Perhaps Poincaré was reflecting how two opposing schools of philosophical thought had disagreed on wherever the primary source of human knowledge was experience (the empiricists) or pure reasoning (the rationalists), but elsewhere in the same text Poincairé (1902/1913/2015) dismisses the idea that the laws of physics can be obtained by simple reflection on human intuitions. Such intuitions can lead us astray.
If he is being consistent then, surely "the contrary hypothesis is [only] singularly repugnant to the mind" because "the commonest experience confirms…the principle of relative motion". That is, suggestions that are clearly contrary to our common experience – such as, perhaps, the earth is moving? – are readily rejected as being nonsensical and ridiculous.
If that is so, then Poincaré was not really offering two independent lines of argument as his second reason was dependent upon his first.
This put me in mind of some comments of Kryten, a character in the sci-fi series 'Red Drawf',
{responding to a crew suggestion "Why don't we drop the defensive shields?"}
"A superlative suggestion, sir, with just two minor flaws.
One, we don't have any defensive shields, and
two, we don't have any defensive shields.
Now I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw but I thought it was such a big one it was worth mentioning twice."
Kryten (mechanoid assigned to the mining spaceship Red Dwarf)
or alternatively,
{responding to the crew suggestion "I got it! We laser our way through [the 53 doors from here to the science deck]!"}
Ah, an excellent plan, sir, with only two minor drawbacks.
One, we don't have a power source for the lasers; and
two, we don't have any lasers.
Kryten
French physicist Poincaré'Red Dwarf' character, Kryten
The principle of relative motion
What Poincairé meant by 'the principle of relative motion' was that
"The motion of any system must obey the same laws, whether it be referred to fixed axes, or to moveable axes carried along in a rectilinear and uniform motion."
the principle of relative motion
In other words, imagine a train passing a station at 10 ms-1, in which a naughty physics student throws a pencil eraser of mass m with a force of F at another passenger sitting in front on him; while a model physics student observes this from the stationary station [sic] platform.
The student on the train would consider the eraser to be at rest before being thrown, and can explore its motion by taking u=0 ms-1 and applying some laws summarised by
F=ma,
v=u+at,
v2=u2+2as,
s=ut +1/2at2…
From the frame or reference of someone in the the station it is the train that moves, (Image by StockSnap from Pixabay) but……From the frame of reference of the train (or tram), it seems to be the rest of the world that is moving past (Image by Pasi Mämmelä from Pixabay)
The student on the platform would observe the eraser to initially be moving at 10 ms-1, but could calculate what would happen using the same set of equations, but taking u=10 ms-1
Any values of v calculated would be consistent across the two frames (when allowing for the 10 ms-1 discrepancy) and other values calculated (s, t) would be the same.
This reflects the relativity principle of Galileo which suggests that there is no absolute way of determining whether a body is moving at constant velocity or stationary: rather what appears to be the case depends on one's frame of reference.
We might think that obviously it is the platform which is really stationary, as our intuition is that the earth under our feet is stationary ground. Surely we could tell if the ground moves?
We can directly feel acceleration, and we can sometimes feel the resistance to motion (the air on our face if we cycle, even at a constant velocity), but the idea that we can directly tell whether or not we are moving is an alternative conception.
For centuries the idea of a moving earth was largely considered ridiculous as experience clearly indicated otherwise. But if someone was kidnapped whilst asleep (please note, this would be illegal and is not being encouraged) and awoke in a carriage that had been set up to look like a hotel bedroom, on a train moving with constant velocity, they would not feel they were in motion. Indeed anyone who as travelled on a train at night when nothing is visible outside the carriage might well have experienced the impression that the train is stationary whilst it moves at a steady rate.
Science has shown us that there are good reasons to think that the earth is spinning, and orbiting the sun, as part of the solar system which moves through the galaxy, so who is to say what is really stationary? We cannot tell (and the question may be meaningless).
Who is to say what is moving – we can only make relative judgements? (Image by Drajt from Pixabay)
Source cited:
Poincaré, H. (1902/1913/2015). Science and Hypothesis (G. B. Halstead, Trans.). In The Foundations of Science. Cambridge University Press. {I give three dates because Poincaré published his book in French in 1902, and it was later published in an English translation in 1913, but I have a 2015 edition.}
A well-known Palestinian proverb reminds us that we do not fatten the cow simply by repeatedly weighing it. But, sadly, teachers and others working in education commonly get so fixated on assessment that it seems to become an end in itself.
Images by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from PixabayOpenClipart-Vectors and Deedster from Pixabay
A research study using P-O-E
I was reading a report of a study that adopted the predict-observe-explain, P-O-E, technique as a means to elicit "high school students' conceptions about acids and bases" (Kala, Yaman & Ayas, 2013, p.555). As the name suggests, P-O-E asks learners to make a prediction before observing some phenomenon, and then to explain their observations (something that can be specially valuable when the predictions are based on strongly held intuitions which are contrary to what actually happens).
Kala and colleagues begin the introduction to their paper by stating that
"In any teaching or learning approach enlightened by constructivism, it is important to infer the students' ideas of what is already known"
Kala, Yaman & Ayas, 2013, p.555
Constructivism?
Constructivism is a perspective on learning that is informed by research into how people learn and a great many studies into student thinking and learning in science. A key point is how a learner's current knowledge and understanding influences how they make sense of teaching and what they go on to learn. Research shows it is very common for students to have 'alternative conceptions' of science topics, and often these conceptions either survive teaching or distort how it is understood.
The key point is that teachers who teach the science without regard to student thinking will often find that students retain their alternative ways of thinking, so constructivist teaching is teaching that takes into account and responds to the ideas about science topics that students bring to class.
If teachers are to take into account, engage with, and try to reshape, learners ideas about science topics, then they need to know what those ideas are. Now there is a vast literature reporting alternative conceptions in a wide range of science topics, spread across thousands or research reports – but no teacher could possibly find time to study them all. There are books which discuss many examples and highlight some of the most common alternative conceptions (including one of my own, Taber, 2014)
However, in any class studying some particular topic there will nearly always be a spread of different alternative conceptions across the students – including some so idiosyncratic that they have never been reported in any literature. So, although reading about common misconceptions is certainly useful to prime teachers for what to look out for, teachers need to undertake diagnostic assessment to find out about the thinking of their own particular students.
There are many resources available to support teachers in diagnostic assessment, and some activities (such as using concept cartoons) that are especially useful at revealing student thinking.
Diagnostic assessment, assessment to inform teaching, is carried out at the start of a topic, before the teaching, to allow teachers to judge the learners' starting points and any alternative conceptions ('misconceptions') they may have. It can therefore be considered aligned to formative assessment ('assessment for learning') which is carried out as part of the learning process, rather than summative assessment (assessment of leaning) which is used after studying to check, score, grade and certify learning.
P-O-E as a learning activity…
P-O-E can best support learning in topics where it is known learners tend to have strongly held, but unhelpful, intuitions. The predict stage elicits students' expectations – which, when contrary to the scientific account, can be confounded by the observe step. The 'cognitive conflict' generated by seeing something unexpected (made more salient by having been asked to make a formal prediction) is thought to help students concentrate on that actual phenomena, and to provide 'epistemic relevance' (Taber, 2015).
Epistemic relevance refers to the idea that students are learning about things they are actually curious about, whereas for many students following a conventional science course must be experienced as being presented with the answers to a seemingly never-ending series questions that had never occurred to them in the first place.
Students are asked to provide an explanation for what they have observed which requires deeper engagement than just recording an observation. Developing explanations is a core scientific practice (and one which is needed before another core scientific practice – testing explanations – is possible).
To be most effective, P-O-E is carried out in small groups, as this encourages the sharing, challenging and justifying of ideas: the kind of dialogic activity thought to be powerful in supporting learners in developing their thinking, as well as practicing their skills in scientific argumentation. As part of dialogic teaching such an open-forum for learners' ideas is not an end in itself, but a preparatory stage for the teacher to marshal the different contributions and develop a convincing argument for how the best account of the phenomenon is the scientific account reflected in the curriculum.
Constructivist teaching is informed by learners' ideas, and therefore relies on their elicitation, but that elicitation is never the end in itself but is a precursor to a customised presentation of the canonical account.
Group work also has another function – if the activity is intended to support diagnostic assessment, then the teacher can move around the room listening in to the various discussions and so collecting valuable information on what students think and understand. When assessment is intended to inform teaching it does not need to be about students completing tests and teachers marking them – a key principle of formative assessment is that it occurs as a natural part of the teaching process. It can be based on productive learning activities, and does not need marks or grades – indeed as the point is to help students move on in their thinking, any kind of formal grading whilst learning is in progress would be inappropriate as well as a misuse of teacher time.
Probing students' understandings about acid-base chemistry
The constructivist model of learning applies to us all: students, teachers, professors, researchers. Given what I have written above about P-O-E, about diagnostic assessment, and dialogic approaches to learning, I approached Kala and colleagues' paper with expectations about how they would have carried out their project.
These authors do report that they were able to diagnose aspects of student thinking about acids and bases, and found some learning difficulties and alternative conceptions,
"it was observed that eight of the 27 students had the idea that the "pH of strong acids is the lowest every time," while two of the 27 students had the idea that "strong acids have a high pH." Furthermore, four of the 27 students wrote the idea that the "substance is strong to the extent to which it is burning," while one of the 27 students mentioned the idea that "different acids which have equal concentration have equal pH."
Kala, Yaman & Ayas, 2013, pp.562-3
The key feature seems to be that, as reported in previous research, students conflate acid concentration and acid strength (when it is possible to have a high concentration solution of a weak acid or a very dilute solution of a strong acid).
Yet some aspects of this study seemed out of alignment with the use of P-O-E.
The best research style?
One feature was the adoption of a positivistic approach to the analysis,
Although there has been no reported analyzing procedure for the POE, in this study, a different [sic] analyzing approach was offered taking into account students' level of understanding… Data gathered from the written responses to the POE tasks were analyzed and divided into six groups. In this context, while students' prediction were divided into two categories as being correct or wrong, reasons for predictions were divided into three categories as being correct, partially correct, or wrong.
Kala, Yaman & Ayas, 2013, pp.560
Group
Prediction
Reasons
❀
correct
correct
❁
correct
partially correct
✯
correct
wrong
✿
wrong
correct
❂
wrong
partially correct
✤
wrong
wrong
"the written responses to the POE tasks were analyzed and divided into six groups"
There is nothing inherently wrong with doing this, but it aligns the research with an approach that seems at odds with the thinking behind constructivist studies that are intended to interpret a learner's thinking in its own terms, rather than simply compare it with some standard. (I have explored this issue in some detail in a comparison of two research studies into students' conceptions of forces – see Taber, 2013, pp.58-66.)
In terms of research methodology we might say it seem to be conceptualised within the 'wrong' paradigm for this kind of work. It seems positivist (assuming data can be unambiguously fitted into clear categories), nomothetic (tied to 'norms' and canonical answers) and confirmatory (testing thinking as matching model responses or not), rather than interpretivist (seeking to understand student thinking in its own terms rather than just classifying it as right or wrong), idiographic (acknowledging that every learner's thinking is to some extent unique to them) and discovery (exploring nuances and sophistication, rather than simply deciding if something is acceptable or not).
The approach used seemed more suitable for investigating something in the science laboratory, than the complex, interactive, contextualised, and ongoing life of classroom teaching. Kala and colleagues describe their methodology as case study,
"The present study used a case study because it enables the giving of permission to make a searching investigation of an event, a fact, a situation, and an individual or a group…"
Kala, Yaman & Ayas, 2013, pp.558
A case study?
Case study is a naturalistc methodology (rather than involving an intervention, such as an experiment), and is idiographic, reflecting the value of studying the individual case. The case is one from among many instances of its kind (one lesson, one school, one examination paper, etc.), and is considered as a somewhat self contained entity yet one that is embedded in a context in which it is to some extent entangled (for example, what happens in a particular lesson is inevitably somewhat influenced by
the earlier sequence of lessons that teacher taught that class {the history of that teacher with that class},
the lessons the teacher and student came from immediately before this focal lesson,
Although a lesson can be understood as a bounded case (taking place in a particular room over a particular period of time involving a specified group of people) it cannot be isolated from the embedding context.
Case study – study of one instance from among many
As case study is idiographic, and does not attempt to offer direct generalisation to other situations beyond that case, a case study should be reported with 'thick description' so a reader has a good mental image of the case (and can think about what makes it special – and so what makes it similar to, or different from, other instances the reader may be interested in). But that is lacking in Kala and colleagues' study, as they only tell readers,
"The sample in the present study consisted of 27 high school students who were enrolled in the science and mathematics track in an Anatolian high school in Trabzon, Turkey. The selected sample first studied the acid and base subject in the middle school (grades 6 – 8) in the eighth year. Later, the acid and base topic was studied in high school. The present study was implemented, based on the sample that completed the normal instruction on the acid and base topic."
Kala, Yaman & Ayas, 2013, pp.558-559
The reference to a sample can be understood as something of a 'reveal' of their natural sympathies – 'sample' is the language of positivist studies that assume a suitably chosen sample reflects a wider population of interest. In case study, a single case is selected and described rather than a population sampled. A reader is left to rather guess what population being sampled here, and indeed precisely what the 'case' is.
Clearly, Kala and colleagues elicited some useful information that could inform teaching, but I sensed that their approach would not have made optimal use of a learning activity (P-O-E) that can give insight into the richness, and, sometimes, subtlety of different students' ideas.
Individual work
Even more surprising was the researchers' choice to ask students to work individually without group discussion.
"The treatment was carried out individually with the sample by using worksheets."
Kala, Yaman & Ayas, 2013, p.559
This is a choice which would surely have compromised the potential of the teaching approach to allow learners to explore, and reveal, their thinking?
I wondered why the researchers had made this choice. As they were undertaking research, perhaps they thought it was a better way to collect data that they could readily analyse – but that seems to be choosing limited data that can be easily characterised over the richer data that engagement in dialogue would surely reveal?
Assessment habits
All became clear near the end of the study when, in the final paragraph, the reader is told,
"In the present study, the data collection instruments were used as an assessment method because the study was done at the end of the instruction/ [sic] on the acid and base topics."
Kala, Yaman & Ayas, 2013, p.571
So, it appears that the P-O-E activity, which is an effective way of generating the kind of rich but complex data that helps a teacher hone their teaching for a particular group, was being adopted, instead, as means of a summative assessment. This is presumably why the analysis focused on the degree of match to the canonical science, rather than engaging in interpreting the different ways of thinking in the class. Again presumably, this is why the highly valuable group aspect of the approach was dropped in favour of individual working – summative assessment needs to not only grade against norms, but do this on the basis of each individual's unaided work.
An activity which offers great potential for formative assessment (as it is a learning activity as well as a way of exploring student thinking); and that offers an authentic reflection of scientific practice (where ideas are presented, challenged, justified, and developed in response to criticism); and that is generally enjoyed by students because it is interactive and the predictions are 'low stakes' making for a fun learning session, was here re-purposed to be a means of assessing individual students once their study of a topic was completed.
Kala and colleagues certainly did identify some learning difficulties and alternative conceptions this way, and this allowed them to evaluate student learning. But I cannot help thinking an opportunity was lost here to explore how P-O-E can be used in a formative assessment mode to inform teaching:
Yes, I agree that "in any teaching or learning approach enlightened by constructivism, it is important to infer the students' ideas of what is already known", but the point of that is to inform the teaching and so support student learning. What were Kala and colleagues going to do with their inferences about students ideas when they used the technique as "an assessment method … at the end of the instruction".
As the Palestinian adage goes, you do not fatten up the cow by weighing it, just as you do not facilitate learning simply by testing students. To mix my farmyard allusions, this seems to be a study of closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted.
Work cited
Kala, N., Yaman, F., & Ayas, A. (2013). The effectiveness of predict-observe-explain technique in probing students' understanding about acid-base chemistry: a case for the concepts of pH, pOH, and strength. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 555-574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9354-z
"…I am older than I once was And younger than I'll be But that's not unusual No, it isn't strange After changes upon changes We are more or less the same After changes we are more or less the same…"
From the lyrics of 'The Boxer' (Simon and Garfunkel song) by Paul Simon
In a recent post I discussed the treatment of Newtonian forces in a book (Thomson, 2005) about the history of natural theology (a movement which sought to study the natural world as kind of religious observance – seeking to glorify God by the study of His works) and its relationship to the development of evolutionary theory.
The book was written by a prestigious scientist, who had held Professorships at both Yale in the US and at Oxford. Yet the book contained some erroneous physics – 'howlers' of the kind that are sometimes called 'schoolboy errors' (as presumably most schoolgirls would be careful not to make them?)
