To commemorate the fact that 2005 is the World Year of Physics, the website spiked-online conducted a survey of scientists to determine what, if given the opportunity, they would teach the world about science, if they could teach just one thing.
This is also to commemorate Einstein Year in celebration of the fella who devised the most reknowned, and least understood, physical equation: E = mc2. Spelled out, this means the total Energy of any physical substance is equal to its mass times the square of the speed of light (c).
As an example, my 14 carat gold wedding ring weighs about 10 grams, or 0.01 kg.
The speed of light (in a vacuum) is approximately 300,000,000 metres per second, or just over a billion kilometres per hour.
My ring's total potential energy then can be calculated as:
E = (0.01 kg) x (300,000,000 m/s)2
= 900,000,000,000,000 kg*m2/s2
This is 900 trillion Joules, or 900,000 Gigajoules (GJ)
To put THAT in perspective, the average WWII atom bomb unleashed an amount of energy approximately equal to 90 GJ. This means that, on the third finger of my left hand, I have stored enough energy to equal ten thousand atomic bombs.
He-Man wasn't the only guy to put a ring on his finger and claim, "I have the Power!!" I could kick some serious Skeletor ass if I could unleash the huge amounts of whoop-ass in my wedding ring.
Now, it's impossible to convert all that mass to energy instantaneously; at least it is for me. But it goes to show why you need so very little material to make a bomb of that sort, of which the vast majority of the stuff that goes BOOM doesn't even convert to energy. Trippy!!
Unfortunately, this also debunks the rather neat idea of food replicators on the Federation Starship Enterprise. They are purported to convert energy into substances fit for human consumption and other 'stuff'. (How do they get the gravy to taste right?) And while scientifically possible, it would take a couple truck-loads of energy to do that. I don't think that large-scale matter-energy conversion is a real plausibility in the foreseeable future.
Basically what I'm saying here is: SCIENCE IS NEAT!!
Now getting back to the scientist survey, here's a small sampling of some of the responses garnered when individuals were queried what they would teach the world about science, if given only one choice. (And FYI, if you're still reading this, the overwhelming top choices were the Theory of Evolution, and the Scientific Method.)
*********************************************
Science can validate experience, but not deny it
The scientific method
Modern biology starts with influencing the course of biological evolution
Beware the natural scientist who makes generalisations outside their area of expertise
Science is the art of doubt, not of certainty
All things are made of atoms
Charles Darwin's discovery of the creation and evolution of organisms by natural selection
Science is about how things are and how they work, and what makes everything work is energy
Knowledge of science is fundamental to our quality of life, and the application of scientific discovery is vital
The atom is the fundamental structure of matter
Science is not merely a collection of ideas, from which one is free to pick and choose according to taste
The scientific method - how science proceeds from theory to law
Amphiphiles are molecules that have an affinity for both aqueous and non-aqueous media
(I didn't read them all, but this was the lamest response I came across. You have one topic to teach the entire world about science, and this is the best you can come up with!?)
Scientists fall in love - with experiments
The second law of thermodynamics - that spontaneous changes are accompanied by an increase of entropy, an increase in disorder
Real discoveries in science are unanticipated
Science = imagination + humility2
Evolutionary biology implies that human life is meaningless, and existential psychology asserts that human life is fundamentally absurd
Science is essentially disputative
The scientific method, and the basic statistical tools that support it
Science is nothing but trained and organised common sense
Science as the search for answers actually generates only more questions
Science is the only method for discovering truth which is potentially accessible to all human beings
(I don't fully agree with this one. 'only'?)
The periodic table
Science is based upon empiricism - the objective observation of natural phenomena, and the attempt to encompass them
The process of evolution - that life, in all its diversity, has come about by the process of natural selection acting upon chance genetic variation
You must have doubts about everything you experience
The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority
By dispassionate measurement and discussion, one can answer questions which are often the subject of heated controversy
Science is driven by truth, and is accountable to reality
Sit down before the facts as a little child; be prepared to give up every preconceived notion
Unfortunately, this also debunks the rather neat idea of food replicators on the Federation Starship Enterprise.
OMG, what if the rest of the show wasn't scientifically plausible either??/???questionmark/?
Posted by: fv | Wednesday, 04 May 2005 at 08:50 PM
Well the transporters came equipped with Heisenberg Compensators, so there's no uncertainty there.
But there might have been a few other items of questionable plausibility.
Posted by: Simon | Wednesday, 04 May 2005 at 09:27 PM