| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michael Gray" |
| Date: |
01 Jul 2007 09:57:19 PM |
| Object: |
Two Cultures: A revealing Science Quiz. |
Tim Adams
Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2115569,00.html
"We asked three writers, three scientists and two broadcasters to
answer six basic scientific questions, and their answers appear to
confirm the arts/science divide
Q: Why does salt dissolve in water?
Q: Roughly how old is the earth?
Q: What happens when you turn on a light?
Q: Is a clone the same as a twin?
Q: Why is the sky blue?
Q: What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
The panel
John O'Farrell Writer
Author, broadcaster and comedy scriptwriter.
Iain Stewart Geologist
Stewart presents a new TV series, Earth: The Biography, this autumn.
Will Self Writer
Novelist, short-story writer, critic and broadcaster.
Susan Greenfield Scientist
Author of several popular science books about the brain.
Kirsty Wark Broadcaster
Political journalist and presenter of BBC2's Newsnight.
Marina Warner Writer
Novelist, critic and cultural historian, in particular of female
myths.
Robert Winston Scientist
Human fertility expert and science TV presenter.
Daisy Goodwin TV presenter
TV producer and presenter, editor of several poetry anthologies.
Q: Why does salt dissolve in water?
Iain Stewart: Er, I guess the sodium ions get taken up... oh, gosh, I
suppose the sodium and chlorine dissociate. The chlorine joins with
the water and the sodium ions float free. Something like that.
Will Self: It doesn't completely dissolve, of course. It must be
because it absorbs water to the point at which it disintegrates. Is
that right? I couldn't describe it scientifically.
Daisy Goodwin: It forms another compound. The only reason I know any
of this is because I've been testing my daughter on her GCSEs.
Marina Warner: The molecules join with the water molecules. The sodium
molecules join up with the hydrogen and oxygen molecules.
Susan Greenfield: Because sodium and chloride disassociate and H20 is
hydrogen and oxygen.
Kirsty Wark: Because it's less dense.
Robert Winston: It's to do with ions isn't it? Let me just work it
out. It's to do with the way sodium and chloride ions, um. Do you
know, I'm not sure I can really explain it. I can't remember now from
my physics years ago.
John O'Farrell: No idea.
Answer: Sodium chloride is an ionic substance that contains
alternating sodium and chlorine ions. When salt is added to water, the
partial charges on the water molecule are attracted to the Na+ and Cl-
ions. The water molecules work their way into the crystal structure
and between the individual ions, surrounding them and slowly
dissolving the salt.
Q: Roughly how old is the earth?
John O'Farrell I'll have a guess. About 100 million years?
Will Self I'm completely winging this. A couple of billion years? No?
Give me right on that. Mark me up.
Iain Stewart This I am sure of: 4.5 billion - no, actually 4.6 billion
years.
Daisy Goodwin Pass. This is embarrassing.
Marina Warner That I don't know. (I did actually just hear Melvyn
Bragg's programme this week about very ancient worlds.) I'm not very
good at figures.
Robert Winston Well, the universe is 13 billion or 14 billion and the
earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old.
Kirsty Wark More than 5 billion years.
Susan Greenfield Oh blimey. Well, I know that human beings have been
going for about a million and a half years, so ... I'm just grasping
here. Something like 60 billion years or something like that, but
that's a grasp. I'm not a physical scientist and it shows. I'm
probably not scientifically literate.
Answer: 4.5 billion years.
Q: What happens when you turn on a light?
Will Self In my house, very little, because I never get round to
changing the bulbs. You complete a circuit?
Iain Stewart This is taking me right back to school physics. It's the
kind of question I always pray a nine-year-old won't ask me. I think
the switch closes a loop for the circuit.
Kirsty Wark It gets brighter. There's a current... that connects
between two prongs.
Marina Warner The energy is conducted along the wire to the filament.
John O'Farrell I'm running out of steam here. I really don't know.
Susan Greenfield There's a flow of electrons called a current, and
it's that flow which is the energy and generates heat and light.
Robert Winston Well you fall in love, don't you? Isn't that what it
is? No, Okay, when you turn on the switch you make a circuit.
Daisy Goodwin You connect a circuit.
Answer: The switch controls the flow of electricity through a circuit
- a complete, unbroken loop through which electric charges can move.
When the light switch is on, these electric charges can move in an
endless loop. This loop begins at a power station where the charges
pick up electric energy. They then flow through wires to the light
switch, then to the light bulb where they deliver their electric
energy, and finally back to the power company to obtain more energy.
Q: Is a clone the same as a twin?
Will Self No.
Iain Stewart Yes, er, I think... oh God, it's probably not. But I
think it has to be, doesn't it?
John O'Farrell No. How could it be the same? That's not how cloning
works, is it?
Susan Greenfield Yes. An identical twin.
Daisy Goodwin As an identical twin? That's quite interesting. No.
Well, I'm not sure about that. I'd say no. But maybe yes. I'm baffled.
Kirsty Wark No. But there's two different kinds of twin. You have to
give me a point for that!
Robert Winston Well, not necessarily. It's not genetically the same
actually, no. You see, it depends on the kind of twin. Do you mean an
identical twin? Identical twins are different in all sorts of ways.
It's different epigenetics and there's different mitochondrial DNA, so
it's a different organism. Actually, what we're beginning to
understand is that the epigenetic aspects of cloning are fundamentally
very important. And twins are rather more dissimilar than people
imagine, too. For example, they have different fingerprints from each
other, so there are quite interesting and subtle diff erences.
Marina Warner Yes it is. Well, identical twins are clones, not
non-identical twins.
Answer: Yes, up to a point (see Robert Winston's answer).
Q: Why is the sky blue?
Susan Greenfield That was discovered here at the Royal Institution [of
Great Britain] by Tyndall. Sorry, I can't articulate that entirely
because I'm half asleep.
John O'Farrell My daughter explained this to me the other day. She is
in Year Seven. It's to do with blue being the dominant colour in the
colour spectrum.
Will Self It's because of the diffusion of light from the sun through
oxygen, through the air.
Iain Stewart Because of 'Rayleigh scatter', the diffusion of blue
light molecules.
Daisy Goodwin I have no idea. I have looked it up because I've been
asked the question by my children and I've explained it to them and
now I've forgotten. It's the colour of the atmosphere or something.
