Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, July 1, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document The Panel

by Tim Adams

Reposted from the Guardian Unlimited:
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

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. Fuck! 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.


For the complementary story in the Sunday Observer go to:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1366,The-new-age-of-ignorance,Tim-Adams

Comments 1 - 41 of 41 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #53398 by Apemanblues on July 1, 2007 at 8:50 am

 avatarThat was pretty funny.

Although, I'm shocked at a scientist not knowing the age of the earth.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

2. Comment #53401 by _J_ on July 1, 2007 at 9:06 am

 avatarBonus points to Kirsty Wark for shattering the image I had of her with 'Fuck! I don't know! Why is the sky blue?'

A pat on the back for a less-than-characteristically-Jewish oath from Robert Winston, in 'I can't remember now. Um. Oh Jesus.'

And a perfumed letterbomb to the Guardian for making me feel ignorant, but at least pointing out that I could be worst.

Other Comments by _J_

3. Comment #53403 by phil rimmer on July 1, 2007 at 9:45 am

 avatarI thought everyone did pretty poorly here, except where people were on home ground. I thought the "correct" answers were pretty duff too.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

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.

Other Comments by He-man Daunted World

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?

Other Comments by almagest

6. Comment #53410 by Corylus on July 1, 2007 at 10:42 am

 avatarWell, I thought they were all really brave to agree to put themselves through that. (The potential for embarrassment was huge). Please, lets all give them credit for that.

My own performance: could have been better, could have been worse... but I fear I would have shown myself up dreadfully by swearing even more than Kirsty Wark.

Other Comments by Corylus

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.
(No, actually I did get the light switch thing right. *g*) Maybe we need a checklist of "scientific facts any educated person should know," and you shouldn't be allowed to specialize until you've learned all of them.

Other Comments by an_ant_under_a_penny

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.

Other Comments by the great teapot

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……..

Other Comments by Tony Jackson

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.

I agree that it's the scientists' answers that are the most shocking. I can't imagine scientists trying to communicate with the public when they're all at sea outside their own little specialism.

I'm not surprised that Will Self did fairly well, especially compared to the other writers and broadcasters. I might even have expected better. But the others were just pathetic.

Other Comments by Geraint

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.

Other Comments by jonecc

12. Comment #53486 by GodlessHeathen on July 1, 2007 at 4:14 pm

 avatarThe "correct answer" for what happens when you turn on the light makes it sound like the UK uses DC power.

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

13. Comment #53522 by BT Murtagh on July 1, 2007 at 11:00 pm

 avatarI was just feeling good about myself, having had no difficulty with any of them, when quoth the great teapot:
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.

Seriously, I could have done without that. It's hard enough for a geek to maintain self-esteem in this day and age!

Oh, and yes, the 'correct' answers were rather imprecise in several cases... Oh dear, I'm making it worse, aren't I?

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

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?

It's interesting, though, that it's one thing to know something (water/salt) and another to articulate it...

Deductions from Iain Stewart for "Different field from mine..."

Other Comments by stephenray

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.

Everyone expects the poet and journalists to be clueless, but well-known science celebrities? Winston & Greenfield should tender their resignations.

The artsy-humanities types will respond "but you don't need to know how old the Earth is". Which is correct, but you don't need to know which poet/painter/composer, etc completed what work of art either.

In the end it's about status - it's currently considered geek-ish or boffinish (negative characteristics) to know things about the real world, whereas you are "cultured" and "sophisticated" (postiive characteristics) if you can quote the fashionable playwrights.

Since humanities-types with arts degrees are the gatekeepers to the media that sets the agenda for what is "cool" and what is "uncool", naturally attributes which make them look good are elevated and vice versa.

It's entirely arbitrary if science is interesting to people - it depends on what the prevailing culture is and what gets you status. Some cultures (the Victorian gentleman) played a high value on learning about the world. Life under Soviet Russia made mathematics and chess-playing desirable.

At the moment, it's the anti-intellectual mainstream American media that dominates western culture, and naturally you get the corresponding decline in interest in science (i.e. your status, income, ability to "score" is reduced).

It doesn't have to be like this. Sure, the maths of advanced theorectical physics is beyond many people, but basic concepts such as humans' relation to the cosmos, age of the Earth, anthropology, genes, etc is within the ability of every normal human.

And it doesn't have to be either science, or arts. I'm sure a lot more scientists such as Dawkins, Sagan, Weinberg, etc know about literature, music, theatre, classics, etc than the other way around.

