it is vibrating and not vibrating at the same time! Completely weird, but, hey, that's quantum mechanics. We will see more of this sort of experiment in the next few years, to be sure, and who knows where this will lead as far as applications in life. Will it be more advanced quantum computing devices? Or something we have not even considered? Perhaps! Check out the discussion.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
An Attempt to Make Some Sense of Quantum Mechanics
Gaining any level of understanding of quantum mechanics is one of the great intellectual challenges in science. In a quantum world of indeterminism and probability, uncertainty and fuzziness, phenomena completely unseen in our everyday lives are the norm for atoms and particles.
At the center of the strangeness is particle-wave duality, the notion that particles can at times act like ‘solid’ balls, but in different circumstances can behave like a wave. Likewise, something we normally think of as a wave, such as light, can certainly act like a wave under certain conditions, but in quantum mechanics light can also behave like particles we refer to as photons. In fact, a favorite question I pose to students is, ‘When light is traveling from a light bulb to your eye, is it a particle or wave?’ Ultimately, someone will offer the answer, ‘It is both!’ That is an acceptable answer; but what does this mean? How can an ‘object’ be two things simultaneously, which is what the answer ‘both’ implies.
No one is comfortable with this answer, and yet it fits in with the foundational principles of quantum mechanics. The reason is, in the mathematics of quantum mechanics, objects are described with a wave function. This is a mathematical function that encompasses possible states the object can take. So a photon that is moving through space can be thought of as a combination of two states, something like Photon = [particle state] + [wave state]. More specifically, this function can be used to determine the probability of finding the photon in a particle or wave state.
But I think most of us still come back to the same questions: How do we interpret this mathematical nonsense? What does this mean for the object? This is where an analogy comes in handy, that will perhaps put this probabilistic concept into a more understandable context.
If I am talking about this in a class, I ask students to look around at each other and identify the personality snapshot of each of their classmates. This means to identify who is happy, sad, confused, angry, sarcastic, sleepy, bored, or anything else. So while there are numerous possible ‘personality states’ any person can have, while observing a person we can select one personality state at that time because we are interacting with them. However, what do we do when the bell rings and everyone goes on their way? If I ask someone to identify which personality state a specific person is in when they are no longer available for observation or interaction, what is the answer? The best we can do is to effectively guess…but to do this mathematically, we would acknowledge that at any given moment when a person is not being observed in any way, we cannot be certain about the personality state and can only try to identify the probability of that person being in each state. Perhaps there is a 20% chance she is happy, and 25% chance of being sad, and so on for each possible personality state.
This is the way we think about particles and waves when those entities are not being observed. When we do observe the entity, the act of observing selects out the personality from the mix of possible personalities. Another way of saying it is the experiment we do selects out a single observable state that we then identify. For a person, maybe it is the ‘happy’ state that becomes crystallized out of the ‘personality state’ function that includes all the possible personality states. For an electron, if we put it through a diffraction grating the wave personality is selected, whereas if we shoot it at an atom and it is deflected, the particle personality was selected instead.
Thinking this way is not necessarily normal, obvious or instinctive, but it is something we can try to understand the way the quantum world works. Of course, in real quantum mechanical problems, the mathematics becomes very hard very fast, but trying to find more concrete ways of thinking about the consequences of probabilistic concepts can only help the student to whom this is all new.
At the center of the strangeness is particle-wave duality, the notion that particles can at times act like ‘solid’ balls, but in different circumstances can behave like a wave. Likewise, something we normally think of as a wave, such as light, can certainly act like a wave under certain conditions, but in quantum mechanics light can also behave like particles we refer to as photons. In fact, a favorite question I pose to students is, ‘When light is traveling from a light bulb to your eye, is it a particle or wave?’ Ultimately, someone will offer the answer, ‘It is both!’ That is an acceptable answer; but what does this mean? How can an ‘object’ be two things simultaneously, which is what the answer ‘both’ implies.
No one is comfortable with this answer, and yet it fits in with the foundational principles of quantum mechanics. The reason is, in the mathematics of quantum mechanics, objects are described with a wave function. This is a mathematical function that encompasses possible states the object can take. So a photon that is moving through space can be thought of as a combination of two states, something like Photon = [particle state] + [wave state]. More specifically, this function can be used to determine the probability of finding the photon in a particle or wave state.
But I think most of us still come back to the same questions: How do we interpret this mathematical nonsense? What does this mean for the object? This is where an analogy comes in handy, that will perhaps put this probabilistic concept into a more understandable context.