It's the gases or whatever.
Marina Warner It's a refraction of the light.
Robert Winston Oh bugger, I can't remember now. Um. Oh Jesus. It isn't
really blue actually. It doesn't actually have a colour at all. It
just simply appears blue.
Kirsty Wark Because it's a reflection of the oceans on the planet. No
idea apart from that. I think the sky is blue because... the rain
clouds obscure the blue, and the blue is a reflection... because of
the sunshine. *****! I don't know! Why is the sky blue?
Answer: A daytime sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter
blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light.
Q: What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Will Self It's either the conservation or the dissipation of energy,
isn't it? It's everything tending towards entropy, isn't it?
Iain Stewart It's about the conservation of motion, I think, but I'm
not sure. Different field from mine, you know.
John O'Farrell Let me think. Is it to do with heat conductors? Metal
is an effective heat conductor and wood is not. I remember that from
metalwork classes.
Marina Warner Is it that mass cannot be... that no energy can be lost?
The first law is conversion. Is the second law that there is no
loss... that energy must go somewhere?
Susan Greenfield That everything degenerates to entropy.
Robert Winston I've always refused to answer that question on a matter
of principle, simply because of C P Snow, and you can report that. But
it is in one of my children's books.
Daisy Goodwin Don't know. I'm scientifically illiterate.
Kirsty Wark No idea.
Answer: It is the Law of Increased Entropy. It states that in any
system the quality of energy deteriorates gradually over time.
'Entropy' is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed
or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy
decreases and unusable energy increases, 'entropy' increases. As
usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganisation, randomness and
chaos increase."
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Cultures: A revealing Science Quiz. |
02 Jul 2007 01:07:52 AM |
|
|
In article <o4qg8358v646bsn648h7atbgrqno34ia5a@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Tim Adams
Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2115569,00.html
"We asked three writers, three scientists and two broadcasters to
answer six basic scientific questions, and their answers appear to
confirm the arts/science divide
Q: Why does salt dissolve in water?
Q: Roughly how old is the earth?
Q: What happens when you turn on a light?
Q: Is a clone the same as a twin?
Q: Why is the sky blue?
Q: What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
The panel
John O'Farrell Writer
Author, broadcaster and comedy scriptwriter.
Iain Stewart Geologist
Stewart presents a new TV series, Earth: The Biography, this autumn.
Will Self Writer
Novelist, short-story writer, critic and broadcaster.
Susan Greenfield Scientist
Author of several popular science books about the brain.
Kirsty Wark Broadcaster
Political journalist and presenter of BBC2's Newsnight.
Marina Warner Writer
Novelist, critic and cultural historian, in particular of female
myths.
Robert Winston Scientist
Human fertility expert and science TV presenter.
Daisy Goodwin TV presenter
TV producer and presenter, editor of several poetry anthologies.
Q: Why does salt dissolve in water?
Iain Stewart: Er, I guess the sodium ions get taken up... oh, gosh, I
suppose the sodium and chlorine dissociate. The chlorine joins with
the water and the sodium ions float free. Something like that.
Will Self: It doesn't completely dissolve, of course. It must be
because it absorbs water to the point at which it disintegrates. Is
that right? I couldn't describe it scientifically.
Daisy Goodwin: It forms another compound. The only reason I know any
of this is because I've been testing my daughter on her GCSEs.
Marina Warner: The molecules join with the water molecules. The sodium
molecules join up with the hydrogen and oxygen molecules.
Susan Greenfield: Because sodium and chloride disassociate and H20 is
hydrogen and oxygen.
Kirsty Wark: Because it's less dense.
Robert Winston: It's to do with ions isn't it? Let me just work it
out. It's to do with the way sodium and chloride ions, um. Do you
know, I'm not sure I can really explain it. I can't remember now from
my physics years ago.
John O'Farrell: No idea.
Answer: Sodium chloride is an ionic substance that contains
alternating sodium and chlorine ions. When salt is added to water, the
partial charges on the water molecule are attracted to the Na+ and Cl-
ions. The water molecules work their way into the crystal structure
and between the individual ions, surrounding them and slowly
dissolving the salt.
Got it.
Q: Roughly how old is the earth?
John O'Farrell I'll have a guess. About 100 million years?
Will Self I'm completely winging this. A couple of billion years? No?
Give me right on that. Mark me up.
Iain Stewart This I am sure of: 4.5 billion - no, actually 4.6 billion
years.
Daisy Goodwin Pass. This is embarrassing.
Marina Warner That I don't know. (I did actually just hear Melvyn
Bragg's programme this week about very ancient worlds.) I'm not very
good at figures.
Robert Winston Well, the universe is 13 billion or 14 billion and the
earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old.
Kirsty Wark More than 5 billion years.
Susan Greenfield Oh blimey. Well, I know that human beings have been
going for about a million and a half years, so ... I'm just grasping
here. Something like 60 billion years or something like that, but
that's a grasp. I'm not a physical scientist and it shows. I'm
probably not scientifically literate.
Answer: 4.5 billion years.
Q: What happens when you turn on a light?
Will Self In my house, very little, because I never get round to
changing the bulbs. You complete a circuit?
Iain Stewart This is taking me right back to school physics. It's the
kind of question I always pray a nine-year-old won't ask me. I think
the switch closes a loop for the circuit.
Kirsty Wark It gets brighter. There's a current... that connects
between two prongs.
Marina Warner The energy is conducted along the wire to the filament.
John O'Farrell I'm running out of steam here. I really don't know.
Susan Greenfield There's a flow of electrons called a current, and
it's that flow which is the energy and generates heat and light.
Robert Winston Well you fall in love, don't you? Isn't that what it
is? No, Okay, when you turn on the switch you make a circuit.
Daisy Goodwin You connect a circuit.
Answer: The switch controls the flow of electricity through a circuit
- a complete, unbroken loop through which electric charges can move.
When the light switch is on, these electric charges can move in an
endless loop. This loop begins at a power station where the charges
pick up electric energy. They then flow through wires to the light
switch, then to the light bulb where they deliver their electric
energy, and finally back to the power company to obtain more energy.
Got it.
Q: Is a clone the same as a twin?
Will Self No.
Iain Stewart Yes, er, I think... oh God, it's probably not. But I
think it has to be, doesn't it?
