Perhaps the greatest of ideas must be attributed to the Greeks. We acknowledge them, not for making any solid contributions to our present understanding of the world, but for recognizing that the universe is indeed accessible to human reason. There is also evidence that in other parts of the world some aspects of understanding the world in ancient times were also present. The ancient Polynesians knew the Earth was round, and they could navigate by the stars in dugout canoes, crossing the vastness of the Pacific Ocean. (The Ha’amonga Trilithon on Tongatapu is an ancient observatory much like Stone Henge except that the 40 tons stones that make it up were cut and slotted, not just piled together.) While their understanding of celestial navigation was superb they did not make much progress in other ways. Native Americans seemed to understand medicine and healing but in other ways were not very progressive. If it were not so that the universe is indeed accessible to human reason, our lives would almost certainly be quite primitive. But, because we do understand the world, and more and more so each day, we have made tremendous progress in elevating the standard of living, communicating around the world, and even though not so desirable, making war even more terrible than in the past.

Science is a Liberal Art

     In no way will this be a rigorous application of any of the ideas to be explored, but rather an attempt to understand them, and what they mean to us. We pursue a liberal art for the sake of understanding and enrichment it brings into our lives. Whether it be science or philosophy, music or a foreign language, it helps us to develop perspectives which contribute positively to the emotional and intellectual aspects of our lives. We study the liberal arts not for extrinsic reasons, but rather to help us to respond through the totality of our experiences to the fundamental questions of nature. While learning electronics to be able to build a needed device may be an honorable endeavor, or learning a foreign language to be able to communicate with a certain group of individuals may help us in our professions, we do not study a liberal art for these kinds of reasons. Instead, we study a liberal art for its own sake. Obviously learning Russian provides us with a framework to appreciate the differences in people and cultures, but that language as a communication tool is not necessarily helpful in Japan. It is useful in what it does for us, not for its utilitarian purpose.

     Each subject matter gives us a particular perspective through which we may view the world in which we live. Through literature, we may be better prepared to understand man's relationships with each other and the world itself. Through a study of other cultures, as may be experienced in a foreign language course, we may be better prepared to participate in man's sense of belonging to the world of people. But science itself, helps us to develop the framework upon which the physical world is built. In the very recent years, science has given us new knowledge that has a relevance for how we think and feel about the world. But science is not in itself sufficient to explain and understand the world in which we live. For that we need the other liberal arts. Recently, we-have seen great strides in technology and understanding of our physical world. To be sure, there are today more scientists alive and "doing science" in laboratories, and other research facilities than have lived, all together, in the history of mankind. Science has not replaced or threatened the other liberal arts. In fact, they are needed now, more than ever, for they add relevance to new ideas in science and technology. Science looks to those subjects which do not lend themselves to factual obsolescence for applications and values. Its importance is valid only when integrated into the total experience of man.

     On the other hand, it is foolhardy to attempt to describe the world without a knowledge of science too. Niels Bohr was considered by many to be one of the greatest physicists to have ever lived. He is known as the father of the quantum world which we will explore soon. But he was more than a physicist, he was a physicist-philosopher. He integrated the knowledge of other disciplines to give relevance and meaning to the world he and others were discovering. 0ne idea he suggested was that a minor truth is one for which the opposite is false, but a major truth is one such that the opposite is also true. Consider then, the statement that science is the most fundamental and important of the liberal arts. It is also NOT the most important for it does depend on the other aspects of human knowledge.
 
 

     I don’t know if this story is true, but it has been going around the Physics circles: The following concerns a question in a physics degree exam at the University of Copenhagen: "Describe how to determine the height of a skyscraper with a barometer."

     One student replied: "You tie a long piece of string to the neck of the barometer, then lower the barometer from the roof of the skyscraper to the ground. The length of the string plus the length of the barometer will equal the height of the building."

     This highly original answer so incensed the examiner that the student was failed immediately. The student appealed on the grounds that his answer was indisputably correct, and the university appointed an independent arbiter to decide the case. The arbiter judged that the answer was indeed correct, but did not display any noticeable knowledge of physics.

     To resolve the problem it was decided to call the student in and allow him six minutes in which to provide a verbal answer which showed at least a minimal familiarity with the basic principles of physics. For five minutes the student sat in silence, forehead creased in thought. The arbiter reminded him that time was running out, to which the student replied that he had several extremely relevant answers, but couldn't make up his mind which to use. On being advised to hurry up the student replied as follows:

     "Firstly, you could take the barometer up to the roof of the skyscraper, drop it over the edge, and measure the time it takes to reach the ground. The height of the building can then be worked out from the formula H = 0.5g x t squared. But bad luck on the barometer."

