I've seen this episode of America's Test Kitchen before. It is Ep. 1 of Season 19. However, during a recent rerun of the show, I did a double take when I read the description of the show being displayed on my TV menu guide:
There as an entry that said "non-Newtonian fluids".
Like I said, I've seen this show before, at least twice, and I don't quite remember them mentioning this type of phenomenon.
When I saw the show again, I realized what it was. They had a "Science" segment on "fluids" such as ketchup and liquid thickened by corn starch. These two are common examples of..... you guessed it ... non-Newtonian fluids.
But interestingly enough, no where in the show or during this segment, did any mention of the phrase "non-Newtonian fluids" ever appeared. It was odd that they would discuss the phenomenon, but not mention the name given to it. Yet, it appears on the description for this episode. At the very least, giving the phenomenon a name not only allows someone who wants to know more about it something to Google on, but also relates known physics to a common observation.
Or maybe they don't want to mention it so as not to scare away their audience?
This is a common problem that many of us who teach intro physics encounter. Students, and the general public, often have a severe misunderstanding of the concept of "weightlessness", and equate that to having zero gravity. Certainly the example of being in a free-falling elevator, or even the example of the zero-g simulation in airplanes (the "vomit comet") are clear examples where one can be weightless but still in an environment with g not being zero.
It is one of those topics where, as physics instructors, we are resigned to a life-sentence of educating people non-stop about this misconception.
Clifford Johnson of USC has an interesting article on ways to introduce science (or physics in particular), back into things that the public usually gravitate to. In particular, he asks the question on how we can put legitimate science into popular culture so that the public will get to see it more regularly.
Science, though, gets portrayed as opposite to art, intuition and
mystery, as though knowing in detail how that flower works somehow
undermines its beauty. As a practicing physicist, I disagree. Science
can enhance our appreciation of the world around us. It should be part
of our general culture, accessible to all. Those “special talents”
required in order to engage with and even contribute to science are
present in all of us.
So how do we bring about a change? I think using the tools of the
general culture to integrate science with everything else in our lives
can be a big part of the solution.
Read the rest of the article on how to inject science into popular entertainment, etc.
So, if you did watch the 2017 Academy Awards last night and didn't run away during the commercials (at least here in the US), you may have seen the GE commercial to celebrate women in science that featured the late Millie Dresselhaus. She, of course, passed away on Feb 20, so this commercial has become a tribute to her and left a legacy to encourage women to enter science, and physics in particular.
In the commercial, GE asks what it would be like if we treated women scientists like celebrities and deserving of the accolades and recognition like any pop celebrities.
If you missed it, here's the commercial once again:
If you are in the US, did you see the NOVA episode on PBS last night titled "The Nuclear Option"? If you did, did you miss, or not miss, the technique of imaging the Fukushima reactor core using the muon tomography developed at Los Alamos?
You see, whenever I see something like this, I want to shout out loud to the public on another example where our knowledge from high energy physics/elementary particle physics can produce a direct practical benefit. A lot of people still question whether our efforts in these so-called esoteric areas are worth funding. So whenever I see something like this, there should be a conscious and precise effort to point out that:
1. We had to first understand the physics of muons from our knowledge of the Standard Model of elementary particle.
2. Then those who do understand this often will start to figure out, often with collaboration of those in other areas of physics, of what could possibly be done with such knowledge.
3. And finally, they come up with a practical application of that knowledge, which originated out of an area that often produces no immediate and obvious application.
Things like this must be pointed out in SIMPLE TERMS to both the public and the politicians, because that is the only level that they can comprehend. I've pointed out previously many examples of the benefits that we get, directly or indirectly, from such field of study. It should be a requirement that any practical application should present a short "knowledge genealogy" of where the idea came from. It will be an eye-opener to many people.
Chad Orzel has an article on Forbes explaining a bit more on what quantum teleportation is, and how it is different than those transporters in Star Trek. You might think that this is rather well-known since this has been covered many times, even on this blog. But the ignorance of what quantum teleportation is still pops up frequently, and I see people on public forums still think that we can transport objects from one location to another because "quantum teleportation" has been verified.
So, if you are still cloudy on this topic, you might want to read that article.
Rhett Allain vented his frustration on the bad physics being used to explain the "exploding anvil" situation from the TV show "Outrageous Acts of Science".
See if you can take up his challenge and come up with a better diagram and explanation. :)
This is a rather last-minute notice, but if you are in the Chicago area, Dirk Morr will discuss the physics and technology behind Star Trek, today, Wednesday, April 2, 2014, at the University of Illinois at Chicago campus.
Dirk K. Morr, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, joins us to discuss the scientific ideas behind Star Trek technologies. Morr will present his findings at 6:00 pm on Wednesday at the University of Illinois at Chicago in the Behavioral Science Building.