John O'Farrell No. How could it be the same? That's not how cloning
works, is it?
Susan Greenfield Yes. An identical twin.
Daisy Goodwin As an identical twin? That's quite interesting. No.
Well, I'm not sure about that. I'd say no. But maybe yes. I'm baffled.
Kirsty Wark No. But there's two different kinds of twin. You have to
give me a point for that!
Robert Winston Well, not necessarily. It's not genetically the same
actually, no. You see, it depends on the kind of twin. Do you mean an
identical twin? Identical twins are different in all sorts of ways.
It's different epigenetics and there's different mitochondrial DNA, so
it's a different organism. Actually, what we're beginning to
understand is that the epigenetic aspects of cloning are fundamentally
very important. And twins are rather more dissimilar than people
imagine, too. For example, they have different fingerprints from each
other, so there are quite interesting and subtle diff erences.
I'll have to look this up, but why would identical twins have different
mitochondrial DNA? is that what the authors are saying? I always
thought that genetically, they would be equivalent, but during
development subtle environmental influences in the womb might cause the
observed differences.
A clone however, although it would share the same nuclear DNA, would
have the different, epigentic DNA unless an egg were used from the
subject's mother or close maternal relative.
Marina Warner Yes it is. Well, identical twins are clones, not
non-identical twins.
Answer: Yes, up to a point (see Robert Winston's answer).
Q: Why is the sky blue?
Susan Greenfield That was discovered here at the Royal Institution [of
Great Britain] by Tyndall. Sorry, I can't articulate that entirely
because I'm half asleep.
John O'Farrell My daughter explained this to me the other day. She is
in Year Seven. It's to do with blue being the dominant colour in the
colour spectrum.
Will Self It's because of the diffusion of light from the sun through
oxygen, through the air.
Iain Stewart Because of 'Rayleigh scatter', the diffusion of blue
light molecules.
Daisy Goodwin I have no idea. I have looked it up because I've been
asked the question by my children and I've explained it to them and
now I've forgotten. It's the colour of the atmosphere or something.
It's the gases or whatever.
Marina Warner It's a refraction of the light.
Robert Winston Oh bugger, I can't remember now. Um. Oh Jesus. It isn't
really blue actually. It doesn't actually have a colour at all. It
just simply appears blue.
Kirsty Wark Because it's a reflection of the oceans on the planet. No
idea apart from that. I think the sky is blue because... the rain
clouds obscure the blue, and the blue is a reflection... because of
the sunshine. *****! I don't know! Why is the sky blue?
Answer: A daytime sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter
blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light.
Got it.
Q: What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Will Self It's either the conservation or the dissipation of energy,
isn't it? It's everything tending towards entropy, isn't it?
Iain Stewart It's about the conservation of motion, I think, but I'm
not sure. Different field from mine, you know.
John O'Farrell Let me think. Is it to do with heat conductors? Metal
is an effective heat conductor and wood is not. I remember that from
metalwork classes.
Marina Warner Is it that mass cannot be... that no energy can be lost?
The first law is conversion. Is the second law that there is no
loss... that energy must go somewhere?
Susan Greenfield That everything degenerates to entropy.
Robert Winston I've always refused to answer that question on a matter
of principle, simply because of C P Snow, and you can report that. But
it is in one of my children's books.
Daisy Goodwin Don't know. I'm scientifically illiterate.
Kirsty Wark No idea.
Answer: It is the Law of Increased Entropy. It states that in any
system the quality of energy deteriorates gradually over time.
'Entropy' is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed
or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy
decreases and unusable energy increases, 'entropy' increases. As
usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganisation, randomness and
chaos increase."
I thought it had to be a closed system.
Some of those answers by the non scientists were very amusing.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Cultures: A revealing Science Quiz. |
02 Jul 2007 10:46:05 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-4877C1.23075201072007@news.giganews.com...
In article <o4qg8358v646bsn648h7atbgrqno34ia5a@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Tim Adams
Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2115569,00.html
"We asked three writers, three scientists and two broadcasters to
answer six basic scientific questions, and their answers appear to
confirm the arts/science divide
Q: Why does salt dissolve in water?
Q: Roughly how old is the earth?
Q: What happens when you turn on a light?
Q: Is a clone the same as a twin?
Q: Why is the sky blue?
Q: What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
(snip)
Q: Roughly how old is the earth?
John O'Farrell I'll have a guess. About 100 million years?
Will Self I'm completely winging this. A couple of billion years? No?
Give me right on that. Mark me up.
Iain Stewart This I am sure of: 4.5 billion - no, actually 4.6 billion
years.
Daisy Goodwin Pass. This is embarrassing.
Marina Warner That I don't know. (I did actually just hear Melvyn
Bragg's programme this week about very ancient worlds.) I'm not very
good at figures.
Robert Winston Well, the universe is 13 billion or 14 billion and the
earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old.
Kirsty Wark More than 5 billion years.
Susan Greenfield Oh blimey. Well, I know that human beings have been
going for about a million and a half years, so ... I'm just grasping
here. Something like 60 billion years or something like that, but
that's a grasp. I'm not a physical scientist and it shows. I'm
probably not scientifically literate.
Answer: 4.5 billion years.
(Snip)
What about this one?
This bugs me. How sudden was the formation of the earth that its age can be
narrowed down to an accuracy of half a billion years? What are the criteria
that determine when it's finished forming? And didn't life begin about 4
billion years ago? That leaves the earth uninhabited for only half a billion
years. (It's kind of odd using the words "only" and "billion" in the same
sentence.)
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Cultures: A revealing Science Quiz. |
02 Jul 2007 06:59:30 PM |
|
|
In article <o9ydnUzrjpsigBTbnZ2dnUVZ_v2knZ2d@io.com>,
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-4877C1.23075201072007@news.giganews.com...
In article <o4qg8358v646bsn648h7atbgrqno34ia5a@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Tim Adams
Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2115569,00.html
"We asked three writers, three scientists and two broadcasters to
answer six basic scientific questions, and their answers appear to
confirm the arts/science divide
Q: Why does salt dissolve in water?
Q: Roughly how old is the earth?
Q: What happens when you turn on a light?
Q: Is a clone the same as a twin?
Q: Why is the sky blue?
Q: What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
(snip)
Q: Roughly how old is the earth?
John O'Farrell I'll have a guess. About 100 million years?