My point is not to imply that this is a poor read – the book has much to commend it, and I certainly thought it was worth my time. I found it an informative read, and I have no reason to assume that the author's scholarship in examining the historical sources was was not of the highest level – even if his understanding of some school physics seemed questionable. I think this highlights two features of science:
Science is so vast that research scientists setting out to write 'popular' science books for a general readership risk venturing into areas outside their specialist knowledge – areas where they may lack expertise 1
Some common alternative conceptions ('misconceptions') are so insidious that we confidently feel we understand the science we have been taught whilst continuing to operate with intuitions at odds with the science.
Out of specialism
In relation to the first point, I previously highlighted a reference to "Einstein's relativity theory" being part of quantum physics, and later in the book I found another example of a non-physicist confusing two ideas that may seem similar to the non-specialist but which to a physicist should not be confused:
"In the 1930s, Arthur Holmes worked out the geology of the mechanism [underpinning plate tectonics] and the fact that the earth's inner heat (like that of the sun) comes from atomic fission." p.190
Thomson, 2005: 190
The earth contains a good deal of radioactive material which, through atomic fission, heats up the earth from within. This activity has contributed to the, initially hot, earth cooling much more slowly than had once been assumed – most notably according to modelling undertaken by Thomson's namesake, Lord Kelvin.2 Kelvin did not know about nuclear fission.
But the sun is heated by a completely different kind of nuclear reaction: fusion. The immense amount of energy 'released' during this process enables stars to burn for billions of years without running out of hydrogen fuel.3
Lord Kelvin did not know about that either, leading to him suggesting
"…on the whole most probable that the sun has not illuminated the earth for 100,000,000 years, and almost certain that he has not done so for 500,000,000 years"
Thomson, 1862
Kelvin suggested this was 'almost' but not 'absolutely' certain – a good scientist should always keep an open mind to the possibility of having missed something (take note, BBC's Nick Robinson).
We now think the sun has been 'illuminating' for about 4 600 000 000 years, almost ten times as long as Kelvin's upper limit. It may seem strange that a serious scientist should refer to the sun as 'he', but this kind of personification was once common in scientific writings.
The first atomic weapons were based on fission processes of the kind used in nuclear power stations.
Hydrogen bombs are much more devastating still, making use of fusion as occurs deep in the sun.
(Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay)
A non-scientist may feel this conflation of fission and fusion is a minor technical detail. But it is a very significant practical distinction.
For one thing the atomic bombs that were used to devastate Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission devices. The next generation of atomic weapons, the 'hydrogen bombs' were very much more powerful – to the extent that they used a fission device as a kind of detonator to set off the main bomb! It is these weapons, fusion weapons, which mimic the processes at the centre of stars such as the sun.
…The rusty wire that holds the cork that keeps the anger in Gives way and suddenly it's day again The sun is in the east Even though the day is done Two suns in the sunset, hmph Could be the human race is run…
From the lyrics of 'Two suns in the sunset' (Pink Floyd song) by Roger Waters
In terms of peaceful technologies, fission-based nuclear power stations, whilst not using fossil fuels, have been a major concern because of the highly radioactive waste which will remain a high health risk for many thousands of years, and because of the dangers of radiation leaks – very real risks as shown by the Three Mile Island (USA) and Windscale (England) accidents, and much more seriously at Fukushima (Japan) and, most infamously, Chernobyl (then USSR, now Ukraine). There are also serious health and human rights issues dogging the mining of uranium ore, which is, of course, a declining resource.
For decades scientists have been trying to develop, as an alternative, nuclear fusion based power generation which would be a source of much cleaner and sustainable power supplies. This has proved very challenging because the conditions under which fusion takes place are so much more extreme. Critically, no material can hold the plasma at the extreme temperatures, so it has to be magnetically suspended well away from the containment vessel 'walls'.
The tenacious nature of some misconceptions
My second point, the insidious nature of some common alternative conceptions, is a challenge for science teachers as simply giving clear, accurate presentations with good examples may not be enough to bring about change in well-established and perhaps intuitive ways of thinking, even when students study hard and think they have learnt what has been taught.
I suggested this was reflected in Prof. Thomson's text (Keith, that is, not Sir William) in his use of references to Newton's ideas about force and motion. Prof. Thomson was not as a biologist therefore seeking to avoid referring to physics, but rather actively engaging with Newton's notions of inertia and the action of forces to make his points. Yet, also, seemingly misusing Newtonian mechanics because of a flawed understanding. Likely, as with many students, Prof. Thomson's intuitive physics was so strong that although he had studied Newton's laws, and can state them, when he came to apply them his own 'common-sense' conceptions of force and motion insidiously prevailed.
The point is not that Prof. Thomson has got the physics wrong (as research suggests most people do!) but that he was confident enough in his understanding to highlight Newtonian physics in his writing and, in effect, seek to teach his readers about it.
Newton's laws
What are commonly known as 'Newton' three laws of motion' can be glossed simply as:
N1: When no force is acting, an object does not change its motion: if stationary, it remains stationary; if moving, it carries on moving at the same speed in the same direction.
Indeed, this is also true if forces are acting, but they cancel because they are balanced, i.e.,
N1': When no net (overall, resultant) force is acting, an object does not change its motion: if stationary, it remains stationary; if moving, it carries on moving at the same speed in the same direction.
N2: When a net force is acting on a body it changes its motion in a way determined by the magnitude and direction of the force. (The change in velocity takes place in the direction of the force, and at a rate depending on the magnitude of the force).
So, if the force acts along the direction of motion, then the speed will change but not direction; but if the force acts in any other direction it will lead to a change in direction.
Strictly, the law relates to the 'rate of change of momentum' but assuming the mass of the body is fixed, we can think in terms of changes of velocity. 4
N3: Forces are interactions between two bodies/objects (that attract or repel each other): the same size force acts on both. (This is sometimes unfortunately phrased as 'every action having an equal and opposite reaction') 5.
These (perhaps) seem relatively simple, but there are complications in applying them. Very simply, the first law,when applied to moving bodies does not seem to fit our experience (moving bodies often seem to come to a stop by themselves – due to forces that we do not always notice).
The second law relates an applied force to a process of change, but it is very easy to instead think of the applied force directly leading to an outcome. That is people often equate the change in direction with the final direction. The change occurs in the direction of the force: that does not mean the final direction is the direction of the force.
The third law is commonly misapplied by assuming that if 'forces come in pairs' these will be balanced and cancel out. But they cannot cancel out because they are acting on the two bodies. (If your friend hits you in the eye after one too many pedantic complaints about her science writing you cannot avoid a black eye simply by hitting her back just as hard!)
A N3 force 'pair' does not balance out!
Often objects are in equilibrium because the forces acting on them are balanced. But they are never in equilibrium just because a force on them is also acting on another body! An apple hangs from a tree because the branch pulls it up the same amount as its weight pulls it down: these are two separate forces, each of which is also acting on the other body involved (the branch, and the earth, respectively).
"Any trajectory other than a straight line must be the result of multiple forces acting together."
"the concept of 'a balance of forces' keeping the moon circling the earth and the earth in orbit around the sun…
"a Newtonian balance of forces… rocks: gradually worn down by erosion, washed into the seas, accumulating as sediments, raised up as new dry land, only to be eroded again"
The first two statements are simply wrong according to conventional physics. Curved paths are often the result of a single force acting. The earth and moon orbit because they are both the subject of unbalanced forces.
Those two statements are contrary to N1 and N2.
The third statement seemed to suggest that a balance of forces was somehow considered to bring about changes. The suggestion appeared to be that a cycle of changes might be due to a balance of forces. But I acknowledged that "this reference to Hutton's ideas seems to preview a more detailed treatment of the new geology in a later chapter in the book (that I have not yet reached), so perhaps as I read on I will find a clearer explanation of what is meant by these changes being based on a theory of balance of forces".
Now I have finished the book, I wanted to address this.
A sort of balance
Prof. Thomson discusses developing ideas in geology about how the surface of the earth came to have its observed form. Today we are familiar with modern ideas about the structure of the earth, and continental drift, and most people have seen this represented in various ways.
Image by Venita Oberholster from PixabayImage by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from PixabayOriginal images by by Michel Müller from Pixabay
However, it was once widely assumed that the earth's surface was fairly static , but had been shaped by violent events in the distant past – a view sometimes called 'catastrophism'. One much referenced catastrophe was the flood associated with the biblical character Noah (of Ark fame) that was sometimes considered to have been world-wide deluge. (Those who considered this were aware that this required a source of water beyond normal rainfall – such as perhaps vast reservoirs of water escaping from underground).
The idea that the earth was continually changing, and that forces that acted continuously over vast periods of time could slowly (much too slowly for us to notice) lead to the formation of, for example, mountain ranges seemed less feasible.
Yet we now understand how the tectonic plates float on a more fluid layer of material and how these plates slowly collide or separate with the formation of new crust where they move apart. Vast forces are at work and change is constant, but there are cyclic processes such that ultimately nothing much changes.
Well, nothing much changes on a broad perspective. Locally of course, changes may be substantial: land may become submerged, or islands appear from the sea; mountains or great valleys may appear – albeit very, very slowly. But crust that is subsumed in one place will be balanced by crust formed elsewhere. And – just as walking from one side of a small boat to another will lead to one side rising out of the water, whilst the opposite side sinks deeper into the water – as land is raised in one place it will sink elsewhere.
This is the kind of model that scientists started to develop, and which Prof. Thomson discusses.
"[Dr John Woodward (1665-1728) produced] "an ingenious theory, parts of it quite modern, parts simply seventeenth century sophistry within a Newtonianmetaphor. Woodward's earth, post deluge, is stable, but not in fact unchanging. This is possible because it is in a sort of balance – a dynamic balance between opposing forces."
Thomson, 2005: 156
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
James Hutton (1726 – 1797) was one of the champions of this 'uniformitarianism',
"Hutton's earth is in a constant state of flux due to processes acting over millions of years as mountains are eroded by rain and frost. In turn, the steady raising up of mountains, balances their steady reduction through erosion.
…for Hutton the evidence of the rocks demonstrated a cyclic history powered by Newtonian steady-state dynamics: the more it changed, the more it stayed the same." p.181
Thomson, 2005: 181
The more it changed, the more it stayed the same: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. This, of course, is an idiom that has found resonance with many commentators on the social, as well as the physical, world,
"…A change, it had to come We knew it all along We were liberated from the fold, that's all And the world looks just the same And history ain't changed 'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war … There's nothing in the street Looks any different to me And the slogans are effaced, by-the-bye And the parting on the left Is now parting on the right And the beards have all grown longer overnight…"
From the lyrics of 'Won't get fooled again' (The Who song), by Pete Townsend
Steady states
So, there are vast forces acting, but the net effect is a planet which stays substantially the same over long periods of time. Which might be considered analogous to a body which is subject to very large forces, but in such a configuration that they cancel.
Where Prof. Thomson is in danger of misleading his reader is in confusing a static equilibrium and a macroscopic overall steady state that is the result of many compensating disturbances. This is an important difference when we consider energy and not just the forces acting.
A steady state can be maintained by nothing happening, or by several things happening which effectively compensate.
If we consider a very heavy mass sitting on a very study table, then the mass has a large weight, but does not fall because the table exerts a balancing upward reaction force. Although large forces are acting, nothing happens. In physics terms, no work is done. 6
Now consider a sealed cylinder, perfectly insulted and shielded from its surroundings, containing some water, air and too much salt to fully dissolve. It would reach a stead state where the
the mass of undissolved salt is constant
the height of the solution in the tube is constant
On a macroscopic level, nothing then happens – it is all pretty boring (especially as if the cylinder was perfectly insulated we would not be able to monitor it anyway!)
Actually, all the time,
salt is dissolving
salt is precipitating
gases from the air are dissolving in the solution
gases are leaving the solution
water is evaporating into the air
water vapour is condensing
But the rates of 1 and 2 are the same; the rates of 3 and 4 are the same; and the rates of 5 and 6 are the same. In terms of molecules and ions, there is a lot of activity – but in overall terms, nothing changes: we have a steady state, due to the dynamic equilibria between dissolving and precipitating; between dissolving and degassing; and between evaporation and condensation.
This activity is possible because of the inherent energy of the particles. In the various interactions between these particles a molecule is slowed here, an ion is released from electrical bonds – and so. But no energy transfer takes placeto or from the system, it is only constantly redistributed among the ensemble of particles. No work is done.
Cycling is hard work
But macroscopic stable states maintained by cyclic processes are not like that. A key difference is that in the geological cycles there are significant frictional effects. In our sealed cylinder, the processes will continue indefinitely as the energy of the system is constant. In the geological systems, change is only maintained because there is source of power – the sun drives the water cycle, radioactive decay in effect drives the rock cycle.
Work is done in forming new crust under the sea between two plates. More work is done pushing one plate beneath another at a plate boundary. It does not matter if the compensating changes were produced by identical magnitude forces pushing in opposite directions – these are not balanced forces in the sense of cancelling out (they act on different masses of material) – if they had been, nothing would have happened.
You cannot move tectonic plates around without doing a great deal of work – just as you cannot cycle effortlessly by using a circular track that brings you back to where you started, even though when cycling in one direction the ground was pushing you one way, and on the way back the ground was pushing you in the opposite direction! (Your tyres pushed on the track, and as Newton's third law suggests, it pushed back on the tyres in the opposite direction – but those equal forces did not cancel as they were acting on different things: or you would not have moved.)
Perhaps Prof. Thomson understands this, but his language is certainly likely to mislead readers:
"Hooke realised that there was a balance of forces: while the geological strata were being formed and mountains were raised up, at the same time the land was constantly being eroded…"
"the concept of 'a balance of forces' keeping the moon circling the earth and the earth in orbit around the sun"
"any trajectory other than a straight line must be the result of multiple forces acting together"
which suggests a genuine confusion about how forces act.
One of these mistakes is that planetary orbits (which require a net {unbalanced} force), are due to 'opposing forces',
"…Paley's tortured dancing on the heads of all these metaphysical pins is pre-shadowing of modern ecological thinking and a metaphysical extension of Hooke and Newton's explanation of planetary orbits in terms of opposing forces, or Woodward's theory of matter, or Hutton's geology – it is the living world as a dynamic system of force and counterforce, of checks and balances." p.242
Thomson, 2005: 242 (my emphasis)
The other was that a single force cannot lead to a curved path,
"…the philosophical concept of reduction, namely that any complex system can be reduced to the operation of simple causes. Thus the parabolic trajectory of a projectile is the product of two straight-line forces acting on each other [sic];…" p.264
Thomson, 2005: 264 (my emphasis)
Forces are interactions between bodies, they are abstractions and do not act on each other. The parabolic path is due to a single constant force acting on a body that is already moving (but not in the direction of the applied force). It can be seen as the result of the combination of a force (acting according to N2) and the body's existing inertia (i.e., N1). Prof. Thomson seems to be thinking of the motion itself as corresponding to a force, where Newton suggested that it is only a change of motion that corresponds to a force.
However, whilst Prof. Thomson is wrong, he is in good company – as one of the most common alternative conceptions reported is assuming that a moving body must be subject to a force. Which, as I pointed out last time, is not so daft as in everyday experience cars and boats and planes only keep on moving as long as their propulsion systems function (to balance resistive forces); and footballs and cricket balls and javelins that do not have a source of motive power (to overcome resistive forces) soon fall to earth. So, these are understandable and, in one sense, very forgiveable slips. It is just unfortunate they appear in an otherwise informative book about science.
Sources cited:
Thomson, K. (2005). The Watch on the Heath: Science and religion before Darwin. HarperCollins.
Thomson, W. (1862). On the Age of the Sun's Heat. Macmillan's Magazine, 5, 388-393.
Thorn, C. E., & Welford, M. R. (1994). The Equilibrium Concept in Geomorphology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 84(4), 666-696. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2564149
Notes
1 Although there are plenty of 'academic' books in many fields of scholarship (usually highly focused so the author is writing about their specialist work), the natural sciences tend to be communicated and debated in research journals. Most books written by scientists tend to be for a more general audience – and publishers expect popular science books to appeal to a wide readership, so these books are likely to have a much broader scope than academic monographs.
2 When he was ennobled, William Thomson chose to be called Baron Kelvin – after his local river, the river Kelvin. So the SI unit of temperature is named, indirectly, after a Scottish River.
Kelvin's reputation was such that when he modelled the cooling earth and suggested the planet was less that a 100 000 000 years old, this caused considerable concerns given that geologists were suggesting that much longer had been needed for it to have reached its present state.
4 The rate of change of momentum is proportional to the magnitude of the applied force and takes place in the direction of the applied force.
As momentum is mv, and as mass is usually assumed fixed (if the motion is well below light speeds) 'the rate of change of momentum' is the mass times the rate of change of the velocity – or ma. (F=ma.)