     "Or if the sun is shining you could measure the height of thebarometer, then set it on end and measure the length of its shadow. Then you measure the length of the skyscraper's shadow, and thereafter it is a simple matter of proportional arithmetic to work out the height of the skyscraper.

     "But if you wanted to be highly scientific about it, you could tie a short piece of string to the barometer and swing it like a pendulum, first at ground level and then on the roof of the skyscraper. The height is worked out by the difference in the gravitational restoring force T = 2 x PI x[sqrroot (l /g)]."

     "Or if the skyscraper has an outside emergency staircase, it wouldbe easier to walk up it and mark off the height of the skyscraper in barometer lengths, then add them up."

     "If you merely wanted to be boring and orthodox about it, of course, you could use the barometer to measure the air pressure on the roof of the skyscraper and on the ground, and convert the difference in millibars into feet to give the height of the building." (I think this was the traditional answer the examiner was looking for.)

     "But since we are constantly being exhorted to exercise independence of mind and apply scientific methods, undoubtedly the best way would be to knock on the janitor's door and say to him 'If you would like a nice new barometer, I will give you this one if you tell me the height of this skyscraper'." The student was Niels Bohr, the only Dane to win the Nobel prize for Physics.

     A report, "Physics Through the 199Os," commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council to help the U. S. government establish priorities, cites this chilling statement by the National Commission on Excellence in Education: "For the first time in the history of our country the educational skills of one generation will not surpass, will not equal, will not even approach, those of their parents." It continues to say that the fraction of students who have any contact with physics "is so small that we are becoming a nation of scientific illiterates."

     Today the American citizen (as well as the general world's population) is largely scientifically ignorant. Daily, we are beseiged with a plethora of ideas, some sense, and some nonsense, all in the name of science. we are asked to logically make decisions as consumers, as people expected to live in harmony with an increasingly and irreversibly technological world, and as voters in a democracy which depends on education to preserve freedom and justice. (Sort of a Jeffersonian perspective.) Never before was there a more critical time to address the most modern ideas in science for not only the highest of motives, but also for the most pragmatic of reasons.

     There is a myth about the 'sciences, namely that the concepts involved can only be explained with mathematics and only those individuals skilled in mathematics can be capable of understanding the sciences, especially Physics. I find this to be largely false and will attempt to provide an essentially verbal description wherever possible. This is not to apologize for mathematics at all. It is indeed the language of physics and is very rich and succinct. Knowing the mathematics is akin to knowing how to communicate in a language descriptive of the universe. The very essence of the world’s nature is described better through mathematics than through, for example, English or French. Mathematics embodies the power of interactions in space and time that words fall short of. Yet we can still study certain aspects of the world without getting bogged down with mathematical details. It is assumed that the average person, given enough time to study and practice the skills could in fact become fluent in using mathematics just as one needs time and practice to become conversant in any foreign language. This is not to say that the subject matter is not intellectually challenging, frequently abstract and, sometimes difficult to understand. Mathematical examples and functional relationships will be used whenever necessary to help describe a phenomena and to better explain it. Realize too that other subjects are difficult too and sometimes very abstract. Philosophy, Music, and even James Joyce can be very much so.

Science is a Process

     The processes by which we learn science are similar to the ways in which other cognitive knowledge is gained. Children, even babies, follow these steps too. Observation is the first process used in learning.

     Babies may crawl about, touching and feeling things. They (babies) are in effect observing their world from certain perspectives. They say Sherlock Holmes probably had the most highly developed powers of observation among all human beings. But he had to integrate those observations to make sense of the details and ultimately lead to successfully solving the case. Scientists involve themselves in particular observations, looking for an event, or examining the progress of a certain phenomena. When the observation is completed, one must describe what he or she saw. This requires other skills, such as classification, communication, etc.

     I am reminded of a two year old who classified everything that opened as a door. A jar lid was considered a door, as well as a window, etc. Similarly, we must describe our observations as belonging to certain structures.

     Now one can begin to model the observed phenomena. At this point a model is constructed which describes the system and can be used to make predictions about the real world and its interaction with the observed system. The model may be abstract, very concrete, or even mathematical. Frequently a mathematical model best describes things that our English language cannot. It does so very accurately, and also very succinctly. It is brief, complete and concise. Do not be threatened or overwhelmed by such models, as their use will be thoroughly explained as needed. Our most important tasks will be to understand what these models represent and to interpret their meaning. The model must be capable of answering every question asked about the phenomena.

