




















The Panel2. Comment #53401 by _J_ on July 1, 2007 at 9:06 am
3. Comment #53403 by phil rimmer on July 1, 2007 at 9:45 am
4. Comment #53404 by He-man Daunted World on July 1, 2007 at 9:54 am
Forget the arts/science divide. This confirms that scientists don't even know their science.5. Comment #53407 by almagest on July 1, 2007 at 10:09 am
I cannot believe how little science and engineering the scientists know. Including whoever produced the answers. Look at the light switch answer - do none of you smart scientists know that mains power is alternating current these days? Then entropy = unusable energy?6. Comment #53410 by Corylus on July 1, 2007 at 10:42 am
7. Comment #53415 by an_ant_under_a_penny on July 1, 2007 at 11:03 am
I think that specialisation may be the problem here. We specialise to early in life, training only those things we're already good at and neglecting the rest. The point of allowing people to choose their subjects at school, for example, is to acknowledge a variety of talents. But the downside is that you remain ignorant of a lot of things. I dropped physics and chemistry at the earliest convenience, and, predictably, failed on all questions having something to do with it.8. Comment #53419 by the great teapot on July 1, 2007 at 11:32 am
This shows that the people taking part have a life and don't spend all day swotting for a physics A level they took 30 years ago.9. Comment #53420 by Tony Jackson on July 1, 2007 at 11:42 am
None of these questions is difficult. They really are a basic test of scientific literacy. So I for one was appalled at the ignorance displayed by the scientists ! Susan Greenfield - who remember is the director of the Royal Institution - saying the Earth is sixty billion years old is bloody pathetic! And the second law of thermodynamics answers in particular were atrocious. We really do have a problem……..10. Comment #53427 by Geraint on July 1, 2007 at 12:21 pm
What on Earth was the 'answer' to the lightbulb question meant to be all about? Electrons visiting a power station and 'picking up energy'? Uh? The question was also vague.11. Comment #53472 by jonecc on July 1, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I would have liked it if they'd asked the same panel some wider questions. It would have benn interesting to see if they could put the names of artists to Renaissance artworks, or place South American countries on a map. I suspect that Will Self would have come out as the polymath.12. Comment #53486 by GodlessHeathen on July 1, 2007 at 4:14 pm
13. Comment #53522 by BT Murtagh on July 1, 2007 at 11:00 pm
This shows that the people taking part have a life and don't spend all day swotting for a physics A level they took 30 years ago.
14. Comment #53588 by stephenray on July 2, 2007 at 6:13 am
I'm glad someone else pointed out about UK mains current being AC; no electrons get back to the power station, do they? They don't move far enough. What's the frequency of mains electricity?15. Comment #53598 by Rtambree on July 2, 2007 at 7:11 am
It's astonishing that Robert Winston and Susan Greenfield, two prominent face-of-science public intellectuals didn't get the answers to some basic questions.16. Comment #53642 by Pete_C on July 2, 2007 at 11:38 am
Because of 'Rayleigh scatter', the diffusion of blue light molecules.
17. Comment #53695 by Krister Bratland on July 2, 2007 at 4:49 pm
15. Comment #53588 by stephenray on July 2, 2007 at 6:13 am18. Comment #53702 by Rtambree on July 2, 2007 at 5:57 pm
It's the charge that moves, not the electrons. Electrons' A to B drift velocity is far slower than walking pace.19. Comment #53714 by Krister Bratland on July 2, 2007 at 7:59 pm
19. Comment #53702 by Rtambree on July 2, 2007 at 5:57 pm20. Comment #53716 by A on July 2, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Krister Bratland: The frequency of mains in the UK is around 60Hz. This is due to the frequency of revolutions in the magnet/coil which is inducing the current.