Will Self I'm completely winging this. A couple of billion years? No?
Give me right on that. Mark me up.
Iain Stewart This I am sure of: 4.5 billion - no, actually 4.6 billion
years.
Daisy Goodwin Pass. This is embarrassing.
Marina Warner That I don't know. (I did actually just hear Melvyn
Bragg's programme this week about very ancient worlds.) I'm not very
good at figures.
Robert Winston Well, the universe is 13 billion or 14 billion and the
earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old.
Kirsty Wark More than 5 billion years.
Susan Greenfield Oh blimey. Well, I know that human beings have been
going for about a million and a half years, so ... I'm just grasping
here. Something like 60 billion years or something like that, but
that's a grasp. I'm not a physical scientist and it shows. I'm
probably not scientifically literate.
Answer: 4.5 billion years.
(Snip)
What about this one?
This bugs me. How sudden was the formation of the earth that its age can be
narrowed down to an accuracy of half a billion years? What are the criteria
that determine when it's finished forming? And didn't life begin about 4
billion years ago? That leaves the earth uninhabited for only half a billion
years. (It's kind of odd using the words "only" and "billion" in the same
sentence.)
That's the usually given estimate. I don't have the link, but a long
time ago, I saw a comparison of all of the dating methods. There was
quite a spread, but If I recall, all of them showed it to be about 4 to
5 billion years old. 4.5 bya is the best estimate.
It's believe that life started 3.5 to 3.7 bya. Again that's a best
estimate since the first organisms did no leave much in the way of
remains.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Cultures: A revealing Science Quiz. |
02 Jul 2007 03:22:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:07:52 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-4877C1.23075201072007@news.giganews.com>
In article <o4qg8358v646bsn648h7atbgrqno34ia5a@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
:
Robert Winston Well, not necessarily. It's not genetically the same
actually, no. You see, it depends on the kind of twin. Do you mean an
identical twin? Identical twins are different in all sorts of ways.
It's different epigenetics and there's different mitochondrial DNA, so
it's a different organism. Actually, what we're beginning to
understand is that the epigenetic aspects of cloning are fundamentally
very important. And twins are rather more dissimilar than people
imagine, too. For example, they have different fingerprints from each
other, so there are quite interesting and subtle diff erences.
I'll have to look this up, but why would identical twins have different
mitochondrial DNA?
I seriously don't know.
You may wish to ask Lord Winston directly on this matter.
is that what the authors are saying?
Some of them are, yes.
I always
thought that genetically, they would be equivalent, but during
development subtle environmental influences in the womb might cause the
observed differences.
Yes.
These differences are what Lord Winston correctly refers to as
"epigenetic".
But they are quite unrelated to the identity of the mitochondrial DNA.
For "we" are really a composite committee of several different
species, some so parasitic that they have become symbiotic.
Mitochondria are separate beings, with their own DNA.
These little "energizer batteries" get passed (mostly) from the mother
to the offspring.
Other separate greeblies that form "us" are the gut bacteria and
cetera.
A clone however, although it would share the same nuclear DNA, would
have the different, epigentic DNA unless an egg were used from the
subject's mother or close maternal relative.
I do not know what you mean by "epigenetic DNA".
Marina Warner Yes it is. Well, identical twins are clones, not
non-identical twins.
Answer: Yes, up to a point (see Robert Winston's answer).
Q: What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
:
Answer: It is the Law of Increased Entropy. It states that in any
system the quality of energy deteriorates gradually over time.
'Entropy' is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed
or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy
decreases and unusable energy increases, 'entropy' increases. As
usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganisation, randomness and
chaos increase."
I thought it had to be a closed system.
You are correct.
Some of those answers by the non scientists were very amusing.
And revealing of the divide of education.
These examples were the very basic "science" equivalent of asking
folks to name the leading character in a Shakespeare play, or to
identify a well-known Mozart Symphony, a task with which most
scientists would be more than adequately educated for.
I think that the "divide" between scientists and artists is terribly
one-sided, in that many scientists, (at least the one with whom I
interact), are artistically literate to an impressive degree;
yet artists, (at least the ones with whom I interact), are alarmingly
illiterate, scientifically, even to the point of a significant
proportion of them actuallyu being PROUD of their ignorance!
I guess it would not surprise you as to where the woo-woo *****
beliefs mainly resided...
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Cultures: A revealing Science Quiz. |
03 Jul 2007 12:43:26 AM |
|
|
In article <v8dh83tid88dtfdig4ig8fi3a8bsm8c45c@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:07:52 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-4877C1.23075201072007@news.giganews.com>
In article <o4qg8358v646bsn648h7atbgrqno34ia5a@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
:
Robert Winston Well, not necessarily. It's not genetically the same
actually, no. You see, it depends on the kind of twin. Do you mean an
identical twin? Identical twins are different in all sorts of ways.
It's different epigenetics and there's different mitochondrial DNA, so
it's a different organism. Actually, what we're beginning to
understand is that the epigenetic aspects of cloning are fundamentally
very important. And twins are rather more dissimilar than people
imagine, too. For example, they have different fingerprints from each
other, so there are quite interesting and subtle diff erences.
I'll have to look this up, but why would identical twins have different
mitochondrial DNA?
I seriously don't know.
You may wish to ask Lord Winston directly on this matter.
is that what the authors are saying?
Some of them are, yes.
I always
thought that genetically, they would be equivalent, but during
development subtle environmental influences in the womb might cause the
observed differences.
Yes.
These differences are what Lord Winston correctly refers to as
"epigenetic".
Agreed.
But they are quite unrelated to the identity of the mitochondrial DNA.
For "we" are really a composite committee of several different
species, some so parasitic that they have become symbiotic.
Mitochondria are separate beings, with their own DNA.
These little "energizer batteries" get passed (mostly) from the mother
to the offspring.
Other separate greeblies that form "us" are the gut bacteria and
cetera.
OK. I looked it up:
http://multiples.about.com/od/funfacts/a/differenttwins.htm
A clone however, although it would share the same nuclear DNA, would
have the different, epigentic DNA unless an egg were used from the
subject's mother or close maternal relative.
I do not know what you mean by "epigenetic DNA".
DNA modified in the cell by enzymatic or chemical means, e. g.
methylases. I left out "modified", but even then there could be
differences during development of later growth.
