I think that this reading displays quite a bit of change in the world of science. The first comes with the idea that mathematics and theory rule. As finally expressed by Bohr in the end, physical models begin to fall short in the wake of concepts such as the duality of matter and light. Instead we must hold conflicting (complementing) ideas (equations) side by side and deduce what they say about the world through both their similarities are their differences. This seems like a huge change from Newton's "clockwork Universe." Especially with ideas like the uncertainty principal, the world was beginning to seem a lot less fixed. People were wisening up to the idea that there is not one universal law, but perhaps a mix of many smaller ones that add up to the Universe.
There also seems to be an increased sense of collaboration between scientists. In the Newton reading, it talks about how when Hooke declared that light is a wave, Newton hid in his house until Hooke died, and only then came out with his full theory of optics. In this reading we see scientists who may be at odds staying at each other's houses and working in close collaboration, despite their differences. The general feel of the time in terms of conflicting or different opinions seems to have moved from only one person can be right, to perhaps there is a happy medium between them, a synthesis per say.
I also thought the reading was mind blowing almost! Hrm, I guess I’ll start with my definition of science. As for now, I believe science is a study that starts with finding and analyzing patterns and then apply the theory to a philosophical level of human mind. So science is definitely not just pattern finding anymore, it begins with a small picture, and then goes to a big one, and somehow returns to small (so circular but not a perfect circle). Quantum mechanics and uncertainty principle largely changed people’s views on many specific objects, but more importantly science itself. Now instead of saying everything is certain, it is presented that things are perceived only because the observers decide to see them (so again it goes back to the whole Kantian [is that a word?] idea of knower and the known, the Hegelian reality, and truth vs. Truth). So I guess these scientists, along with their works, did change the discipline of science in the way that it changed the purpose of this study. Now instead of looking for that ultimate truth, they bring upon another possibility, which is that two seemingly contradicting theories could co-exist, in fact complement each other. The method sort of changed because now there’s a digression because different scientists prefer different methods (for example, Einstein prefers imaginary experiment while Bohr and Heisenberg prefers mathematical proofs). But at the same time the difference in methods already existed before that so that wasn’t too big a deal. The topics were advanced and views changed. So I guess the discipline did change. Also I thought the fact Bohr talked at Schrodinger to the point that he “apologized” for even started working on atomic theory was so hilarious (that totally made my night ).
as mentioned in a prior post the times when most things could be modeled explained through direct experimentation and observation was gone and now math and though experimentation took its place. Niels Bohr theorized that the electrons orbiting an atom could not move between orbits but had to jump to another orbit, this theory was later proved to be correct by my great grandfather James Frank.
science changed as had been said before me in that it became a social en devour instead of the mad scientist locked away in his tower it was many mad scientists in many tower with post and phones connecting them... in my natural history class i wrote a research paper on the scientists behind the atom bomb, they were all very social people not just in their work but outside it as well they went skiing with their friends blew up mountainsides with their friends and even went bowling. it had turned science not just into the pursuit of one crazed man but many.
Heisenberg and Bohr's research on light changed the discipline of science. Heisenberg's uncertainty principal changed how the universe was viewed. It was no longer predictable clockwork, now the mathematical equations and theories could only determine the probability of an event occurring. It was not possible to predict an event, even if all the initial conditions are known. Heisenberg found that by knowing the exact location of an electron, it would be impossible to known its exact momentum. The universe became probabilistic.
Bohr's ideas on complementarity concluded the argument about the duality of light. His belief that light was not a merger between a particle and a wave, but that it was instead light as a particle and light as a wave complementing each other. Bohr proposed that one would need to view these phenomena as a whole to understand light. His idea that one needed to see the whole to understand the parts changed the discipline of science.
This was such a dense reading that it has taken me so long to keep looking for the specifics to answer whether or not it has changed the discipline. I know for a fact that I would say yes, but finding the evidence for it is killing me.....
I think for Bohr we could see how scientists were beginning to build on each other's ideas (there's a word for it that you guys told me today, and I can not remember it for the life of me) such as when Rutherford told Bohr that something in his paper was wrong which then Einstein built on and then Bohr corrected it. I believe that Bohr changed the discipline of science by showing that in order to completely understand light (or any topic) and to find all of the evidence to prove that you are right, you need to have an understanding of every facet of science. Bohr was not able to prove his theory until he understood spectroscopy. Even now we can see that. In my capstone I am researching cancer and in order to understand cancer, you have to understand cellular biology, DNA and genetics, and human anatomy just to name a few of what I have had to look into to understand the concept.
With Heisenberg, I think it was interesting that he wanted to look only at the numbers and not regard everything else. His math then led him to matrix algebra which was now the combination of math and science (which I have always thought have overlapped.) I think this is how his search for what is light changed the discipline of science. Heisenberg that you not only need to understand science to understand what is light, but you now need to also understand mathematics. Once again, another way that things build on top of each other to get the bigger picture.
