A Historical Derivation of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Relation is Flawed

This is a rather interesting paper published in the current issue of AJP[1]. It narrates the historical account of the rigorous derivation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and claims that some of the derivation used after Heisenberg's presentation of it may have been flawed.

However, what caught my eye was the single author of this paper. It is John. H. Marburger III. When I checked his affiliation, I was correct. This is THE John Marburger who is currently the embattled "Science Adviser" to President's George W. Bush.

Immediately, 2 things came to my mind. First, at least he still gets to continue to explore scholarly topics, even in the historical sense, while he holds this position. But secondly, he must be bored in his current job to actually have some time to do such in-depth research. :) That last comment, of course, is purely speculative on my part.

Zz.

[1] J.H. Marburger III, Am. J. Phys. v.76, p.585 (2008).

Arsenic Poison Didn't Kill Napoleon

Another myth bites the dust.

A new study by physicists at INFN in Milano-Bicocca and Pavia, Italy, has shown that there's no difference in the arsenic level in Napoleon's hair during his last days when compared to when he was a child. This means that he wasn't deliberately poisoned by arsenic during his last days. Instead, it was more likely that it was due to a lifetime's worth of exposure to arsenic.

Zz.

Ettore Majorana And His Heritage Seventy Years Later

For those who are not familiar with the story of Ettore Majorana, this is probably a good introduction to his life, and his contribution to physics within such a short period of time till he mysteriously disappeared some 70 years ago. I consider him the Emelia Earhart or the Jimmy Hoffa of physics because of this disappearance, which is still has not been solved.

Zz.

Lord Kelvin's Follies

Now I don't know if what has been quoted here as being from Lord Kelvin is accurate or even true. So let's get that out of the way first of all. Still, this webpage lists several erroneous statements that is attributed to Kelvin that obviously aren't true, or even accurate, anymore. Certainly the part about physics being a dead subject isn't true (if only he is alive today to see how that is so not true).

Still, how is that any different than the grandiose claim that some physicists have made regarding "The Theory of Everything", even when, admittedly, such a theory can't come up with a description of everything, such as many emergent phenomena.

Zz.

How a Catholic Priest Gave Us the Big Bang Theory

This is a rather interesting article on Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest who, this article claim, to have been the first who originated the "Big Bang Theory" of cosmology. You might want to read this and judge for yourself if it is accurate.

I have no issues with such claims. However, I do have a problem with the underlying tone of the article. It appears as if the author of the article tries very hard to imply that the Big Bang Theory itself has "religious" origins, simply because the first person who made such a scenario happens to be a catholic priest. That's as absurd as the Nazi during World War II trying to erase Einstein's Theory of Relativity because it had "Jewish" elements. It seems that Lemaitre was being just a good scientist and examined the evidence available at that time to come up with a scientific description, something that Galileo had done a long time ago. Even the article itself described this process:

Returning to Belgium in 1925, where he worked at the Catholic University of Leuven as a part-time lecturer, his big break came two years later in 1927 when he proposed his theory of an expanding Universe to explain the movement of the galaxies, published in the Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels.

In other words, he came up with the theory to explain the observation, and not based on some pre-conceived religious view of the universe. The fact that he happened to be a catholic priest is incidental and irrelevant, at least from the story. I would bet that the paper that he published never cited any religious sources to justify the impetus for the theory.

Strangely enough, while the author wants christians to "take credit" for the Big Bang theory, he seems to have ignored the incompatibility between the cosmological age of the universe based on the Big Bang Theory, and the biblical age of the universe that various christians sects have stuck to. I mean, 14 billion years old is hugely different than 60,000 years old! Even if one were to fudge a few numbers here and there, and make rough estimates of many things, there's no way one can make those two numbers approach even remotely the same order of magnitude. To me, this also points to the "non-religious" origin of the Big Bang theory in cosmology.

To associate the origin and impetus of a theory simply to the religion of the originator is taking a rather large leap of logic. Unless one can specifically cite the exact impetus that subsequently becomes the theory, then simply using the argument that a theory has catholic origin because so-and-so is catholic is logically faulty.

Zz.

Oppeneimer Comes To The Opera

I mentioned earlier that Dr. Atomic will be making its operatic debut at the Chicago Lyric Opera this coming January. The Chicago Tribune has a preview of this work that is currently in rehearsal.

I'm not much of an opera buff, but I am certainly considering attending this one. It isn't often that there's something related to either physics or physicists on stage. The last one that I attended was "Copenhagen" on Broadway, and it was outstanding. So if this is as good as the original review of the San Francisco premier, maybe I can sit through an opera for a couple of hours. :)

Zz.

Dark Energy: The Decade Ahead

This is a terrific article on the physics of Dark Energy, and what we can expect in the next decade or so. It was written by two of the leading figures in this field, Eric Linder and Saul Perlmutter.

There's also a rather good article on the history of the discovery of the accelerating universe that led to the idea of dark energy. It was written by Robert Crease. Not only is the story interesting, but it tells you of the workings and the competition between different groups within the same field and trying to study almost the same thing.