You may read the rest of the article to see what science and technologies from Star Trek that have some resemblance to what we do now.
With the anniversary of the Kennedy assassination recently, a slew of TV shows and articles on that tragic event came into being. One of the more fascinating documentary was on NOVA. One of the biggest source of controversy, and the source for many conspiratorial theory that there was more than one shot at the President on that day was the examination of the way the President's head moved upon impact of the bullet. Many believe that the fact that the video showed the head moving backwards, i.e in the opposite direction that the Oswald bullet entered, showed that there must be another bullet that entered from the front.
The NOVA documentary appeared to have ignored a physics explanation that had been put forward to explain this many years ago. David Jackson, the editor of AJP, expressed his surprise that a well-respected documentary such as NOVA let this observation stood unanswered. He wrote his commentary on this in the Jan 2014 issue of AJP.
But not only that. Due to the anniversary, and wanting to make sure the public knows that there's a perfectly valid explanation to account for what was observed using just a single bullet from the back picture, AJP is making Luis Alvarez paper from 1976 freely available.
If you are in the US or have access to PBS, this might be of interest to you.
The first part of a 4-part NOVA "Making Stuff" series will air tomorrow (Sept. 19, 2012). The first installment will be on the strongest material.
What is the strongest material in the world? Is it steel, Kevlar, carbon
nanotubes, or something entirely new? NOVA kicks off the four-part
series "Making Stuff" with a quest for the world's strongest substances.
Host David Pogue takes a look at what defines strength, examining
everything from steel cables to mollusk shells to a toucan's beak. Pogue
travels from the deck of a U.S. naval aircraft carrier to a demolition
derby to the country's top research labs to check in with experts who
are re-engineering what nature has given us to create the next
generation of strong stuff.
Hey, did you see NOVA's "Hunting the Elements" last week? If you enjoyed that, then there's an iPad app for you to continue with your exploration of the various elements.
The Elements iPad AppThe
free app, available now on the App Store, takes the periodic table off
the wall and puts it into users’ hands, bringing life to the world’s
elements in colorful and dynamic ways.
NOVA
Elements, featuring tech guru David Pogue, allows users to explore an
interactive periodic table, build elements from their particles,
construct 3D rotating molecules, and watch the two-hour NOVA program,
“Hunting the Elements,” premiering tonight at 9PM/8c on PBS (check local
listings).
The NOVA Elements App allows users to:
Learn key facts about each element: its discovery, appearance, real-world application and more.
Play
in an atomic sandbox to create any or all of the 118 elements by adding
the correct number of protons, neutrons and electrons.
Combine
the elements you’ve built into 3D rotatable molecules found in everyday
objects, like a banana or a watch, in the “My Essential Elements” game.
Jump to related segments in NOVA’s “Hunting the Elements” program with the tappable periodic table.
Share
your exploration and discoveries with tweets.
Watch the complete two-hour NOVA program, “Hunting the Elements.” Streaming is only available in the U.S. and its territories.
The NOVA Elements App is available for free from the App Store on iPad or at here.
So here's another app to add to something that might be useful and relevant to physics.
One can argue on what is the big deal about something like this. After all, we see bad physics in TV and movies very often. Well, this isn't a big deal at all. It is just a fun exercise, even for students, to practice their knowledge on simple kinematics. But on the other hand, considering that physics-based games such as Angry Birds, Where's My Water, etc. are trying to get as close to being physics-accurate, there's very little reason (other than pure fiction or pure fantasy) to completely blow away all kinds of reality.
"The Big Bang Theory" TV series got its dream guest star - Stephen Hawking.
The renowned theoretical physicist will guest-star on the April 5 episode of the CBS comedy, the network said Monday. In the cameo, Hawking visits uber-geek Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons) at work "to share his beautiful mind with his most ardent admirer," according to CBS.
I still haven't watched this series. Most of my friends kept asking me if I have seen it, and I kept having to say that I haven't. Then they look at me funny.
Maybe one of these days, I might see it, get terribly addicted to it, and can't stop talking about it. Till that happens, I have to keep telling people that I haven't seen it.
I mentioned about a news article on physicist David Saltzberg a while back, who is a consultant for the "The Big Bang Theory" TV series. Now Symmetry Magazine has an interview with him on his role for that show and all the surrounding impact. It's a very good interview and covers a lot of grounds.
Apparently, I missed all these high-level brouhaha about a segment on a Brian Cox's TV show.
The controversy is about whether all the electrons in the universe
really move energy levels imperceptibly when Brian heats the diamond,
whether it's instantaneous, and whether it is anything to do with the
Pauli exclusion principle. The Pauli exclusion principle says that no
two fermions can be in the same quantum state. Lily wrote a bit about it
here.
Brian's main response to criticism so far has been to point to these lecture notes by his co-author Jeff Forshaw.
You can read Jon Butterworth's take on this whole thing. However, reading this, I think it reinforced why I became an experimentalist! :) Oh, I know, many of these "theoretical curiosity" can lead to important things. You don't have to tell me that. But then, one can say the same thing about String Theory. At some point, when there isn't anything that can be verified by experiments, it becomes only an OPINION! One can argue that it is in the equations, or in QM in this case. Well, I can say the same thing about the Higgs. Yet, we spent billions on making sure it DOES exists and not just simply someone's opinion!
BTW, is this the most technical physics piece that has ever been written for a newspaper? I mean, when was the last time you open your local papers and read something like this?
If you treat each electron as though it sits in a "potential well"
(created by the electrostatic field of the atomic nucleus), a good place
to start is by thinking of a universe full of atoms as though it were a
bunch of potential wells.
Next you have to solve this
multiple-potential-well problem. Jeff's notes solve the Schroedinger
equation for two wells as an example, and show that whereas for an
infinite potential you'd have two spatially-localised energy levels with identical energies, for a finite potential you have two non-localised energy levels with very slightly different energies.
I was rolling all over the floor watching this video, because not only is it kinda amateurish (nothing wrong with that, really), but it is hysterically funny, and they didn't intend it to be! :)
This video is a demo of the 2 Newton Laws of motion, which is fine and dandy. The demo for 1st Law (inertia) was rather clear. The object not in motion will want to stay that way unless acted upon by a force. Unfortunately, the website only describes an object that is in "uniform motion".
First Law: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
So the demo and the written description do not match.
The problem comes in with the demo for the 2nd and 3rd Laws. They were not very clear at all and, in fact, may have missed the mark. The 2nd Law (F=ma) was demonstrate with a hammer knocking on various objects of different masses. So year, you need more force to push on heavier mass, but how would this show the relationship between F, m, and a? It doesn't, because you can't get "a" or "F" from just looking at the demo.
The 3rd Law (action = reaction) was demonstrated with a balloon and letting the air out. The person simply blurted out in passing that the air pushes one way and the balloon pushes the other way. Huh? A "general public" person would ask "how does air pushes one way and how does the balloon pushes the other way?" It isn't clear how things are being pushed here. If anything, this is more of a demo of conservation of linear momentum.
And unfortunately, that's what the demo following this one is all about. The person started to demonstrate conservation of angular momentum, which isn't even covered. No mention of what is involved here, and no clear physics explanation was mentioned.
I'm being nit-picky here because we have seen many physics demo, even done on a shoe-string budget. I'd rather the presentation be on ONE topic (say, inertia since that was done very clearly) and the physics is explained clearly, rather than rush through a bunch of demo without any kind of details. Just simply producing a bunch of demo one after the other turns it into a circus, without any kind of useful knowledge being passed on.
For better or for worse, a 4-part PBS TV series on Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" will air this November (at least in the US). Just barely 8 years after his series on String Theory "The Elegant Universe" aired, we will have another trip down the super-fantastic lane of speculation beyond experiment.
Don't get me wrong, I think TV series like this spurs the imagination of kids, and maybe even make them interested in physics. But I think there is a severe imbalance in areas of physics that get the publicity almost all the time, while the workhorse of physics, which occupies the MAJORITY of the subject area, does not get any type of publicity. Why? Because areas such as condensed matter seem to not be sexy enough to inspire such fantastic imagination, which is purely baloney.
So what we end up with is the impression on the public that physics is nothing more than these esoteric subject matter that has very little to do with their everyday existence. This gets very tiring very quickly.
I know a lot of people love The Big Bang Theory. I have to admit that I haven't even seen a single episode. I have nothing against it. I just don't often watch network TV, or TV series.
Still, this is an interesting article on the person responsible for doing the physics fact-checking for the show - Prof. David Saltzberg of UCLA.
But he’s a rock star because Big Bang Theory is the
least-impressive thing on his resume. Saltzberg, 44, has a bachelor’s in
physics from Princeton University, where he worked on the Cyclotron. He
has a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Chicago and did his
post-doc at CERN, the
European nuclear research center. These days, when he’s not reading show
scripts, he teaches a full course load at UCLA. In his free time he
flies scientific balloons in Antarctica and uses hiatuses from the show
to hop over to Switzerland to work on the Large Hadron Collider.
All I can say is, at the very least, this TV series tries to show some respect towards the science, rather than just making things up, or worse still, consulting someone that doesn't have the expertise.