Marina Warner Yes it is. Well, identical twins are clones, not
non-identical twins.
Answer: Yes, up to a point (see Robert Winston's answer).
I would say the same applies .
Q: What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
:
Answer: It is the Law of Increased Entropy. It states that in any
system the quality of energy deteriorates gradually over time.
'Entropy' is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed
or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy
decreases and unusable energy increases, 'entropy' increases. As
usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganisation, randomness and
chaos increase."
I thought it had to be a closed system.
You are correct.
Some of those answers by the non scientists were very amusing.
And revealing of the divide of education.
These examples were the very basic "science" equivalent of asking
folks to name the leading character in a Shakespeare play, or to
identify a well-known Mozart Symphony, a task with which most
scientists would be more than adequately educated for.
True. The quiz was a bit unfair.
I think that the "divide" between scientists and artists is terribly
one-sided, in that many scientists, (at least the one with whom I
interact), are artistically literate to an impressive degree;
yet artists, (at least the ones with whom I interact), are alarmingly
illiterate, scientifically, even to the point of a significant
proportion of them actuallyu being PROUD of their ignorance!
I would agree. I know more scientists interested in the arts than people
in the arts interested in science.
I guess it would not surprise you as to where the woo-woo *****
beliefs mainly resided...
Yep. Although they could have asked a group of theologians.
--
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Cultures: A revealing Science Quiz. |
03 Jul 2007 04:10:45 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:43:26 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-D70784.22432602072007@news.giganews.com>
In article <v8dh83tid88dtfdig4ig8fi3a8bsm8c45c@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:07:52 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-4877C1.23075201072007@news.giganews.com>
In article <o4qg8358v646bsn648h7atbgrqno34ia5a@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
:
Robert Winston Well, not necessarily. It's not genetically the same
actually, no. You see, it depends on the kind of twin. Do you mean an
identical twin? Identical twins are different in all sorts of ways.
It's different epigenetics and there's different mitochondrial DNA, so
it's a different organism. Actually, what we're beginning to
understand is that the epigenetic aspects of cloning are fundamentally
very important. And twins are rather more dissimilar than people
imagine, too. For example, they have different fingerprints from each
other, so there are quite interesting and subtle diff erences.
I'll have to look this up, but why would identical twins have different
mitochondrial DNA?
I seriously don't know.
You may wish to ask Lord Winston directly on this matter.
is that what the authors are saying?
Some of them are, yes.
I always
thought that genetically, they would be equivalent, but during
development subtle environmental influences in the womb might cause the
observed differences.
Yes.
These differences are what Lord Winston correctly refers to as
"epigenetic".
Agreed.
But they are quite unrelated to the identity of the mitochondrial DNA.
For "we" are really a composite committee of several different
species, some so parasitic that they have become symbiotic.
Mitochondria are separate beings, with their own DNA.
These little "energizer batteries" get passed (mostly) from the mother
to the offspring.
Other separate greeblies that form "us" are the gut bacteria and
cetera.
OK. I looked it up:
http://multiples.about.com/od/funfacts/a/differenttwins.htm
A clone however, although it would share the same nuclear DNA, would
have the different, epigentic DNA unless an egg were used from the
subject's mother or close maternal relative.
I do not know what you mean by "epigenetic DNA".
DNA modified in the cell by enzymatic or chemical means, e. g.
methylases. I left out "modified", but even then there could be
differences during development of later growth.
Marina Warner Yes it is. Well, identical twins are clones, not
non-identical twins.
Answer: Yes, up to a point (see Robert Winston's answer).
I would say the same applies .
Q: What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
:
Answer: It is the Law of Increased Entropy. It states that in any
system the quality of energy deteriorates gradually over time.
'Entropy' is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed
or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy
decreases and unusable energy increases, 'entropy' increases. As
usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganisation, randomness and
chaos increase."
I thought it had to be a closed system.
You are correct.
Some of those answers by the non scientists were very amusing.
And revealing of the divide of education.
These examples were the very basic "science" equivalent of asking
folks to name the leading character in a Shakespeare play, or to
identify a well-known Mozart Symphony, a task with which most
scientists would be more than adequately educated for.
True. The quiz was a bit unfair.
I think that the "divide" between scientists and artists is terribly
one-sided, in that many scientists, (at least the one with whom I
interact), are artistically literate to an impressive degree;
yet artists, (at least the ones with whom I interact), are alarmingly
illiterate, scientifically, even to the point of a significant
proportion of them actuallyu being PROUD of their ignorance!
I would agree. I know more scientists interested in the arts than people
in the arts interested in science.
I guess it would not surprise you as to where the woo-woo *****
beliefs mainly resided...
Yep. Although they could have asked a group of theologians.
Do not discount Jesuit priests.
Apart from their strange sexual predilections, many of them are both
(very) scientifically literate, as well as artistically knowledgeable
to a high degree.
(Many of them play several musical instruments and can read music and
sing, have an excellent working knowledge of the classics, and so on.
They know an awful lot about astronomy, basic physics, maths, "natural
history", biology, etc.)
Those Jesuit priests with whom I have managed to have a private and
frank conversation, have admitted to me that they are teetering on the
edge of atheism, if not actually having fallen over that edge, but
that they are too old to change their comfortable and worthwhile
didactic career paths.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Cultures: A revealing Science Quiz. |
03 Jul 2007 06:46:24 PM |
|
|
In article <kb4k831qo3absask3u2oti4rptl81fm9u4@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:43:26 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-D70784.22432602072007@news.giganews.com>
In article <v8dh83tid88dtfdig4ig8fi3a8bsm8c45c@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:07:52 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-4877C1.23075201072007@news.giganews.com>
In article <o4qg8358v646bsn648h7atbgrqno34ia5a@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
:
Robert Winston Well, not necessarily. It's not genetically the same
actually, no. You see, it depends on the kind of twin. Do you mean an
identical twin? Identical twins are different in all sorts of ways.
It's different epigenetics and there's different mitochondrial DNA, so
it's a different organism. Actually, what we're beginning to
understand is that the epigenetic aspects of cloning are fundamentally
very important. And twins are rather more dissimilar than people
imagine, too. For example, they have different fingerprints from each
other, so there are quite interesting and subtle diff erences.
I'll have to look this up, but why would identical twins have different
mitochondrial DNA?
I seriously don't know.