     It must explain every situation in terms of the model. For example, a model of gravity must describe projectile motion, how apples fall, how moons orbit a planet, and how a galaxy is structured. It is incomplete if it doesn't explain all the ideas related to it.

     Once the model is in place, we need to test the model. Does it really describe the phenomena? Aristotle described matter as mixtures of air, earth, fire, and water with two forces, love and strife holding them together or causing them to diverge. Actually, it wasn't a bad model then. It answered all the questions of the day and described matter quite-well. But the Greeks did not test their models. If we were to mix the above components together we would probably get hot, bubbly, mud. The Greeks assumed that very massive objects, fell faster than less massive ones. Galileo, the father of modern science, challenged this and found that they fell at a rate independent of the mass. Even the most elegant of theories can be destroyed by a simple fact.

It is interesting to note that we do not call Galileo the Father of Modern Science simply because he was the first to call for experimental verification of a model; i.e., testing the hypothesis. Indeed, when Copernicus first suggested the heliocentric solar system others (scientists backing up the existing paradigm) said this model was wrong. Tycho Brahe himself hired Kepler to help him prove that Copernicus was wrong. He developed the finest of naked eye observing instruments so that he could "do the experiment" and prove him wrong. He was the first to voally call for doing the experiment. But indeed, Galileo did more. He investigated motion, light, sound, temperature and other areas of science in an exacting and steadfast manner as we still see good scientists doing today. He was on the cutting edge of the transformation of science more as an art to one that is quantitative in its foundation.

But we have recognize even more. Science is more than a Process.. If we were to restrict ourselves to the definition of science as strictly a process then there are many many other disciplines that could rightly call themselves sciences. Sciences are revered so to speak by many outsiders because science has so successful in its venue. To send a space probe across the solar system and arrive at its destination (such as Voyager mission) within seconds of the predicted time demonstrates a reasonably good understanding of the world we live in. We have today so many disciplines that attempt to apply the methods used in learning about the world, many of which are scholarly in basis, that they add the word science to their original name. For example we have Political Science, Social Science, Consumer Science, Exercise Science, etc. But are they really what we think of when we think of science?

Science itself is more than a process. If it were only a process then we would have equivalence not just between all of the sciences themselves but between sciences and other disciplines. We do not mean to suggest that there is more value to one science than another or to science (generically) as compared to another discipline. Each has its own value but that does not make them the same.

The Nature of Science

    In 1958 Thomas Kuhn published his seminal work on The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In it he analyzes how science is done and how scientiist do science. I particular he points out that the normal role scientists play is to conduct experiments that reenforce the existing paradigm. Typically when some anamolies arise that do not agree with the existing paradigm they are ignored. Consider that Fleming's journals show that indeed he wiped the mold out of his petri dishes for ten years before he saw the connection that pennicillin could in fact, kill certain bacteria. But there is indeed resistance to changing tyhe exiting paradigm. (Kuhn never really defines paradigm but it is implied to refer to the current model of the phenomena in question.)

    When enough anomolies arise such that the current paradigm is in crisis, i.e.; researchers realize there is something really wronmg with the current model, crisis results and a new paradigm is needed. Typically this comes from outside the discipline. Looking at Copernicus, the existing paradigm of the Ptolemic Model of a geocentric solar system gave rise to more and more problems. The Copernican helio-centric model was not really new. It was proposed by the Greek Aristarchus but rejected because parallax could not be observed. Yet crisis was building. This led to Tycho Brahe and Kepler making observations to define the problem and seek a solution.

    One particular thing about science is that it has the concensus of the practitioners. That is one way to distinguish it from a pseudo-science. Not to cast aspesions on other disciplines or to lessent their individual value. Yet, those fields which do not have consensus of the practioners cannot legitimately be called sciences. We see today on the TV ads with bald headed men in thick glasses and lab coats selling detergent and the like. Because science has been so successful and the outcomes so precisely accurate, other discipliones want to be seen in the same mirror. So the name science is commonly added to many fields which are not legitimate sciences., even if some of the techniques sciences use are also applied by their practitioners. For example, it could not in this sense be fair to call psychology a natural science since there is not consensusof the practitioners, nor can experiment verify, whether nature or nurture are the cause of human development and behavior.