If I am talking about this in a class, I ask students to look around at each other and identify the personality snapshot of each of their classmates. This means to identify who is happy, sad, confused, angry, sarcastic, sleepy, bored, or anything else. So while there are numerous possible ‘personality states’ any person can have, while observing a person we can select one personality state at that time because we are interacting with them. However, what do we do when the bell rings and everyone goes on their way? If I ask someone to identify which personality state a specific person is in when they are no longer available for observation or interaction, what is the answer? The best we can do is to effectively guess…but to do this mathematically, we would acknowledge that at any given moment when a person is not being observed in any way, we cannot be certain about the personality state and can only try to identify the probability of that person being in each state. Perhaps there is a 20% chance she is happy, and 25% chance of being sad, and so on for each possible personality state.
This is the way we think about particles and waves when those entities are not being observed. When we do observe the entity, the act of observing selects out the personality from the mix of possible personalities. Another way of saying it is the experiment we do selects out a single observable state that we then identify. For a person, maybe it is the ‘happy’ state that becomes crystallized out of the ‘personality state’ function that includes all the possible personality states. For an electron, if we put it through a diffraction grating the wave personality is selected, whereas if we shoot it at an atom and it is deflected, the particle personality was selected instead.
Thinking this way is not necessarily normal, obvious or instinctive, but it is something we can try to understand the way the quantum world works. Of course, in real quantum mechanical problems, the mathematics becomes very hard very fast, but trying to find more concrete ways of thinking about the consequences of probabilistic concepts can only help the student to whom this is all new.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Robotic Cars - The Future is Here
A short TED talk about Google's self-driving car. This is the sort of thing commonly found in science fiction and futurism presentations, but the technology exists now. It is the sort of device that reminds us about robotics and 'intelligent machines.' It is the sort of device that reminds us that there is very 'cool' technology that will continue to wow us, but at the same time it will make us think more and more about the consequences, intended and unintended, of the development of smart machines.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Interesting Take on China's advance - Why and how are they different from West/
Here is an interesting talk about China, and how a recent projection, as a post-western economic recession world status, has the Chinese economy matching and surpassing the U.S. economy by 2020 - just one decade away.
Martin Jacques goes over some key differences between China and the West, and how they have been able to grow so rapidly, often befuddling western analysts who think in western ways. We should not be thinking of China as a nation-state, but rather a civilization-state, as Jacques argues. Very fascinating and important topic.
Martin Jacques goes over some key differences between China and the West, and how they have been able to grow so rapidly, often befuddling western analysts who think in western ways. We should not be thinking of China as a nation-state, but rather a civilization-state, as Jacques argues. Very fascinating and important topic.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Looking for Feedback - If you have kids, especially...Can this story help learn some science?
I am looking for feedback. I have a children's story that tries to get the concept of atoms and ultimately quarks across to children. I see kids in the age range of 4-8 or so as the target group.
If you have kids and want to read it, or if you have any comments of your own as to what you think about it, please let me know! If you have any experience with children's books, also let me know as I have a number of questions for you. I can see some interesting illustrations that could be produced for the story. Thanks.
Here goes:
Little Sue and the Rock
By Mark Vondracek, Ph.D.
It was after school, and Little Sue was walking down the street,
when she noticed a pretty little rock down by her feet.
She picked it up, looked at it, and wondered what was inside,
when all of a sudden she was going on an amazing ride.
Little Sue began to shrink,
and she did not know what to think.
Was she really getting smaller,
or was the rock just getting taller?
Whatever the case, she quickly began to see,
sparkling crystals appear, like when the sun shines on the sea.
And while these crystals were simply amazing,
little Sue knew this was only the surface of the rock she was grazing.
Ever smaller did little Sue grow,
before she was in a world she did not know.
Those beautiful crystals disappeared,
into a number of balls forming patterns, that much was clear.
The balls were bound together, which to little Sue was very cool,
when she realized she was seeing objects her teacher called molecules.
But she also wondered what was with those once little balls,
which seemed to be getting bigger as her size continued to get small.
Even though little Sue’s height was still decreasing,
she could not help but think this new world was pretty pleasing.
She kept approaching those balls, and it was becoming a little cloudy,
and the balls seemed to be shaking, and even seemed a little rowdy.
“Those balls must be atoms!” exclaimed little Sue to herself,
she knew this because she had read that science book on her shelf.
As she shrunk into one of the clouds it seemed a little fuzzy,
and as she struggled to see, smaller specks flew by and sounded a little buzzy.
Little Sue was checking out the electrons flying by,
moving very fast, so fast she could not even say “Hi.”
And before long little Sue shrunk into a place,
where the electrons were now gone and all she saw was empty space.
It seemed like forever that little Sue kept on shrinking,
seeing nothing around caused her to start thinking.