Other Comments by Rtambree

16. Comment #53642 by Pete_C on July 2, 2007 at 11:38 am


Because of 'Rayleigh scatter', the diffusion of blue light molecules.


Light has molecules now?

A scientifically literate person should certainly have been able to get all of these. However, a lot of being "smart" is knowing how to obtain the answers somehow and not necessarily having the answers memorized. Also, some of these bad answers could be chalked up to the pressure of being put on the spot.

Other Comments by Pete_C

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 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?"

In an AC current, the electrons move like links in a chainsaw, back and forth, induced by a rotating magnet and wire coil. The electrons jump from atom to atom in the cable, but never get lost to the circuit, and they are not stored in the power plant.

What happens in the light bulb is a kind of friction caused by the resistance in the coil inside the bulb, leading to an energy build up at that point in the circuit. This energy is released in the form of packets (quantas) of light that we know as photons, but the electrons never leave the cirquit themselves.

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.

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.

Regarding the fact that scientists are unable to answer some of these questions, I don't hold it against them at all. I defy anyone to know everything. It is not practical for one person to build up expert skills in all areas of knowledge. This is why we have specialists and experts on different subjects. A cosmologist does not strictly need to know photosynthesis, and if he/she comes accross a scenario where it needs to be understood in their line of work, they can look it up or ask the experts.

The strength to admit that you don't know is a higher virtue than the will to give the wrong answer.

Krister

Other Comments by Krister Bratland

18. 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.

>I defy anyone to know everything

No, of course not, but these were basic questions for scientists, especially public science communicators who have each done numerous BBC shows and written numerous books. They, especially, should know the answers to questions like the age of the species, age of the Earth, age of the Universe, etc, etc.

I would even argue that all educated people, not just scientists, should know the basic outline of humanity's relationship with each other, to the Earth, and with the cosmos. What are the accepted ages of the Earth and universe? How closely related is the closest species? When did they diverge? The spread of human migration around the Earth? How does energy get formed in the sun and then used in our bodies?

Issues like these should be every bit as compulsory in high school curricula as Shakespeare or Pythagoras' theorem.

Other Comments by Rtambree

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 pm

"It's the charge that moves, not the electrons. Electrons' A to B drift velocity is far slower than walking pace."

I beg to differ. A particles charge is intrinsic, and same charge particles repel eachother. Rather than exchange their charge, they transport the charge by moving through the conductor.

"An ordered motion of charged particles in a particular direction (in metals, these are the electrons) is known as electric current."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge

"When a metal wire is connected across the two terminals of a DC voltage source such as a battery, the source places an electric field across the conductor. The moment contact is made, the free electrons of the conductor are forced to drift toward the positive terminal under the influence of this field. The free electron is therefore the current carrier in a typical solid conductor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current

On your other comment, I agree that the questions revolve around fairly basic issues, but we all know how easy it is to forget knowledge we acquired in school if it is not being applied for a sufficiently long period. Why should it be different for a scientist?

Krister

Other Comments by Krister Bratland

20. 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.


It is actually 50Hz not 60Hz.

Other Comments by A

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.

Other Comments by Krister Bratland

22. Comment #53764 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 4:10 am

20. Comment #53714 by Krister Bratland

>I beg to differ.

From your own source that you quoted...

"Electric currents in solid matter are typically very slow flows. For example, in a copper wire of cross-section 0.5 mm˛, carrying a current of 5 A, the drift velocity of the electrons is of the order of a millimetre per second."

So you can see, it's not the flow of the actual physical electrons from the power station to the light bulb that causes it to shine when you switch it on, it's the flow of the charge.

The official answer given to the question in The Panel is correct, with the wording being charges, and not electrons. The point is merely that Susan Greenfield's answer was technically wrong.

Other Comments by Rtambree

23. 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!

The point is that there are so many electrons in the wires that the required energy can be transferred without the electrons having to move very far.

However, you might talk about the electric field in the circuit, which changes at close to the speed of light and therefore does manage to run back to the 'power company' within the time frame of the AC cycle.

The field is what causes the electrons to move and determines how much energy each electron carries (fields exert forces on charged particles, stronger fields exert bigger forces, bigger forces mean more energy).

I was disappointed that none of the responses - not even the 'right' one - attempted to address what happens in the light bulb to convert the electricity into light. There's some important physics there, particularly when you compare GLS and fluorescent lamps.

Other Comments by robert s

24. Comment #53799 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 8:30 am

Robert s

>I was disappointed that none of the responses - not even the 'right' one - attempted to address what happens in the light bulb to convert the electricity into light. There's some important physics there, particularly when you compare GLS and fluorescent lamps.

