The scientist's view of the world

Four hundred years ago, most men believed that they lived on a stationary earth at the center of the
universe. The world beyond the solar system was a mystery. The submicroscopic domain of atoms
and molecules was a complete unknown. Even the immediate environment impinging on man's
senses was largely not understood, or else misunderstood. Except for the simplest facts about the
balancing of static forces, not a single law of nature governing man's own world was accurately
formulated. The Copernican theory of the solar system, which places the sun at the center, had been
published, but it had few adherents and many powerful opponents. There was no science-based
technology. There was scarcely any activity that we would today call science. Mathematics was in its
infancy.

Now, four hundred years later the mere blink of an eye in the lifetime of the human race – man,
surveying the panorama of nature from elementary particles to galaxies, has reason to stand in awe
of his own achievements. In terms of a remarkably few fundamental theories of nature, his
understanding spans a vast scale of sizes in the universe. He sees, woven into the rich complexity of
the world of his senses, simple patterns. In domains far beyond the range of his sense perceptions,
he has discovered surprisingly different but equally simple patterns. As a human activity, science has
become a large enterprise. The technology spawned by science touches every facet of life. Standing
on the shoulders of physical science, the biological and medical sciences have grown to powerful
stature. In parallel with science, mathematics has matured.

In all of human history, there has been no more stunning triumph of the intellect than the creation
over the past few centuries of a scientific structure encompassing a large part of the physical world.
Yet the insights into the workings of nature afforded by this development are not so widely
appreciated as they could be and should be. The aim of this book is to present the modern scientist's
view of the physical world. Everywhere the emphasis will be on the concepts used to describe nature
and the pictures of nature to which physical the ones have led. But pictorial description alone is not
sufficient for understanding. Science is an area of human activity in which precision is vital. This is a
book of science, not merely a book about science Definitions will be exact; the essential content of
most important physical theories will be presented, and at key points where it is necessary.
mathematics will be used.

Two themes run through the following chapters. The first is a theme of simplicity. The abstractions of
science have led from the complexity of everyday experience to the simplicity of the underlying laws
of nature. The second is a theme of activity. Science and our picture of the physical world are
creations of the human mind. Science has provided insight not absolute truth. The creative activity of
science is continually altering as well as enlarging our view of the physical world.

1.1 The faith in simplicity

The commonly known and accepted miracle of science is the enormous power has given to man to
change the world around him. There is another miracle of science, less often appreciated. It is the
miracle of the simplicity, generality, and beauty of fundamental physical theories. The straitjacket of
experimental confirmation, far from enclosing the imagination of the scientist in a cheerless and
airless room, has spurred on his imagination, and the successful theories of physical science that
have been created possess a simplicity and inner harmony as satisfying to the mind of man as any
creation of the free and unfettered imagination. Expressed differently, we should be grateful to nature
for revealing its secrets to us in such a rewarding way.

Scientists like to say that nature is simple. What they mean is that it has been found possible to
describe parts of nature the parts we understand in a simple way. Without the underlying faith in
simplicity and the rewards of success, man would lack the stamina to overcome the obstacles to
understanding that line the route to the discovery of simplicity. As every student of science is well
aware, the simplicity of nature is not synonymous with ease of comprehension. The theory of
relativity, viewed as a formal structure, is exceedingly simple. But to understand it and to use it
requires a heroic effort of the mind, for the concepts employed, and the ways of thinking required, are
largely foreign to our everyday experience. Simplicity to the scientist means economy and
compactness – of assumptions, of fundamental concepts, of mathematical equations. The fewer the
basic elements of a theory and the greater the range of phenomena described by the theory, the
simpler does he declare nature to be.

Throughout human history, the faith in simplicity has been a primary motivating force in science. In
essence it is the faith in the possibility of science at all, that nature, or parts of nature, follow an
orderly and predictable pattern governed by fixed laws. But more than a mere faith in the existence of
laws of nature, the faith in simplicity adds a conviction that these laws are sufficiently simple that man
dare hope to find and comprehend them. So powerful was the faith in simplicity among some Greek
philosophers that simplicity itself came to be regarded as a sufficient test of the truth of a theory.
Aristotle accepted circular motion as the rule in the heavens not because careful measurements
showed the stars and planets to move in circles, but because the circle is the simplest (or most
"harmonious" or most "perfect") of plane figures. In describing motion on earth, he advanced a theory
of utmost economy. It required but four elements (earth, water, air, and fire) and but two kinds of
natural motion, vertically up and vertically down. Surely the simplicity of Aristotelian physics must
have contributed to its durability.