The key point about direction is that it is not that the body moves in the direction of the force, but the change of momentum (so change of velocity) is in the direction or the force.
As the body's momentum is a vector, and the change in momentum is a vector, the new momentum is the vector sum of these two vectors: new momentum = old momentum + change in momentum.
The object's new direction after being deflected by a force is in the direction of the new momentum
5 When there is force between two bodies (let's call them A, B) the force acting on body B is the same size as the force acting on body A, but is anti-parallel in direction.
The force between the earth and the sun acts on both (not shown to scale)
6 This is an ideal case.
A real table would not be perfectly rigid. A real table would initially distort ever so slightly with the area under the mass being ever so slightly compressed, and the weight dropping to an ever so slightly lower level. The very slight lowering of the weight does a tiny amount of work compressing the table surface.
Then, nothing more happens, and no more work is done.
7 Thorn and Welford (1994) have referred to "the fuzzy and frequently erroneous use of the term…equilibrium in geomorphology" (p.861), and how an 1876 introduction of the "concept of dynamic equilibrium resembles the balance-of-forces equilibrium that appears in dynamics, but by analogy rather than formal derivation" (p.862).
Being a science professor is no assurance of understanding Newton's mechanics
Keith S. Taber
…this author had just written that all matter is in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force but did not seem to appreciate that any matter acted upon by an external force will not be in uniform motion
I started a new book today. 'The Watch on the Heath. Science and Religion before Darwin' had been on my pile of books to read for a while (as one can acquire interesting titles faster than find time to actually read them).
'The Watch on the Heath'
by Prof. Keith Thomson
The title is a reference to the analogy adopted at the start of William Paley's classic book on natural theology. Paley (1802) argued that if one was out walking across a heath and a foot struck an object on the ground, one would make very different assumptions if the object transpired to be a stone or a pocket watch. The stone would pass without much thought – there was no great mystery about how it came to be on the heath. But a pocket watch is an intricate mechanism composed of a multitude of especially shaped and arranged pieces fashioned from different materials. A reasonable person could not think it was an arbitrary and accidentally collated object – rather it clearly had a purpose, and so had a creator – a watchmaker.
Paley developed a detailed argument based on the analogy that organisms are like intricate mechanisms that offer obvious evidence of having been designed (Images by Thomas Wolter and Gerd Altmann from Pixabay)
Paley used this as an analogy for the complexity of the living world. Analogies are often used by teachers and science communicators as a means of making the unfamiliar familiar – a way of suggesting something that is being introduced is actually like something the audience already knows about and feels comfortable with.
Paley was doing something a little different – his readers would already know about both watches and living things, and he was developing the analogyto make an argument about the nature of living things as being designed. (Living things would be familiar, but Paley wanted to invite his reader to think about them in a way they might find unfamiliar.) According to this argument, organisms were so complex that, by analogy with a watch, it followed they also were created for a purpose, and by a creator.
Even today, Paley's book is an impressive read. It is 'one long argument' (as Darwin said of his 'Origin of Species') that collates a massive amount of evidence about the seeming design of human anatomy and the living world. Paley was not a scientist in the modern sense, and he was not even a naturalist who collected natural history specimens. He was a priest and philosopher / theologian who clearly thought that publishing his argument was important enough to require him to engage in such extensive scholarship that in places the volume gives the impression of being a medical textbook.
Paley's work was influential and widely read, but when Darwin (1859) presented his own long argument for evolution by natural selection there began to be a coherent alternative explanation for all that intricate complexity. By the mid-twentieth century a neo-Darwinian synthesis (incorporating work initiated by Mendel, developments in statistics, and the advent of molecular biology) made it possible to offer a feasible account that did not need a watch-maker who carefully made his or her creatures directly from a pre-designed pattern. Richard Dawkins perverted Paley's analogy in calling one of his books 'The Blind Watchmaker' reflecting the idea that evolution is little more than the operation of 'blind' chance.
Arguably, Darwin's work did nothing to undermine the possibility of a great cosmic architect and master craft-person having designed the intricacies of the biota – but only showed the subtlety required of such a creator by giving insight into the natural mechanisms set up to slowly bring about the productions. (The real challenge of Darwin's work was that it overturned the idea that there was any absolute distinction between humans and the rest of life on earth – if humans are uniquely in the image of God then how does that work in relation to the gradual transition from pre-human ancestors to the first humans?)
Arguably Darwin said nothing to undermine the omnipotence of God, only the arrogance of one branch of the bush of life (i.e., ours) to want to remake that God in their image. Anyway, there are of course today a range of positions taken on all this, but this was the context for my reading some questionable statements about Newtonian mechanics.
My reading went well till I got to p.27. Then I was perturbed. It started with a couple of quibbles. The first was a reference to
"…the modern world of quantum physics, where Einstein's relativity and Heisenberg's uncertainty reign."
Thomson, 2005: 27
"Er, no" I thought. Relativity and quantum theory are not only quite distinct theories, but, famously, the challenge of finding a way to make these two areas of physics, relativity theory and quantum mechanics, consistent is seen as a major challenge. The theories of relativity seem to work really well on the large scale and quantum theory works really well on the smallest scales, but they do not seem to fit together. "Einstein's relativity" is not (yet, at least) found within the "world of quantum physics".
Still, this was perhaps just a rhetorical flourish.
The Newtonian principle of inertia
But later in the same paragraph I read about how,
"Newton…showed that all matter is in uniform motion (constant velocity, including a velocity of zero) unless acted upon by an external force…Newton showed that an object will remain still or continue to move at a constant speed in the same direction unless some external force changes things."
Thomson, 2005: 27
This is known as Newton's first law of motion (or the principle of inertia). Now, being pedantic, I thought that surely Newton did notshow this.
It is fair to say, I suggest, that Newton suggested this, proposed it, mooted it; perhaps claimed it was the case; perhaps showed it was part of a self-consistent description – but I am not sure he demonstrated it was so.
Misunderstanding Newton's first law
This is perhaps being picky and, of itself, hardly worth posting about, but this provides important background for what I read a little later (indeed, still in the same paragraph):
"Single forces always act in straight lines, not circles. Any trajectory other than a straight line must be the result of multiple forces acting together."
Thomson, 2005: 27
No!
The first part of this is fair enough – a force acts between two bodies (say the earth and the sun) and is considered to act along a 'line of action' (such as the line between the centres of mass of the earth and the sun). In the Newtonian world-view, the gravitational force between the earth and sun acts on both bodies along that line of action. 1
However, the second sentence ("any trajectory other than a straight line must be the result of multiple forces acting together") is completely wrong.
These two sentences are juxtaposed as though there is a logical link: "Single forces always act in straight lines, not circles. [So therefore] any trajectory other than a straight line must be the result of multiple forces acting together." This only follows if we assume that an object must always be moving in the direction of a force acting on it. But Newton's second law tells us that acceleration (and so the change in velocity) occurs in the direction of the force.
This is confusing the sense of a change with its outcome – a bit like thinking that a 10 m rise in sea level will lead to the sea being 10 m deep, or that if someone 'puts on 20 kilos' they will weigh 200 N. A 'swing to Labour' in an election does not assure Labour of a victory unless the parties were initially on par.
The error here is like assuming that any debit from a bank account must send it overdrawn: taking £10 from a bank account means there will be £10 less in the account, but not necessary that the balance becomes -£10!
Changing direction is effortless (if there is an external force acting)
Whenever a single force acts on a moving object where the line of action does not coincide with the object's direction of travel then the object will change direction. (That is, a single force will only not lead to a change of direction in the very special case where the force aligns with or directly against to the direction of travel.) So, electrons in a cathode ray tube can be shown to follow a curved path when a (single) magnetic force is applied, and an arrow shot from a castle battlement horizontally will curve down to the grounds because of the (single) effect of gravitational force. (There are frictional forces acting as well, but they only modify the precise shape of that curve which would still be found if the castle was on a planet with no atmosphere – as long as the archer could hold her breath long enough to get the arrow away.)
The lyrics of a popular song declare "arc of a diver – effortlessly". 2 But diving into a pool is only effortless (once you have pushed off) because the diver is pulled into an arc by their gravitational attraction with the earth – so even if you dive at an angle above the horizontal, a single force is enough to change your direction and bring you down.
So, there is a mistake in the science here. Either the author has simply made a slip (which can happen to anyone) or he is operating with an alternative conception inconsistent with Newton's laws. The same can presumably be said about any editor or copy editor who checked the manuscript for the publisher.
That might not be so unlikely – as force and motion might be considered the prototype case of a science topic where there are common alternative conceptions. I have seen estimates of 80%+ of people having alternative conceptions inconsistent with basic Newtonian physics. After all, in everyday life, you give something a pull or a push, and it usually moves a bit, but then always come to a stop. In our ordinary experience stones, footballs, cricket balls, javelins, paper planes, darts – or anything else we might push or pull – fail to move in a straight line at a constant speed for the rest of eternity.
That does not mean Newton was wrong, but his ideas were revolutionary because he was able to abstract to situations where the usual resistive forces that are not immediately obvious (friction, air resistance, viscosity) might be absent. That is, ideal scenarios that probably never actually occur. (Thus my questioning above whether Newton really 'showed' rather than postulated these principles.)
all matter is in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force
yet did not seem to appreciate the corollary that
any matter acted upon by an external force will not be in uniform motion
So, it seems someone can happily quote Newton's laws of motion but still find them so counter-intuitive that they do not apply them in their thinking. Again, this reflects research which has shown that graduates who have studied physics and done well in the examinations can still show alternative conceptions when asked questions outside the formal classroom setting. It is as if they learn the formalism for the exams, but never really believe it (as, after all, real life constantly shows us otherwise).
So, this is all understandable, but it seems unfortunate in a science book that is seeking to explain the science to readers. At this point I decided to remind myself who had written the book.
We all have alternative conceptions
Keith Thomson is a retired academic, an Emeritus Fellow at Kellog College Oxford, having had an impressive career including having been a Professor of Biology at Yale University and later Director of the Oxford University Museum and Professor of Natural History. So, here we have a highly successful academic scientist (not just a lecturer in some obscure university somewhere – a professor at both Yale and Oxford), albeit with expertise in the life sciences, who seems to misunderstand the basic laws of physics that Newton postulated back in 1687.
Prof. Thomson seems to have flaws in his knowledge in this area, yet is confident enough of his own understanding to expose his thinking in writing a science book. This, again, is what we often find in science teaching – students who hold alternative conceptions may think they understand what they have been taught even though their thinking is not consistent with the scientific accounts. (This is probably true of all of us to some degree. I am sure there must be areas of science where I am confident in my understanding, but where that confidence is misplaced. I likely have misconceptions in topics areas where Prof. Thomson has great expertise.)
A balance of forces?
This could have been just a careless slip (of the kind which once made often looks just right when we reread our work multiple times – I know this can happen). But, over the page, I read:
"…in addition to the technical importance of Newton's mathematics, the concept of 'a balance of forces' keeping the moon circling the earth and the earth in orbit around the sun, quickly became a valuable metaphor…"
Thomson, 2005: 27
Again – No!
If there is 'balance of forces' then the forces effectively cancel, and there is no net force. So, as "all matter is in uniform motion (constant velocity, including a velocity of zero) unless acted upon by an external force", a body subject to a balance of forces continues in "uniform motion (constant velocity…)" – that is, it continues in a straight line at a constant speed. It does not circle (or move in an ellipse). 3
Again, this seems to be an area where people commonly misunderstand Newton's principles, and operate with alternative conceptions. Learners often think that Newton's third law (sometimes phrased in terms of 'equal and opposite forces') implies there will always be balanced forces!
The reason the moon orbits the earth, and the reason the earth orbits the sun, in the Newtonian world-view is because in each case the orbiting body is subject to a single force which is NOT balanced by any countering force. As the object is "acted upon by an external force" (which is not balanced by any other force) it does not move "in uniform motion" but constantly changes direction – along its curved orbit. According to Newton's law of motion, one thing we can always know about a body with changing motion (such as one orbiting another body) is that the forces on it are not balanced.
But once circular motion was assumed as being the 'natural' state of affairs for heavenly bodies, and I know from my own teaching experience that students who understand Newtonian principle in the context of linear motion can still struggle to apply this to circular motion. 4
I even developed a scaffolding tool to help students make this transition, by helping them work through an example in very simple steps, but which on testing had modest effect – that is, it seemed to considerably help some students apply Newton's laws to orbital motion, but could not bridge that transition for others (Taber & Brock, 2018). I concluded even more basic step-wise support must be needed by many learners. Circular motion being linked to a net (unbalanced) centripetal force seems to be very counter-intuitive to many people.
To balance or not to balance
The suggestion that a balance of forces leads to change occurs again a little later in the book, in reference to James Hutton's geology,
"…Hutton supported his new ideas both with solid empirical evidence and an underlying theory based on a Newtonian balance of forces. He saw a pattern in the history of the rocks: gradually worn down by erosion, washed into the seas, accumulating as sediments, raised up as new dry land, only to be eroded again."
Thomson, 2005: 39
A balance of forces would not lead to rocks being "gradually worn down by erosion, washed into the seas, accumulating as sediments, raised up as new dry land, only to be eroded again". Indeed if all the relevant forces were balanced there would be no erosion, washing, sedimentation, or raising.
Erosion, washing, sedimentation, raising up ALL require an imbalance of forces, that is, a net force to bring about a change. 5
Reading on…
This is not going to stop me persevering with reading the book*, but one can begin to lose confidence in a text in situations such as these. If you know the author is wrong on some points that you already know about, how can you be confident of their accounts of other topics that you are hoping to learn about?
Still, Prof. Thomson seems to be wrong about something that the majority of people tend to get wrong, often even after having studied the topic – so, perhaps this says more about the hold of common intuitive conceptions of motion than the quality of Prof. Thomson's scholarship. Just like many physics learners – he has learnt Newton's laws, but just does not seem to find them credible.
Sources cited:
Darwin, C. (1859). The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. John Murray.
Dawkins, R. (1988). The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books.
Paley, W. (1802/2006). Natural Theology: Or Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature(M. D. Eddy & D. Knight, Eds.). Oxford University Press.
Rosen, E. (1965/1995) Copernicus on the phases and the light of the planets, in Rosen, E. (1995). Copernicus and his successors (E. Hilfstein, Ed.). The Hambledon Press.
Thomson, K. (2005). The Watch on the Heath: Science and religion before Darwin. HarperCollins.
Watts, M. and Taber, K. S. (1996) An explanatory gestalt of essence: students' conceptions of the 'natural' in physical phenomena, International Journal of Science Education, 18 (8), pp.939-954.
Notes
1 Though not in the world-view offered by general relativity where the mass of the sun distorts space-time enough for the earth to orbit.
2 The title track from Steve Winwood's 1980 solo album 'Arc of a Diver'
3 We have known since Kepler that the planets orbit the sun following ellipses (to a first order of approximation*), not perfect circles – but this does not change the fundamental point here: moving in an ellipse involves continuous changes of velocity. (* i.e., ignoring the perturbations due to the {much smaller} forces between the orbiting bodies.**)
[Added, 20220711]: these perturbations are very small compared with the main sun-planet interactions, but they can still be significant in other ways:
"…the single most spectacular achievement in the long history of computational astronomy, namely, the discovery of the planet Neptune through the perturbations which it produced in the motion of Uranus."
Rosen, 1965/1995, p.81
4 What is judged as 'natural' is often considered by people as not needing any further explanation (Watts and Taber, 1996).
5 This reference to Hutton's ideas seems to preview a more detailed treatment of the new geology in a later chapter in the book (that I have not yet reached), so perhaps as I read on I will find a clearer explanation of what is meant by these changes being based on a theory of balance of forces.* Still, the impression given in the extract quoted is that, as with orbits, a balance of forces brings about change.
How can we count the number of stars in the galaxy?
On the BBC radio programme 'More or Less' it was mooted that there might be one hundred billion (100 000 000 000) stars in our own Milky Way Galaxy (and that this might be a considerable underestimate).
Programme presenter Tim Harford was tackling a question sent in by a young listener (who is very almost four years of age) about whether there are more bees in the world than stars in the galaxy? (Spoiler alert: Prof. Catherine Heymans confessed to knowing less about bees than stars.)
Hatford asked how the 100 billion stars figure was arrived at:
"have we counted them, or got a computer to count them, or is it more a case of, well, you take a photograph of a section of sky and you sort of say well the rest is probably a bit like that?"
The last suggestion here is of course the basis for many surveys. As long as there is good reason to think a sample is representative of the wider population it is drawn from we can collect data from the sample and make inferences about the population at large.
So, if we counted all the detectable stars in a typical 1% of the sky and then multiplied the count by 100 we would get an approximation to the total number of detectable stars in the whole sky. That would be a reasonable method to find approximately how many stars there are in the galaxy, as long as we thought all the detected stars were in our galaxy and that all the stars in our galaxy were detectable.
