Why is Physics so badly taught?

This is an excellent question and one that teachers have been wrestling with for some time. In fact I will be giving a presentation along these lines to a group of teachers in February of this year. Here is a list of key factors that have been identified

1. There is all too often not enough time spent making sure that the students understand the key concepts (Big Ideas) before moving on to the problem solving;
2. Overuse of poor analogies in explaining concepts that lead to further problems down the road when application situation become more complex;
3. Many physics teachers are transplanted math teachers who teach the subject as a type of Applied Math - Physics of course is much more than that;
4. Lack of Laboratory work and Demonstrations that allow students to consolidate big ideas on a visual/hands-on level;
5. North American courses are often too focused on breadth and not on depth with respect to curriculum content - in a rush to cover many teacher’s often sacrifice the deeper analysis to check off all the topic boxes;
6. Instruction methodology often lacks diversity - Various Combinations of teacher and student orientated approaches should be intermixed as is necessary to target the broader student mosaic (and variety of learning styles);
7. Too much focus on formula memorization - Formulas are important but students need to understand where they come from, how they apply and what are the limitations of each formula based on the Assumptions inherent in their derivation

Quora Questions #1

Is it possible that there are physics that we will never discover because our limited biological senses?

Answer - Not so much biological senses as we can build better equipment to increase the range but there are likely order of magnitude restrictions as we approach the extremes of the micro and macro world - Planck Time and Planck Length for example. We are already aware of the various innate limitations associated with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

Why did earlier scientists not guess about the gravitational force?

Many of them knew about it they just talked about it in different terms - such as a natural attractor. Newton’s greatest breakthrough in this area was not so much gravity itself but the universal notion of gravity, or his realization that the same force responsible for the terrestrial phenomena acts as well in the celestial sphere and is key to our understanding of planetary/lunar motion.

If the Philosophers' Football Match from Monty Python actually took place, would the Greeks beat the Germans?

No because the Germans cheated and included Beckenbauer in their line up.

Some more cool moments in Physics

James Clerk Maxwell unifies the world of the electricity and magnetism on a theoretical level and shows how the speed of light in a vacuum is a function of two key constants that govern each of the electric and magnetic fields. Maxwell’s work gives rise to the notion of electromagnetic waves two types of which will be identified by Heinrich Hertz (Radio Waves) and Wilhelm Roentgen (X Rays)

Max Planck solves the Blackbody Radiation Problem by arguing that energy is produced in discrete packets called quanta and that the Energy of each quanta is directly proportional to the frequency of oscillation of the quanta. Planck’s model answers the challenge of the UV catastrophe which classical physics had failed to adequately address. I developing his concept of the quanta Planck borrows heavily from the work of Ludwig Boltzmann, the father of statistical mechanics.Planck, himself is regarded as the Father of Quantum Mechanics (and indeed Modern Physics)

JJ Thompson determines the ratio of the mass of the electron to its charge. Robert Millikan will follow on later with a determination of the charge of the electron (through his oil droplet experiment) allowing for the eventual determination of the mass of the electron. Quantum nature of charge will play an important role in future developments in Modern Physics.

Henri Becquerel documents the realities of radioactive decay. Work will continue thanks to the research by Pierre and Marie Curie

Michelson and Morley Experiment shows that the Aether wind (thought to be the background of space) does not exist.

Multiverses....A quick summary

On the Multiverse. There are a variety of multiverse models but the most common one is that developed by Hugh Everett III to explain the phenomenon of Wave-Particle Duality. It is also known as the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI). According to Everett all possible alternate histories and futures are real so that the various outcomes are realized over the sum of the many worlds. We live in a world which displays one of those outcomes. Like the other three explanations for Wave-Particle Duality (Collapse, Pilot and Copenhagen) the mathematics checks out.
Multiverse modelling occurs in other areas of Physics. Max Tegmark, arguably one of the most brilliant physicists alive today, posits a classification system that consists of four levels that can be used to describe Multiverses.

Level One – Multiverses produced by cosmic inflation that have same physical constants and laws as does our universe;
Level Two – Multiverses produced by Chaotic inflation that have different constants and laws and are produced by a bubble effect (Andre Linde calculated that there are 10^10^10,000,000 of these);
Level Three – MWI Interpretation described above
Level Four – Constructs within Tegmark’s own mathematical universe hypothesis (a Theory of Everything that sees physical reality as a mathematical structure).

Brian Greene has a different classification system that has nine types and looks at simulations, holographs, cyclic phenomena, Branes etc.

ON SETI...

I am a huge proponent of SETI and a great fan of Science Fiction. About ten years ago I wrote a book the HISTORY OF THE FUTURE detailing a world where contact with alien species is made and our species is forced by necessity to enter into a new geopolitical reality. Odds are that if we are to be immersed in a world where we are less sophisticated than the extra terrestrials than it will not work out well for us. However there is an unpredictability with all encounters that may prove refreshing. Lately though I have become somewhat disillusioned, not so much in the way contact will play out, but whether contact will occur at all. Based on scientific assessment the odds of another humanoid type species evolving ( or even some type of facsimile) to make contact with us appear to be close to zero. A subtle interventionist deity could rig the odds but that seems to be wishful thinking. One can take solace in the Drake Equation but there are so many unknown variables in that equation that it seems to be practically meaningless. My heart wishes that this weren't so but looking just at the probability game and the levels of fine tuning that are necessary it may just be the case that we are simply alone.

Thoughts on Deism IV - Some Quick Ones.

Einstein himself was not a fan of cultural relativism and I believe detested the way his theory was applied to other areas outside physics. Much the same way that Darwin was not in favour of the way his ideas of selection were used by those advocating Eugenics.

On Absolute Truth....The Laws of Thermodynamics viz. Conservation of Energy, Increasing Entropy of the Universe plus Absolute Zero are probably as absolute as one can get. Gravity has been reworked with General Relativity to better understand Newton's Inverse Square Law however it has some problems at the quantum level. The jury is still out with respect to the fundamental Graviton particle (although odds are that we will likely find it).  Chemical Reactions are largely manifestations of the electromagnetic force so I agree that the theory here is very solid. Absorption and Emission of Light can be described by Quantum Mechanics which at present seems to be well supported empirically. I would add to this list laws regarding both linear and angular momentum as well as certain symmetries that are consistent with conservation laws.

Special Relativity....Einstein's special theory broke the notion of absolute space and time. It also showed the energy and momentum require relativistic analysis. However in many ways its most perplexing outcome was the death blow for Simultaneity. Events that are simultaneous in one frame of reference need not be simultaneous in another. What does this mean? Observer 1 concludes that event A happened before event B. Observer 2 in another frame of reference concludes that the events were simultaneous (happened at the same time). Which one is correct? The answer - Both of them. This can influence, although I would urge much caution, our perception of events at least on a theoretical level for now.

Welcome 2016

Its difficult to believe that I have been blogging so long but I still, despite the drop off in frequency of posts, continue to enjoy making the submissions. I figure that when I don't I will close up shop.
So why not start the year with some great questions? Here are 12 worth thinking about.


1. Why is there something as opposed to nothing?
2. What are the limits of science? Has Cartesian Reductionism neared its level of usefulness? How do we incorporate the whole into our thinking?
3. How does complexity arise? Why is the sum of the parts so often less than the whole?
4. Is Randomness an illusion?
5. How are the Laws of Physics carried?
6. What is the relationship between consciousness, free will and the Anthropic Principle?
7. To what extent are we boxed in by our definitions of scientific terms? Discrete versus Continuous understanding of nature.
8. Why and how are we bound by perceived linearity?
9. The Subjective versus the Objective….Will Objectivism disappear altogether?
10. Why do systems become stable? How is this stability rocked? Is there an overall march toward a new zone? Is stability real or imaginary?
11. Why is our Mathematics limited?
12. What is an event? What comes together to make an event?

Responding to Science Questions I - From Facebook

The following are a list of some questions that I have responded to on various scientific issues.

Question: When a baby is within the womb, if something happens that it doesn't like (tickling of mother's stomach, etc.) it will kick to assert itself. So if a newborn being can acknowledge that it is discomforted, why can't a neuron, proton, etc; make conscious decisions?

My response: The baby is responding to a type of stimuli (tactile). This does not require conscious thought. As is the case of a plant. On a reductionist level it is merely the interplay of a number of inputs with consequences driven by the Laws of Physics. Why questions aren't really scientific. Essentially metaphysical and can always be answered by the retort 'Why not?' Science at its core is largely concerned with the 'How' which may approximate the 'Why' if the evidence is there.

Question: Plants move themselves towards light sources for nutrients. I believe that plants can think as well as any being. Matter makes up everything; we know this. So what proof has been discovered that matter needs to fully form into something BEFORE it can gain the ability to think? Look at white blood cells: They sense dangerous matter within the bloodstream, and they attack. They also just exist when there is no danger. Is there an argument that cells cannot think as well?

My response: We have no evidence that regular matter acts with conscious intent. We can't prove it but then again science does not deal with proof. It is an inductive rather than a deductive process. Yes we should open ourselves to the possibility that this is true but the lack of evidence seems to indicate that this is highly unlikely. It is also important not to confuse a response to stimuli with conscious intent. Plants growing towards the light are demonstrating a response to stimuli known as phototropism. It can be explained by chemical recourse only.

Question: Matter within the wave function, has the ability to think and make conscious decisions, as we can see from it's actions once an observer is entered into the equation (Double Slit Experiment). I am curious to know if anyone else believes that it is possible that matter can ultimately choose what the observer perceives it to be, BEFORE it is being observed, and the wave function has collapsed.

My Response: Human beings can think and make conscious decisions but this is not a property of matter itself. It is an emergent functionality that has developed within our species as a result of evolutionary selection pressure. You have reversed the Copenhagen explanation. It is the action of the observer that impacts the result, not the matter itself under observation, acting with conscious intent.

Question: Would light change form if you could slow it? And when does heat energy become light energy?

My response: The speed of light changes depending on the optical medium that it is traveling through. It only travels at c in a vacuum. When moving from one medium to another it's frequency remains constant but it's wavelength changes. Visible light is a very small part of a family of waves that define what is known as the electromagnetic spectrum. These include gamma rays, x rays, microwaves, Infra red, ultraviolet, radio waves etc. All travel at c in a vacuum but have different frequencies and wavelengths. They all have associated magnetic and electric field vectors and propagate perpendicular to the direction of each of those two vector fields. Electromagnetic waves do not need a medium to propagate. They are very different to sound waves which are essentially pressure waves, Heat is a term that is used in thermodynamics to describe a general transfer of energy. It occurs via conduction, convection and radiation with the latter facilitated by the action of Electromagnetic waves.

15 Books on Physics that I recommend reading (if you have time of course).

1. The Elegant Universe – Brian Greene - excellent introduction into the fundamentals of Modern Physics.
2. Hyperspace – Michio Kaku - wonderful take on extra-dimensions by a strong narrator.
3. The Ideas of Physics – Ernest Hutten - an oldie but a goldie – discusses key ideas that shaped the discipline.
4. Fearful Symmetry – A. Zee - Looks at the Beauty in Physics.
5. Physics of Immortality – Frank Tipler - a bit over the top but highly entertaining nevertheless.
6. Theories of Everything – John Barrow - Low key but well written.
7. Feynman Lecture Series – Richard Feynman - A struggle for the lay person but if you can get through a third of it your effort will be rewarded.
8. The Trouble with Physics – Lee Smolin - an important critique of the group think that has encroached on the discipline.
9. Physics – Douglas Giancoli - Doesn’t matter what the edition is its treatment of classical physics is praiseworthy.
10. The Flying circus of Physics – Jearl Walker – Challenging problems that force one to really think deep.
11. Relativity Simply Explained – Martin Gardiner – Its title says it all.
12. The First Three Minutes – Steven Weinberg- Still one of the best treatments of the Big Bang.
13. The Constants of Nature – John Barrow – Delves into the details of these definitive constants that so encapsulate our universe.
14. Thirty Years that Shook Physics: The Story of Quantum Theory – Gamow is a great storyteller and he didn’t disappoint with this useful read.
15. 50 Physics Ideas – Joanne Baker – Lots of fun and really easy to read.

On Climate Change - What Most bothers me.

In my opinion the greatest tragedy of the climate change debate is science itself.

To begin with Science is never settled...period (sorry Al Gore, David Suzuki, George Monbiot, Naomi Klein et al). Even if the overwhelming consensus of opinion points in a certain direction one can never close the book on science itself (hell even Newton's seemingly rock solid Law of Universal Gravitation had to be reworked using the better model of General Relativity).

In fact any scientific position is at least one verified experiment away from a possible reduction to the trash heap of bad ideas. Ideas once believed to be sacrosanct - caloric theory of heat, organic vitalism, blended inheritance, impossibility of heavy than air travel - confirm this reality. Each of these had popular support and were in vogue amongst the 'consensus' but failed to stand up to the evidence. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) may be another example. The jury is still out on this one.

As somebody with a science background my biggest criticism of AGW is that the hysteria around it has been driven by a tremendous faith in scientific mathematical modelling. While successful in certain areas mathematical modelling is highly dependant on the parameters and boundary conditions that the modeller inputs into a system. Tweak these parameters in different ways and one can obtain virtually any result you wish. In short they are subject to the bias of the scientist who in many a case are not as objective as they should be (are any humans for that matter?).

The other problem with the AGW hypothesis is that some of the early work on which it rests has been driven by shoddy science. Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph is the obvious example (it has been debunked) but so are the flawed understanding of cause and effect that put the cart before the horse in misinterpreting the carbon dioxide/temp lag time. IPCC reports are often filled with errors and contrary to the voice of its apologists does not represent the consensus that its advocates would have you believe.Many of those who signed on to it often didn't read the report in its entirety.

This is not to say that one should deny AGW but at the very least we should challenge those advancing AGW as the key driver for Climate Change to provide better evidence. At present they are lacking in this regard and this is unfortunate. As voting citizens we are all entitled to this as the issue appears to dominate much debate and decision making with respect to contemporary Environmental Policy.

Contrary to the voices of derision you are not being 'anti-science' and are in actuality more in step with the natural sceptism that ultimately makes science successful as an enterprise. Deference to authority is after all not a characteristic of modern science. Nor should it be.

The Martian - A Review

I finally saw the movie The Martian which on one level seems to be the third part in a trilogy of space movies that have been made over the last three years (the best of these was Interstellar – 9/10 - the worst Gravity - 6/10).

As far as movies goes it was a solid effort that spoke well to the subject matter even if some of the science appeared to be somewhat suspect.

The cinematography was excellent and although I did not see the movie in 3-D (which doesn’t bother me) I was still captivated by the design and operation of the mother ship that did well, in true 2001 Space Odyssey mode, to capture the rotating system necessary to produce the sensation of gravity.

Matt Damon is an average actor but he did well to carry off a role that portrayed him as cool, rational and humorous under pressure. This diffused tension when it was most needed. None of the other actors stood out but then the movie did not lend itself to any brilliant individual performance.

As a champion of Space Exploration, I take heart from The Martian as it worked in earnest to show the dynamism of a NASA space program as it COULD be – not how it actually is at the moment which is a story of pathos.
Science solved problems and overcame obstacles and the movies did its best to depict this even if some of the solutions, such as the blast off from Mars and the link up in space, were unrealistic.

While the necessary elements of International cooperation were stressed (a joint effort with China for example– which seems unlikely in today’s context) The Martian (although overly pc in its depiction of ethnic diversity amongst the NASA elite) did not extend into the realm of scientific preaching that often runs as a common theme in movies that all too often center on such issues as Climate Change for example.

In short it was a film worth viewing and despite its length (well over two hours) I believe that it met the necessary expectations.

An Oldie but a Goldie - My Favourites

My Favourites
For all rankings (1 is the highest and 5 is the lowest)

Science:

Areas of Science: 1. Modern Physics 2. Classical Physics 3. Cosmology 4. Evolutionary Theory 5. Psychometrics

Chemists (Top Five): 1. Le Chatelier 2. Mendeleev 3. Dalton 4. Lavoisier 5. Kekule

Physicists (Top Ten): 1. Einstein 2. Newton 3. Schroedinger 4. de Broglie 5. Galileo

6. Bohr 7. Planck 8. Feynman 9. Gell-Mann 10. Maxwell

Biologists: (Top Five): 1. Wallace 2. Hunt Morgan 3. Darwin 4. Harvey 5. Semelweiss

Philosophers: (Top Ten): 1. Kierkegaard 2. Spinoza 3. Descartes 4. Kant 5. Mills

Economists: (Top Five): 1. Smith 2. Ricardo 3. Friedman 4. Hayek 5. Nash

US Presidents: 1. Lincoln 2. Reagan 3. Truman 4. Jefferson 5. Kennedy

British Prime Ministers: 1. Churchill 2. Disraeli 3. Gladstone 4. Thatcher 5. Lloyd George

Canadian Prime Ministers: 1. Borden 2. Pearson 3. Laurier 4. Harper 5. MacDonald

Cricketers 1. Bradman 2. Pollock 3. Truman 4. Richards 5. Sobers

Boxers (Heavyweights): 1. Louis 2. Marciano 3. Foreman 4. Ali 5. Lewis

Boxers (Non-Heavyweight): 1. Leonard 2. Hagler 3. Mitchell 4. Conteh 5. Robinson

Tennis Players: 1. McEnroe 2. Federer 3. Becker 4. Edberg 5. Kriek

Athletes 1. Sebastian Coe 2. Daley Thompson 3. Ed Moses 4. Usain Bolt 5. Steve Cramm

Failure to Launch - Falcon 9

This is an unfortunate turn of events. I was really hoping that Messr. Musk and co. would succeed with this attempt. Despite the setback I believe that he still will. For more go to

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33305083

Would love to see a Mission to Mars....soon

Buzz Aldrin urges a flight to Mars. I think its about time. Its 2015 after all.

50 Great Milestones in the History of Science prior to 1850

In chronological order (more-or-less)

1. Science of Agriculture (Irrigation, Plant and Animal Domestication).
2. Greek's develop the concept of the Atom.
3. Euclidean Geometry and the Mathematics of Conics.
4. Aristotle formalize logic.
5. Greeks conceptualize the concepts of change and motion.
6. Birth of Diagnostic Medicine - Hippocrates
7. Determination of the circumference of the Earth, distance to the moon and the distance to the sun.
8. Law of the Lever
9. Archimedes and the concept of buoyancy
10. Arabs expand work on Optics.
11. Madgeburg Experiment - Concept of the vacuum.
12. Copernicus and the Heliocentric revolution
13. Brahe and the changing heavens
14. Invention of the Telescope (First Refracting then Reflecting)
15. Galileo and the Birth of the Experimental Method - Inertia + Free Fall + Simple Harmonic Motion + Projectile Motion
16. Mineral Science develops under Agricola.
17. Vesalius and Modern Anatomy/Physiology
18. Kepler's Three Laws
19. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitiation
20. Newton and the Dispersion of White Light
21. Paracelsus and the Field of Toxicology
22. Newtonian Synthesis of Terrestrial and Cosmological Science
23. Newton's Three Laws of Motion - concepts of Impulse, Momentum, Action + Force.
24. Invention of the Calculus (Differential/Integral)
25. Invention of the Microscope
26. Birth of Cartesian Geometry. Synthesis of Trigonometry and Algebra.
27. Pascal's work on Pressure.
28. Mathematics of Probability
29. Fermat's Principle
30. Vector Algenra (and Calculus)
31. Foucault's Pendulum (Rotation of the Earth)
32. Comet Periodicity
33. William Harvey and the Circulatory System
34. Linneaus and the Taxonomic Classification system
35. Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier and oxygen as the driver for combustion (extension on the work of Priestly).
36. Huygens Wave Theory
37. Cell Theory
38. Mathematics of Differential Equations (Laplace, Euler etc)
39. Benjamin Franklin's work on distinct charge
40. Dalton and the Early Periodic Table
41. Bernoulli and Fluid Mechanics
42. Buffon and advances in Natural Science
43. Hutton - Modern Geology and Gradualism
44. Cuvier and Catastrophism
45. Jenner and the rise of Immunization Theory
46. Volta and the first electric battery
47. Charles Coulomb and the Electrostatic Force.
48. Sadi Carnot and the Ideal Heat Engine
49. Oersted discovers magnetic fields around current carrying conductors
50. Weather Patterns - Coriolis Effect.