Yes, I noticed this too - if I was put on the spot with that question I would have been focussing on the filament, discrete quanta and blackbody radiation curves, rather than merely the closure of a circuit.

The physics you mention are very indeed very important. Perhaps if the panel included a physicist.

I wonder if some science disciplines require a broader knowledge than others e.g. an astrobiologist would know some geology, astronomy, biology, atmospherics and fluid dynamics, cosmology, etc.

I would expect an astrobiologist to get more of these pop science quiz questions correct, than say a mathematical physicist would.

I would also expect scientists as a whole would get more art questions correct than artists get science questions correct.

Other Comments by Rtambree

25. 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.

Other Comments by AtheistAcolyte

26. Comment #53835 by Red Foot Oakie on July 3, 2007 at 1:02 pm

 avatarOkay, as I just commented on my own lack of concrete basic scientific knowledge in the "New Age of Ignorance" article, I'm gonna take a crack at these my own damn self. Learn from my humiliation!

1. Why does salt dissolve in water?
Water reacts with salt, and the hydrogen and OH breaks the bonds holding the sodium and chloride atoms together. You get h20, and NaOh, and HCL. It's a covalent bonding thing...

2. Roughly, what is the age of the earth.
Man, this is embarrassing. I've read it a dozen times. ... Four billion years? Or is that the age of the universe?

3. What happens when you turn on a light?
You open a circuit, electricity flows into the light bulb, where it reacts with something. The reaction produces light and heat.

4. Is a clone the same thing as a twin?
Short answer: No.

5. Why is the sky blue?
Refraction. Sunlight hits the atmosphere certain and certain wavelengths are filtered out by the atmosphere. Blue gets through.

6. What isthe second law of thermodynamics:
Hah! Just read this one- that's the one that says with every energy transfer you lose some of the energy- or some of the useful energy.

So how did I do?

Other Comments by Red Foot Oakie

27. Comment #53839 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Red Foot Oakie

1. The answer to just about every chemistry question is "charge". The biosphere is just a bunch of jiggling charges and largely empty space.

2. 4.56gy +/- a few hundred million.

3. Yep - depends on how exact and detailed an answer one wants.

4. Semantics. Depends on your definitions.

5. Actually it's the shorter wavelengths that get preferentially scattered. The photons hit the electrons of the atmospheric gases, the electrons jump up an energy level, and then jump back down, releasing the photon again in a random direction.

6. Yes, entropy always increases. Its discovery was the death of the clockwork universe metaphor, popular after Newton.

Here's some more to have a go at, just off the top of your head...

1. Approximate age of the universe?
2. Approximate age of (anatomically modern) homo sapiens?
3. Closest relatives to humans? When did they split?
4. What are four basic states of matter? What's the most common? For bonus points, name two more states of matter?
5. What's the difference between leptons and fermions?

Here are some trick questions:

1. Who was the naturalist on board the Beagle when it set off in 1831?

2. The Moon orbits the centre of the Earth. True or false?

3. Watson & Crick discovered DNA. True or false?

4. Darwin discovered evolution. True or false?

Other Comments by Rtambree

28. Comment #53845 by Red Foot Oakie on July 3, 2007 at 2:21 pm

 avatarRtambree- I'm game.

Remember, this is off the top of my head.

1. 120 billion years.
2. 80,000 years
3. Chimps. No idea.
4. Liquid, solid, gas, plasma. Plasma is the most common through the universe (stars are made of it). Just guessing on other states, probably something quantum mechanics related. That or darkmatter.
5. Leptons guard pots of gold at the end of rainbows. Fermions are horrid "sea demons" under the merciless (but remarkably fair) rule of Balor of the Evil Eye. Both are products of Irish mythology.

Trick questions.
1. To many ways to mess this one up! I don't even know when Darwin was on the Beagle.
2. I'm gonna say false. More like it orbits the 'average' of the Earth.
3. False. They discovered that DNA was the storehouse for genetic information.
4. I'm going to say false- he theorized about it.

Other Comments by Red Foot Oakie

29. Comment #53846 by robert s on July 3, 2007 at 2:22 pm

RFO:

1 - Dissolving salt: This is not a redox reaction. The important point is that the oxygen atoms in water molecules are slightly negative and the hydrogens slightly positive, even though the bonds are covalent.

This is why water (and some other polar molecules like ethanol) have a higher boiling point that non-polar molecules of similar mass (eg methane or CO2). The oxygen atoms are attracted to the hydrogen atoms in adjacent molecules forming bonds (called hydrogen bonds) that are much weaker than the intramolecular bonds, but much stronger than the intermolecular bonds.