Prof. Heymans replied
"So, we have the European Space Agency Gaia mission up at the moment, it was launched in 2013, and that's currently mapping out 1% of all the stars in our Milky Way galaxy, creating a three dimensional map. So, that's looking at 1 billion of the stars, and then to get an idea of how many others are there we look at how bright all the stars are, and we use our sort of models of how different types of stars live [sic] in our Milky Way galaxy to give us that estimate of how many stars are there."
Prof. Catherine Heymans interviewed on 'More or Less'
A tautology?
This seemed to beg a question: how can we know we are mapping 1% of stars, before we know how many stars there are?
This has the appearance of a tautology – a circular argument.
If we assume there are one hundred billion, then we need to
count one billion, and then
multiply by 100 to give…
one hundred billion.
Clearly that did not seem right. I am fairly sure that was not what Prof. Haymans meant. As this was a radio programme, the interview was presumably edited to fit within the limited time allocated for this item, so a listener can never be sure that a question and (apparently immediately direct) response that makes the edit fully reflects the original conversation.
Counting the bright ones
According to the website of the Gaia mission, "Gaia will achieve its goals by repeatedly measuring the positions of all objects down to magnitude 20 (about 400 000 times fainter than can be seen with the naked eye)." Hartman's suggestion that "you take a photograph of a section of sky and you sort of say well the rest is probably a bit like that?" seems very reasonable, until you realise that even with a powerful telescope sent outside of the earth's atmosphere, many of the stars in the galaxy may simply not be detectable. So, what we see cannot be considered to be fully representative of what is out there.
It is not then that the scientists have deliberately sampled 1%, but rather they are investigating EVERY star with an apparent brightness above a certain critical cut off. Whether a star makes the cut, depends on such factors as how bright it is (in absolute terms – which we might imagine we would measure from a standard distance 1) and how close it is, as well as whether the line of sight involves the starlight passing through interstellar dust that absorbs some (or all) of the radiation.
Of course, these are all strictly, largely, unknowns. Astrophysics relies a good on boot-strapping, where our best, but still developing, understanding of one feature is used to build models of other features. In such circumstances, observational tests of predictions from theory are often as much testing the underlying foundations upon which a model used to generate a prediction is built as that specific focal model itself. Knowledge moves on incrementally as adjustments are made to different aspects of interacting models.
Observations are theory-dependent
So, this is, in a sense, a circular process, but it is a virtuous circle rather than just a tautologyas there are opportunities for correcting and improving the theoretical framework.
In a sense, what I have described here is true of science more generally, and so when an experiment fails to produce a result predicted by a new theory, it is generally possible to seek to 'save' the theory by suggesting the problem was (if not a human error) not in the actual theory being tested, but in some other part of the more extended theoretical network – such as the theory underpinning the apparatus used to collect data or the the theory behind the analysis used to treat data.
In most mature fields, however, these more foundational features are generally considered to be sound and unlikely to need modifying – so, a scientist who explains that their experiment did not produce the expected answer because electron microscopes or mass spectrometers or Fourier transform analyses do not work they way everyone has for decades thought they did would need to offer a very persuasive case.
However, compared to many other fields, astrophysics has much less direct access to the phenomena it studies (which are often vast in terms of absolute size, distance and duration), and largely relies on observing without being able to manipulate the phenomena, so understandably faces special challenges.
Why we need a theoretical model to finish the count
Researchers can use our best current theories to build a picture of how what we see relates to what is 'out there' given our best interpretations of existing observations. This is why the modelling that Prof. Heymans refers to is so important. Our current best theories tell us that the absolute brightness of stars (which is a key factor in deciding whether they will be detected in a sky survey) depends on their mass, and the stage of their 'evolution'.2
So, completing the count needs a model which allows data for detectable stars to be extrapolated, bearing in mind our best current understanding about the variations in frequencies of different kinds (age, size) of star, how stellar 'densities' vary in different regions of a spiral galaxy like ours, the distribution of dust clouds, and so forth.
…keep in mind we are off-centre, and then allow for the thinning out near the edges, remember there might be a supermassive black hole blocking our view through the centre, take into account dust, acknowledge dwarf stars tend to be missed, take into account that the most massive stars will have long ceased shining, then take away the number you first thought of, and add a bit for luck… (Image by WikiImages from Pixabay)
I have taken the liberty of offering an edited exchange
Hartford: "have we counted [the hundred billion stars], or got a computer to count them, or is it more a case of, well, you take a photograph of a section of sky and you sort of say well the rest is probably a bit like that?"
Heymans "So, we have the European Space Agency Gaia mission up at the moment, it was launched in 2013, and that's currently mapping out…all the stars in our Milky Way galaxy [that are at least magnitude 20 in brightness], creating a three dimensional map. So, that's looking at 1 billion of the [brightest] stars [as seen from our solar system], and then to get an idea of how many others are there we look at how bright all the stars are, and we use our models of how different types of stars [change over time 2] in our Milky Way galaxy to give us that estimate of how many stars are there."
No more tautology. But some very clever and challenging science.
2 Stars are not alive, but it is common to talk about their 'life-cycles' and 'births' and 'deaths' as stars can change considerably (in brightness, colour, size) as the nuclear reactions at their core change over time once the hydrogen has all been reacted in fusion reactions.
Photosynthesis illuminating a plant? (Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay)
Analogies, metaphors and similes are used in communication to help make the unfamiliar familiar by suggesting that some novel idea or phenomena being introduced is in some ways like something the reader/listener is already familiar with. Analogies, metaphors and similes are commonly used in science teaching, and also in science writing and journalism.
An analogy maps out similarities in structure between two phenomena or concepts. This example, from a radio programme, compared the COVID pandemic with photosynthesis.
"So, what we were particularly aiming to do, was to understand the collision between a range of different political economic factors of a pre-2020 world, and how they were sort of reassembled and deployed to cope with something which was without question unprecedented.
We used this metaphor of photosynthesis because if you think about photosynthesis in relation to plants, the sun both lights things up but at the same time it feeds them and helps them to grow, and I think one of the things the pandemic has done for social scientists is to serve both as a kind of illumination of things that previously maybe critical political economists and heterodox scholars were pointing to but now became very visible to the mainstream media and to mainstream politics. But at the same time it also accentuated and deepened some of those tendencies such as our reliance on various digital platforms, certain gender dynamics of work in the household, these sort of things that became acute and undeniable and potentially politicised over the course of 2020, 2021."
Prof. Will Davies, talking on 'Thinking Allowed' 1
Will Davies, Professor in Political Economy at Goldsmiths, University of London was talking to sociologist Prof. Laurie Taylor who presents the BBC programme 'Thinking Aloud' as part of an episode called 'Covid and change'
A scientific idea used as analogue
Prof. Davies refers to using "this metaphorof photosynthesis". However he goes on to suggest how the two things he is comparing are structurally similar – the pandemic has shone a light on social issues at the same time as providing the conditions for them to become more extreme, akin to how light both illuminates plants and changes them. A metaphor is an implicit comparison where the reader/listener is left to interpret the comparison, but a metaphor or simile that is explicitly developed to explain the comparison can become an analogy.
Often science concepts are introduced by analogy to more familiar everyday ideas, objects or events. Here, however, a scientific concept, photosynthesis is used as the analogue – the source used to explain something novel. Prof. Davies assumes listeners will be familiar enough with this science concept for it to helpful in introducing his research.
Mischaracterising photosynthesis?
A science teacher might not like the notion that the sun feeds plants – indeed if a student suggested this in a science class it would likely be judged as an alternative conception. In photosynthesis, carbon dioxide (from the atmosphere) and water (usually absorbed from the soil) provide the starting materials, and the glucose that is produced (along with oxygen) enables other processes – such as growth which relies on other substances also being absorbed from the soil. (So-called 'plant foods', which would be better characterised as plant nutritional supplements, contain sources of elements such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium). Light is necessary for photosynthesis, but the sunlight is not best considered 'food'.
One might also argue that Prof. Davies has misidentified the source for his analogy, and perhaps he should rather have suggested sunlight as the source metaphor for his comparison as sunlight both illuminates plants and enables them to grow. Photosynthesis takes place inside chloroplasts within a plant's tissues, and does not illuminate the plant. However, Prof. Davies' expertise is in political economy, not natural science, and it was good to see a social scientist looking to use a scientific idea to explain his research.
Faster-than-light electrons race from a sitting start and are baked to give off light brighter than millions of suns that can be used to image tiny massage balls: A case of science communication
Keith S. Taber
(The pedantic science teacher)
Ockham's razor
Ockham's razor (also known as Occam's razor) is a principle that is sometimes applied as a heuristic in science, suggesting that explanations should not be unnecessarily complicated. Faced with a straightforward explanation, and an alternative convoluted explanation, then all other things being equal we should prefer the former – not simply accept it, but to treat is as the preferred hypothesis to test out first.
Ockham's Razor is also an ABC radio show offering "a soap box for all things scientific, with short talks about research, industry and policy from people with something thoughtful to say about science". The show used to offer recorded essays (akin to the format of BBC's A Point of View), but now tends to record short live talks.
I've just listened to an episode called The 'science donut' – in fact I listened several time as I thought it was fascinating – as in a few minutes there was much to attend to.
I approached the episode as someone with an interest in science, of course, but also as an educator with an ear to the ways in which we communicate science in teaching. Teachers do not simply present sequences of information about science, but engage pedagogy (i.e., strategies and techniques to support learning). Other science communicators (whether journalists, or scientists themselves directly addressing the public) use many of the same techniques. Teaching conceptual material (such as science principles, theories, models…) can be seen as making the unfamiliar familiar, and the constructivist perspective on how learning occurs suggests this is supported by showing the learner how that which is currently still unfamiliar, is in some way like something familiar, something they already have some knowledge/experience of.
Science communicators may not be trained as teachers, so may sometimes be using these techniques in a less considered or even less deliberate manner. That is, people use analogy, metaphor, simile, and so forth, as a normal part of everyday talk to such an extent that these tropes may be generated automatically, in effect, implicitly. When we are regularly talking about an area of expertise we almost do not have to think through what we are going to say. 1
Science communicators also often have much less information about their audience than teachers: a radio programme/podcast, for example, can be accessed by people of a wide range of background knowledge and levels of formal qualifications.
One thing teachers often learn to do very early in their careers is to slow down the rate of introducing new information, and focus instead on a limited number of key points they most want to get across. Sometimes science in the media is very dense in the frequency of information presented or the background knowledge being drawn upon. (See, for example, 'Genes on steroids? The high density of science communication'.)
A beamline scientist
Dr Emily Finch, who gave this particular radio talk, is a beamline scientist at the Australian Synchrotron. Her talk began by recalling how her family visited the Synchrotron facility on an open day, and how she later went on to work there.
She then gave an outline of the functioning of the synchrotron and some examples of its applications. Along the way there were analogies, metaphors, anthropomorphism, and dubiously fast electrons.
The creation of the god particle
To introduce the work of the particle accelerator, Dr Finch reminded her audience of the research to detect the Higgs boson.
"Do you remember about 10 years ago scientists were trying to make the Higgs boson particle? I see some nods. They sometimes call it the God particle and they had a theory it existed, but they had not been able to prove it yet. So, they decided to smash together two beams of protons to try to make it using the CERN large hadron collider in Switzerland…You might remember that they did make a Higgs boson particle".
This is a very brief summary of a major research project that involved hundreds of scientists and engineers from a great many countries working over years. But this abbreviation is understandable as this was not Dr Finch's focus, but rather an attempt to link her actual focus, the Australian Synchrotron, to something most people will already know something about.
However, aspects of this summary account may have potential to encourage the development of, or reinforce an existing, common alternative conception shared by many learners. This is regarding the status of theories.
In science, theories are 'consistent, comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidenced explanations of aspects of the natural world', yet students often understand theories to be nothing more than just ideas, hunches, guesses – conjectures at best (Taber, Billingsley, Riga & Newdick, 2015). In a very naive take on the nature of science, a scientist comes up with an idea ('theory') which is tested, and is either 'proved' or rejected.
This simplistic take is wrong in two regards – something does not become an established scientific theory until it is supported by a good deal of evidence; and scientific ideas are not simply proved or disproved by testing, but rather become better supported or less credible in the light of the interpretation of data. Strictly scientific ideas are never finally proved to become certain knowledge, but rather remain as theories. 2
In everyday discourse, people will say 'I have a theory' to mean no more that 'I have a suggestion'. A pedantic scientist or science teacher might be temped to respond: "no you don't, not yet,"
This is sometimes not the impression given by media accounts – presumably because headlines such as 'research leads to scientist becoming slightly more confident in theory' do not have the same impact as 'cure found', 'discovery made, or 'theory proved'.
The message that could be taken away here is that scientists had the idea that Higgs boson existed, but they had not been able to prove it till they were able to make one. But the CERN scientists did not have a Higgs boson to show the press, only the data from highly engineered detectors, analysed through highly complex modelling. Yet that analysis suggested they had recorded signals that closely matched what they expected to see when a short lived Higgs decayed allowing them to conclude that it was very likely one had been formed in the experiment. The theory motivating their experiment was strongly supported – but not 'proved' in an absolute sense.
The doughnut
Dr Finch explained that
"we do have one of these particle accelerators here in Australia, and it's called the Australian Synchrotron, or as it is affectionately known the science donut
…our synchrotron is a little different from the large hadron collider in a couple of main ways. So, first, we just have the one beam instead of two. And second, our beam is made of electrons instead of protons. You remember electrons, right, they are those tiny little negatively charged particles and they sit in the shells around the atom, the centre of the atom."
One expects that members of the audience would be able to respond to this description and (due to previous exposure to such representations) picture images of atoms with electrons in shells. 'Shells' is of course a kind of metaphor here, even if one which with continual use has become a so-called 'dead metaphor'. Metaphor is a common technique used by teachers and other communicators to help make the unfamiliar familiar. In some simplistic models of atomic structure, electrons are considered to be arranged in shells (the K shell, the L shell, etc.), and a simple notation for electronic configuration based on these shells is still often used (e.g., Na as 2.8.1).
However, this common way of talking about shells has the potential to mislead learners. Students can, and sometimes do, develop the alternative conception that atoms have actual physical shells of some kind, into which the electrons are located. The shells scientists refer to are abstractions, but may be misinterpreted as material entities, as actual shells. The use of anthropomorphic language, that is that the electrons "sit in the shells", whilst helping to make the abstract ideas familiar and so perhaps comfortable, can reinforce this. After all, it is difficult to sit in empty space without support.
The subatomic grand prix?
Dr Finch offers her audience an analogy for the synchrotron: the electrons "are zipping around. I like to think of it kind of like a racetrack." Analogy is another common technique used by teachers and other communicators to help make the unfamiliar familiar.
Dr Finch refers to the popularity of the Australian Formula 1 (F1) Grand Prix that takes place in Melbourne, and points out
"Now what these race enthusiasts don't know is that just a bit further out of the city we have a race track that is operating six days a week that is arguably far more impressive.
That's right, it is the science donut. The difference is that instead of having F1s doing about 300 km an hour, we have electrons zipping around at the speed of light. That's about 300 thousand km per second.
There is an interesting slippage – perhaps a deliberate rhetoric flourish – from the synchrotron being "kind of like a racetrack" (a simile) to being "a race track" (a metaphor). Although racing electrons lacks a key attraction of an F1 race (different drivers of various nationalities driving different cars built by competing teams presented in different livery – whereas who cares which of myriad indistinguishable electrons would win a race?) that does not undermine the impact of the mental imagery encouraged by this analogy.
This can be understood as an analogy rather than just a simile or metaphor as Dr Finch maps out the comparison:
[Many in the audience would have known that the Melbourne Grand Prix takes place on a 'street circuit' that is only set up for racing one weekend each year.]
racing electrons
racing 'F1s' (i.e., Grand Prix cars)
at the speed of light
at about 300 km an hour
An analogy between the Australian Synchrotron and the Melbourne Grand Prix circuit
So, here is an attempt to show how science has something just like the popular race track, but perhaps even more impressive – generating speeds orders of magnitude greater than even Lewis Hamilton could drive.
They seem to like their F1 comparisons at the Australian Synchrotron. I found another ABC programme ('The Science Show') where Nobel Laureate "Brian Schmidt explains, the synchrotron is not being used to its best capability",
"the analogy here is that we invested in a $200 million Ferrari and decided that we wouldn't take it out of first gear and do anything other than drive it around the block. So it seems a little bit of a waste"
Brian Schmidt (Professor of Astronomy, and Vice Chancellor, at Australian National University)
A Ferrari being taken for a spin around the block in Melbourne (Image by Lee Chandler from Pixabay )
How fast?