You may wish to ask Lord Winston directly on this matter.
is that what the authors are saying?
Some of them are, yes.
I always
thought that genetically, they would be equivalent, but during
development subtle environmental influences in the womb might cause the
observed differences.
Yes.
These differences are what Lord Winston correctly refers to as
"epigenetic".
Agreed.
But they are quite unrelated to the identity of the mitochondrial DNA.
For "we" are really a composite committee of several different
species, some so parasitic that they have become symbiotic.
Mitochondria are separate beings, with their own DNA.
These little "energizer batteries" get passed (mostly) from the mother
to the offspring.
Other separate greeblies that form "us" are the gut bacteria and
cetera.
OK. I looked it up:
http://multiples.about.com/od/funfacts/a/differenttwins.htm
A clone however, although it would share the same nuclear DNA, would
have the different, epigentic DNA unless an egg were used from the
subject's mother or close maternal relative.
I do not know what you mean by "epigenetic DNA".
DNA modified in the cell by enzymatic or chemical means, e. g.
methylases. I left out "modified", but even then there could be
differences during development of later growth.
Marina Warner Yes it is. Well, identical twins are clones, not
non-identical twins.
Answer: Yes, up to a point (see Robert Winston's answer).
I would say the same applies .
Q: What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
:
Answer: It is the Law of Increased Entropy. It states that in any
system the quality of energy deteriorates gradually over time.
'Entropy' is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed
or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy
decreases and unusable energy increases, 'entropy' increases. As
usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganisation, randomness and
chaos increase."
I thought it had to be a closed system.
You are correct.
Some of those answers by the non scientists were very amusing.
And revealing of the divide of education.
These examples were the very basic "science" equivalent of asking
folks to name the leading character in a Shakespeare play, or to
identify a well-known Mozart Symphony, a task with which most
scientists would be more than adequately educated for.
True. The quiz was a bit unfair.
I think that the "divide" between scientists and artists is terribly
one-sided, in that many scientists, (at least the one with whom I
interact), are artistically literate to an impressive degree;
yet artists, (at least the ones with whom I interact), are alarmingly
illiterate, scientifically, even to the point of a significant
proportion of them actuallyu being PROUD of their ignorance!
I would agree. I know more scientists interested in the arts than people
in the arts interested in science.
I guess it would not surprise you as to where the woo-woo *****
beliefs mainly resided...
Yep. Although they could have asked a group of theologians.
Do not discount Jesuit priests.
Ask me about Jebbies. I had four years of them in high school.
Apart from their strange sexual predilections, many of them are both
(very) scientifically literate, as well as artistically knowledgeable
to a high degree.
I agree. Some of them are very bright. Why they hold on to their
superstitions, I don't know.
(Many of them play several musical instruments and can read music and
sing, have an excellent working knowledge of the classics, and so on.
They know an awful lot about astronomy, basic physics, maths, "natural
history", biology, etc.)
I heard a brilliant lecture once on evolution, the origin of the
universe, and origin of life by George Coyne, a Jesuit priest. I was
amazed. I can't recall if he mentioned "God" once. As far as everything
else, I could find no objection. He was head of the Vatican Observatory
which for some reason is in Arizona in the States. He was apparently
kicked out of that position by Benny because he spoke out on Intelligent
Design. Coyne denies it, but I think what happened is fairly clear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Coyne
Those Jesuit priests with whom I have managed to have a private and
frank conversation, have admitted to me that they are teetering on the
edge of atheism, if not actually having fallen over that edge, but
that they are too old to change their comfortable and worthwhile
didactic career paths.
I think so too. Many have left the church, like Philip Berrigan who was
a prominent anti-Vietnam protester and who died recently, not only left
the preisthood but married a ex nun. His brother was one of my teachers
in high school.
--
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Cultures: A revealing Science Quiz. |
02 Jul 2007 06:08:47 PM |
|
|
On Jul 2, 4:22 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:07:52 -0700, johac<jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Robert Winston Well, not necessarily. It's not genetically the same
actually, no. You see, it depends on the kind of twin. Do you mean an
identical twin? Identical twins are different in all sorts of ways.
It's different epigenetics and there's different mitochondrial DNA, so
it's a different organism. Actually, what we're beginning to
understand is that the epigenetic aspects of cloning are fundamentally
very important. And twins are rather more dissimilar than people
imagine, too. For example, they have different fingerprints from each
other, so there are quite interesting and subtle diff erences.
I'll have to look this up, but why would identical twins have different
mitochondrial DNA?
I seriously don't know.
You may wish to ask Lord Winston directly on this matter.
He must have misspoke on this. Identical twins should both have
the mitochondrial DNA of the common ovum they came from.
These examples were the very basic "science" equivalent of asking
folks to name the leading character in a Shakespeare play, or to
identify a well-known Mozart Symphony, a task with which most
scientists would be more than adequately educated for.
I think that the "divide" between scientists and artists is terribly
one-sided, in that many scientists, (at least the one with whom I
interact), are artistically literate to an impressive degree;
yet artists, (at least the ones with whom I interact), are alarmingly
illiterate, scientifically, even to the point of a significant
proportion of them actuallyu being PROUD of their ignorance!
That I've never been able to fathom. A person who wasn't into
music and knew nothing about Mozart would feel no pride in his
ignorance (nor do I suggest he need feel shame). But in the case of
maths and science, people feel psychologically REASURED about their
normality if they lack talent and/or knowledge about it. But it's not
just natural science; people to a lesser extent feel proud about being
ignorant of history and philosophy and certain other subjects.
Look at the effect that this anti-intellectual zeitgeist has on
politics. People feel reassured by the personality of a presidential
candidate if he conveys the attitude: "Gee, gosh, I'm not a thinker;
I'm just a folksy guy and to show you just how folksy I make a special
point of pretending I don't know how to pronounce the word "nucular."