Salts are ionically bonded - the atoms are held together because they are electrically charged. When you add a polar solvent, the oxygens are attracted to the positive atoms and the hydrogens to the negative ones. When the atoms detach from the matrix (and thus dissolve), they are surrounded by clusters of water molecules and thus find it difficult to reattach to the crystal.

4 - Twins: It's really a horrible question. Identical twins are strongly similar to clones, so it depends on what sort of twin you mean, what sort of clone you mean and how similar two things have to be before you can describe them as 'the same'.

5 - Blue skies: The scattering of blue light is apparent from the yellowness of the Sun. The Sun is actually white, but some of the blue light that was originally headed your way when you look at the Sun has been scattered away, making the Sun look yellow. However sunlight is not yellow as the blue light from the sky also lands on the objects you're looking at, which restores the colour balance.

Rtambree: you're an evil man :)

Other Comments by robert s

30. Comment #53864 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Some more pop science questions:

1. How many genes do humans have?
2. Name the elements that are liquid at room temperature?
3. Which planet is the largest solid body in the solar system?
4. How long has the sun got before it expires?
5. What gas do we breath in more than any other?
6. What fundamental, irreducible (as far we know) particles do we have more of in our bodies: up quarks or down quarks or electrons or neutrinos?
7. Which has more mass, a proton or a neutron?
8. Name three revolutionary ideas Einstein discovered in 1905?
9. Which planet's orbit didn't reconcile with Newtonian physics?
10. What's the difference between a neutrino and an anti-neutrino?

(ok, that last one is hard, even many scientists have trouble with it)

Red Foot Oakie, very brave of you.


Other Comments by Rtambree

31. Comment #53879 by Red Foot Oakie on July 3, 2007 at 10:20 pm

 avatarRtambree:

You gotta tell me how I did on the first set before I go into round two!

Speaking of which, I've seen this gameshow called "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader"- and it's pretty much this format. A bunch of adults competing with a bunch of kids to answer these kinds of trivia questions (not all of them science, but a lot of them). And, since the kids have been going over it in recent memory, they have a real edge.

Other Comments by Red Foot Oakie

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.


It is actually 50Hz not 60Hz.

Krister Bratland: You are right, I got them backwards. 60Hz is for the US. My apologies.


I work with TV broadcast signals - which are predicated on power cycles . . . .

. . . so a UK PAL TV signal at 25 frames per second/50 fields per second is the way it is because of our 50Hz mains.

. . .and a US NTSC TV signal is 30** frames per second/60 fields per second is the way it is because of their 60Hz mains

** well NTSC is actually 29.97 fps when you factor in the colour sub-carrier


Me . . . boring ?

Other Comments by A

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.


I think this was a case of Robert Winston knowing a lot more than the researcher who set the questions!

It's an interesting question: what science should the average person know, before they can call themselves well-educated? I'd be inclined to say the most important things are to do with our place in the cosmos - an idea of how long the universe and the solar system have been around, some knowledge of the history of life on Earth, and an idea of the differences in scale between protons, small molecules, cells, people, planets, galaxies etc. And also an understanding of the scientific method, and how to tell science from pseudoscience. Hmm... also some basic statistics/probability theory for interpreting news reports and evaluating risk... anyone else have suggestions?

Only one of the above questions, the age of the Earth one, fits those categories. No one really needs to know why the sky is blue, although it's a nice bit of knowledge to have. I have a rough idea (would have said same as #28), but I've no idea why short-wavelength light is preferentially scattered, so I'm not really any better off than Daisy Goodwin who said "it's the colour of the atmosphere", which isn't incorrect.

OK Rtambree, now I'll have a go at yours since no one else is!
1. 20-30k I think
2. Mercury, and I think Iodine?
3. Ours! Or is there solid ice under Neptune and Uranus? Not certain of that one.
4. 4-5 billion years I think until it becomes a red giant, then some short period of time before it becomes a white dwarf
5. Nitrogen.
6. I'm gonna go with down quarks, had to look up the composition of protons and neutrons first though.
7. A neutron, by a tiny margin
8. Special relativity is the easy one. Think the others would be that Brownian motion is caused by jiggling atoms (thus proving atomic theory), and something about quanta. Did he show Planck's ideas about blackbody radiation also explain the photoelectric effect?
9. Mercury
10. Hmm.. maybe nothing that we can detect? Except that they annihilate when brought together? Do we know yet whether neutrinos have mass?

Other Comments by Mushroom

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.