But did Dr Finch suggest there that the electrons were travelling at the speed of light? Surely not? Was that a slip of the tongue?
"So, we bake our electrons fresh in-house using an electron gun. So, this works like an old cathode ray tube that we used to have in old TVs. So, we have this bit of tungsten metal and we heat it up and when it gets red hot it shoots out electrons into a vacuum. We then speed up the electrons, and once they leave the electron gun they are already travelling at about half the speed of light. We then speed them up even more, and after twelve metres, they are already going at the speed of light….
And it is at this speed that we shoot them off into a big ring called the booster ring, where we boost their energy. Once their energy is high enough we shoot them out again into another outer ring called the storage ring."
So, no, the claim is that the electrons are accelerated to the speed of light within twelve metres, and then have their energy boosted even more.
But this is contrary to current physics. According to the currently accepted theories, and specifically the special theory of relativity, only entities which have zero rest mass, such as photons, can move at the speed of light.
Electrons have a tiny mass by everyday standards (about 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 g), but they are still 'massive' particles (i.e., particles with mass) and it would take infinite energy to accelerate a single tiny electron to the speed of light. So, given our current best understanding, this claim cannot be right.
I looked to see what was reported on the website of the synchrotron itself.
The electron beam travels just under the speed of light – about 299,792 kilometres a second.
Strictly the electrons do not travel at the speed of light but very nearly the speed of light.
The speed of light in a vacuum is believed to be 299 792 458 ms-1 (to the nearest metre per second), but often in science we are working to limited precision, so this may be rounded to 2.998 ms-1 for many purposes. Indeed, sometimes 3 x 108 ms-1 is good enough for so-called 'back of the envelope' calculations. So, in a sense, Dr Finch was making a similar approximation.
But this is one approximation that a science teacher might want to avoid, as electrons travelling at the speed of light may be approximately correct, but is also thought to be physically impossible. That is, although the difference in magnitude between
(i) the maximum electron speeds achieved in the synchrotron, and
(ii) the speed of light,
might be a tiny proportional difference – conceptually the distinction is massive in terms of modern physics. (I imagine Dr Finch is aware of all this, but perhaps her background in geology does not make this seem as important as it might appear to a physics teacher.)
Dr Finch does not explicitly say that the electrons ever go faster than the speed of light (unlike the defence lawyer in a murder trial who claimed nervous impulses travel faster than the speed of light) but I wonder how typical school age learners would interpret "they are already going at the speed of light….And it is at this speed that we shoot them off into a big ring called the booster ring, where we boost their energy". I assume that refers to maintaining their high speeds to compensate for energy transfers from the beam: but only because I think Dr Finch cannot mean accelerating them beyond the speed of light. 3
The big doughnut
After the reference to how "we bake our electrons fresh in-house", Dr Finch explains
And so it is these two rings, these inner and outer rings, that give the synchrotron its nick name, the science donut. Just like two rings of delicious baked electron goodness…
So, just to give you an idea of scale here, this outer ring, the storage ring, is about forty one metres across, so it's a big donut."
So, there is something of an extended metaphor here. The doughnut is so-called because of its shape, but this doughnut (a bakery product) is used to 'bake' electrons.
If audience members were to actively reflect on and seek to analyse this metaphor then they might notice an incongruity, perhaps a mixed metaphor, as the synchrotron seems to shift from being that which is baked (a doughnut) to that doing the baking (baking the electrons). Perhaps the electrons are the dough, but, if so, they need to go into the oven.
But, of course, humans implicitly process language in real time, and poetic language tends to be understood intuitively without needing reflection. So, a trope such as this may 'work' to get across the flavour (sorry) of an idea, even if under close analysis (by our pedantic science teacher again) the metaphor appears only half-baked.
Perverting the electrons
Dr Finch continued
"Now the electrons like to travel in straight lines, so to get them to go round the rings we have to bend them using magnets. So, we defect the electrons around the corners [sic] using electromagnetic fields from the magnets, and once we do this the electrons give off a light, called synchrotron light…
Now electrons are not sentient and do not have preferences in the way that someone might prefer to go on a family trip to the local synchrotron rather than a Formula 1 race. Electrons do not like to go in straight lines. They fit with Newton's first law – the law of inertia. An electron that is moving ('travelling') will move ('travel') in a straight line unless there is net force to pervert it. 4
If we describe this as electrons 'liking' to travel in straight lines it would be just as true to say electrons 'like' to travel at a constant speed. Language that assigns human feelings and motives and thoughts to inanimate objects is described as anthropomorphic. Anthropomorphism is a common way of making the unfamiliar familiar, and it is often used in relation to molecules, electrons, atoms and so forth. Sadly, when learners pick up this kind of language, they do not always appreciate that it is just meant metaphorically!
Whether the radiation is 'captured' is a moot point, as it no longer exists once it has been detected. But what caught my attention here was the claim that the synchrotron radiation was brighter than a million suns. Not because I necessarily thought this bold claim was 'wrong', but rather I did not understand what it meant.
The statement seems sensible at first hearing, and clearly it means qualitatively that the radiation is very intense. But what did the quantitative comparison actually mean? I turned again to the synchrotron webpage. I did not find an answer there, but on the site of a UK accelerator I found
"These fast-moving electrons produce very bright light, called synchrotron light. This very intense light, predominantly in the X-ray region, is millions of times brighter than light produced from conventional sources and 10 billion times brighter than the sun."
Sunlight spreads out and its intensity drops according to an inverse square law. Move twice as far away from a sun, and the radiation intensity drops to a quarter of what it was when you were closer. Move to ten times as far away from the sun than before, and the intensity is 1% of what it was up close.
The synchrotron 'light' is being shaped into a beam "like a LASER". A LASER produces a highly collimated beam – that is, the light does not (significantly) spread out. This is why football hooligans choose LASER pointers rather than conventional torches to intimidate players from a safe distance in the crowd.
Comparing light with like
This is why I do not understand how the comparison works, as the brightness of a sun depends how close you are too it – a point previously discussed here in relation to NASA's Parker solar probe (NASA puts its hand in the oven). If I look out at the night sky on a clear moonlight night then surely I am exposed to light from more "than a million suns" but most of them are so far away I cannot even make them out. Indeed there are faint 'nebulae' I can hardly perceive that are actually galaxies shining with the brightness of billions of suns. 5 If that is the comparison, then I am not especially impressed by something being "brighter than a million suns".
How bright is the sun? it depends which planet you are observing from. (Images by AD_Images and Gerd Altmann from Pixabay)
We are told not to look directly at the sun as it can damage our eyes. But a hypothetical resident of Neptune or Uranus could presumably safely stare at the sun (just as we can safely stare at much brighter stars than our sun because they are so far away). So we need to ask :"brighter than a million suns", as observed from how far away?
How bright is the sun? That depends on viewing conditions (Image by UteHeineSch from Pixabay)
Even if referring to our Sun as seen from the earth, the brightness varies according to its apparent altitude in the sky. So, "brighter than a million suns" needs to be specified further – as perhaps "more than a million times brighter than the sun as seen at midday from the equator on a cloudless day"? Of course, again, only the pedantic science teacher is thinking about this: everyone knows well enough what being brighter than a million suns implies. It is pretty intense radiation.
Applying the technology
Dr Finch went on to discuss a couple of applications of the synchrotron. One related to identifying pigments in art masterpieces. The other was quite timely in that it related to investigating the infectious agent in COVID.
"Now by now you have probably seen an image of the COVID virus – it looks like a ball with some spikes on it. Actually it kind of looks like those massage balls that your physio makes you buy when you turn thirty and need to to ease all your physical ailments that you suddenly have."
Coronavirus particles and massage balls…or is it… (Images by Ulrike Leone and Daniel Roberts from Pixabay)
Again there is an attempt to make the unfamiliar familiar. These microscopic virus particles are a bit like something familiar from everyday life. Such comparisons are useful where the everyday object is already familiar.
By now I've seen plenty of images of the coronavirus responsible for COVID, although I do not have a physiotherapist (perhaps this is a cultural difference – Australians being so sporty?) So, I found myself using this comparison in reverse – imagining that the "massage balls that your physio makes you buy" must be like larger versions of coronavirus particles. Having looked up what these massage balls (a.k.a. hedgehog balls it seems) look like, I can appreciate the similarity. Whether the manufacturers of massage balls will appreciate their products being compared to enormous coronavirus particles is, perhaps, another matter.
Work cited:
Taber, K. S., Billingsley, B., Riga, F., & Newdick, H. (2015). English secondary students' thinking about the status of scientific theories: consistent, comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidenced explanations of aspects of the natural world – or just 'an idea someone has'. The Curriculum Journal, 1-34. doi: 10.1080/09585176.2015.1043926
Notes:
1 At least, depending how we understand 'thinking'. Clearly there are cognitive processes at work even when we continue a conversation 'on auto pilot' (to employ a metaphor) whilst consciously focusing on something else. Only a tiny amount of our cognitive processing (thinking?) occurs within conscousness where we reflect and deliberate (i.e., explicit thinking?) We might label the rest as 'implicit thinking', but this processing varies greatly in its closeness to deliberation – and some aspects (for example, word recognition when listening to speech; identifying the face of someone we see) might seem to not deserve the label 'thinking'?
2 Of course the evidence for some ideas becomes so overwhelming that in principle we treat some theories as certain knowledge, but in principle they remain provisional knowledge. And the history of science tells us that sometimes even the most well-established ideas (e.g., Newtonian physics as an absolutely precise description of dynamics; mass and energy as distinct and discrete) may need revision in time.
3 Since I began drafting this article, the webpage for the podcast has been updated with a correction: "in this talk Dr Finch says electrons in the synchrotron are accelerated to the speed of light. They actually go just under that speed – 99.99998% of it to be exact."
4 Perversion in the sense of the distortion of an original course
5 The term nebulae is today reserved for clouds of dust and gas seen in the night sky in different parts of our galaxy. Nebulae are less distinct than stars. Many of what were originally identified as nebulae are now considered to be other galaxies immense distances away from our own.
One of the supposed features of scientific knowledge is that it is always, strictly speaking, provisional. Science seeks generalisable, theoretical knowledge – and no matter how strong the case for some general claim may seem, a scientist is supposed to be open-minded, and always willing to consider that their opinion might be changed by new evidence or a new way of looking at things.
Perhaps the strongest illustration of this is Newtonian physics that seemed to work so well for so many decades that for many it seemed unquestionable. Yet we now know that it is not a precise account that always fits nature. (And by 'we know' I mean we know in the sense of having scientific knowledge – we think this, and have very strong grounds to think this, but reserve the right to change our minds in the light of new information!)
When science is presented in the media, this provisional nature of scientific knowledge – with its inbuilt caveat of uncertainty – is often ignored. News reports, and sometimes scientists when being interviewed by journalists, often imply that we now know…for certain… Science documentaries are commonly stitched together with the trope 'and this can only mean' (Taber, 2007) when any scientist worth their salt could offer (even if seemingly less feasible) alternative scenarios that fit the data.
One might understand this as people charged with communicating science to a general audience seeking to make things as simple and straightforward as possible. However it does reinforce the alternative conception that in science theories are tested allowing them to be straightforwardly dismissed or proved for all time. What is less easy to understand is why scientists seeking to publish work in academic journals to be read by other scientists would claim to know anything for certain – as that is surely likely to seem arrogant and unscientific to editors, reviewers, and those who might read their published work
Science that is indisputable
So, one of two things that immediately made me lack confidence in a published paper about the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the infectious agent considered responsible for the COVID pandemic (Sehgal, 2021), was that the first word was 'Undisputedly'. Assuming the author was not going to follow up with Descartes' famous 'Cogito' ("Undisputedly… I think, therefore I am"), this seemed to be a clear example of something I always advised my own research students to avoid in their writing – a hostage to fortune.
A bold first sentence for this article in a supposedly peer-reviewed research journal
The good scientist learns to use phrases like "this seems to suggest…" rather than "I have therefore proved beyond all possible doubt…"!
Prestigious research journals are selective in what they publish – and reject most submissions, or at least require major revisions based on reviewer evaluations. Predatory journals seek to maximise their income from charging authors for publication; and so do not have the concern for quality that traditionally characterised academic publishing. If some of the published output I have seen is a guide, some of these journals would publish virtually anything submitted regardless of quality.
Genetic relatedness of bats and viruses
Now it would be very unfair to dismiss a scientific article based purely on the first word of the abstract. Even if 'undisputedly' is a word that does not sit easily in scientific discourse, I have to acknowledge that writing a scientific paper is in part a rhetorical activity, and authors may sometimes struggle to balance the need to adopt scientific values (such as always being open to the possibility of another interpretation) with the construction of a convincing argument.
"Undisputedly, the horseshoe bats are the nearest known genetic relatives of the Sars-CoV-2 virus."
Sehgal, 2021, p.29 341
Always start a piece of writing with a strong statement
Closest genetic relatives?
Okay, I was done.
I am not a biologist, and so perhaps I am just very ignorant on the topic, but this seemed an incredible claim. Our current understanding of the earth biota is that there has (probably) been descent from a common ancestor of all living things on the planet today. So, just as I am related, even if often only very distantly, to every other cospecific specimen of Homo sapiens on the planet, I am also related by descent from common ancestors (even more distantly) to every chimpanzee, indeed every primate, every mammal, every chordate; indeed every animal; plus all the plants, fungi, protists and monera.
But clearly I share a common ancestor with all humans in the 'brotherhood of man' more recently than all other primates, and that more recently than all other mammals. And when we get to the non-animal kingdoms we are not even kissing cousins.
And viruses – with their RNA based genetics? These are often not even considered to be living entities in their own right.
There is certainly a theory that there was an 'RNA world', a time when some kind of primitive life based on RNA genes existed from which DNA and lifeforms with DNA genomes later evolved, so one can stretch the argument to say I am related to viruses – that if one went back far enough, both viruses and humans (or viruses and horseshoe bats, more to the point of the claim in this article) around today could be considered to be derived from a common ancestor, and that this is reflected in patterns that can be found in their genomes today.
The nearest genetic relative to SARS-CoV-2 virus?
The genome of a virus is not going to be especially similar to the genome of a mammal. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a single stranded RNA virus which will be much more genetically similar to other such viruses that to organisms with double stranded DNA. It is famously a coronavirus – so surely it is most likely to be strongly related to other coronaviruses? It is called 'SARS-CoV-2' because of its similarity to the virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome): SARS-CoV. These seems strong clues.
And the nearest genetic relative to horseshoe bats are…
And bats are mammals. The nearest relatives to any specific horseshoe bat are other bats of that species. And if we focus at the species level, and ask what other species would comprise the nearest genetic relatives to a species of horseshoe bats? I am not an expert, but I would have guessed other species of horseshoe bat (there are over a hundred such species). Beyond that family – well I imagine other species of bat. Looking on the web, it seems that Old World leaf-nosed bats (and not viruses) have been mooted from genetic studies (Amador, Moyers Arévalo, Almeida, Catalano & Giannini, 2018) as the nearest genetic relatives of the horsehoe bats.
Annotated copy of Figure 7 from Amador et al., 2018
So, although I am not an expert, and I am prepared to be corrected by someone who is, I am pretty sure the nearest relative that is not a bat would be another mammal – not a bird, not a fish, certainly not a mollusc or insect. Mushrooms and ferns are right out of contention. And, no, not a virus. 1
Judge me on what I mean to say – not what I say
Perhaps I am being picky here. A little reflection suggests that surely Sehgal (in stating that "the horseshoe bats are the nearest known genetic relatives of the Sars-CoV-2 virus") did not actually mean to imply that "the horseshoe bats are the nearest known genetic relatives of the Sars-CoV-2 virus", but rather perhaps something along the lines that an RNA virus known to infect horseshoe bats was the nearest known genetic relative of the Sars-CoV-2 virus.
Perhaps I should have read "the horseshoe bats are the nearest known genetic relatives of the Sars-CoV-2 virus" as "the horseshoe bats are hosts to the nearest known genetic relatives of the Sars-CoV-2 virus"? If I had read on, I would have found reference to a "bat virus RaTG13 having a genome resembling the extent of 98.7% to that of the Sars-CoV-2 virus" (p.29 341).
Yet if a research paper, that has supposedly been subject to rigorous peer review, manages to both misrepresent the nature of science AND make an obviously factually incorrect claim in its very first sentence, then I think I can be forgiven for suspecting it may not be the most trustworthy source of information.