The birth of modern science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries brought with it no change in
the ancient faith in the simplicity of nature. Rather a new element was added: the reliance on
accurate observations (usually in carefully controlled experiments) to test the acceptability of a theory.
The pyramiding successes of science in the past few centuries have richly rewarded the scientist's
faith in simplicity coupled with his insistence on experimental confirmation.

Because the simplicity of basic science is so little appreciated, it is proper to emphasize it, even to
extol it. At the same time, we must keep in mind that, at least in part, science is fundamentally simple
because man has made it so. From science man gets simple answers because he asks easy
questions. But what exactly is an easy question? Compare these two, the first scientific, the second
nonscientific:

1. What is the electric dipole transition probability from metastable 2s state in hydrogen?
2. What are the advantages of foreign travel?

The average reader without scientific training will regard the first question as incomprehensible and
therefore obviously difficult. But anyone should be willing to venture an answer to the second, which
appears easy enough. Upon a little reflection, of course, you should convince yourself that it is after
all the first question that is easy, the second that is difficult. Assuming the first question is meaningful
(it is) and that science has progressed to the point that an answer exists (it does), then the answer is
just a simple number upon which the thousands who can give an answer amicably agree, and which
the millions of others as amicably accept. The second question, on the other hand, deals with what is
good for man, and there are no harder questions that man has posed to himself than questions of
good and evil.

1.2 Science as creative activity

There are two outstanding misconceptions about science. The first is that it is a cold, dull,
emotionless cataloging of old facts coupled with the plodding relentless discovery and ordering of
new facts according to something called the "scientific method." The second is that science is
devoted to the invention and development of machines and gadgets, that the highly developed
technology of the modern world is science. Each of these misconceptions contains a germ of truth;
but as a characterization of science, each falls very wide of the mark. No such thing as the scientific
method can be discerned in the creative human activity that has produced most of the advances in
science. And technology is a poor substitute for the magnificent structure of facts and theories that
are the body of science.

Modern science got its start around 1600, when men began to ask answerable questions about
nature – to seek relationships rather than final causes, and to test ideas against experiment rather
than just against logic. Francis Bacon was one of the first to see how man could and should proceed
to learn about nature. Yet Bacon, and after him Descartes, went too far in their speculation and
foresaw an all-embracing power of a scientific method which could act as a kind of recipe for scientific
discovery. Their vision never came to fruition. It is true that
there have been important elements of method in science
-the experimental method for example, and the mathematical
method. Yet at the key points of important new scientific
discoveries, chance, intuition, insight, and trial and error
have been more evident than any well-defined scientific
method. The trouble is that if one does not know where one
is going, one does not know how to get there. Scientific
progress is the advance into the unknown, and so far no
reliable recipes for the best way to make that advance have
been found. Probing into the unknown, the scientist is as
much on his own as is a composer before a blank page or an
artist facing an empty canvas. Science, like man's other
achievements, has emerged from the triumph of individual
genius over human frailty, the approaches of successful
scientists have varied as much as human personalities vary.
FIGURE 1.1 The frontier of the very small, Tracks of elementary particles in a bubble chamber. At the point in
the chamber from which the two spirals seem to emanate, two particles were destroyed and four others
created in the submicroscopic violence of a collision extending over 10-13 centimeter in space and 10 second
in time. (Photograph courtesy of Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley)

1.3 The structures of the world

Much of the history of science can be characterized as a probing upward and downward away from
the world of man's immediate sense experience. The
frontiers of physical science have left the human-sized
world which we call the macroscopic world and moved
away to the infinitesimal submicroscopic world (Figure 1.1)
and the enormous cosmological world (Figure 1.2).
Between these distant limits is arrayed that part of the
physical world that is understood, if only imperfectly.