“Is there nothing else around here that will stop my fall?”
when suddenly in the distance she could see another little ball.
Atoms have a second part, little Sue seemed to remember,
with electrons whizzing and circling the outside, and a nucleus in the center.
Little Sue kept shrinking and suddenly was able to see,
a bunch of smaller balls in the nucleus, glued together so perfectly .
“Wow, these little balls are protons and neutrons! This is really cool!”
as little Sue was remembering that science lesson from school.
She was now seeing the smallest pieces of that rock she had been holding,
at least this is what she thought before she got a little scolding.
Little Sue heard voices complaining as she shrank a little more,
falling inside one of those protons that were at the atom’s core.
Even smaller balls were inside and finally had a chance to make their mark,
by introducing themselves to little Sue, saying, “Hello, we are the quarks!”
For little Sue this was unexpected and really quite the surprise,
as she began to look around and rub her wide-open eyes.
“Quarks,” she said, “were not mentioned in my science book.”
and she closed her eyes for a moment, then opened them for a second look.
The quarks explained to little Sue they aren’t very well known,
but they do exist and are real, with identities all their own.
“Our names are Up and Down,” they said to little Sue,
“but the protons and neutrons are more popular, so what can we do?”
Just then little Sue realized she was no longer shrinking,
for now she had reached the smallest piece of the rock, and she was left thinking –
I have seen the smallest piece of the rock….or have I not?
could there be something smaller than the quarks, as small as a dot?
For now, little Sue will need to wonder about that question,
but as she grows back up in size I leave her this suggestion.
For little Sue, as well as all her little school friends,
if you don’t know the answer to your questions do not leave that as the end.
Keep asking your questions, and don’t leave any of them to silence;
look around, try to find an answer – and before you know it, you will be doing science.
It doesn’t matter what it is, from the smallest atom to outer space,
because you will find questions that still need answers all over the place.
If you have kids and want to read it, or if you have any comments of your own as to what you think about it, please let me know! If you have any experience with children's books, also let me know as I have a number of questions for you. I can see some interesting illustrations that could be produced for the story. Thanks.
Here goes:
Little Sue and the Rock
By Mark Vondracek, Ph.D.
It was after school, and Little Sue was walking down the street,
when she noticed a pretty little rock down by her feet.
She picked it up, looked at it, and wondered what was inside,
when all of a sudden she was going on an amazing ride.
Little Sue began to shrink,
and she did not know what to think.
Was she really getting smaller,
or was the rock just getting taller?
Whatever the case, she quickly began to see,
sparkling crystals appear, like when the sun shines on the sea.
And while these crystals were simply amazing,
little Sue knew this was only the surface of the rock she was grazing.
Ever smaller did little Sue grow,
before she was in a world she did not know.
Those beautiful crystals disappeared,
into a number of balls forming patterns, that much was clear.
The balls were bound together, which to little Sue was very cool,
when she realized she was seeing objects her teacher called molecules.
But she also wondered what was with those once little balls,
which seemed to be getting bigger as her size continued to get small.
Even though little Sue’s height was still decreasing,
she could not help but think this new world was pretty pleasing.
She kept approaching those balls, and it was becoming a little cloudy,
and the balls seemed to be shaking, and even seemed a little rowdy.
“Those balls must be atoms!” exclaimed little Sue to herself,
she knew this because she had read that science book on her shelf.
As she shrunk into one of the clouds it seemed a little fuzzy,
and as she struggled to see, smaller specks flew by and sounded a little buzzy.
Little Sue was checking out the electrons flying by,
moving very fast, so fast she could not even say “Hi.”
And before long little Sue shrunk into a place,
where the electrons were now gone and all she saw was empty space.
It seemed like forever that little Sue kept on shrinking,
seeing nothing around caused her to start thinking.
“Is there nothing else around here that will stop my fall?”
when suddenly in the distance she could see another little ball.
Atoms have a second part, little Sue seemed to remember,
with electrons whizzing and circling the outside, and a nucleus in the center.
Little Sue kept shrinking and suddenly was able to see,
a bunch of smaller balls in the nucleus, glued together so perfectly .
“Wow, these little balls are protons and neutrons! This is really cool!”
as little Sue was remembering that science lesson from school.
She was now seeing the smallest pieces of that rock she had been holding,
at least this is what she thought before she got a little scolding.
Little Sue heard voices complaining as she shrank a little more,
falling inside one of those protons that were at the atom’s core.
Even smaller balls were inside and finally had a chance to make their mark,
by introducing themselves to little Sue, saying, “Hello, we are the quarks!”