Work cited
Amador, L. I., Moyers Arévalo, R. L., Almeida, F. C., Catalano, S. A., & Giannini, N. P. (2018). Bat Systematics in the Light of Unconstrained Analyses of a Comprehensive Molecular Supermatrix. Journal of Mammalian Evolution, 25(1), 37-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10914-016-9363-8
Sehgal, M.L. (2021) Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Two Schools of Thought, Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, July, 2020, Volume 37, 2, pp 29341-29356
1 It is perfectly possible logically for organism Y (say a horseshoe bat) to be the closest genetic relative of organism X (say a coronavirus) without organism X being the closest genetic relative of organism Y. (By analogy, someone's closest living genetic relative could be a grandchild whose closest genetic relative is their own child or their parent that was not a child of that grandparent.) However, the point here is that bat is not even quite closely related to the virus.
One of the recurring themes in this blog is the way science is communicated in teaching and through media, and in particular the role of language choices, in effective communication.
I was listening to a podcast of the BBC Science in Action programme episode 'Radioactive Red Forest'. The item that especially attracted my attention (no, not the one about teaching fish to do sums) was summarised on the website as:
"Understanding the human genome has reached a new milestone, with a new analysis that digs deep into areas previously dismissed as 'junk DNA' but which may actually play a key role in diseases such as cancer and a range of developmental conditions. Karen Miga from the University of California, Santa Cruz is one of the leaders of the collaboration behind the new findings."
They've really sequenced the human genome this time
The introductory part of this item is transcribed below.
Being 'once a science teacher, always a science teacher' (in mentality, at least), I reflected on how this dialogue is communicating important ideas to listeners. Before I comment in any detail, you may (and this is entirely optional, of course) wish to read through and consider:
What does a listener (reader) need to know to understand the intended meanings in this text?
What 'tactics', such as the use of figures of speech, do the speakers use to support the communication process?
Roland Pease (Presenter): "Good news! They sequenced, fully sequenced, the human genome.
'Hang on a minute' you cry, you told us that in 2000, and 2003, and didn't I hear something similar in 2013?' Well, yes, yes, and yes, but no.
A single chromosome stretched out like a thread of DNA could be 6 or 8 cm long. Crammed with three hundred million [300 000 000] genetic letters. But to fit one inside a human cell, alongside forty five [45] others for the complete set, they each have to be wound up into extremely tight balls. And some of the resulting knots it turns out are pretty hard to untangle in the lab. and the genetic patterns there are often hard to decode as well. Which is what collaboration co-leader Karen Miga had to explain to me, when I also said 'hang on a minute'."
Karen Miga: "The celebrated release of the finished genome back in 2003 was really focused on the portions that we could at the time map and assemble. But there were big persistent gaps. Roughly about two hundred million [200 000 000] bases long that were missing. It was roughly eight percent [8%] of the genome was missing."
"And these were sort of hard to get at bits of genome, I mean are they like trying to find a coin in the bottom of your pocket that you can't quite pull out?"
"These regions are quite special, we think about tandem repeats or pieces of sequences that are found in a head-to-tail orientation in the genome, these are corners of our genome where this is just on steroids, where we see a tremendous amount of tandem repeats sometimes extending for ten million [10 000 000] bases. They are just hard to sequence, and they are hard to put together correctly and that was – that was the wall that the original human genome project faced."
Introduction to the item on the sequencing of what was known as 'junk DNA' in the (a) human genome
I have sketched out a kind of 'concept map' of this short extract of dialogue:
A mapping of the explicit connections in the extract of dialogue (ignoring connections and synonyms that a knowledgeable listener would have available for making sense of the talk)
In educational settings, teachers' presentations are informed by background information about the students' current levels of knowledge. In particular, teachers need to be aware of the 'prerequisite knowledge' necessary for understanding their presentations. If you want to be understood, then it is important your listeners have available the ideas you will be relying on in your account.
A scientist speaking to the public, or a journalist with a public audience, will be disadvantaged in two ways compared to the situation of a teacher. The teacher usually knows about the class, and the class is usually not as diverse as a public audience. There might be a considerable diversity of knowledge and understanding among the members of, say, the 13-14 year old learners in one school class, or the first year undergraduates on a university course – but how much more variety is found in the readership of a popular science magazine or the audience of a television documentary or radio broadcast.
Here are some key concepts referenced in the brief extract above:
bases
cells
chromosome
DNA
sequencing
tandem repeats
the human genome
To follow the narrative, one needs to appreciate relationships among these concepts (perhaps at least that chromosomes are found in cells; and comprised of DNA, the structure of which includes a number of different components called bases, the ordering of which can be sequenced to characterise the particular 'version' of DNA that comprises a genome. 1 ) Not all of these ideas are made absolutely explicit in the extract.
The notion of tandem repeats requires somewhat more in-depth knowledge, and so perhaps the alternative offered – tandem repeats or pieces of sequences that are found in a head to tail orientation in the genome – is intended to introduce this concept for those who are not familiar with the topic in this depth.
The complete set?
The reference to "A single chromosome stretched out…could be 6 or 8 cm long…to fit one inside a human cell, alongside forty five others for the complete set…" seems to assume that the listener will already know, or will readily appreciate, that in humans the genetic material is organised into 46 chromosomes (i.e., 23 pairs).
Arguably, someone who did not know this might infer it from the presentation itself. Perhaps they would. The core of the story was about how previous versions of 'the' [see note 1] human genome were not complete, and how new research offered a more complete version. The more background a listener had regarding the various concepts used in the item, the easier it would be to follow the story. The more unfamiliar ideas that have to be coordinated, the greater the load on working memory, and the more likely the point of the item would be missed.2
Getting in a tangle
A very common feature of human language is its figurative content. Much of our thinking is based on metaphor, and our language tends to be full [sic 3] of comparisons as metaphors, similes, analogies and so forth.
So, we can imagine 'a single chromosome' (something that is abstract and outside of most people's direct experience) as being like something more familiar: 'like a thread'. We can visualise, and perhaps have experience of, threads being 'wound up into extremely tight balls'. Whether DNA strands in chromosomes are 'wound up into extremely tight balls' or are just somewhat similar to thread wound up into extremely tight balls is perhaps a moot point: but this is an effective image.
And it leads to the idea of knots that might be pretty hard to untangle. We have experience of knots in thread (or laces, etc.) that are difficult to untangle, and it is suggested that in sequencing the genome such 'knots' need to be untangled in the laboratory. The listener may well be visualising the job of untangling the knotted thread of DNA – and quite possibly imaging this is a realistic representation rather than a kind of visual analogy.
Indeed, the reference to "some of the resulting knots it turns out are pretty hard to untangle in the lab. and the genetic patterns there are often hard to decode as well" might seem to suggest that this is not an analogy, but two stages of a laboratory process – where the DNA has to be physically untangled by the scientists before it can be sequenced, but that even then there is some additional challenge in reading the parts of the 'thread' that have been 'knotted'.
Reading the code
In the midst of this account of the knotted nature of the chromosome, there is a complementary metaphor. The single chromosome is "crammed with three hundred million genetic letters". The 'letters' relate to the code which is 'written' into the DNA and which need to be decoded. An informed listener would know that the 'letters' are the bases (often indeed represented by the letters A, C, G and T), but again it seems to be assumed this does not need to be 'spelt out'. [Sorry.]
But, of course, the genetic code is not really a code at all. At least, not in the original meaning of a means of keeping a message secret. The order of bases in the chromosome can be understood as 'coding' for the amino acid sequences in different proteins but strictly the 'code' is, or at least was originally, another metaphor. 4
Hitting the wall
The new research had progressed beyond the earlier attempts to sequence the human genome because that project had 'faced a wall' – a metaphorical wall, of course. This was the difficulty of sequencing regions of the genome that, the listener is told, were quite special.
The presenter suggests that the difficulty of sequencing these special regions of "hard to get at bits of genome" was akin to" trying to find a coin in the bottom of your pocket that you can't quite pull out". This is presumably assumed to be a common experienced shared by, or at least readily visualised by, the audience allowing them to better appreciate just how "hard to get at" these regions of the genome are.
We might pause to reflect on whether a genome can actually have regions. The term region seems to have originally been applied to a geographical place, such as part of a state. So, the idea that a genome has regions was presumably first used metaphorically, but this seems such a 'natural' transfer, that the 'mapping' seems self-evident. If it was a live metaphor, it is a dead one now.
Similarly, the mapping of the sequences of fragments of chromosomes onto the 'map' of the genome seems such a natural use of the term may no longer seem to qualify as a metaphor.
Repeats on steroids
These special regions are those referred to above as having tandem repeats – so parts of a chromosome where particular base sequences repeat (sometimes a great many times). This is described as "pieces of sequences that are found in a head to tail orientation" – applying an analogy with an organism which is understood to have a body plan that has distinct anterior and posterior 'ends'.
Not only does the genome contain such repeats, but in some places there are a 'tremendous' number of these repeats occurring head to tail. These places are referred to as 'corners' of the genome (a metaphor that might seem to fit better with the place in a pocket where a coin might to be hard to dislodge – or perhaps associated with that wall), than with a structure said to be like a knotted, wound-up, ball of thread.
It is suggested that in these regions, the repeats of the same short base sequences can be so extensive that they continue for billions of bases. This is expressed through the simile that the tandem repeating "is just on steroids" – again an allusion to what is assumed to be a familiar everyday phenomenon, that is, something familiar enough to people listening to help then appreciate the technical account.
Many people in the audience will have experience of being on steroids as steroids are prescribed for a wide variety of inflammatory conditions – both acute (due to accidents or infections) and chronic (e.g., asthma). Yet these are corticosteroids and 'dampen down' (metaphorically, of course) inflammation. The reference here is to anabolic steroid use, or rather abuse, by some people attempting to quickly build up muscle mass. Although anabolic steroids do have clinical use, abusers may take doses orders of magnitude higher than those prescribed for medical conditions.
I suspect that whereas many people have personal experience or experience of close family being on corticosteroids, whereas anabolic steroid use is rarer, and is usually undertaken covertly – so the metaphor here lies on cultural knowledge of the idea of people abusing anabolic steroids leading to extreme physical and mood changes.
Making a good impression
That is not to suggest this metaphor does not work. Rather I would suggest that most listeners would have appreciated the intended message implied by 'on steroids', and moreover the speaker was likely able to call upon the metaphor implicitly – that is without stopping to think about how the metaphor might be understood.
Metaphors of this kind can be very effective in giving an audience a strong impression of the scientific ideas being presented. It is worth noting, though, that what is communicated is to some extent just that, an impression, and this kind of impressionist communication contrasts with the kind of technically precise language that would be expected in a formal scientific communication.
Language on steroids
Just considering this short extract from this one item, there seems to be a great deal going on in the communication of the science. A range of related concepts are drawn upon as (assumed) background and a narrative offered for why the earlier versions of the human genome were incomplete, and how new studies are producing more complete sequences.
Along the way, communication is aided by various means to help 'make the unfamiliar familiar' by using both established metaphors as well as new comparisons. Some originally figurative language (mapping, coding, regions) is now so widely used it has been adopted as literally referring to the genome. Some common non-specific metaphors are used (hitting a wall, hard to access corners), and some specific images (threads, knots and tangles, balls, head-tails) are drawn upon, and some perhaps bespoke comparisons are introduced (the coin in the pocket, being on steroids).
In this short exchange there is a real mixture of technical language with imagery, analogy, and metaphor that potentially both makes the narrative more listener-friendly and helps bridge between the science and the familiar everyday – at last when these figures of speech are interpreted as intended. This particular extract seems especially 'dense' in the range of ideas being orchestrated into the narrative – language on steroids, perhaps – but I suspect similar combinations of formal concepts and everyday comparisons could be found in many other cases of public communication of science.
An alternative concept map of the extract, suggesting how someone with some modest level of background in the topic might understand the text (filling in some implicit concepts and connections). How a text is 'read' always depends upon the interpretive resources the listener/reader brings to the text.
At least the core message was clear: Scientists have now fully sequenced the human genome.
Although, I noticed when I sought out the scientific publication that "the total number of bases covered by potential issues in the T2T-CHM13 assembly [the new research] is just 0.3% of the total assembly length compared with 8% for GRCh38 [The human genome project version]" (Nurk et al., 2022) , which, if being churlish, might be considered not entirely 'fully' sequenced. Moreover "CHM13 lacks a Y chromosome", which – although it is also true of half of the human population – might also suggest there is still a little more work to be done.
Work cited:
Nurk, S., Koren, S., Rhie, A., Rautiainen, M., Bzikadze, A. V., Mikheenko, A., . . . Phillippy, A. M.* (2022). The complete sequence of a human genome. Science, 376(6588), 44-53. doi:doi:10.1126/science.abj6987
Notes
1 We often talk of DNA as a substance, and a molecule of DNA as 'the' DNA molecule. It might be more accurate to consider DNA as a class of (many) similar substances each of which contains its own kind of DNA molecule. Similarly, there is not a really 'a' human genome – but a good many of them.
2Working memory is the brain component where people consciously access and mentipulate information, and it has a very limited capacity. However, material that has been previously learnt and well consolidated becomes 'chunked' so can be accessed as 'chunks'. Where concepts have been integrated into coherent frameworks, the whole framework is accessed from memory as if a single unit of information.
3 Strictly only a container can be full – so, this is a metaphor. Language is never full -as we can always be more verbose! Of course, it is such a familiar metaphor that it seems to have a literal meaning. It has become what is referred to as a 'dead' metaphor. And that is, itself, a metaphor, of course.
4 Language changes over time. If we accept that much of human cognition is based on constructing new ways of thinking and talking by analogy with what is already familiar (so the song is on the 'top' of the charts and it is a 'long' time to Christmas, and a 'hard' rain is going to fall…) then language will grow by the adoption of metaphors that in time cease to be seen as metaphors, and indeed may change in their usage such that the original reference (e.g., as with electrical 'charge') may become obscure.
In education, teachers may read originally metaphorical terms in terms of teir new scientific meanings, whereas learners may understand the terms (electron 'spin', 'sharing' of electrons, …) in terms of the metaphorical/analogical source.
*This is an example of 'big science'. The full author list is:
Sergey Nurk, Sergey Koren, Arang Rhie, Mikko Rautiainen, Andrey V. Bzikadze, Alla Mikheenko, Mitchell R. Vollger, Nicolas Altemose, Lev Uralsky, Ariel Gershman, Sergey Aganezov, Savannah J. Hoyt, Mark Diekhans, Glennis A. Logsdon,p Michael Alonge, Stylianos E. Antonarakis, Matthew Borchers, Gerard G. Bouffard, Shelise Y. Brooks, Gina V. Caldas, Nae-Chyun Chen, Haoyu Cheng, Chen-Shan Chin, William Chow, Leonardo G. de Lima, Philip C. Dishuck, Richard Durbin, Tatiana Dvorkina, Ian T. Fiddes, Giulio Formenti, Robert S. Fulton, Arkarachai Fungtammasan, Erik Garrison, Patrick G. S. Grady, Tina A. Graves-Lindsay, Ira M. Hall, Nancy F. Hansen, Gabrielle A. Hartley, Marina Haukness, Kerstin Howe, Michael W. Hunkapiller, Chirag Jain, Miten Jain, Erich D. Jarvis, Peter Kerpedjiev, Melanie Kirsche, Mikhail Kolmogorov, Jonas Korlach, Milinn Kremitzki, Heng Li, Valerie V. Maduro, Tobias Marschall, Ann M. McCartney, Jennifer McDaniel, Danny E. Miller, James C. Mullikin, Eugene W. Myers, Nathan D. Olson, Benedict Paten, Paul Peluso, Pavel A. Pevzner, David Porubsky, Tamara Potapova, Evgeny I. Rogaev, Jeffrey A. Rosenfeld, Steven L. Salzberg, Valerie A. Schneider, Fritz J. Sedlazeck, Kishwar Shafin, Colin J. Shew, Alaina Shumate, Ying Sims, Arian F. A. Smit, Daniela C. Soto, Ivan Sović, Jessica M. Storer, Aaron Streets, Beth A. Sullivan, Françoise Thibaud-Nissen, James Torrance, Justin Wagner, Brian P. Walenz, Aaron Wenger, Jonathan M. D. Wood, Chunlin Xiao, Stephanie M. Yan, Alice C. Young, Samantha Zarate, Urvashi Surti, Rajiv C. McCoy, Megan Y. Dennis, Ivan A. Alexandrov, Jennifer L. Gerton, Rachel J. O'Neill, Winston Timp, Justin M. Zook, Michael C. Schatz, Evan E. Eichler, Karen H. Miga, Adam M. Phillippy
Some spider monkeys like a little something extra with "all this fruit"
Keith S. Taber
(Photograph by by Manfred Richter from Pixabay)
"oh heck, what am I going to do, I'm faced with all this fruit with no protein and I've got to be a spider monkey"
Primatologist Adrian Barnett getting inside the mind of a monkey
I was listening to an item on the BBC World Service 'Science in Action' programme/podcast (an episode called 'Climate techno-fix would worsen global malaria burden').