There has been considerable deterioration within the last few
decades. I remember that as recently as 1984 when Mondale was running
against Reagan there was an exchange in one of their debates that you
would not see now. It went something like this. In the course of
answering a question Reagan remarked : "You know, one of the ancient
Romans --- Seneca I believe, or perhaps Cicero --- made a good point
here. He said ....". When Mondale's turn to respond came he began
"I'm think that was Seneca, Mr. President." And then he went on to
respond to the question. I can't imagine that kind of byplay
happening in a presidential debate now. The sad thing is that the
pose (or reality in Bush's case) of being an ignorant dumbass with
just a tiny bit of folksy cracker-barrel wisdom seems to be the
effective way to get elected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Cultures: A revealing Science Quiz. |
02 Jul 2007 06:18:12 PM |
|
|
In article <1183417727.205127.85640@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Mike <matmzc@hofstra.edu> writes:
On Jul 2, 4:22 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:07:52 -0700, johac<jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Robert Winston Well, not necessarily. It's not genetically the same
actually, no. You see, it depends on the kind of twin. Do you mean an
identical twin? Identical twins are different in all sorts of ways.
It's different epigenetics and there's different mitochondrial DNA, so
it's a different organism. Actually, what we're beginning to
understand is that the epigenetic aspects of cloning are fundamentally
very important. And twins are rather more dissimilar than people
imagine, too. For example, they have different fingerprints from each
other, so there are quite interesting and subtle diff erences.
I'll have to look this up, but why would identical twins have different
mitochondrial DNA?
I seriously don't know.
You may wish to ask Lord Winston directly on this matter.
He must have misspoke on this. Identical twins should both have
the mitochondrial DNA of the common ovum they came from.
Hmmm...doesn't cloning involve putting a nucleus with the
desired genome into a donor ovum, after removing the nucleus
from that ovum?
In that case, could a clone not indeed have a different
mitochondrial lineage?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Cultures: A revealing Science Quiz. |
02 Jul 2007 06:34:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:18:12 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
- Refer: <f6c13k$chc$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>
In article <1183417727.205127.85640@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Mike <matmzc@hofstra.edu> writes:
On Jul 2, 4:22 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:07:52 -0700, johac<jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Robert Winston Well, not necessarily. It's not genetically the same
actually, no. You see, it depends on the kind of twin. Do you mean an
identical twin? Identical twins are different in all sorts of ways.
It's different epigenetics and there's different mitochondrial DNA, so
it's a different organism. Actually, what we're beginning to
understand is that the epigenetic aspects of cloning are fundamentally
very important. And twins are rather more dissimilar than people
imagine, too. For example, they have different fingerprints from each
other, so there are quite interesting and subtle diff erences.
I'll have to look this up, but why would identical twins have different
mitochondrial DNA?
I seriously don't know.
You may wish to ask Lord Winston directly on this matter.
He must have misspoke on this. Identical twins should both have
the mitochondrial DNA of the common ovum they came from.
Hmmm...doesn't cloning involve putting a nucleus with the
desired genome into a donor ovum, after removing the nucleus
from that ovum?
In that case, could a clone not indeed have a different
mitochondrial lineage?
Yes, except that it was not what Winston was referring to.
Q: Is a clone the same as a twin?
He was referring to the "twin" side of the equation, and specifically
referring to identical twins.
As far as I can see, he was just plain wrong in his assertion that
they have different mtDNA.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Cultures: A revealing Science Quiz. |
02 Jul 2007 04:49:15 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
Tim Adams
Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2115569,00.html
"We asked three writers, three scientists and two broadcasters to
answer six basic scientific questions, and their answers appear to
confirm the arts/science divide
Q: Why does salt dissolve in water?
Q: Roughly how old is the earth?
Q: What happens when you turn on a light?
Q: Is a clone the same as a twin?
Q: Why is the sky blue?
Q: What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
I got most of those, though my answer for the light was much simpler,
and for the sky, I'd have mentioned the biology of the receptors in the eye
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Cultures: A revealing Science Quiz. |
02 Jul 2007 06:37:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:49:15 GMT, Ash <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:
- Refer: <vpeii.13660$_14.7383@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>
Michael Gray wrote:
Tim Adams
Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2115569,00.html
"We asked three writers, three scientists and two broadcasters to
answer six basic scientific questions, and their answers appear to
confirm the arts/science divide
Q: Why does salt dissolve in water?
Q: Roughly how old is the earth?
Q: What happens when you turn on a light?
Q: Is a clone the same as a twin?
Q: Why is the sky blue?
Q: What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
I got most of those, though my answer for the light was much simpler,
and for the sky, I'd have mentioned the biology of the receptors in the eye
Good on you!
Study up for the inevitable "arts" literacy quiz! ;)
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Cultures: A revealing Science Quiz. |
02 Jul 2007 11:25:15 AM |
|
|
On 2 jul, 04:57, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Tim Adams
Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2115569,00.html
"We asked three writers, three scientists and two broadcasters to
answer six basic scientific questions, and their answers appear to
confirm the arts/science divide
Q: Why does salt dissolve in water?
Q: Roughly how old is the earth?
Q: What happens when you turn on a light?
Q: Is a clone the same as a twin?
Q: Why is the sky blue?
Q: What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
The panel
John O'Farrell Writer
Author, broadcaster and comedy scriptwriter.
Iain Stewart Geologist
Stewart presents a new TV series, Earth: The Biography, this autumn.
Will Self Writer
Novelist, short-story writer, critic and broadcaster.
Susan Greenfield Scientist
Author of several popular science books about the brain.
Kirsty Wark Broadcaster
Political journalist and presenter of BBC2's Newsnight.
Marina Warner Writer
Novelist, critic and cultural historian, in particular of female
myths.
Robert Winston Scientist
Human fertility expert and science TV presenter.
Daisy Goodwin TV presenter
TV producer and presenter, editor of several poetry anthologies.
Q: Why does salt dissolve in water?
Iain Stewart: Er, I guess the sodium ions get taken up... oh, gosh, I
suppose the sodium and chlorine dissociate. The chlorine joins with
the water and the sodium ions float free. Something like that.
Will Self: It doesn't completely dissolve, of course. It must be
because it absorbs water to the point at which it disintegrates. Is
that right? I couldn't describe it scientifically.
Daisy Goodwin: It forms another compound. The only reason I know any
of this is because I've been testing my daughter on her GCSEs.
Marina Warner: The molecules join with the water molecules. The sodium
molecules join up with the hydrogen and oxygen molecules.
Susan Greenfield: Because sodium and chloride disassociate and H20 is
hydrogen and oxygen.
Kirsty Wark: Because it's less dense.
Robert Winston: It's to do with ions isn't it? Let me just work it
out. It's to do with the way sodium and chloride ions, um. Do you
know, I'm not sure I can really explain it. I can't remember now from
my physics years ago.
