Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:07 pm Post subject: Newton’s View of the world
The questions are
•What is the evidence that light is a particle? A wave?
•What is different about Faraday’s and Maxwell’s approach to science compared to that of Newton?
It seems like all three of these men approach science in a similar way. They are all looking for a way of describing the observable world. Faraday focused on experiments, Maxwell on equations, and Newton on a combination of the two. The intent was the same for all three of them. What makes all of them scientists is their attempt to describe the physical world with a system of simple rules.
Travis, I really like what you said about the scientists looking for ways to describe the observable world. I do think they went about it different ways however. Although, like you said, their intent was the same, the approach was very different. Maxwell took a much more Mathematical view, while Faraday more experimental. I think we are both sort of saying the same thing in different ways actually.
MyCSW also says to post about this is helping us prove or disprove the statement “the search for an answer to the question: ‘what is light?’ profoundly changed the discipline of science”.
For me, these readings demonstrated that a quest for the answer to this question did change, or at least affect science. Newton’s work came from a quest for a definition of light. In his writing about these experiments “Newton’s provided insight into his method of working, what became the scientific method”(p104). The scientific method completely restructured science and is an important part of modern research today. So in that way, the search for ‘what is light’ indirectly created a method of working that did have a profound change on science. This also led to an importance in experimentation and accuracy for these scientists, and in science in general, maybe because they were in competition with each other; “young presented clear and accurate accounts of these experiments arguing in favor of the wave theory of light to a skeptical British scientific community” (p.106).
What I’m not sure about are whether are not these things have a direct relationship with the quest for ‘what is light?’. So I’m curious to see what you guys think because I know for me I’m kind of at a loss.
Newton argued that ideal conduct was, “First to enquire diligently into the properties of things, and to establish those properties by experiments and then to proceed more slowly to hypothesis for the explanation of them.” (104)
Faraday’s approach was slightly different. He first, “carried out experiments, [then] came up with ideas [hypotheses as explanations].” (108) It was only after he used his experiments and hypotheses to “explain the mysteries of Arago’s disk” (109) that he began to concern himself with the properties of things. He it was after these experiments that he thought of “lines of force” and other properties of things. His approach was simply an, I believe, unintentional reorder of Newton’s “ideal conduct”.
Maxwell was more like philosophers before Newton in that, “Before Newton, the way philosophers developed their ideas about the natural world was largely through pure thought.” (102). Maxwell made “Leap(s) of imagination,” (111) and dealt with broad conceptual, mathematical analogies. He seems less experiment-centric than Newton and Faraday.
The evidence that light is a wave is experimental. I think one great shift the question what is Light? Made for science was it was yet another step away from Aristotelian, don’t experiment, traditional, empirical science. As Bob Dylan once said, “The times they are a changin’”
To follow up on Keaton's mention of Aristotle, I wanted to say that, although Aristotle did not believe in experimentation, his ideas about the properties of matter were fundamental to Newton's explanation of the scientific method. The fact that Maxwell derives his equations from thought reflects a Hegelian method of science: I think, therefore I create the external realities around me. Faraday was less mathematical, but perhaps more conceptual than Maxwell. "He was still no mathematician, but he had an inspired ability to think pictorially...Instead of regarding atoms as tiny lumps of solid, impenetrable matter, he said, we should regard them as the centres of concentrations of forces--no more, and no less." (109) With his experiments on color theory and his construction of a reflecting telescope, Newton demonstrated not only a love of experimentation, but a knack for constructing real-life models of scientific principles. The text calls Newton "an expert model-maker." (103) In short, Maxwell found mathematical relationships, Faraday understood physical relationships, and Newton understood how to illustrate them using everyday materials. In my mind, Newton proceeded more from his experiments than he did from his preconceived notions. Faraday chiefly built off of the ideas of his predecessors, like Ampere and Arago, synthesizing (Hegel, anyone?) various concepts of magnetism and electricity in his thinking about lines/fields of force. Still, Faraday was clearly limited by his own generalizations.
"In a classic example of a 'thought experiment', Faraday asked people to imagine the Sun sitting alone in space. What would happen if the Earth were suddenly, by magic, to be placed at its appropriate distance from the Sun? How would it 'know' that the Sun was there?" (109) Because his ideas were not as specific as that of Newton, or Maxwell, I would call Faraday a scientific philosopher, and Maxwell a scientific mathematician, and Newton just a plain old scientist. I also agree with Emily's assertions about the importance of the discovery of light to the scientific method and, by extension, the development of modern science.
I had a similar idea as Emily in that these questions absolutely led scientists towards our modern day definition of the Scientific Method, but I’m not sure if it was unique to the question of “what is light?”. Although maybe that’s irrelevant, Newton had a very specific approach to science, which affected following scientists and mathematicians in their quest for truth so I suppose defining light was, in fact, a pivotal moment in science. Newton gave a great definition of science on page 104 which really helped me separate him from other scientists we've studied so far: “the best and safest method of philosophizing seems to be, first to enquire diligently into the properties of things, and to establish those properties by experiments, and then to proceed more slowly to hypotheses for the explanation for them”.