For little Sue this was unexpected and really quite the surprise,
as she began to look around and rub her wide-open eyes.
“Quarks,” she said, “were not mentioned in my science book.”
and she closed her eyes for a moment, then opened them for a second look.
The quarks explained to little Sue they aren’t very well known,
but they do exist and are real, with identities all their own.
“Our names are Up and Down,” they said to little Sue,
“but the protons and neutrons are more popular, so what can we do?”
Just then little Sue realized she was no longer shrinking,
for now she had reached the smallest piece of the rock, and she was left thinking –
I have seen the smallest piece of the rock….or have I not?
could there be something smaller than the quarks, as small as a dot?
For now, little Sue will need to wonder about that question,
but as she grows back up in size I leave her this suggestion.
For little Sue, as well as all her little school friends,
if you don’t know the answer to your questions do not leave that as the end.
Keep asking your questions, and don’t leave any of them to silence;
look around, try to find an answer – and before you know it, you will be doing science.
It doesn’t matter what it is, from the smallest atom to outer space,
because you will find questions that still need answers all over the place.
Where the world is headed - An Economic Phase Transition from Hyperconsumtion to Collaborative Consumption
I found this TED talk very interesting. One can certainly see a change in how people interact with each other due to the Internet and global wireless communications, and I think Rachel Botsman presents a strong argument for a phase transition from a hyperconsumption economy (I believe this term comes from Thomas Friedman) to a collaborative consumption model.
Multi-disciplinarity and The Birth Of America
Back in July I read an interesting book entitled The Science of Liberty by Timothy Ferris. I posted on how the birth of modern science developed within the same mindset and intellectual framework as the first modern democracy, the United States. In fact, this book argues the U.S. would not have formed had it not been for the birth of modern science. Building off that theme, a second book, Steven Johnson's The Invention of Air: A Story of Science, Faith, Revolution and The Birth of America, examines the life and work of Joseph Priestley, and his deep friendships with Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and his influence on those two Founding Fathers as well as John Adams.
Priestley began as one of the leading and first modern chemists, whose main contemporary scientific rival was Antoine Lavoisier. Priestley had numerous discoveries, including providing key evidence for the existence of oxygen and its role in combustion and life itself, but what was new for me was his deep friendship with Benjamin Franklin. Franklin and Priestley met and corresponded with each other about science for many years prior to the American Revolution, and influenced each other greatly as far as the development of experiments, analysis and interpretation of data. Their letters show how they were onto the conceptual understanding of the cycling of oxygen and carbon dioxide for all of life, and how ecosystems work in terms of the flow and transformation of different energy types from one to another. These concepts were decades ahead of their time.
However, as Franklin became embedded in politics and the Revolution, the time he had to commit to science was limited at best. It was Priestley who kept him updated on scientific progress, and Franklin's influence on Priestley began to turn Priestley's attention more towards politics. In addition to the politics, Priestley also began writing about religion. His attention and publication of his views on Christianity, most notably History of Corruptions of Christianity, where he argues against the more mystical aspects within the Bible (dismissing the Trinity, miracles, and contradictory concepts in doctrine), actually led to riots among Christians and a mob that burned his house, lab, and called for his death. Priestley ended up in exile, and moved to America. It did not take long before he met and befriended Thomas Jefferson. Even before becoming friends with Jefferson, he knew and befriended John Adams when Adams was Vice President.
Priestley was a deep thinking man who believed in complete openness and sharing of information and data with as many people as possible. He wrote everything down, in exhaustive detail, especially with his experimental procedures and data. Had he the technology, he likely would have developed the Internet. Why was he this way? Priestley and Franklin agreed in their correspondence that by publishing everything in the sciences allowed them to "excite the attentions of the ingenius." Great ideas develop by people brainstorming and sharing thoughts. If one person is on a path but cannot quite see the answer, someone else might, and that is good for progress. This mindset is at the heart and soul of all modern science disciplines, as well as academia in general. This is what 'connectivity' and the Internet is all about, or at least the Internet provides the appropriate platform for sharing and exciting the attentions of the ingenius. Check out my post from another of Johnson's books about how ideas form.
Providing information to the masses is a necessity for democracy. Priestley's preaching and practice of sharing information was a key influence on the development of the vision of Franklin, Jefferson and Adams as they were helping invent America. Priestley also resisted just having a single focus. The practice of the day was for science, religion, philosophy, politics, and other fields of study from overlapping. Priestley helped break this mold, as he was a firm believer in multidisciplinary approaches to topics. He and Franklin in particular discussed this concept, as if they were forming the modern field of complex systems. Having and using a multi-disciplinary mindset allowed some of our Founding Fathers to be great visionaries that were needed to make the American experiment to work. In fact, after Priestley died and Jefferson and Adams began their decade-long, legendary exchange of letters up until they died (on July 4th, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence), whose name appeared more frequently than Franklin's, Washington's or Madison's? It was Priestley.
