SCIENCE - What actually is Science ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

But the waves you are describing are not quantised (or discrete, or incremental).

But that is the Point .

 

It's as if each incremental increase or decrease ' ALL ,' go up or go down' together .

 

1. Smooth. 2 miniature. 3medium , 4 rough. Very Occasionally 5 very rough.

 

But , I might be deluded.

 

But it would explain this ON. OFF nature which is a distinct characteristic .

 

I cannot say with any certainty , because I have not measured them . BUT

 

They appear , at first glance, to appear , incrementally . " Going from nothing ..to something in a """" quantum """ jump. . Then from something to next largest , by a """"quantum """"" jump to the next size

 

 

However , I have noticed something else , there is the look of a vibrating string ,in cross section .

As if the patch of disturbance is all part of one whole ' patch ' . Not fragmented in any way . Each wave supporting the next . Almost like a traveling wave . Where the end nodes are going around the perimeter , the ' calm ' at the extremity of the patch .

 

This All tallies with my previous observations , " at sea " . Seen from the high cliffs behind Torquay ,

Going west , a distant view from on high . Quite often . You can see distinct areas of calm , the rest , rough . On or off . It seems as if , it is the air flow that you cannot see , is the source of this . Which is understood . But why the ( On - Off nature ,) that is the interesting bit . The """" quantum """" bit .

 

I am almost frightened to say it but something , sort of happens when blowing bubbles. They either make it into a bubble , or shrink back into a film . Once they go into bubbles , they are complete , but different sizes. Again , incremental .

 

 

Mike

 

Ps . I will get back to some other examples of scientific development ( like the Brownian - Einstein motion) , however I did not want to leave this wave example hanging.

 

Interesting , many scientific developments, are not sitting at a bench making a descovery ! Not always but often . They are fragmented , trouble driven accidental, contivercial , debated . Dogs getting in the way , Untidy development of new theories.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

It's as if each incremental increase or decrease ' ALL ,' go up or go down' together .

 

I assume that is because they are all created by the same conditions.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I assume that is because they are all created by the same conditions.

Yes , but intuitively , I would have thought turbulent air flow , to be very untidy ( don't know because you cannot see it) .

The evidence , namely the pictures of the , rucking of the water , are quite the opposite . The edges of the turbulent water , are tidy , prolonged, curvy , almost artistic in their , effect on the water. Eg long fairly straight flowing lines of demarcation .

 

Edited April 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Do we want to start a new thread on shallow water waves, wind waves and fluid dynamics with fluid boundaries?

 

I think we are digressing here from the opening questions.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Do we want to start a new thread on shallow water waves, wind waves and fluid dynamics with fluid boundaries?I think we are digressing here from the opening questions.

Well we can do , . Trouble is I do not really know much about that subject. I was just using it as a quick example , of something I had caught my eye , and the flow of conversation seemed to take off with a mind of its own .

 

I am happy to drop the subject right now .

 

Say let's talk About .... The discovery of radio waves by Hertz and Marconi .. How is that ?

 

That surely fits into " What actually is Science "

 

Mike

Edited April 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Say let's talk About .... The discovery of radio waves by Hertz and Marconi .. How is that ?

The question is were radio waves predicted by Maxwell or were they first discovered by Hertz?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The question is were radio waves predicted by Maxwell or were they first discovered by Hertz?

If my memory serves me right , which is highly unlikely at the moment ,

 

Hertz discovered them by doing some experiment with Leyden jars or something in one part of the lab. And a spark jumped across a spark gap the other side of the room .( not expected) . He supposed said " what's going on here . Or was that Marconi?

 

I think it was Hertz , that's why radio waves are categorised as say 7.000 MHz namely seven Mega(million ) Hertz or cycles .

 

I don't know , but I think they were contemporaries and lived roughly the same period ? Not sure ?

 

I think Marconi picked up on Hertz 's work . ( guess around 1850 to 1900 time )

 

I know Maxwell ( not sure on dates though ) did the Maths ( you would have got on well with him ) . I would have been in the labs with Hertz and Marconi.

 

But as you no doubt are fully aware .Maxwell did all the formation of Div, Grad, and Curl. Some nasty maths on electricity and magnetism producing the famous Electro magnetic theory of radio and light waves . Both travelling at 186,000 miles per second ( approx ) . So 3/4 way to moon in a second !