1. Matt Ridley quotes 24,000, same as all other mammals.
2. Bromine and Mercury
3,4,5 Yep.
6. I don't think this is something that one knows, but it can be worked out. The answer is neutrinos, not because they're "yours" but because gazillions pass through your body every second. I'd say electrons would be the next most common fundamental particle, and then up-quarks (because there are more protons in your body than neutrons) as we have a lot of light elements.
7, 8 & 9. Yep.
10. Yes, there's supposed to have a tiny mass because they change type. As to what the difference is - there's supposed to be a set of properties other than charge, that can be the opposite or anti e.g. isospin, etc. I'm not really clear on this - I was hoping a particle physicist on this site could clarify this, although each time I ask one, I get a different answer.

Other Comments by Rtambree

35. Comment #54083 by Mushroom on July 5, 2007 at 8:57 am

Haha thanks, they don't make it look difficult do they?

Re Q6: very tricksy! I took "having in our bodies" to mean "part of our bodies", so ranked neutrinos lowest, but I guess your answer works. Have to disagree about the ordering of the others though. We have about as many protons as electrons in our bodies (unless you go around with a strong negative charge - I've met some very repulsive people in my time, but I don't think this was their problem), so we've got at least twice as many up-quarks as electrons.

As to up vs down, you might be right that we have more up than down. My reasoning was that every element except hydrogen has at least as many neutrons as protons, so at least as many downs as ups, and quite a few have more neutrons than protons, probably enough to outweigh the hydrogen. But after having a quick refresher on the periodic table, I see O-16 and C-12 are the most common isotopes of each element (equal p's and n's), so with all that water in our body, it's probably enough to swing it in the ups' favour - don't think any other element will be abundant enough to make a difference.

As to antineutrinos, wikipedia has something to say

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.


Hope that means something to you

Other Comments by Mushroom

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.

Yes, you're right about p=e, so there must be 2UQ for every e. Thanks for that.

As for the neutrino v anti-neutrino, that explanation is as clear as mud. Every textbook definition of antimatter always gives the electron - positron as examples (opposite charge), but that doesn't work for neutrinos.

How about 10 more pop science questions...

1. What's the next closest relative to us beside the chimp, gorilla and orangutan?

2. Approximately what percentage of the variation in our genomes is race-related?

3. What's the greater contributor to Earth's core heat? Radioactive decay or residual heat from its formation?

4. What's the closest star to our Sun? (careful)

5. What's the largest satellite in the solar system?

6. What planets don't have satellites? (careful)

7. If Einstein had his Annus mirabulis in 1905, when was Newton's?

8. Who is considered the father of the scientific method?

9. If you're an observer falling into a black hole, how do you perceive the outside universe as you cross the event horizon?

10. What is by far the most oxidising element and why?

And a bonus question...

Why does the standard model need gravitons as gravity's force carrier when General Relativity explains gravity as simply the geometric curvature of space?

Other Comments by Rtambree

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?

Other Comments by Mushroom

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.

Other Comments by robert s

39. Comment #55490 by Rtambree on July 11, 2007 at 9:25 am

39. Comment #55488 by robert s

>A solid answer to that question will win you a Nobel Prize and make you a celebrity

Not really - most particle physicists assume there's a graviton in the standard model right now. I'm just asking why the necessity. It doesn't need any new physics or research, just an explanation of the existing situation as it is now.

Other Comments by Rtambree

40. Comment #55491 by pewkatchoo on July 11, 2007 at 9:29 am

 avatarI think mr Tambree just had a whooooosh moment.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

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.

If you take the question as analagous to 'why does the double slit experiment need a wave model of light when the photoelectic effect requires a partical model', then the answer would involve the quantum mechanical model of light.

Similarly, with this question we're still at the point of saying 'sometimes you need one model and sometimes the other, but the two can not be reconciled into a unified theory'.

Explaining why the structure of the universe has caused us to reach this rather unsatisfactory state requires a Grand Unified Theory.

But, you're right, that might be over-thinking it.

So, to answer the more limited question, I suppose it comes from the two very different world-views that lead to those theories.

In QM all forces are mediated by particles and there is good experimental evidence for the existence of these particles for the electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces. So it's natural to posit gravitons, even if there's no evidence for them. Gravitons often pop up out of theoretical models like super symmetry and string theories, which seems to be regarded as a Good Thing, although it's hardly a substitute for evidence.

General Relativity arises from positing as an axiom that being in a gravitation field and being in an accelerating frame of reference are fundamentally the same thing. Particles don't come into it.

Other Comments by robert s
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: