The Ortega Hypothesis

To wrap things up, I felt that it would be interesting to take a look at The Ortega Hypothesis written by Jonathan R. Cole and Stephen Cole in Science 178. What even is the hypothesis? It is simple: For it is necessary to insist upon this extraordinary but undeniable fact: experimental science has progressed thanks in great part to the work of men astoundingly mediocre, and even less than mediocre. That is to say, modem science, the root and symbol of our actual civilization, finds a place for the intellectually commonplace man and allows him to work therein with success. In this way the majority of scientists help the general advance of science while shut up in the narrow cell of their laboratory, like the bee in the cell of its hive, or the turnspit of its wheel.

Mediocre? Less than mediocre? Harsh words, no doubt, but perhaps it is reassuring to see the importance of the work of these many scientists that don't have their praises sang in articles, on TV, or over the internet.

Except that isn't actually the case, or at least, that wasn't the case back in 1972 when Cole and Cole did this research. Their findings found that most of the discoveries and papers that were cited came from a disproportionate number of "elite" scientists at prestigious institutions. But were those scientists dependent on the mass as Ortega implies? Reading through it, it seems hard for me to accurately say. Cole and Cole seem to not have a definitive stance for sure.

Why does this all matter to students entering physics now though? In all honesty, things may have changed where it doesn't. We would have to look at new research and see what the results are.

The takeaway for this though I think is that you go become a scientist because you have the passion and calling for it. If you have that, does any other consideration matter?

Jonathan Cole and Stephen Cole, "The Ortega Hypothesis," Science, Vol. 178, pages 368-375 (1972)

Reflections on the ideological meanings of modern science from Boyle and Newton to the postmodernists

Jacob's work in exploring the Ideological Meanings of Western Science looks into the interpretations by Latour concerning Hobbes and Boyle and then sketches the outlines of a different interpretation with historical and ideological implications beginning with Boyle, encompassing Newton and the Newtonians, and pointing toward the Enlightenment and modernity.

Reading through this work, there is a lot that I am unable to put a good lens out, and I concede that I do not believe that this would have much use for a new physics student. It is interesting in how it examines motivations and ideologies of the scientists and the times. The world could potentially be a very different place had these ideologies changed to be different from what they are. Changing the interpretation of the time also changes the motivations of the scientists as well, and it brings into question whether or not there was something more that they sought from the work.

Jacob claims that Latour choose to simply ignore key forces that were acting on Hobbes. From this choice springs a cascade effect that alters the interpretation and motivation of Hobbes.

This work shows just how important it is to get the frame of reference correct when looking at historical documents for any reason. By changing that frame, it changes the tones of the work that was done. No longer are things done for the betterment of all, but rather there is some underlying motivation that is not apparent in the other frame.

Thinking about all of this makes me have a headache to be honest. This is most definitely not my milieu, but it is a very well put together argument by Jacob.

Margaret Jacob, "Reflections on the ideological meanings of modern science from Boyle and Newton to the postmodernists," History of Science, Vol. 33, pages 333-357 (1995) 

John Michell and Henry Cavendish: weighing the stars

McCormmach looks into the personal friendship of Michell and Cavendish, their scientific collaboration, and their common Newtonian philosophy.

Michell wanted to weight the stars by the gravitational retardation of their light. He was under the notion that light was something that was also acted on upon gravity, and that this would be measurable. If this were indeed the case, it would be possible to determine how much a star massed based on the amount that the light emitted by it was retarded.

It is interesting to note that they believed that light was affected by gravity. Thanks in part to this work, we know that light is not directly altered by gravity. Thanks to General Relativity, we know that space-time itself is warped by any gravitational field, and the light travels along these fluctuations as if it was still traveling in a straight line.

Going back to the paper at hand, Michell and Cavendish attempted to extend Newton's achievement by following the philosophical path that led to it. They took the force of gravity which was known and sought to deduce new phenomena from it. They looked to new stellar, terrestrial, and optical effects of gravitation.

Michell's early work dealt with the distances to the stars and their real positions in space. This led him to see the correlation between stars and their proximity to one another possibly being due to their mutual gravitation.

Here I see usage similar to applying p-prims when it comes to gravitation. Michell is clearly intrigued by gravity and feels that it can be used to help determine the mass of stellar objects. This is because he knows that gravity affects everything, and particles of light are no different. He had calculated the force with which light must be sent forth, and so he felt he had a great basis to go off of. Cavendish encouraged Michell's work.

Even though Michell was unsuccessful (there was no chance of success, but he did not know that), his methods were sound. It was also from the torsion balance made by Michell that Cavendish was able to determine G.

Michell never got to do the experiment himself, the reality that awaits us all at the end of life finally claiming him, but his work allowed Cavendish to complete it.

There is another great thing to tell to students here in how the work that is started today and passed on can lead to the discoveries of tomorrow; standing on the shoulders of giants as Newton put it.

Russell McCormmach, "John Michell and Henry Cavendish: weighing the stars," British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 4, pages 126-155 (1968)

A free-fall determination of the Newtonian constant of gravity

In the same issue of Science as the previous article that was discussed is a method that was touched on concern determining G through use of free-fall.