Ten Misconceptions people have about Evolution

1. Evolution is a Theory.
Correction – It’s a fact in that it does occur. Nevertheless the exact impact of the various factors that are behind it are up for theoretical debate.

2. Evolution has a direction
Correction – Direction implies a goal. There is no goal to evolution, nor is there any purpose it is merely a consequence of a variety of interacting factors.

3. Charles Darwin came up with the idea of Evolution.
Correction – No, he didn’t. The idea has origins in Ancient Greece and has persisted throughout western scientific history (although not with the mainstream support that creationist ideas had). Various scientists have tried to explain what its principle ‘cause’ was (including Darwin’s famous grandfather Erasmus Darwin) however it was ‘Chucky’ himself who came up with the idea of natural selection as the chief phenomenon that drives the process.

4. Natural Selection is the only driver behind evolution
Correction- Natural Selection is a powerful force but it is not the only mechanism. Genetic Drift can be important too.

5. Charles Darwin wrote the definitive all encompassing work on the evolutionary mechanism.

Correction – Darwin’s work on the Galapagos Islands (during his voyage on the HMS Beagle) were critical to the formulation of his ideas on Natural Selection but his work was far from complete. He had no understanding of the Mendelian Genetics (let alone DNA) and in a sense produced more of a macro approach to the science than anything else.

6. Darwin was a the only scientist at the time thinking along these lines re: natural selection

Correction – Much overlooked in the history of this fascinating topic is the work of Alfred Russel Wallace who had reached similar conclusions to Wallace. Darwin published before Wallace (although Wallace had notified Darwin beforehand of the conclusions that he had reached). Wallace was the product of a working class environment and in a time when class distinction was all important in British society Darwin’s ties to the establishment may have given him the edge in this regard.

7. Evolution causes organisms to improve over time.

Correction – This again implies direction. Evolutionary change favours organisms that are better adapted to the environment at the time. However if the environment had to change these better adapted organisms may find themselves on the short end of the stick and out competed by their peers who they currently dominate. In summary it is the environment that is the key.

8. Evolution explains the origin of life.

Correction – Actually it doesn’t. Science has several useful ideas how this may have happened (it also may not be a one time event), almost all of it biochemical, but the issue is far from being meaningfully resolved.

9. Darwin removed the necessity to believe in a God as a creator.

Correction – This is the classic Richard Dawkins argument that has some merit in a world of strict materialism but it still fails to answer the origin of life question mentioned in 8. In addition it is indeed possible that there may be subtle forces at play that drive evolutionary change that our material based science cannot elucidate. If God is indeed all powerful, then God can act with pure subtlety, bypassing our best efforts to notice such action. Remember our science is limited and has constraints defined by sensory and rational limits.

10. Certain features are most certainly intelligently designed.

Correction: Intelligent Design constructs (eg. clotting mechanisms, Flagella in bacteria, the eye) are an illusion driven by an innate human need to see purpose and meaning within pattern. Structures proposed by ID proponents may exhibit facets of design but these can be explained adequately by natural selections without the need to bring in a designer. Besides some designs thought to be intelligent fall short of the description…most notably the blind spot in the retina, our pharynx (which increases choking risks) and the narrowness of the female birth canal.