For Schrodinger, he also affected the discipline of science by overlapping with another scientist. He overlapped with Heisenberg's mathematics, which Heisenberg responded by saying, "...the two were but different mathematical formulations of the same structure," (134) as well as it simplified the equation. He also disagreed with Einstein by saying that light was made up of waves and not particles.
I think what I have been trying to say is that these three scientists all changed the discipline of science while looking for the answer to "what is light?" They affected science by overlapping on each others ideas as well as building on each other. They showed that you need to understand the whole picture in order to get to the bigger picture and add onto each others ideas in order to find the final answer. I am not sure if this is the most precise answer to what they did to affect the discipline of science, but I think it was an interesting thread to see between the three...Also I have been sitting here for an hour trying to write this post, and I think I am starting to get jumbled up and stray from the details (sorry Rachel...)
I think that, Ben and also briefly mentioned in class, that science changed in one way, at least, because of the work of Bohr, Heisenberg and Schroedinger in studying light. It became impossible to have a theory/idea acknowledged as right unless there was extensive math to back up the idea and explain the test results. I see a pattern, or at least steps. At first just theorizing and thinking and using logic proves things and makes solid explanations for the world. Then experimenting, (rough in Columbus' and others case) comes in, and now numbers make their entrance and math is forever till now and mostly likely onwards, a critical part of the study of science.
One funny simillarity in science throughout what we have read, is that when faced with something unexplainable scientist made stuff up. We see this from the "beginning" with Aristotle to the people who disproved eather, but wouldn't accept it because it would ruin lots of other ideas and basically scare everyone. Although these things may have seemed, or seem ridiculous I think this shows a commonality in the thinking of scientist, maybe they have to not only be very smart and observant, they have to be very imaginative, without all those mistakes we may not be where we are today. This reminds me brought me to Herman Minkowski who, "in 1908 said that time should literally be regarded as a fourth dimension" (112). It is amazing, although he had reasons and knowledge and all that good scientific stuff, he had maybe most importantly the freedom of mind to come up with the idea. Like that still sounds crazy to this day, who would come up with it? But its crazy brilliant maybe? SO something I see that doesn't change in discipline of science, is the imagination in combination with experimental, observational and other skills needed in the discipline.
I think quantum theory was the most significant contribution to science in all that we've read. It presents the idea that the universe is filled with abstractions and multiple laws that limit each other (complementarity I think is the word they use). It also introduces the idea that much of the universe is based upon probability and statistics, rather than universal laws. I find it interesting that even though the theory is so abstract and convoluted, it's still based on math; Heisenberg made sure to make his theory align with Planck's constant, even.
I'm also wondering what this theory did to influence all of science; physics is just one branch. Obviously with the theory of the atom, it's related to chemistry as well, but did quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle have any impact on branches of science other than physics?
i had some trouble understanding everything that was going on in the reading. I still cant say for sure if i believe that there was a difference made to the discipline of science, but i can say that the reading has been making me think of my own definition of science. I want to say that the discipline was changed because this is the first time ive really noticed such a strong influence of math in science, and an increase in actual experimentation in science. but ive been wondering what exactly a change in the discipline means in large. I had some trouble finding ideas/process that were brand new and would have had a truly large impact in the discipline, but what i saw mostly was expansion into research that had already been started. I believe that the work done had benefits towards the scientific field, but I'm still not convinced that the entire discipline was changed.
I too thought the relationship between scientists changed dramatically in the search for light. They were a lot more friendly with each other, and a lot of scientists built off each other, compared to Newton and Galileo who relentlessly insulted those who opposed them. Science in the time of Galileo seemed to progress by means of different scientists arguing against each other with one ultimate winner emerging strengthened by the battle. However, in the search for light, many scientists built off the work of previous ones, broadening and polishing their application, for example: Rydberg & Balmer, Lorentz and Michelson, Einstein and Lorentz.
I think this shift towards cooperation is the result of another important change in Science as a discipline: scientists focusing on specific studies. Aristotle attempted to cover everything from fish, to philosophy, to the heavens, and, similarly, Newton juggled many fields. Scientists at the turn of the 20th century, however, focused on more specific phenomena and scientific questions, like calculating the speed of light, searching for the aether, or understanding photons. What happens when you paint a broad universal picture like Aristotle did is it becomes difficult to build off it or add new ideas because the system is already complete in itself. It's easy to build off ideas like the constant speed of light because it's but a piece of the bigger picture. The search for light resulted in scientists studying individual pieces of the universe which fit together with those of other scientists, rather than independently pursuing grand universal systems
Ahhh this reading...... my definition of Science is reformatted into "the systematic study of universe through observation and experimentation in attempt to comprehend its framework in ways applicable to our perception", which is very similar to my definition of History. Science now seems to me less of an objective study to grasp the "essence" of the universe, but rather a study trying to understand the framework through our human perspective.