Schwarz, et al took an apparatus that allowed them to measure the trajectory of a test mass in free-fall using laser interferometry. With the introduction of a one-half metric ton source mass, they perturbed this trajectory to allow for the calculation of G.

This is very much a purely scientific article of the modern era, and it is apparent reading it. The importance in reading something like this for a student studying physics is to familiarize them with the methods and style of writing about an experiment that has been conducted.

There is no direct tie to DiSessa that I have been able to find, but for this paper, I did not really expect to find one. If there is one, it would be an example of how advanced understanding can become and almost obscure the existence of the p-prim that could be utilized by a new student.

I do not have much more to say about this article to be honest. 

Joshua P. Schwarz, Douglas S. Robertson, Timothy M. Niebauer, and James G. Faller, "A free-fall determination of the Newtonian constant of gravity," Science, Vol. 282, pages 2230-2234 (1998)

Gravity Measurements Close in on Big G

Continuing on with the discussion of G, Kestenbaum wrote an article in Science that is of direct importance.

It has all really come down to the precision of the tools that are being used to measure the value for G. The value being calculated is so small that any tool has to have precision or reliability in such a way that it is almost a competition of sorts. Where there was original just the method of Cavendish to calculate the value for G, scientists have come up with numerous other methods that can always be used.

This is important to point out to students. One of the beautiful truths about physics in my mind is that there is more than one way to come about a conclusion. If a full understanding exists of what you are researching as far as your methodology is concerned, you can develop multiple experiments that differ in execution but prove the same point.

In the article, the talk about the different methods that they have been using. One group is using the Cavendish method, but they replaced one of the components to allow for more massive objects. Another group has forgone using the torsion balance and is instead dropping an object and using precision timers to detect small fluctuations. Yet another is using massive vats of mercury to influence weights sitting on scales.

All of these different methods will still allow calculation of G. The real beauty is in the agreement that they were having. The error bars are quite large on some of them, but that is also relative to the size of the axis in question. All told, the values were close. 

David Kerstenbaum, "Gravity Measurements Close in on Big G," Science, Vol. 282, pages 2080-2081 (1998)

Resource Letter MNG-1: Measurements of Newtonian Gravitation

Two-hundred and twenty three. That is the number of articles and papers that Gillies collects for listing in his resource letter. All of these papers deal with Newtonian gravitation in some way, shape, or form. There exists, today, even more articles and papers that examine it further. What is the meaning of the startling weakness of the gravitational constant, G? How does that interact with the other fundamental laws?

These questions are all questions that are constantly being asked by scientists the world over. The reason why I wanted to point out this article that is a collection of work is because it shows just how much a single constant in physics can attract attention.

In more recent times, we are all aware of the search for the Higgs. What does the Higgs mean? What can we do with it? There is still a ton of work to be done, but that is something from recent times. The concept of universal gravitation and its corresponding constant date back to the time of Newton!

Getting an accurate and precise measurement for G is extremely difficult. A simple way, at least in setup, would be what Cavendish did to measure the force of gravity between masses, but even then, to get any real accuracy or precision might have your hair going grey if my experience with it is any indication.

What does this all mean for students? For one thing, I think it can be reassuring to them. It shows that there is a lot more to yet learn in physics about stuff that we have known for a considerable amount of time. There are always new theories being proposed and new experiments being designed. That can get them to have some wide-eyed wonder perhaps.

I think it also shows that building upon the p-prim idea allows for this advancement. You can go from the concept of objects attracting each other to describing how and why they do so. Then you can break down to the specifics in the equations used to model the motion of the system. You can explore each constant and variable that you use.

We know a lot and have a lot of ideas about what we aren't sure about yet. Gillies shows us 223 papers worth of information on a single constant. Just imagine how many more will exist in not even three years' time.

G. T. Gillies, "Resource Letter MNG-1: Measurements of Newtonian Gravitation," American Journal of Physics, Vol. 58, pages 525-534 (1990)

Newton's determination of the masses and densities of the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, and the Earth

Cohen does a wonderful treatment of how Newton went about determining the masses and densities of the planets and our Sun. It is also interesting to me that Newton's quantitative work was plagued with numerical issues, but his qualitative work or symbolical work was spot on. His methods were correct.

The takeaway I feel is that being taught and being able to reproduce the proper method is extremely important. By being able to do that, you are able to refine your result closer and closer to the truth as you gain more understanding. This can be seen between the different releases of Newton where the errors become less and less and the work simpler as a result. Cohen goes into detail for these to show Newton's process of refinement.

For students and teachers, it is very important to get the method correct. A good foundation is required to be able to move forward in understanding of the more advanced topics. With a sufficient methodology, it is possible to move forward and continue to make refinements as you go.

To tie this back to what DiSessa has said on p-prims and their applications, this would probably be akin to choosing the proper p-prim that is being invoked. To simplify it further, it would be like making sure that you are starting at the actual beginning or at least the same area.

Perhaps it would also be reassuring to students to point out that even a great mind like Newton's had to do multiple refinements .

I. Bernard Cohen, "Newton's determination of the masses and densities of the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, and the Earth," Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 53, pages 83-95 (1998)