     As science helps us to understand the world: we live in, we must be careful of what we can expect from science. Surely we will be able to ask more questions about our world when we are more comfortable with it, but yet we must be careful.. Science may be able to provide models to help us describe the universe back to billionths of billionths of the first second of the big bang that initiated the known universe and its models may, with some degree of certainty or some limits of uncertainty, be able to predict the ultimate, destiny of this universe. Yet it can only answer questions regarding HOW the world is and HOW it works. Science is incapable of providing answers to WHY questions. WHY questions are the realm of epistimology.

      We cannot explore every idea that has graced humanity. But we can examine those which have had real impacts on our present view of the world we live in. We will explore the nature of thinking and the scientific method so that we can effectively study the following topics: Probability and Statistics, not to be able to use them or calculate certain quantities, but how to use them and understand what they mean; Statistical mechanics, that branch of science which provides a link between the microscopic and macroscopic world and readily provides the groundwork for the existence of atoms; Quantum Mechanics, not a study of wave equations, but rather of the dual nature of light and particles where light has particle characteristics and particles have wave properties; Elementary Particles, journeying into the very structure of the constituents of the nucleus until we find the very elementary building blocks of matter itself, quarks and leptons; Special and General Relativity which shows us that plane, Euclidean geometry is not sufficient to describe our world and in fact gives rise to the existence of black holes, time dilation and length contraction; the Radiation Controversy, a look at the nature of radioactivity and what it means to humanity; and finally Cosmology, the study of the origin, evolution and destiny of the entire universe itself. Any of these topics could in themselves occupy a complete year of study. It is intended that we share the basic ideas of each of them arid recognize how they contribute to the manner in which the world (universe) is accessible to human reason.

     The ideas developed here are not unrelated. Together they help to form a comprehensive picture of the universe and all it contains. Again, we will try to avoid mathematical formalism as much as possible and stress the development of concepts themselves. There is, however, a need for some study off the basic functional relations each concept is based on. This is developed in the next chapter to help one interpret and understand the models. It is exciting to even dare to explore the real frontiers of modern science. As we proceed, we must be careful that we understand that we are not even sure what lies ahead. The words of Francis Crick almost hauntingly tell us that "... no theory should explain all the facts, since some of the facts are wrong." We will look at ideas and theories, recognizing them for what they are and what kinds of experiments may be needed to verify them. The challenge is before us. It has been said that education is a journey, not a destination. Let us proceed on this journey down some new and exciting paths.

1. What are the Processes of Science? Compare this with what is traditionally known as the Scientific Method.
 
 

2. List what you think are the six greatest ideas in Science. Do not necessarily list those topics suggested in this chapter, but rather include what you consider the greatest.
 
 

3. What criteria must a good model of a physical phenomena satisfy?
 
 

4. Einstein spoke about comprehension of the world "as complete as possible." What did he mean?
 
 

5. Can you think of a major contribution to science that happened by chance? How might you reconcile this with a methodical approach to scientific truth?
 
 

6. We have grown up in the Space Age with knowledge of the Earth and the planets. Assume we aren't sure if Earth is flat or round. You observe that as an individual proceeds away from you, he/she disappears below the horizon. Explain this phenomena in terms of both models of the Earth (flat &round).
 
 

7. Explain what is meant by "...the tentative nature of science."
 
 

8. Describe a situation that has happened recently where a public figure, for example a politician, has addressed a sensitive issue without being informed scientifically.
 
 

10. Distinguish between facts, theories, and laws of science.

"U.S. is Facing grave shortage of physicists, report warns," St. Paul Dispatch, April 10, 1986; Reprinted from New York Times.

"Which fuel poses most risk?", St. Paul Dispatch, June 3, 1986; Reprinted from Washington Post.

Petroski, Henry, "Technology Is an Essential Component of Today's Liberal-Arts Education". Chronicle of Higher Education, November 15, 1984.

Schlegel, Richard, "Physics, The Most important of the Liberal Arts", The Key Reporter, Volume XLV, Number Three, Spring 1980.

Saxon, David S., "The place of science and technology in the liberal arts curriculum: Conference on science and technology education for civic and professional life – the undergraduate years", American Journal of Physics, Volume 51, Number 1, January 1983.

Wallicsch, William J., "Change: Like it or Notl", T. H. E. Journal, May 1983.

DiLavore, Philip, "Physics of Technology - a report of the Tech Physics project", The Physics Teacher, November 1973.

Hirsch, E.D., Jr., Cultural Literacy-What Every AmericanNeeds to Know, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1987.