John O'Farrell: No idea.
Answer: Sodium chloride is an ionic substance that contains
alternating sodium and chlorine ions. When salt is added to water, the
partial charges on the water molecule are attracted to the Na+ and Cl-
ions. The water molecules work their way into the crystal structure
and between the individual ions, surrounding them and slowly
dissolving the salt.
Q: Roughly how old is the earth?
John O'Farrell I'll have a guess. About 100 million years?
Will Self I'm completely winging this. A couple of billion years? No?
Give me right on that. Mark me up.
Iain Stewart This I am sure of: 4.5 billion - no, actually 4.6 billion
years.
Daisy Goodwin Pass. This is embarrassing.
Marina Warner That I don't know. (I did actually just hear Melvyn
Bragg's programme this week about very ancient worlds.) I'm not very
good at figures.
Robert Winston Well, the universe is 13 billion or 14 billion and the
earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old.
Kirsty Wark More than 5 billion years.
Susan Greenfield Oh blimey. Well, I know that human beings have been
going for about a million and a half years, so ... I'm just grasping
here. Something like 60 billion years or something like that, but
that's a grasp. I'm not a physical scientist and it shows. I'm
probably not scientifically literate.
Answer: 4.5 billion years.
Q: What happens when you turn on a light?
Will Self In my house, very little, because I never get round to
changing the bulbs. You complete a circuit?
Iain Stewart This is taking me right back to school physics. It's the
kind of question I always pray a nine-year-old won't ask me. I think
the switch closes a loop for the circuit.
Kirsty Wark It gets brighter. There's a current... that connects
between two prongs.
Marina Warner The energy is conducted along the wire to the filament.
John O'Farrell I'm running out of steam here. I really don't know.
Susan Greenfield There's a flow of electrons called a current, and
it's that flow which is the energy and generates heat and light.
Robert Winston Well you fall in love, don't you? Isn't that what it
is? No, Okay, when you turn on the switch you make a circuit.
Daisy Goodwin You connect a circuit.
Answer: The switch controls the flow of electricity through a circuit
- a complete, unbroken loop through which electric charges can move.
When the light switch is on, these electric charges can move in an
endless loop. This loop begins at a power station where the charges
pick up electric energy. They then flow through wires to the light
switch, then to the light bulb where they deliver their electric
energy, and finally back to the power company to obtain more energy.
Q: Is a clone the same as a twin?
Will Self No.
Iain Stewart Yes, er, I think... oh God, it's probably not. But I
think it has to be, doesn't it?
John O'Farrell No. How could it be the same? That's not how cloning
works, is it?
Susan Greenfield Yes. An identical twin.
Daisy Goodwin As an identical twin? That's quite interesting. No.
Well, I'm not sure about that. I'd say no. But maybe yes. I'm baffled.
Kirsty Wark No. But there's two different kinds of twin. You have to
give me a point for that!
Robert Winston Well, not necessarily. It's not genetically the same
actually, no. You see, it depends on the kind of twin. Do you mean an
identical twin? Identical twins are different in all sorts of ways.
It's different epigenetics and there's different mitochondrial DNA, so
it's a different organism. Actually, what we're beginning to
understand is that the epigenetic aspects of cloning are fundamentally
very important. And twins are rather more dissimilar than people
imagine, too. For example, they have different fingerprints from each
other, so there are quite interesting and subtle diff erences.
Marina Warner Yes it is. Well, identical twins are clones, not
non-identical twins.
Answer: Yes, up to a point (see Robert Winston's answer).
Q: Why is the sky blue?
Susan Greenfield That was discovered here at the Royal Institution [of
Great Britain] by Tyndall. Sorry, I can't articulate that entirely
because I'm half asleep.
John O'Farrell My daughter explained this to me the other day. She is
in Year Seven. It's to do with blue being the dominant colour in the
colour spectrum.
Will Self It's because of the diffusion of light from the sun through
oxygen, through the air.
Iain Stewart Because of 'Rayleigh scatter', the diffusion of blue
light molecules.
Daisy Goodwin I have no idea. I have looked it up because I've been
asked the question by my children and I've explained it to them and
now I've forgotten. It's the colour of the atmosphere or something.
It's the gases or whatever.
Marina Warner It's a refraction of the light.
Robert Winston Oh bugger, I can't remember now. Um. Oh Jesus. It isn't
really blue actually. It doesn't actually have a colour at all. It
just simply appears blue.
Kirsty Wark Because it's a reflection of the oceans on the planet. No
idea apart from that. I think the sky is blue because... the rain
clouds obscure the blue, and the blue is a reflection... because of
the sunshine. *****! I don't know! Why is the sky blue?
Answer: A daytime sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter
blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light.
Q: What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Will Self It's either the conservation or the dissipation of energy,
isn't it? It's everything tending towards entropy, isn't it?
Iain Stewart It's about the conservation of motion, I think, but I'm
not sure. Different field from mine, you know.
John O'Farrell Let me think. Is it to do with heat conductors? Metal
is an effective heat conductor and wood is not. I remember that from
metalwork classes.
Marina Warner Is it that mass cannot be... that no energy can be lost?
The first law is conversion. Is the second law that there is no
loss... that energy must go somewhere?
Susan Greenfield That everything degenerates to entropy.
Robert Winston I've always refused to answer that question on a matter
of principle, simply because of C P Snow, and you can report that. But
it is in one of my children's books.
Daisy Goodwin Don't know. I'm scientifically illiterate.
Kirsty Wark No idea.
Answer: It is the Law of Increased Entropy. It states that in any
system the quality of energy deteriorates gradually over time.
'Entropy' is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed
or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy
decreases and unusable energy increases, 'entropy' increases. As
usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganisation, randomness and
chaos increase."
I do not completely agree with the lasy part of the last sentence.
I see no increase in disorganisation randomness and chaos in the
evolution from a stand alone dustcloud into a black hole. Entropy
increases that is true but the rest is just mystification. (and food
for mystified theists)
Though it is true for the original object of the law, which was a
comparitivily small volume of gas, it is quite nonsense for a star,
and for the universe.
I maintain that while entropy increases atoms become more complex,
until everything is organized into one big particle (and not random
but centralized).
Peter van Velzen
July 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