This included an item with the title:
Primatologist Adrian Barnett has discovered that spider monkeys in one part of the Brazilian Amazon seek out fruit, full of live maggots to eat. Why?
The argument was that the main diet of monkeys is usually fruit which is mostly very low in protein and fat. However, often monkeys include figs in their diet which are an exception, being relatively rich in protein and fats.
The spider monkeys in one part of the Amazon, however, seem to 'seek out' fruit that was infested with maggots – these monkeys appear to actively choose the infected fruits. These are the fruits a human would probably try to avoid: certainly if there were non-infested alternatives. Only a proportion of fruit on the trees are so infested, yet the monkeys consume a higher proportion of infested fruit and so seem to have a bias towards selecting fruit with maggots. At least that was what primatologist Dr Adrian Barnett's analysis found when he analysed the remains of half-eaten fruit that reached the forest floor.
The explanation suggested is that this particular area of forest has very few fig trees, therefore it seems these monkeys do not have ready access to figs, and it seems they instead get a balanced diet by preferentially picking fruit containing insect larvae.
Who taught the monkeys about their diet?
A scientific explanation of this might suggest natural selection was operating.
Even if monkeys had initially tended to avoid the infested fruit, if this then led to a deficient diet (making monkeys more prone to disease, or accidents, and less fertile) then any monkeys who supplemented the fruit content of their diet by not being so picky and eating some infested fruit (whether because of a variation in their taste preferences, or simply a variation in how careful they were to avoid spoilt fruit) would have a fitness advantage and so, on average, leave more offspring.
To the extent their eating habits reflected genetic make-up (even if this was less significant for variations in individual behaviour than contingent environmental factors) this would over time shift the typical behaviours in the population. Being willing to eat, or perhaps even enjoying, maggotty fruit was likely to be a factor in being fertile and fecund, so eventually eating infested fruit becomes the norm – at least as long as the population remains in a habitat that does not have other ready sources of essential dietary components. Proving this is what happened would be very difficult after the fact. But an account along these lines is consistent with our understanding of how behaviour tends to change.
An important aspect of natural selection is that it is an automatic process. It does not require any deliberation or even conscious awareness on behalf of the members of the population being subject to selection. Changes do not occur in response to any preference or purpose – but just reflect the extent to which different variants of a population match their environment.
This is just as well, as even though monkeys are primates, and so relatively intelligent animals, it seems reasonable to assume they do not have a formal concept of diet (rather, they just eat), and they are not aware of the essential need for fat and protein in the diet; nor of the dietary composition of fruit. Natural selection works because where there is variation, and differences in relative fitness, the fittest will tend to leave more offspring (as by fittest we simply mean those most able to leave offspring!)
Now he's thinking…
I was therefore a little surprised when the scientist being interviewed, Adrian Barnett, explained the behaviour:
"So, suddenly the monkey's full of, you know, squeaking the monkey equivalent of 'oh heck, what am I going to do, erm, I'm faced with all this fruit with no protein and I've got to be a spider monkey'."
At first hearing this sounds like anthropomorphism, where non-humans are assigned human feelings and cognitions.
Anthropomorphic language refers to non-human entities as if they have human experiences, perceptions, and motivations. Both non-living things and non-human organisms may be subjects of anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism may be used deliberately as a kind of metaphorical language that will help the audience appreciate what is being described because of its similarly to some familiar human experience. In science teaching, and in public communication of science, anthropomorphic language may often be used in this way, giving technical accounts the flavour of a persuasive narrative that people will readily engage with. Anthropomorphism may therefore be useful in 'making the unfamiliar familiar', but sometimes the metaphorical nature of the language may not be recognised, and the listener/reader may think that the anthropomorphic description is meant to be taken at face value. This 'strong anthropomorphism' may be a source of alternative conceptions ('misconceptions') of science.
Why 'at first hearingthis seems like an example of anthropomorphism'? Well, Dr Barnett does not say the monkey actually has these thoughts but rather squeaks the monkey equivalent of these words. This leaves me wondering how we are to understand what the monkey equivalent actually is. I somehow suspect that whatever thoughts the monkey has they probably do not include any direct equivalents of either being a spider monkey or protein.
I am happy to accept the monkey has a concept somewhat akin to our fruit, as clearly the monkey is able to discriminate particular regularities in its environment that are associated with the behaviour of picking items from trees and eating them – regularities that we would class as fruit. It is interesting to speculate on what would be included in a monkey's concept map of fruit, were one able to induce a monkey to provide the data that might enable us to produce such a diagram. Perhaps there might be monkey equivalents of such human concepts as red and crunchy and mushy…but I would not be expecting any equivalents of our concepts of dietary components or nutritional value.
So, although I am not a primatologist, I wonder if the squeaking Dr Barnett heard when he was collecting for analysis the partially eaten fruit dropped by the spider monkeys was actually limited to the monkey equivalent of either "yummy, more fruit" or perhaps "oh, fruit again".
Can we be certain about something that happened half a million years ago?
Keith S. Taber
What was going on in Java when Homo erectus lived there? (Image by Kanenori from Pixabay )
About half a million years ago a hominid, of the Homo erectus species, living in Java took a shell and deliberately engraved a mark on it. Now, I was not there when this happened, so my testimony is second hand, but I can be confident about this as I was told by a scientist that she was sure that this definitely happened.
"…we knew for sure that it must have been made by Homo erectus"
But how can we be so sure about something alleged to have occurred so long ago?
"A long time ago [if not] in a galaxy far, far away…." the skull of a specimen of Homo erectus (Image by Mohamed Noor from Pixabay ) [Was this an inspiration for the Star Wars stormtrooper helmet?]
I doubt Fifi would be convinced.1 Fifi was a Y12 student (c.16 years old) interviewed as part of the LASAR project who had reservations about palaeontology as it did not provide certain scientific knowledge,
"I like fossils though, I think they're interesting but I don't think I'd really like [working as a palaeontologist]…I don't think you could ever really know unless you were there… There'll always be an element of uncertainty because no matter how much evidence you supply there will always be, like, doubt because of the fact that you were never there…there'll always be uncertainty."
Learners can have alternative conceptions of the nature of science, just as much as they often do for forces or chemical bonding or plant nutrition. They often think that scientific knowledge has been 'proved', and so is certain (e.g., Taber, Billingsley, Riga & Newdick, 2015). An area like palaeontology where direct observation is not possible may therefore seem to fall short of offering genuine scientific knowledge.
The uncertain nature of scientific knowledge
One key feature of the nature of science is that it seeks to produce general or theoretical knowledge of the natural world. That is, science is not just concerned with providing factual reports about specific events but with developing general accounts that can explain and apply to broad categories of objects and events. Such general and theoretical knowledge is clearly more useful than a catalogue of specific facts – which can never tell us about the next occasion or what might happen in hypothetical situations.
However, a cost of seeking such applicable and useful knowledge is that it can never be certain. It relies on our ways of classifying objects and events, the evidence we have collected so far, our ability to spot the most important patterns -and the deductions this might support. So, scientific knowledge is always provisional in the sense that it is open to revision in response to new data, or new ways of thinking about existing data as evidence.
Yet often reports of science in the media give the impression that science has made absolute discoveries. Some years ago I wrote about the tendency in science documentaries for the narrative to be driven by links that claimed "...this could only mean…" when we know that in science the available data always underdetermines theory (Taber, 2007). Or, to put it another way, we could always think up other ways of explaining the data. Sometimes these alternatives might seem convoluted and unlikely, but if we can suggest a possible (even when unconvincing) alternative, then the available data can never "only mean" any one particular proposed interpretation.
The scientist concerned was J.C.A (José) Joordens who is Professor in Hominin Paleoecology and Evolution, at Maastricht University. Prof. Joordens holds the Naturalis Dubois Chair in Hominin Paleoecology and Evolution. The reference to Dubois relates to the naturist responsible for finding a so-called 'missing link' in the chain of descent to modern humans,
"One of the most exciting episodes of palaeoanthropology was the find of the first transitional form, the Pithecanthropus erectus, by the Dutchman Eugène Dubois in Java during 1891-1892. …Besides the human remains, Dubois made a large collection of vertebrate fossils, mostly of mammals, now united in the so-called Dubois Collection."
de Vos, 2004
The Java man species, Pithecanthropus erectus (an upright ape/mokey-man), was later renamed as Homo erectus, the upright man.
On an edition of BBC Radio 4's 'In Our Time' taking 'Homo erectus' as its theme, Prof. Joordens explained how some fossil shells collected by Dubois as part of the context of the hominid fossils had remained in storage for over a century ("The shells had been, well, shelved…"!), before a graduate student set out to photograph them all for a thesis project. This led to the discovery that one of the shells appeared to have been engraved.
This could only mean one thing…
This is what Prof. Joordens told the host, Melvyn Bragg,
"One shell that had a very strange marking that we could not understand how it ended up there…
It was geometric, like a W, and this is of course something that animals don't produce. We had to conclude that it must have been made by Homo erectus. And it must have been a very deliberate marking because of, we did experimental research trying to replicate it, and then we actually found it was quite hard to do. Because, especially fresh shells, they have a kind of organic exterior, and it's hard to push some sharp objects through and make those lines, so that was when we knew for sure that it must have been made by Homo erectus."
We may consider this claim to be composed of a number of components, such as:
There is a shell with some 'very strange' markings
The shell was collected in Java in the nineteenth century
The shell had the markings when first collected
The markings were not caused by some natural phenomenon
The markings were deliberate not accidental
The markings were made by a specimen of Homo erectus
A sceptic might ask such questions as
How can we be sure this shell was part of the original collection? Could it have been substituted by mistake or deliberately?
How do we know the marks were not made more recently? perhaps by someone in the field in Java, or during transit form Java to the Netherlands, or by someone inspecting the collection?
Given that even unusual markings will occur by chance occasionally, how can we be certain these markings were deliberate? Does the mark really look like a 'W 'or might that be an over-interpretation. 2
And so forth.
It is worth bearing in mind that no one noticed these markings in the field, or when the collection was taken back to the Netherlands – indeed Prof. Joordens noted she had carried the shell around in her backpack (could that have been with an open penknife?) unaware of the markings
Of course, Prof. Joordens may have convincing responses to many of these questions – but a popular radio show is not the place to detail all the argument and evidence. Indeed, I found a report in the top journal Nature ('Homo erectus at Trinil on Java used shells for tool production and engraving') by Prof. Joordens and her team 3, claiming,
"One of the Pseudodon shells, specimen DUB1006-fL, displays a geometric pattern of grooves on the central part of the left valve [*]. The pattern consists, from posterior to anterior, of a zigzag line with three sharp turns producing an 'M' shape, a set of more superficial parallel lines, and a zigzag with two turns producing a mirrored 'N' shape. Our study of the morphology of the zigzags, internal morphology of the grooves, and differential roughness of the surrounding shell area demonstrates that the grooves were deliberately engraved and pre-date shell burial and weathering"
It may seem most likely that the markings were made by a Homo erectus, as no other explanation so far considered fits all the data, but theory is always under-determined – one can never be certain another scenario might be found which also fits the known facts.
Strictly, Prof. Joordens' contradicts herself. She claims the marks are "something that animals don't produce" and then claims an animal is responsible. She presumably meant that no non-hominid animal makes such marks. Even if we accept that (and, as they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 4), can we be absolutely certain some other hominid might not have been present in Java at the time, marking the odd shell? As the 'In Our Time' episode discussed, Homo erectus often co-existed with other hominids.
Probably not, but … can we confidently say absolutely, definitely, not?
As Fifi might say: "I don't think you could ever really know unless you were there".
My point is not that I think Prof. Joordens is wrong (she is an expert, so I think she is likely correct), but just that her group cannot be absolutely certain. When Prof. Joordens says she knows for sure I assume (because she is a scientist, and I am a scientist) that this means something like "based on all the evidence currently available, our best, and only convincing, interpretation is…" Unfortunately lay people often do not have the background to insert such provisos themselves, and so often hear such claims literally – science has proved its case, so we know for sure. Where listeners already think scientific knowledge is certain, this misconception gets reinforced.
Meanwhile, Prof. Joordens continues her study of hominids in Java in the Studying Homo erectus Lifestyle and Location project (yes, the acronym is SHeLL).
Joordens, J., d'Errico, F., Wesselingh, F. et al. Homo erectus at Trinil on Java used shells for tool production and engraving. Nature 518, 228-231 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13962
Taber, K. S., Billingsley, B., Riga, F., & Newdick, H. (2015). English secondary students' thinking about the status of scientific theories: consistent, comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidenced explanations of aspects of the natural world – or just 'an idea someone has'. The Curriculum Journal, 1-34. doi: 10.1080/09585176.2015.1043926
Notes
1 As is usual practice in such research, Fifi is an assumed name. Fifi gave permission for data she contributed to the research to be used in publications on the assumption it would be associated with a pseudonym. (See: 'Using pseudonyms in reporting research'.)
2 No one is suggesting that the hominid deliberately marked the shell with a letter of the Roman alphabet, just that s/he deliberately made a mark that represented a definite and deliberate pattern. Yet human beings tend to spot patterns in random data. Could it just be some marks that seem to fit into a single pattern?
3 Josephine C. A. Joordens, Francesco d'Errico, Frank P. Wesselingh, Stephen Munro, John de Vos, Jakob Wallinga, Christina Ankjærgaard, Tony Reimann, Jan R. Wijbrans, Klaudia F. Kuiper, Herman J. Mücher, Hélène Coqueugniot, Vincent Prié, Ineke Joosten, Bertil van Os, Anne S. Schulp, Michel Panuel, Victoria van der Haas, Wim Lustenhouwer, John J. G. Reijmer & Wil Roebroeks.
4 At one time there was no evidence of 'noble' gases reacting. At one time there was no evidence of ozone depletion. At one time there was no evidence of superconductivity. At one time there was no evidence that the blood circulates around the body. At one time there was no evidence of any other planet having moons. At one time there was no evidence of protons being composed of even more fundamental particles. At one time there was no evidence of black holes. At one time there was no evidence that smoking tobacco was harmful. At one time there was no evidence of … [fill in your choice scientific discovery!]
Scientific literacy and desk accessories in science fiction
Keith S. Taber
Is the principle of conservation of mass that is taught in school science falsified all the time?
I am not really a serious sci-fi buff, but I liked Star Trek (perhaps in part because it was the first television programme I got to see in colour 1) and I did enjoy Blakes7 when it was broadcast by the BBC (from 1978-1981).
Logo of the BBC television series 'Blakes7' with (a) home desk equipment or (b) manual control lever for the most advanced spaceship in the galaxy (Image by Francis Ray from Pixabay).
Blakes7 was made with the same kind of low budget production values of Dr Who of the time. Given that space scenes in early episodes involved what seemed to be a flat image of a spacecraft moving across a star field with no sense of depth or perspective (for later series someone had built a model), and in one early episode the crew were clearly given angle-poise lamps to control the craft, it was certainly not a case of 'no expense spared'. So, it was never quite clear if the BBC budget had also fallen short of a possessive apostrophe in the show title credits or Blakes7 was to be read in some other way.
After all, it was not made explicit who was part of Blake's 7 if that was what the title meant, and no one referred to "Blake's 7" in the script (perhaps reflecting how the doctor in Dr Who was not actually called Dr Who?).
The Blakes7 team on the flight desk of the Liberator – which was the most advanced spaceship in the galaxy (and was, for plot purposes, conveniently found drifting in space without a crew) – at least until they forgot to clean the hull once too often and it corroded away while they were on an away mission.
Blake's group was formed from a kind of prison break and so Blake was something of a 'rough-hero' – but not as much as his sometime unofficial lieutenant, sometime friend, sometime apparent rival, Avon, who seemed to be ruled by self-interest (at least until the script regularly required some act of selfless heroism from him). 'Rough-heroes' are fictional characters presented in the hero role but who have some traits that the audience are likely to find morally questionable if not repugnant.
As well as Blake (a rebel condemned as a traitor, having 'recovered' from brainwashing-supported rehabilitation to rebel again) and Avon (a hacker convicted of a massive computer fraud intended to make himself extremely rich) the rest of the original team were a smuggler, a murderer and a petty thief, to which was added a terrorist (or freedom fighter if you prefer) picked up on an early mission. That aside, they seemed an entirely reasonable and decent bunch, and they set out to rid the galaxy of 'The Federation's tyrannical oppression. At least, that was Blake's aspiration even if most of his companions seemed to see this as a stop-gap activity till they had decided on something with more of a long-term future.
At the end of one season, where the fight with the Federation was temporarily put aside to deal with an intergalactic incursion, Blake went AWOL (well, intergalactic wars can be very disruptive) and was assumed dead/injured/lost/captured/?… for much of the remaining run without affecting the nature of the stories too much.