I also wanted to add a quote on to what Keaton said about Maxwell. Although on some level, Maxwell was closer to a philosopher and took reality out of the equation (get it!?!?!), his equations were applicable to the real world. “models should never be regarded as anything more than an aid to the imagination, a way of helping us picture (or calculate) what is going on. The reality resides in the mathematical equations themselves...” (page 112). Maybe he mixed math in science in a new way? (I don’t know nearly enough history to really say that)
p.s. the amount of times that I saw a reference to the dialectic method made my night 10 times more exciting
Ziz...what you said about the dialectic was funny. Also, I wanted to respond to your quote about science by asking: Can science be defined as an empirical philosophy of natural reality? Since Newton's definition ties philosophizing directly to the process of the scientific method, I thought that maybe science and history only differ in that the they consist of differing philosophies.
I think Newton's quote Ziz shared really hit spot on a great (but difficult) way to explore and understand questions such as "what is light?" He brings experimentation and observation to a whole new level by suggesting we go beyond the knowledge we think we have accumulated.
Also to quickly respond to how "what is light?" changed the discipline of science, is that it begins the study of something less tangible that has (arguably) ever been studies by scientists. Even with a modern day knowledge of the waves that compose light and how our eyes perceive it, something inexplicably magical still remains and isn't as simple as something we can neccesarily solve.
In reading the packet, I thought this, but in reading these posts I think I have gained an even clearer focus in my understanding.
A bit of vocabulary that has surprisingly not come up in this class is imagination. Perhaps its because we assign it to more fictitious disciplines in life (the visual arts, literature, etc) but I think this does us a disservice. Newton, Farady and Maxwell all approached science it would appear, with varying degrees of imagination.
Newton's painstakingly linear and cohesive style that we today recognize as the scientific method went in the order of: hypothesis, experimentation, analysis and conclusion. Each step set the stage for the subsequent one.
Farady chose to do--to act---and only later come up with feasible explanations with varying degrees of applicability. Furthermore, as Hannah pointed out, he was prone to sweeping generalization.
Lastly, Maxwell emphasized mathematical relationships and applicable analogies to, as Ziz points out, the very real world as opposed to pure rhetoric.
In essence, Newton's experimentation was nothing if not controlled and highly exacting. Farady's approach had less painstaking experimentation and more room for interpretation. Maxwell abided by hard and fast numbers, yet manipulated them to adhere to larger concepts. The ordering of the aforementioned list also (to me) expresses the order of imagination required. This is not a judgment statement on any of them, and perhaps to be honest, completely irrelevant to our goals, but my closing thought is:
If something can;t exist until you think it, can we imagine that which does not exist or only take what does and make a path to this "new" destination? Do we benefit as a society that hosts more imaginative or less imaginative but strictly intelligent thinkers? Is the ability to imagine an indicator of intelligence perhaps?
Famous scientist ALbert Einstein once said that imagination is more important thank knowledge. Does this prove true in the separations of philosophy and methodology between Farady, Newton and Maxwell?
It seems to me that the question "What is light?" did not so much define the scientific method as its asker did. Newton's observations into light were crucial, certainly, but it is not as crucial as Newton's methodology. Please understand that, as I write this, I'm coming down with a sore throat and am slightly less academically inclined, but I do like how Newton pretty much summed up the nature of science in a single, albeit cutting, remark; "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Science is all about the gathering, cataloging and analysis of data; it works across generations and disciplines.
On the evidence for light's nature; by virtue of the fact that it splits in a prism, it appears that numerous different kinds of light (Wavelengths) exist in a single beam. The splitting just makes those different kinds of light visible.
Ziz, I'm right there with you in terms of excitement caused by the appearance of the dialectic method. It was crazy! And totally relevant. And I liked your quote! Very relevant and helpful in terms of understanding the material at hand.
While I was reading I was thinking about the concept of experimentation and the intent behind conducting experiments. I also recognized the importance of this method of understanding in respect to Faraday. I wanted to throw out a question though.
My question is, how have views and understanding of experimentation changed over the course of time? What about conducting experiments changed so that they had become an accepted basis of understanding for scientists?
It may seem like a basic question, or one that can easily be answered; and it could be! But I thought it'd be worth it to throw out there. I also think it has a lot to do with the social/intellectual hierarchy of scientists that comes into play when we look at the materials we've read and are now reading.
In response to emily and the secondary question, how did light profoundly change the discipline of science, I think it is important to not only point out the different methods with which these men approached to subject, but the fact that all of their methods have combined today as a part of the scientific method. Mathematics, Faraday's visuals and inclination towards experiments and Maxwell's use of the conceptual all culminate into standard procedure in modern science.