I think the biggest change I see is the realization of limitation on perspective / the inherent limit of how events can be known by us, which ends the strict determinism in physics and our perception of universe.
Bohr changed Science by redefining the task of physics from finding out what nature is to what we can say about nature. He insisted to anchor physics in facts instead of taking it beyond evidence to claim "the laws of nature" since we are just seeing the "regularities of phenomena". This rejects our belief of "predictive power" to determine the nature and so did Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which starts to include the role of observe (just like history!) and that "one measurement always made the other measurement uncertain". This realization also removed the requiring link between cause and effect to claim that mechanistic physics cannot be applicable to every change, that "every change in the state of an atom should be regarded as an individual process", and thus not predictable. (The idea of free will mentioned on p128 is quite intriguing to me, imagine if we treat all atoms as individual with free choice?)
I ended up skimming this reading because it was so dense and hard for me to get through. It's tough to figure out which scientists are important, and which discoveries are important when it seems like every page has something new on it. I don't know what points to take away from the reading, too.
I agree with Ben that it seems like the scientists were more open to cooperation than earlier scientists. I still don't really know why these new scientists cooperate more easily than the earlier ones. I also agree with Sam's point that the quantum theory has been the most important theory we have studied so far. Bohr's model was also pretty important because showed that each electron emits a photon as jumps between shells.
Other than that, I was really confused as to how these theories changed science.
Nica brought up an important point that as the study of quantum mechanics furthered, things became not so predictable. The methods had changed over time. What people thought could be measured by refined instruments became hard, even impossible to experiment with. Consequently, only possibilities could be known. For example, Michelson and Morley worked hard on improving the instruments in order to get a more accurate measure of the speed of light. But when it came to Einstein, the concrete, tangible experimentation was almost never used. Einstein conducted experiments in his head. And the method of "thought experiment" was kept by Heisenberg. Through his theorized experiment, he proposed the uncertainty principle.
Also, the purpose had changed from finding "what things are" (for example, Newton tried to find out what white light really is, and Michelson finding out the speed of light) to finding the underlying patters of certain behaviors (such as those of waves and particles)
Bohr proposed that waves and particles do not only exist as duality, but also "complement" each other. It changed the discipline of science in that his models did not explain things in our everyday life. Because in real life, things can only exit in one way or another. The three scientists dealt with scenarios that cannot be found in real life. The subjects they worked with were much different from those at the beginning of the question of what is light. Subjects such as visible lights and relative motions on earth led to further exploration of what cannot be seen and found in our everyday life.
Last edited by Yqi2013 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
Once again the study of the nature of light altered our universal perception. What was once understood in an orderly, clockwork, fashion (Newtonian view) was replaced with relativity, and the concept of ultimate, universal frame-of-reference and progression of time were gone. But now with Bohr's new understanding of the nature of electron energizing/ orbiting it seemed once again that the world operated in a predictable, deterministic manor. Atomic stability was dependent on the regular behavior their electrons, and that "the events that take place on the atomic scale are quantized"(127). (Despite this understanding Bohr himself denied the nature of prediction that this understanding entails, since in is view "Every change of state in an atom should be regarded as an individual process... We are here so far removed from a casual description that an atom in a stationary state may in general even be said to posses a free choice between various possible transitions" (128).)
Heisenberg effectively shattered this deterministic worldview, though, with his realization that the nature of our observation of electron behavior limits the information we can know about them. If we know there speed we do not know there location and vice versa. Therefore, atomic activity can only be understood as functions of probability and once again the universe operates in a state of uncertainty. Of course, not all were pleased by this view, Einstein believing firmly that "God does not throw dice" and Bohr being unhappy with the fact it didn't concern the light particle/wave duality.
That piece is another strange development in our understanding of scientific relationship with the world. Bohr insisted that instead of demanding a singular truth of the nature of light it was more productive to accept the contradiction, the paradox, because only with both in mind could we make further discoveries. Most importantly he believed that physics (and perhaps by extension science in genreal) was not a "grand philosophical system of authoritarian command but simply a way, in his favorite phrase 'of asking questions of Nature'" (129).
Has the discipline of science changed because of the work of Bohr, Heisenberg and Schroedinger in studying light?
The worksheet asks "what is different about the discipline of science" soooo
Bohr
-He really shook up the scientific world simply by re-imagining the atom. In a way, re-imagining the atom is re-imaginig the world
Heisenberg
-His looking for "regularities among the numbers alone" let him observe what would have otherwise been too difficult
Schroedinger
Seems like he did but I don't really understand ''
And though it's a bummer, I agree with all those who spoke to the growing importance of using more math and theory than experiments. This was definitely a significant shift in physics and the Science.
Alternatively, I liked Eric idea that Science was becoming much more collaborative. Having more people to bounce ideas of off seemed to positively affect the scientists in the reading.
Also, it wasn't really in search of the answer to "what is light?" or in the reading, I just wanted to mention the atomic bomb itself, which significantly changed Science. Never before had science been so destructive.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
).
'