Zz.

Debye Was Not An Anti-Semite Or A Nazi

This is rather interesting, mainly because I missed the whole controversy in the first place. A news report in Science's daily news update based on a thorough investigation historian Martijn Eickhoff of the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation appears to have exonerated Peter Debye of being a Nazi and an anti-Semite. The allegations were made by physicist and journalist Sybe Rispens in a book and in a magazine article titled "Nobel Laureate With Dirty Hands".

The 200-page study by historian Martijn Eickhoff of the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, commissioned by the Dutch science ministry and published yesterday, concludes that Rispens's picture of Debye was a "caricature" that contains multiple errors. Eickhoff points out that Debye seemed to think that he had to do what he could to keep German physics afloat. Although he didn't actively resist the Nazi regime, there were "moments of opposition," the study notes, such as his helping two Jewish colleagues escape from Germany. To retain his position, he developed a "survival mechanism of ambiguity."

The full report in English can be found here.

Zz.

Dr. Atomic at Lyric Opera of Chicago

Doctor Atomic will be performed at the Lyric Opera of Chicago from Dec. 14, 2007 through Jan. 19, 2008. This is a critically-acclaimed opera based on the events surrounding the first detonation of the atomic bomb at Los Alamos in New Mexico.

Not into opera, you say? Well, look at it this way, at least it is in English! :)

Zz.

Why They Called It The Manhattan Project

Like almost everyone else, I didn't think the name "Manhattan Project" given to the secret nuclear project at Los Alamos in New Mexico during WWII had anything to do with the real Manhattan, NY. But this fascinating article in the New York Times traces the origin of the Manhattan Project, and it did have roots out of Manhattan.

Zz.

The Nobel Prize: Did You Know…?

With all the Nobel Prize fever going on this week as each winner is announced, here's a nice diversion but still about the Nobel Prize. It's all about the neat history and trivia about the Nobel Prize that you may not know, except, of course, about John Bardeen which I'm sure you've read about in my blog entry, haven't you?

:)

Zz.

Einstein Failed Mathematics?

For some odd reason, this myth seems to perpetuate no matter how many times it gets debunked (very much like the claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics).

This myth is now a new entry in a collection of physics myths. Hopefully, there's enough people who know about this to help destroy it.

Zz.

Examples of the Zeroth Theorem of the History of Physics

This is just a fun paper to read, even if it is only for historical context. J.D. Jackson (he of the dreaded "Classical Electrodynamics" graduate level text author) has written a rather engaging essay on the assignment of "names" to various discovery/invention in physics. He calls it the Zeroth Theorem of the History of Physics. And I think there's often quite a bit of truth in it based on my own observation.

The zeroth theorem has some similarities to the "Matthew effect" The Matthew effect describes how a more prominent researcher will reap all the credit even if a lesser known person has done essentially the same work contemporaneously, or how the most senior researcher in a group effort will get all the recognition, even though all the real work was done by graduate students or postdocs. The zeroth theorem might be considered as the first kind of Matthew effect , but with some time delay, although some examples do not fit the prominent/lesser constrain. Neither do my examples reflect, as far as I know, the possible influence by the senior researcher or friends to discount or ignore the contributions of others. The zeroth theorem stands on its own, examples often arising because the first enunciator was before his/her time or because the community was not diligent in searching the prior literature before attaching a name to the discovery or relation or effect.

You'll get to know all the participants that may not get the recognition that they deserve in some of the well-known formulations that we currently use.

Zz.

Women and the Physics Nobel Prize

I continue to be amazed at some of the errors being reported in the media, even if it is simply a report of somebody else's mistake. The fact that the reporter and the editor didn't catch it is quite a glaring reflection on how much (or little) they pay attention to science.

I mentioned earlier about the mistake done with regards to Dyson and the Nobel Prize. A news report made a mistake of assuming that Dyson has won a Nobel Prize. He hasn't. So now comes another blunder. This reporter attended an "economic conference" where a speaker said this:

Finally, as Steven Pressman, an economist at Monmouth University, noted, "Female economists rarely receive the highest accolades or the tangible symbols signifying approval or distinction." He’s right! Since 1969 (when the Nobel was first awarded in economics), women have won Nobel prizes in all categories except economics and physics. Even Joan Robinson and Barbara Bergmann, two of the most distinguished female economists in history, have been snubbed.

Er... Hello? What did Marie Curie won the Nobel Prizes in? She did it once in Physics, and another one in Chemistry. I mean, this is not even considered an "obscure" fact because this is such a major accomplishment. Not only that, we have a second woman that won the Nobel Prize - Maria Goeppert-Mayer did it in 1963.

So really, there's no excuse.....

Zz.

edit:

OOOPS! It is my mistake this time.