A nice addition to Newton and how he approached science: his letters. He used his responses to skeptical scientists to further assert his points and provide more evidence, similar to Galileo (with perhaps a little less vehemence). In his letter to Pardies, he reiterated the importance of the scientific method as the pursuit of true knowledge. This brings Aristotle back again (ugh) for as we know, he did not experiment often believing it unnecessary in proving the nature of objects. Yet with the development of the Scientific Method and the importance of the empirical for true knowledge as written about by Hegel, it seems the foundation of true knowledge rests in not only theory but proof by experimentation, from which theories can be drawn and the cycle can continue. The dialectic comes in when Newton states, "For hypotheses should be employed in explaining the properties of things, but not assumed in determining them; unless so far as they may furnish experiments." (104) From this I feel some unwritten consensus has been reached when coming to the experimental part of science, that the Hegelian Dialectic of the observer affecting what he experiments with and only knowing what he experiences ultimately validates a single experiment and proof until proved otherwise with further experiment. I guess to sum that up with out being so convoluted: we accept our results as true when they come out to support a hypothesis
What everyone has been saying is great. This reading left me really dizzy and disoriented, not just in its cerebral material, but its affects on science as well. I’ll try to make sense of some of it here, but a lot of this is just word vomit:
I think attempting to answer “what is light?” really bring into question the matter of discovering truth in science. By looking into the topic at hand, scientists like Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell are discovering things that are NOT intuitive to how we would think (as Shubha used to say in my Physics I class at the beginning of this year, “Turn off the Aristotle part of your brain. Things are not as intuitive as they seem.”) The facts behind forces, the ether (or medium), and color don’t reflect our intuition at all. This must then mean that our reality is not intuitive, and maybe even the sensible world we experience everyday are distortions of more general laws that go against our understanding.
This radically changes the role and responsibility of a scientist, and the truth that a scientist is seeking. The scientist loses a little control over the study of science: if gut reactions aren’t to be trusted, than any sort of reality that scientists seek must be through experimentation and the mathematics thereby resulting from empirical datat.The truth scientists are now seeking is much more elusive, even though it seems they have gotten so much closer.
Of course this is going to freak everyone out. As it says in the reading: “…there was something distinctly unpatriotic, perhaps even dishonorable, in the suggestion that Newton had been wrong about anything…” (107). It’s quite reminiscent of Galileo’s contemporaries refusing anyone who didn’t believe in Aristotelian theory completely and fully.
Really quickly, I was fascinated by Leonhard Euler and his ability to understand things without sight (105-106). I thought it was beautiful how he understood light without being able to see it fully.
I feel most people already touched on the differences between Newton, Maxwell and Faraday's approaches to science, I don't want to be redundant.
Evidence light is a wave:
- "Light does not travel in perfectly straight lines, but leaks into the edges of the shadow of an object placed in its path" pg 105
- Diffraction
I know this is off topic, but something that really interested and confused me was the idea that "The behaviour of everything in the Universe is predictable... relatively simple laws intelligible to human brains are all that is required to understand what makes the Universe tick." pg 105. If everything is predictable, where does freewill come into play? If we are just predictable, do we even have freewill? Or is freewill simply an illusion?
It is not clear from the readings why Newton thought that light was composed of particles and not waves; the reasons for thinking it was composed of waves is given by the phenomenon of diffraction of different colors when a eaqm of light was passed through two holes or slits. But this question was not really settled in Newton's day, or in Young's, or Faraday's, or Maxwell's, and much later, physicists would have to cope with evidence that light could ehave as particles or as waves, depending on circumstances.
The whole debate, however, was of great benefit to science. It attracted inspired experimenters, like Newton and Faraday, and inspired mathematicians, like Newton (again), and Maxwell. The story of these three thinkers illustrates Newton's point about seeing father than others because he had stood on the shoulders of giants, and equally illustrates Newton's idea about the relationship of experiment and hypothesis. One should first, he said, test the properties of nature by experiment, and only later develop hypotheses to expain the results of experiments.
These hypotheses will prove most useful when they suggest more experiments. And this is how things progressed, from Newton, experimenter and hypothesizer, to Faraday, more an experimenter, and to Maxwell, primarily a theorist, a hypothesizer. Each man was different, and each built on the work of his predecessor.
I have to say tonights reading truly gets me excited about this class even moreso! I agree with what everyone has said so far about maxwell, newton, and Faraday (Mathemtical, experimental, and hybrid of the two) what I found interesting however was that Mathemtical and experimental were the two methods of defining the observable world. While they seem to be the most efficient ways of analyzing the world, are there other ways? I would love to hear everyone's thoughts. Also the question the question of what is light, as many have mentioned led to host of changes in the scientific community. The method of studying science changed as well as with the discovery that light is a wave.
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