Among its positive aspects for its time were strong (if not exactly model) roles for women. The main villain, Servalan, was a woman – Supreme Commander of the Federation security forces (and later Federation president).
As the ruthless Supreme Commander of the Federation security forces, Servalan got to wear whatever she liked (a Kid Creole, or Mel and Kim, look comes to mind here) and could insist her staff wore hats that would not upstage hers
In Blake's original team (i.e., 7?), his pilot is a woman. (Reflecting other SciFi series, the spacecraft used by Blakes7 require n crew members to operate effectively, where n is an integer that varies between 0 and 6 depending on the specific plot requirements of an episode.) In a later series, after Avon has taken over the role of 'ipso facto leader-among-equals', the group recruits a female advanced weapons designer/technologist and a female sharpshooter.
The Blakes7 team later in the run. (Presumably they are checking the monitor and having a quick recount.) Was Soolin (played by Glynis Barber, far right) styled as a subtle reference to the 'Seven Samurai'?
When I saw Blakes7 was getting a rerun recently I re-watched the series I had not seen since it was first aired. Despite very silly special effects, dodgy story-lines, and morally questionable choices (the series would make a great focus for a philosophy class) the interactions between the main characters made it an enjoyable watch.
But, it is not science
Of course, the problem with science fiction is that it is fiction, not science. Star Trek may have prided itself on seeking to at least make the science sound feasible, but that is something of an outlier in the genre.
Egrorian and his young assistant Pinder (unfortunately prematurely aged somewhat by a laboratory mishap) show Avon and Vila around their lab.
This is clear, for example, in an episode called 'Orbit' where Avon discuses the tachyon funnel, an 'ultimate weapon', with Egrorian, a renegade scientist. Tachyons are hypothetical particles that travel faster than the speed of light. The theory of special relatively suggests the speed of light is the theoretical maximum speed anything can have, but some other theories suggest tachyons may exist in some circumstances. As always in science, theories that are widely accepted as our current best understanding of some aspect of nature (e.g., relativity) are still open to modification or replacement if new evidence is found that suggests this is indicated.
In the Blakes7 universe, there seemed to be a surprisingly high frequency of genius scientists/engineers who had successfully absconded from the tyrannical and paranoid Federation with sufficient resources to build private research facilities on various obscure deserted planets. Although these bases are secret and hidden away, and the scientists concerned have normally been missing for years or even decades, it usually transpires that the Blakes7 crew and the Federation manage to locate any particular renegade scientist during the same episode.
This is part of the exchange between this particular flawed genius scientist and our flawed and reluctant 'rough hero', Kerr Avon:
Egrorian: You've heard of Hoffal's radiation?
Avon: No.
Ah… Hoffal had a unique mind. Over a century ago he predicted most of the properties that would be found in neutron material.
Neutron material?
Material from a neutron star. That is a… a giant sun which has collapsed and become so tightly compressed that its electrons and protons combine, making neutrons.
I don't need a lecture in astrophysics. [But presumably the scriptwriter felt the audience would need to be told this.]
When neutrons are subjected to intense magnetic force, they form Hoffal's radiation. Poor Pinder [Egrorian's lab. assistant] was subjected for less than a millionth of a second. He aged 50 years in as many seconds. …
So neutrons are part of the tachyon funnel.
Um, eight of them … form the core of the accelerator.
Now, for anyone with any kind of science background such dialogue stretches credibility. Chadwick discovered the neutron in everyday matter in 1932, so the neutron's properties could be explored without having to obtain samples from a neutron star – which would certainly be challenging. When bound in nuclei, neutrons (which are electrically neutral, thus the name, and so not usually affected by magnetic fields) are stable.
Thinking at the scale of a neutron
However, any suspension of disbelief (which fiction demands, of course) was stretched past breaking point at the end of this exchange. Not only were the generally inert neutrons the basis of a weapon that could destroy whole worlds – but the core of the accelerator was formed of, not a neutron star, nor a tonne of 'neutron matter', but eight neutrons (i.e., one for each member of Blake's 7 with just a few left over?)
That is, the intensely destructive beam of radiation that could destroy a planet from a distant solar system was generated by subjecting to a magnetic field: a core equivalent to (the arguably less interesting) half of a single oxygen atomic nucleus.
Warning – keep this away from strong magnetic fields if you value your planet! (Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay )
Now free neutrons (that is, outside of an atomic nuclei – or neutron star) are unstable, and decay on a timescale of around a quarter of an hour (that is, the half-life is of this order – following the exponential decay familiar with other kinds of radioactivity), to give a proton, an electron and a neutrino. The energy 'released' in this process is significant on the scale of a subatomic particle: 782 343 eV or nearly eight hundred thousand eV.
Eight hundred thousand seems a very large number, but the unit here is electron volt, a unit used for processes at this submicroscopic scale. (An eV is the amount of work that is done when one single electron is moved though a potential difference of 1v – this is about 1.6 x10-19 J). In the more familiar units of joules, this is about 1.25 x 10-13 J. That is,
0.000 000 000 000 125 J
To boil enough water at room temperature to make a single cup of tea would require about 67 200 J. 2 So, if the energy from decaying neutrons were used to boil the water, it would require the decay of about
538 000 000 000 000 000 neutrons.3
That is just to make one cup of tea, so imagine how many more neutrons would have to decay to provide the means to destroy a planet. Certainly, one would imagine,
more than 8.
E=mc2
Now since Einstein (special relativity, again), mass and energy have been considered to have an equivalence. It is commonly thought that mass can be converted to energy and the equation E=mc2 tells you how much of one would be converted to the other: how many J per kg or kg per J. (Spoiler alert – this is not quite right.)
In that way of thinking, the energy released by a free neutron when it decays is due to a tiny part of the neutrino's mass being converted to energy.
The neutron's mass defect
The mass (or so called 'rest mass') of a neutrino is about 1.67 x 10-27 kg. In the usual mode of decay the neutrino gives rise to a proton (which is nearly, but not quite, as heavy as a neutron), an electron (which is much lighter), and a neutrino (which is considered to have zero rest mass.)
Before decay
Rest mass / 10-31 kg
After decay
Rest mass / 10-31 kg
neutron
16 749.3
proton
16 726.2
electron
9.1
neutrino
–
total
16 749.3
16 735.3
[rest] mass defect in neutrino decay
So, it seems like some mass has disappeared. (And this is the mass sometimes said to have been converted into the released energy.) This might lead us to ask the question of whether Hoffal's discovery was a way to completely annihilate neutrons, so that instead of a tiny proportion of their mass being converted to energy as in neutron decay – all of it was.
Mass as latent energy?
However, when considered from the perspective of special relativity, it is not that mass is being converted to energy in processes such as neutron decay, but rather that mass and energy are considered as being different aspects of something more unified -'mass-energy' if you like. Energy in a sense carries mass, and mass in a sense is a manifestation of energy. The table above may mislead because it only refers to 'rest mass' and that does not tell us all we need to know.
When the neutron decays, the products move apart, so have kinetic energy. According to the principle of mass-energy equivalence there is always a mass equivalence of any energy. So, in relativity, a moving object has more mass than when it is at rest. That is, the 'mass defect' table shows what the mass would be if we compared a motionless neutron with motionless products, not the actual products.
The theory of special relativity boldly asserts that mass and energy are not the independent quantities they were once thought to be. Rather, they are two measures of a single quantity. Since that single quantity does not have its own name, it is called mass-energy, and the relationship between its two measures is known as mass-energy equivalence. We may regard c2 as a conversion factor that enables us to calculate one measurement from the other. Every mass has an energy-equivalent and every energy has a mass-equivalent. If a body emits energy to its surroundings it also emits a quantity of mass equivalent to that energy. The surroundings acquire both the energy and mass in the process.
Treptow, 2005, p.1636
So, rather than thinking mass has been converted to energy, it may be more appropriate to think that the mass of a neutron has a certain (latent) energy associated with it, and that, after decay, most of this energy is divided between products (according to their rest masses), but a small proportion has been converted to kinetic energy (which can be considered to have a mass equivalence).
So, whenever any process involves some kind of energy change, there is an associated change in the equivalent masses. Every time you boil the kettle, or go up in an elevator, there is a tiny increase of mass involved – the hot water is heavier than when it was cold; you are heavier than when you were at a lower level. When you lie down or burn some natural gas, there is a tiny reduction in mass (you weigh less lying down; the products of the chemical reaction weigh less than the reactants).
How much heavier is hot water?
Only in nuclear processes does the energy change involved become large enough for any change in mass to be considered significant. In other processes, the changes are so small, they are insignificant. The water we boiled earlier to make a cup of tea required 67 200J of energy, and at the end of the process the water would not just be hotter, but also heavier by about
0.000 000 000 000 747 kg
0r about 0.000 000 000 75 g. That is easy to calculate 4, but not so easy to notice.
Is mass conserved in chemical reactions?
On this basis, we might suggest that the principle of conservation of mass that is taught in school science is falsified all the time – or at least needs to be understood differently from how it is usually presented.
Type of reaction
Mass change
endothermic
mass of products > mass of reactants
exothermic
mass of products < mass of reactants
If we just consider the masses of the substances then mass is not conserved in chemical change
Yet, the discrepancies really are tiny – so tiny that in school examinations candidates are expected to pretend there is no difference. But, strictly, when (as an example) copper carbonate is heated in a crucible and decomposes to give copper oxide and carbon dioxide there is a mass decrease even if you could capture all the CO2. But it would not be measurable with our usual laboratory equipment – so, as far as chemistry is concerned, mass is conserved. 'To all intense and purposes' (even if not absolutely true) mass is always conserved in chemical reactions.
Mass is conserved overall
But actually, according to current scientific thinking, mass is always conserved (not just very nearly conserved), as long as we make sure we consider all relevant factors. The energy that allowed us to boil the kettle or be lifted in an elevator must have been provided from some source (which has lost mass by the same extent). In an exothermic chemical reaction there is an extremely slight difference of mass between the reactants and products, but the surroundings have been warmed and so have got (ever so slightly) heavier.
Type of reaction
Mass change
endothermic
energy (and equivalent mass) from the surroundings
exothermic
energy (and equivalent mass) to the surroundings
If we just consider the masses of the substances then mass does not seem to be conserved in chemical change
As Einstein himself expressed it,
"The inertial mass of a system of bodies can even be regarded as a measure of its energy. The law of the conservation of the mass of a system becomes identical with the law of the conservation of energy, and is only valid provided that the system neither takes up nor sends out energy."
Einstein, 1917/2015, p.59
Annihilate the neutrons!
So, if we read about how in particle accelerators, particles are accelerated to immense speeds, and collided, and so converted to pure energy we should be suspicious. The particles may well have been destroyed – but something else has now acquired the mass (and not just the rest mass of the annihilated particles, but also the mass associated with their high kinetic energy).
So, we cannot convert all of the mass of a neutron into energy – only reconfigure and redistribute its mass-energy. But we can still ask: what if all the mass of the neutron were to be converted into some kind of radiation that carried away all of its mass as high energy rays (perhaps Hoffal's radiation?)
Perhaps the genius scientist Hoffal, with his "unique mind", had found a way to do this (hm, with a magnetic field?) Even if that does not seem very feasible, it does give us a theoretical limit to the energy that could be produced by a process that converted a neutron into radiation.6 Each neutron has a rest mass of about
1.67 x 10-27 kg
now the conversion factor is c2 (where c is the speed of light, which is near enough 3 x 108 ms-1, so c2 =(3×108ms-1)2 , i.e., about 1017m2s-2), so that mass is equivalent to about 1.50 x 10-10 J 5 or,
0.000 000 000 150 J
Now that is a lot more energy than the 1.25 x 10-13 J released in the decay of a neutron,
0.000 000 000 150 000 J
>
0.000 000 000 000 125 J
and now we could in theory boil the water to make our cup of tea with many fewer neutrons. Indeed, we could do this by annihilating 'only' about 7
448 000 000 000 000 neutrons
This is a lot less neutrons than before, i.e.,
448 000 000 000 000 neutrons
< 538 000 000 000 000 000 neutrons
but it seems fair to say that it remains the case that the number of neutrons needed (now 'only' about 448 million million) is still a good deal more than 8.
448 000 000 000 000 neutrons
> 8 neutrons
So, if over 400 million million neutrons would need to be completely annihilated to make a single cup of tea, how much damage can 8 neutrons do to a distant planet?
A common learning difficulty
In any reasonable scenario we might imagine 8 neutrons would not be significant. This is worth emphasising as it reflates to a common learning difficulty. Quanticles such as atoms, atomic nuclei, neutrons and the like are tiny. Not tiny like specs of dust or grains of salt, but tiny on a scale where specs of dust and grains of salt themselves seem gigantic. The scales involved in considering electronic charge (i.e., 10-19C) or neutron mass (10-27 kg) can reasonably said to be unimaginatively small – no one can readily visualise the shift in scale going from the familiar scale of objects we normally think of as 'small', to the scale of individual molecules or subatomic particles.
Students therefore commonly form alternative conceptions of these types of entities (atoms, electrons, etc.) being too small to see, but yet not being so far beyond reach. And it is not just learners who struggle here. I have even heard someone on a national news programme put forward as an 'expert' make a very similar suggestion to Egrorian, in this case that a "couple of molecules" could be a serious threat to public health after the use of chemical nerve agent. This is a preposterous suggestion to a chemist, but was, I am sure, made in good faith by the international chemical weapons expert.
It is this type of conceptual difficulty which allows scriptwriters to refer to 8 neutrons as being of some significance without expecting the audience to simply laugh at the suggestion (even if some of us do).
It also explains how science fiction writers get away with such plot devices given that many in their audiences will readily accept that a few especially malicious molecules or naughty neutrons is a genuine threat to life.8 But that still does not justify using angle-poise lamps as futuristic spacecraft joysticks.
Jenna pilots the most advanced spacecraft in the galaxy
Works cited:
Einstein, A. (1917/2015). Relativity. The special and the general theory. (100th Anniversary ed.). Princeton: Princeton Univerity Press.
Treptow, R. S. (2005). E = mc2 for the Chemist: When Is Mass Conserved? Journal of Chemical Education, 82(11), 1636. doi:10.1021/ed082p1636
Notes:
1 To explain: For younger readers, television was first broadcast in monochrome (black and white – in effect shades of grey). My family first got a television after I started primary school – the justification for this luxury was that the teachers sometimes suggested programmes we might watch.
Colour television did not arrive in the UK till 1967, and initially it was only used for selected broadcasts. The first colour sets were too expensive for many families, so most people initially stayed with monochrome. This led to the infamous 'helpful' statement offered by the commentator of the weekly half-hour snooker coverage: "And for those of you who are watching in black and white, the pink [ball] is next to the green". (While this is well known as a famous example of misspeaking, a commentator's blooper, those of a more suspicious mind might bear in mind the BBC chose snooker for broadcast in part because it might encourage more people to watch in colour.)
Snooker – not ideal viewing on 'black and white' television (Image by MasterTux from Pixabay )
My father had a part-time weekend job supervising washing machine rental collections (I kid you not, many people only rented such appliances in those days), to supplement income from his full time job, and this meant on Monday evenings after his day job he had to visit his part-time boss and report and they would go throughout the paperwork to ensure things tallied. I would go with him, and was allowed to watch television whilst they did this – it coincided with Star Trek, and the boss had a colour set!
2 Assuming water had to be heated from 20˚C to 100˚C, and the cup took 200 ml (200 cm3) of tea then the calculation is 4.2 x 80 x 200
4.2 J g-1K-1 is the approximate specific heat capacity of water.
Changing these parameters (perhaps you have a small tea cup and I use a mug?) will change the precise value.
3 That is the energy needed divided by the energy released by each neutron: 67200 J ÷ 1.25 x 10-13 J/neutron = 537 600 000 000 000 000 neutrons
4 E=mc2
so m = E/c2 = 67 200 ÷ (3.00 x 108)2 = 7.47 x 10-13
5 E=mc2 = 1.67 x 10-27 x (3.00 x 108)2 = 1.50 x 10-10
6 Well, we could imagine that somehow Hoffal had devised a process where the neutrons somehow redirect energy provided to initially generate the magnetic field, and perhaps the weapon was actually an enormous field generator producing a massive magnetic field that the funnel somehow converted into a beam (of tachyons?) that could pass across vast amounts of space without being absorbed by space dust, remaining highly collimated, and intense enough to destroy a world.
So, perhaps the neutrons are analogous to the core of a laser.
I somehow think it would still need more than 8 of them.
7 That is the energy needed divided by the energy released by each neutron: 67200 J ÷ 1.50 x 10-10 J/neutron = 4.48 x 1014 neutrons
8 Of course molecules are not actually malicious and neutrons cannot be naughty as they are inanimate entities. I am not anthropomorphising, just alliterating.