The writer clearly wrote "Since 1969.... ", which I obviously didn't pay attention to. Rather than delete my boo-boo, I'm going to leave it here just to remind me to be MORE CAREFUL in reading these things in the future and not to be too fast to jump all over it.

Zz.

Award-Winning Documentary Outlines the Contributions of Black Scientists

This is a news article on a award-winning documentary that highlights the contribution of African-American scientists, especially during the period of World War II. Many of these scientists either never got the credit they deserve, or it came later. It is also rather painful to read the kinds of treatment they had to endure, even when what they did was vital to the war effort and the security of the nation.

I suppose even today, while it is no longer as blatant and as bad as it was during the period covered in the documentary, there are still issues surrounding the fair treatment of minorities and women in the sciences. My personal take on this is that in terms of one becoming a physicist, the issue of race is no longer there. The small group that I work in has such a diverse ethnic, racial, and national composition. We have scientists/engineers/students from the US (of course), China, Brazil, Russia, Malaysia, and Lebanon. And for most students and faculty members in physics, it is highly common to have students from all over the world in the classes and in research projects. So in physics and other sciences, I would hazard a guess that one tends to have more contacts with people from various parts of the world than in most other areas (unless of course one works in some international relations vocation). So scientists, in general, I would think would be more familiar with other nationalities, and the issues of someone being different is usually not a big issue.

What could be a big issue is in the promotion of people into upper management and decision-making position. The question on whether there are enough minorities and women in tenured positions at well-known schools have always been an issue being discussed continually. A former Harvard president even "lost" his job recently for a rather flippant remark made about why there are fewer women in the sciences. So this issue certainly hasn't gone away.

Zz.

He Bore Down On The Atom

Maybe the titled should have read "He Bohr Down on the Atom". :)

[insert groan here]

I'm not sure what was the impetus for this article, but it gives an account of Niels Bohr's life and accomplishments. I can't vouch for the accuracy of it, and you can certainly find a more detailed biography of Bohr in many other books. Still, if you no knowing about Bohr and can't tell the difference between him and a "bore", then this might be a good place to start.

Edit: I should have pointed this out in the first place. Since we are talking about Bohr, his life story, and his accomplishments, I would like to point out that the AIP has a very good website on the Niels Bohr Library and Archives. This should supplement what you read in that news article.

Zz.

The Discovery of the Electron

This is a good website at the American Institute of Physics (AIP) on the history of the discovery of the electron. It is a very good review even for people (such as physicists) who think they already know the important points in this history.

Zz.

Tetrahedral Kites

Here's a project you can build, and make a historical connection with Alexander Graham Bell (yes, THAT Bell). It's a tetrahedral kite that supposedly can fly. Follow one of the links in the article to a webpage that has instructions on how to build one.

Have fun!

Zz.

This Week in Physics History: May 7 - 13

This is from the About: Physics website. It has all the significant physics events that occurred in this week. However, one part of it is puzzling me.

May 9, 1931 - Polish-born American physicist Albert Abraham Michelson dies. Michelson was the first American physicist to win a Nobel Prize in the sciences, with his 1907 Nobel Prize in Physics. He is best known for his work in the famed Michelson-Morley experiment, which helped to disprove the concept of ether and, thus, laid the foundation for wave particle duality.

How does "disproving" ether "laid the foundation" for wave-particle duality? It was Einstein's photoelectric effect, which was a completely separate phenomena (and 1905 paper), that "laid the foundation" for such "wave-particle duality"[1]. The MM experiment simply shows that the speed of light is isotropic in all directions. There is not even a hint of the "particle" behavior in here.

Zz.

[1] I am not fond of this phrase, because it perpetuates the misconception that modern physics, especially quantum mechanics, has two different ways of describing light, which isn't true. While we do use "wave" and "particle" mechanics in different circumstances, this isn't due to a "duality" but rather due to convenience. One can get all those wave-like properties such as diffraction and interference using the SAME QM formulation that make use of the photon picture.

Brookhaven's Tale of Two Anniversaries

Brookhaven National Laboratory this year celebrates its 60th Anniversary. But it also celebrates a more painful anniversary that threatened its existence and reveals just how much the public and its neighbors really are susceptible to misinformation. This piece by Robert Crease is an excellent article describing the issues surrounding this debacle.

I mentioned about the closing of the HFBR in an earlier essay here. The public's support of science is definitely based not on an intimate understanding of science, but rather based on the perceived importance of science. Thus, it isn't built on a solid foundation and can be gone in the blink of an eye.

I was working at the lab at the tail end of this mistrust between the lab and the surrounding neighborhood, so I saw first hand what was going on. People were being swayed by hearsay and by bells and whistles, rather than hard facts, because they were not equipped to understand and decipher hard facts.

To the lab's credit, they have worked very hard to make themselves less mysterious. The Summer Sunday Tour that they organize every summer because a huge hit with large number of visitors. Still, the closing of the HFBR is a major scar of this battle that will remain a lasting legacy of not only the lab, but also on the public that got swayed by scare tactics.

Zz.