21. Comment #53761 by Krister Bratland on July 3, 2007 at 3:52 am
You are right, I got them backwards. 60Hz is for the US. My apologies.22. Comment #53764 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 4:10 am
20. Comment #53714 by Krister Bratland23. Comment #53766 by robert s on July 3, 2007 at 4:41 am
The electrons are the charge carriers; you can't talk about the charge moving independently of the electrons!24. Comment #53799 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 8:30 am
Robert s25. Comment #53805 by AtheistAcolyte on July 3, 2007 at 9:52 am
Mad props to John O'Farrell for knowing that he doesn't know a lot of it. That is the best form of ignorance, the form we should all practice: the honest ignorance. These questions are not important to most people in their daily lives, and so we shouldn't look down on them for not knowing the answers. We should, however, look down on those people who claim to know that which they clearly don't. Those are the dangerous ones, the falsely wise.26. Comment #53835 by Red Foot Oakie on July 3, 2007 at 1:02 pm
27. Comment #53839 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Red Foot Oakie28. Comment #53845 by Red Foot Oakie on July 3, 2007 at 2:21 pm
29. Comment #53846 by robert s on July 3, 2007 at 2:22 pm
RFO:30. Comment #53864 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Some more pop science questions:31. Comment #53879 by Red Foot Oakie on July 3, 2007 at 10:20 pm
32. Comment #54018 by A on July 5, 2007 at 1:06 am
Krister Bratland: The frequency of mains in the UK is around 60Hz. This is due to the frequency of revolutions in the magnet/coil which is inducing the current.
Krister Bratland: You are right, I got them backwards. 60Hz is for the US. My apologies.
33. Comment #54067 by Mushroom on July 5, 2007 at 7:00 am
Regarding the questions posed in the article, one of them illustrates how seriously it should be taken:
"Q: Is a clone the same as a twin?
Answer: Yes, up to a point (see Robert Winston's answer)."
If you go beyond that point, the answer will be "no". This means that the correct answer is "yes and no", and so all the answers are correct. The question leads nowhere.
34. Comment #54072 by Rtambree on July 5, 2007 at 7:36 am
Good one Mushroom - I think you can now do Robert Winston's or Susan Greenfield's job as public science communicator.35. Comment #54083 by Mushroom on July 5, 2007 at 8:57 am
Haha thanks, they don't make it look difficult do they?Experimental results show that (nearly) all produced and observed neutrinos have left-handed helicities (spins antiparallel to momenta), and all antineutrinos have right-handed helicities, within the margin of error. In the massless limit, it means that only one of two possible chiralities is observed for either particle. These are the only chiralities included in the Standard Model of particle interactions.
It is possible that their counterparts (right-handed neutrinos and left-handed antineutrinos) simply do not exist. If they do, their properties are substantially different from observable neutrinos and antineutrinos. It is theorized that they are either very heavy (on the order of GUT scale — see Seesaw mechanism), do not participate in weak interaction (so-called sterile neutrinos), or both.
36. Comment #54156 by Rtambree on July 5, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Yes, Iron, etc and a few other heavier trace elements have N>P so DQ>UP, but since we have so much more water in us, I would assume UQ>DQ overall. Although I wouldn't bet my house on it - all sorts of weird counter-intuitive statistical effects can come in effect. For example, the fact that we're breathing in the same O atoms that Napoleon breathed in... all the time. That's weird.37. Comment #55477 by Mushroom on July 11, 2007 at 8:30 am
I'll bow out now, someone else can have a go. I'd be interested to know the answer to the bonus question though?38. Comment #55488 by robert s on July 11, 2007 at 9:22 am
A solid answer to that question will win you a Nobel Prize and make you a celebrity.39. Comment #55490 by Rtambree on July 11, 2007 at 9:25 am
39. Comment #55488 by robert s40. Comment #55491 by pewkatchoo on July 11, 2007 at 9:29 am
41. Comment #55498 by robert s on July 11, 2007 at 9:56 am
Well, I suppose it depends on how deep a 'why' you mean.
1. Comment #53398 by Apemanblues on July 1, 2007 at 8:50 am
Although, I'm shocked at a scientist not knowing the age of the earth.
Other Comments by Apemanblues