 

Mike

Edited April 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Maxwell developed his theory before Hertz's work. Maxwell predicted electromagnetic radiation and that it propagated at the speed of light. I am not sure if Maxwell said anything specific about what we now call radio waves.

 

Hertz then used Maxwell's theory to produce and receive radio waves. So, Hertz confirmed Maxwell's theory to be a 'good' theory and that radio waves travel at the speed of light (up to some experimental accuracy). Thus the predictions of Maxwell were confirmed.

 

This is doing science starting from some disconnected peices of theory and experiment, brining them together using a theory, making predictions and then having these predictions confirmed. This is modern physics.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Maxwell developed his theory before Hertz's work. Maxwell predicted electromagnetic radiation and that it propagated at the speed of light. I am not sure if Maxwell said anything specific about what we now call radio waves.Hertz then used Maxwell's theory to produce and receive radio waves. So, Hertz confirmed Maxwell's theory to be a 'good' theory and that radio waves travel at the speed of light (up to some experimental accuracy). Thus the predictions of Maxwell were confirmed.This is doing science starting from some disconnected peices of theory and experiment, brining them together using a theory, making predictions and then having these predictions confirmed. This is modern physics.

.

Very orderly I am sure .

 

 

At least you make it sound . Very orderly .

 

My suspicions are Maxwells home was very orderly . ( Perhaps a Copy of Young's work on wave fronts of light , sitting in his book shelf , and Newton ' Principea ' )

 

Hertz's lab and Marconi's lab was in a right state , with wires and coils and spark gaps and Leyden jars , all over the place . ( wires hanging out the window , connected to kites . Etc perhaps the odd Jack Russel dog running about )

 

Mike

Edited April 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

Very orderly

 

At least you make it sound . Very orderly .

 

My suspicions are Maxwells home was very orderly .

 

Hertz's lab and Marconi's lab was in a right state , with wires and coils and spark gaps and Leyden jars , all over the place . ( wires hanging out the window , connected to kites . Etc )

 

Mike

We can all make stuff up. Do you have any evidence for this?

 

I just looked at the principles of mechanics by Hertz, it was full of maths. Almost as if he was a physicist who knew maths was fundamental to his calling.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

We can all make stuff up. Do you have any evidence for this?

I just looked at the principles of mechanics by Hertz, it was full of maths. Almost as if he was a physicist who knew maths was fundamental to his calling.

My evidence would be , if I can find my book on Scientists and inventors over the centuries.

 

There is probably no picture of Maxwell , that I can remember . He is there as one of the Great men of science ,But there are pictures of Herz lab and Marconi in his lab both covered in pieces of partly made up equipment .

 

I had to do maths for my various studies , lots of maths , mind bending maths . But I can't say its my favourite pass time . And I think my brain has been permanently damaged by maths .

 

I personally prefer the Observation, the thinking and the experimental And hypothesising , aspect of the process of How science works . I could possibly follow the maths , and get a nasty headache in the process , but Everyman to his own skills .

 

Mike

Edited April 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

To make accurate observations, experiments, comparisons and hypothesis you need maths. There's no aspect of modern physics which isn't mathematical.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

To make accurate observations, experiments, comparisons and hypothesis you need maths. There's no aspect of modern physics which isn't mathematical.

You are right , I am sure , for modern physics . I was hoping to pick up on some 'droppings ' which might have got missed along the Way. I am sure Science has not ' Trawled ' everything up as it has swept through the 20 th and 21 st centuries

 

I think there has been a concentration on the precision of maths as it has build models of everything from the smallest particle upwards . I do not think it is as accurate or useful in the development of understanding when it calls for ' wholistic 'objects

 

Wholistic ref :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholistic_reference

 

Mike

Edited April 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

No . I have just wanted to use the word " Quantum " . ( not the couplet ' quantum mechanics' ) , To describe an incremental quantity of a ' value ' which represented a minimum , energy that was required for a change to occur . ( say an increment value of energy transfer ' breeze to water wave ' ) . So in this discussion , I have been featuring wind or breeze blowing against the surface of water , so as to set up small surface waves. As shown in my photographs . I thought it could be used across all values , not just sub atomic values. Thus to go to the next size up of wave , there would be a second incremental change , so a double amount of energy required . In other words I was suggesting there was not a continuous range of wave sizes possible . But I could of course be wrong.

 

I appreciate for this I would need to experiment to prove the values of energy , for each wave size . *

 

 

 

That behavior would be apparent in the math, but there's nothing on that scale that's quantized.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

That behavior would be apparent in the math, but there's nothing on that scale that's quantized.

I am not sure which maths , you are saying " there's nothing on that scale that's quantised " if you are talking on the subject I am supposed to moving away from , the comment I would make is as I have just made in the previous post , namely

"

I think there has been a concentration on the precision of maths as it has build models of everything from the smallest particle upwards . I do not think it is 'as accurate or useful ' in the development of understanding when it calls for ' wholistic 'objects ( or systems for that matter )

 

Wholistic ref :- https://en.m.wikiped...istic_reference. "

 

However , I have to admit I do not know the maths you speak of ? Perhaps it is a system type analysis. Which includes all the relevant influences on movement ? All the variables ?

 

Mike

Edited April 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

I am not sure which maths , you are saying " there's nothing on that scale that's quantised " if you are talking on the subject I am supposed to moving away from , the comment I would make is as I have just made in the previous post , namely

"

I think there has been a concentration on the precision of maths as it has build models of everything from the smallest particle upwards . I do not think it is 'as accurate or useful ' in the development of understanding when it calls for ' wholistic 'objects ( or systems for that matter )

 

 

How do you know this, if you are ignorant of the state of science? You're simply assuming that something isn't understood by anyone, just because you don't understand it. That's not science.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

How do you know this, if you are ignorant of the state of science? You're simply assuming that something isn't understood by anyone, just because you don't understand it. That's not science.

Well I do not know . I was asking , whatever it is , you are quoting , as you have not been telling me what maths you are quoting is?

I then have suggested that , because there is a tendency to build proof by looking for dependancy of one effect being based on another , that whatever maths you are saying, (" but there's nothing on that scale that's quantized. " ) Does that include any influences of a systemic nature ? I am trying to cover all options . , similarly does it include Surface Tension, I should imagine it does ?

 

Mike

Edited April 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Well I do not know . I was asking , whatever it is , you are quoting , as you have not been telling me what maths you are quoting is?

I then have suggested that , because there is a tendency to build proof by looking for dependancy of one effect being based on another , that whatever maths you are saying, (" but there's nothing on that scale that's quantized. " ) Does that include any influences of a systemic nature ? I am trying to cover all options . , similarly does it include Surface Tension, I should imagine it does ?

 

Mike

 

 

I don't know what the specific maths are. I'm trying to hold to the spirit of the topic being a general discussion, rather than solving an individual problem. (probably a good idea, seeing as there were two moderator notes to this effect)

 

But fluid dynamics is a long-established part of science, and people have been studying waves for a long time. If you're trying to cover all options, how about having the first option be "check to see if this problem has been solved already"

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Maxwell developed his theory before Hertz's work. Maxwell predicted electromagnetic radiation and that it propagated at the speed of light. I am not sure if Maxwell said anything specific about what we now call radio waves.Hertz then used Maxwell's theory to produce and receive radio waves. So, Hertz confirmed Maxwell's theory to be a 'good' theory and that radio waves travel at the speed of light (up to some experimental accuracy). Thus the predictions of Maxwell were confirmed.This is doing science starting from some disconnected peices of theory and experiment, brining them together using a theory, making predictions and then having these predictions confirmed. This is modern physics.

Although Maxwell laid a basis for radio communication , it was Hertz and Marconi who developed it in practical devices

 

With the development of transmission across air/ space firstly by sparks as a source being detected by coherence receivers .

By (Hertz )

This later moved to oscillating electrical current in a coil and capacitor combination, joined to a wire aerial . By ( Marconi )

 

As time progressed the frequency of oscillation moved right up the frequency Band from long wave ( 1500 meters wavelength or less , used on early radios right up to Microwaves up at ,giga hertz frequency . This technology of course services our present society, including radio, TV, and wi fi internet. Worldwide.

 

Mike

Edited April 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Although Maxwell laid a basis for radio communication , it was Hertz and Marconi who developed it in practical devices

I agree...but this is the difference between science and engineering. Well, Hertz is considered a scientist, he worked on showing that Maxwell was correct in his mathematical description. Marconi, in a sense did nothing. He put together existing technology, improved on it and so contributed to the engineering of radio as a method of communication.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I agree...but this is the difference between science and engineering. Well, Hertz is considered a scientist, he worked on showing that Maxwell was correct in his mathematical description. Marconi, in a sense did nothing. He put together existing technology, improved on it and so contributed to the engineering of radio as a method of communication.

Yes , I can see Marconi being the engineer and entrepreneur where Hertz did more development ( getting the accolade of having Frequency , named after him ) .

Note picture with some spark Gap , Marconi original transmitter , trans Atlantic radio( with Marconi)

 

 

Link :- to Marconi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Marconi#

Link to Hertz

:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Hertz

 

Other inventions of the 20th century requiring scientific invention

Link :- http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-inventions-of-the-20th-century.php

 

It's interesting , reviewing those 10 inventions of the 20 th century . The science gets done ,up front , by

Physicists , mathematicians , experimenters . Then the engineers come along afterwards and refine the ideas for human consumption.

 

Mike

Edited April 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

I will now take the 10 major INVENTIONS for civilisation over the last 100 years . (20th Century+)

 

Identify the SCIENCE BEHIND the main aspect of each invention.

 

See WHO mainly thought up the original version and

 

HOW SCIENCE WORKED Around this invention .

 

-------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------------

 

Invention. ..1 RADIO. 2 INTERNET. 3 TELEVISION. 4. ANTI-BIOTICS 5. SUBMARINE

 

.6. ROCKETRY 7 AUTOMOBILE 8. AEROPLANE 9. PERSONAL. COMPUTER 10. NUCLEAR POWER

 

------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------

Mike.. Ps

 

Please make any comments or criticism as we go along . Or take over one invention and do all the aspects of that invention . Or just deal with one aspect ( like who first thought of the idea ) , the I or others will carry on .

 

1. RADIO covered previously with Maxwell composing the Equations , Hertz doing the science experiments . And Marconi developing the Engineering and commercial realisation .

 

The story of the maxwell equations , do. Not start with him . Although he was trying to unify electric and magnetic fields into ( Electro-Magnetism ) he was preceded by Gilbert' s and Faradays work on Electric Fields , Ampere and Gauss, doing work on Magnetism .( From 1540 - 1820 . )

 

Maxwell wanted to combine or integrate, them all in a set of Equations which in so doing . Would describe mathematically ELECTRO MAGNETISM . He used functions of Divergence and Curling . To produce his 4 equations that combined all the ingredients . In so doing a Speed Emerged ! This happened to coincide with the Speed of light measured earlier . He thus deduced Light was an Electro- magnetic. Wave . As was the newly discovered Electro - Magnetic ( Radio Waves ) . These Radio Waves were experimentally discovered by Hertz , and expanded to become Marconi's Radio waves . Demonstrated by his famous transmission across the Atlantic Ocean to America . See previous post .

And links -

Faraday :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday

 

Maxwell. :-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell

 

Hertz :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Hertz

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Marconi#

 

For Maxwell equations See link:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Flux_and_divergence

 

Mike

Edited April 2, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Remember the step before Maxwell: Faraday. A meticulous and brilliant experimenter. It was largely (only?) because of his work that Maxwell was able to develop his mathematical description. (Which Faraday always rather resented; you and he may have got along rather well!)

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Remember the step before Maxwell: Faraday. A meticulous and brilliant experimenter. It was largely (only?) because of his work that Maxwell was able to develop his mathematical description. (Which Faraday always rather resented; you and he may have got along rather well!)

.

Yes well of course ! Michael Faraday, ( played around ) experimented , with magnetic and electric fields with motors with various experiments . And in fact discovered and demonstrated the principles of the the Electric Motor that we know today.

 

( As well he started to look at , the issue of field lines coming out of a spinning bar magnet cutting an attached disc of conductor ') in fact he speculated that one should be able to derive an electrical potential ( ie a generator ) between a circumference Pick up , and a centre pick up . As the field lines are static , not turning with the magnet turning . But he ran out of time and died !

 

Link to Electric motor and Faraday's contribution :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor#Early_motors

 

Ps --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------

At least I have the same name . Great stuff ! Do some more ! I am exhausted !

Eek " But he ran out of time and died ! "

 

Mike

-------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------------

 

Now. (2) .. ....... ......... ...... THE INTERNET. ....... .........

Edited April 2, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

2. The INTERNET .

 

It seemed to appear out of the mist . I was there so I can give a ring side seat view . Like other things , it came out of a number of different directions and requirements . A number of people and organisations, struggled with inadequate facilities , and a number of people thinking and experimenting with , what could be done about it.