The key players who gave birth to America were geniuses. They were scientists at heart, and this mindset and experience were key to the development of the American concept. But they were also willing to share ideas, try new things, and collaborate to solve major, complex, and multi-disciplinary problems. And the big three of Franklin, Adams and Jefferson had a common thread of Joseph Priestley to help guide them over decades worth of time. He showed how science, religion and politics were inter-related and all had to be 'on the table' simultaneously when developing new ideas. It is a fascinating story, involving fascinating individuals. These are the same themes and issues we talk about today, whether it involves current problems the nation and world face, as well as with reforming our education system as we try to prepare kids for the 21st century. These men from the 18th and early 19th centuries have much to teach us still, and I think they deserve their say!
Priestley began as one of the leading and first modern chemists, whose main contemporary scientific rival was Antoine Lavoisier. Priestley had numerous discoveries, including providing key evidence for the existence of oxygen and its role in combustion and life itself, but what was new for me was his deep friendship with Benjamin Franklin. Franklin and Priestley met and corresponded with each other about science for many years prior to the American Revolution, and influenced each other greatly as far as the development of experiments, analysis and interpretation of data. Their letters show how they were onto the conceptual understanding of the cycling of oxygen and carbon dioxide for all of life, and how ecosystems work in terms of the flow and transformation of different energy types from one to another. These concepts were decades ahead of their time.
However, as Franklin became embedded in politics and the Revolution, the time he had to commit to science was limited at best. It was Priestley who kept him updated on scientific progress, and Franklin's influence on Priestley began to turn Priestley's attention more towards politics. In addition to the politics, Priestley also began writing about religion. His attention and publication of his views on Christianity, most notably History of Corruptions of Christianity, where he argues against the more mystical aspects within the Bible (dismissing the Trinity, miracles, and contradictory concepts in doctrine), actually led to riots among Christians and a mob that burned his house, lab, and called for his death. Priestley ended up in exile, and moved to America. It did not take long before he met and befriended Thomas Jefferson. Even before becoming friends with Jefferson, he knew and befriended John Adams when Adams was Vice President.
Priestley was a deep thinking man who believed in complete openness and sharing of information and data with as many people as possible. He wrote everything down, in exhaustive detail, especially with his experimental procedures and data. Had he the technology, he likely would have developed the Internet. Why was he this way? Priestley and Franklin agreed in their correspondence that by publishing everything in the sciences allowed them to "excite the attentions of the ingenius." Great ideas develop by people brainstorming and sharing thoughts. If one person is on a path but cannot quite see the answer, someone else might, and that is good for progress. This mindset is at the heart and soul of all modern science disciplines, as well as academia in general. This is what 'connectivity' and the Internet is all about, or at least the Internet provides the appropriate platform for sharing and exciting the attentions of the ingenius. Check out my post from another of Johnson's books about how ideas form.
Providing information to the masses is a necessity for democracy. Priestley's preaching and practice of sharing information was a key influence on the development of the vision of Franklin, Jefferson and Adams as they were helping invent America. Priestley also resisted just having a single focus. The practice of the day was for science, religion, philosophy, politics, and other fields of study from overlapping. Priestley helped break this mold, as he was a firm believer in multidisciplinary approaches to topics. He and Franklin in particular discussed this concept, as if they were forming the modern field of complex systems. Having and using a multi-disciplinary mindset allowed some of our Founding Fathers to be great visionaries that were needed to make the American experiment to work. In fact, after Priestley died and Jefferson and Adams began their decade-long, legendary exchange of letters up until they died (on July 4th, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence), whose name appeared more frequently than Franklin's, Washington's or Madison's? It was Priestley.
The key players who gave birth to America were geniuses. They were scientists at heart, and this mindset and experience were key to the development of the American concept. But they were also willing to share ideas, try new things, and collaborate to solve major, complex, and multi-disciplinary problems. And the big three of Franklin, Adams and Jefferson had a common thread of Joseph Priestley to help guide them over decades worth of time. He showed how science, religion and politics were inter-related and all had to be 'on the table' simultaneously when developing new ideas. It is a fascinating story, involving fascinating individuals. These are the same themes and issues we talk about today, whether it involves current problems the nation and world face, as well as with reforming our education system as we try to prepare kids for the 21st century. These men from the 18th and early 19th centuries have much to teach us still, and I think they deserve their say!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)