On Anti-Vaccine Hysteria

One reality that more often that not screams stupid is when the radical left and right come together on an issue that almost every reasonable voice on the center rejects. Typical examples include the negation of Israel’s right to exist, all too frequent 911 conspiracy theories, and the support of such charming personalities as Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The latest cause célèbres to come to the fore is the dangerous anti-vaccine hysteria that seems to have crept into the thinking of those who navigate under the illusion of a purple sky.

While leftist anti-vaxxers normally case their argument in the context of nature battling artificial toxins (with a touch of corporate greed mixed in) those on the right of sanity are driven by the need to equate vaccines with some giant government conspiracy. Both viewpoints are dangerous and go against the single greatest weapon that we have against the slide into the sewer of wretched superstition – scientific evidence. Vaccines work and their development together with antiseptics, antibiotics and germ theory itself represent our most potent artillery in the fight against pathogenic diseases.

The demise of smallpox, polio, diptheria, neonatal tetanus, whooping cough and measles can all be credited to vaccines. The smallpox vaccine alone is estimated to have saved the lives of five million people annually.

12 Great Questions to think about

An oldie but a goldie.... 1. Why is there something as opposed to nothing? 2. What are the limits of science? Has Cartesian Reductionism neared its level of usefulness? How do we incorporate the whole into our thinking? 3. How does complexity arise? Why is the sum of the parts so often less than the whole? 4. Is Randomness an illusion? 5. How are the Laws of Physics carried? 6. What is the relationship between consciousness, free will and the Anthropic Principle? 7. To what extent are we boxed in by our definitions of scientific terms? Discrete versus Continuous understanding of nature. 8. Why and how are we bound by perceived linearity? 9. The Subjective versus the Objective….Will Objectivism disappear altogether? 10. Why do systems become stable? How is this stability rocked? Is there an overall march toward a new zone? Is stability real or imaginary? 11. Why is our Mathematics limited? 12. What is an event? What comes together to make an event?

Barack Obama and the Demise of the US Space Program

It amazes me how so many in the scientific community have fallen in lock step behind Barack Obama. In fact its not uncommon to hear scientists describe Obama as a president who truly understands Science. Yet like so many other platitudes associated with the' Great One' the Obama-Science meme is lacking in substance.

The crown jewel of American Scientific brilliance since the 1960s has been the Space Exploration Program. Indeed JFK centralized it as such with his rousing speeches on the issue, which although framed in cold war swagger undoubtebly galvanized an enthuzed two to three generations of American high school science students. From such endeavours came breakthroughs in biomedical research, telecommunications, engineering and architectural design and looking back at such ab era one can only glow at its achievement. Many spin off technologies that we enjoy today can trace part of their genesis to such an initiative. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II followed in suit with varying degrees of success but never veering from the primacy of the drive, Yes there were some awful moments (the explosions of the Challenger and Columbia) but all scientific advancements are not immune from setbacks. At the end of the day the successes far outweighed the failures (if indeed they are failures...another point to debate).

Yet it is under Barack Obama that historic role of NASA as an engine for American scientific passion has been all but neutered. No great missions appear on the horizon, a return to the moon is off the agenda (and with it a possible moon base), Mars exploration is dogged in bureaucracy, the space shuttle program has been left to rest while the US (the apparent winner of the Cold War) is forced to resort to Russian transportation to access the International Space Station. We are now further behind in our Global Space Initiatives. So why is it that Obama is still seen as the visionary Science President? For in this realm his record is one of abject disappointment.

On Infinities

Kurt Godel realized that there were limits to Mathematics (as shown by his Incompleteness Theorem) and he was wiling in part to accept these. However at the same time a part of him hoped that he could access intuitive knowledge through logic. His quest to do so eventually caused his life to spiral out of control ending in the unfortunate circumstances of his death. A genius he stretched the limits of rationality but could not access with the same conviction what lay beyond it.
Georg Cantor took Mathematics into regions nobody has dared to venture. However he found a world that surpassed the limits of human logic and like a sailor drawn by the songs of a siren was adversely eventually engulfed by its illusiveness.

All of this makes me wonder: Are there certain truths that we are just not supposed to know?