FIGURE 1.2 The frontier of the very large A quasi-stellar object

(named 3C 2700 moving away from the earth at a speed of
more than 27,000 miles/set. Its light may have started toward
the earth about 1.5 billion years ago The central object (A) is a
copious source of both light and radio waves. It is overexposed.
In this picture in order to render visible a mysterious jet (B)
which is a separate strong source of radio waves. Photograph
courtesy of Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatories)

TABLE 1.1 The Structures of the World

OBJECT SIZE SPECIAL ASSOCIATED BRANCH
OF SCIENCE
Elementary particle 10-13 cm or less Particle physics
Atomic nucleus 10-12 cm Nuclear physics
Atom 10-8 cm Atomic physics
Molecule 10-7 cm Chemistry
Giant molecule 10-5 cm Biochemistry
Solids Solid-state physics
Liquids Hydrodynamics
Gases Aerodynamics
Plants and animals 10-5 cm to 104 cm Biology
The planet Earth 109 cm Geology
Star 109 cm to 1014 cm Astrophysics
Galaxy 1022 cm Astronomy
Galactic cluster 1025 cm
The known part of the universe 1028 cm Cosmology
*Lengths in this table are expressed in centimeters, usually abbreviated cm. There are 2.54 cm in one inch. and 30.5 cm in one foot.
From the subatomic elementary particles up to the collection of galactic clusters which is optimistically
called the universe, man is now familiar with a hierarchy of objects joined together in structures of
ever increasing size. Incomplete though the picture may be, it is a grand panorama spanning a factor
of 1041 in dimensions. The names of some of the structures and of some of the special branches of
science concerned with particular levels of the hierarchy are given in Table 1.1.

As a matter of convenience when dealing with large and small numbers, scientists use what is called
the exponential notation, a practice followed in Table 1.1 and in the paragraph above. (Students who
already have facility with the exponential notation should skip the next few paragraphs) The number
one hundred, or ten times ten, is written 10 2, and spoken "ten squared" or "ten to the two." One
thousand, or 1,000, or ten times ten times ten, is written 10 3. One million, which may be written as a
one followed by six zeros, 1,000,000, is more compactly written 10 6. One billion is 109. This is spoken
"ten to the nine," which is short for "ten raised to the ninth power," that is, ten multiplied by itself nine
times. When numbers become exceedingly large. the value of the exponential notation becomes
obvious. The number 1041 in the paragraph above, which is the ratio of the largest distance man
knows anything about to the smallest distance he has been able to study, would be written out as
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Even expressed in words, as one
hundred thousand million million million million million million, it is unwieldy.
The exponential notation for small numbers follows a similar pattern. One tenth is written 10 -1 (“ten to
the minus one"), one hundredth is written 10 -2 (“ten to the minus two"), one thousandth is 10 -3, one
millionth is 10-6, and one billionth is 10 -9. Note that 10-3 is the same the number one divided by 10 3, 10-
6
is 1 divided by 106, and so on. In decimal notation, 10 -6 is 0.000001. The number of zeros to the right
of the decimal point is not six; it is five. The rule for transforming the exponential notation to the
decimal notation is the following. Start with the number one with the decimal point to the right (1.).
Then let the exponent be an instruction for moving the decimal point to the right for a positive
exponent, to the left for a negative exponent. Thus, for 10 -1, the decimal point is moved one place to
the left from 1. to give 0.1. For 10 -6, it is moved six places to the left from 1. to give 0.000001. For 10 3,
it is moved three places to the right to give 1,000.

The rule for multiplying exponential numbers can easily be developed from a few examples. Ten
times one hundred is one thousand, or 10 1 x 102 = 103. One hundred times one thousand is one
hundred thousand, or 10 2 x 103 = 105. The rule is simply this: To multiply powers of ten, add the
exponents. The same rule holds for negative exponents. The same rule holds for negative exponents.
For example, 10-3 x 10-3 = 10-6, one thousandth of one thousandth is one millionth. (The sum of -3
and-3 is-6.) For mixed positive and negative exponents, the same rule continues to hold true. Since
the sum of -2 and +3 is +1, the rule gives the result 10 -2 x 103 = 101, that is, one hundredth of one
thousand is ten. Notice that 10¹ is the same as 10 itself. What then is 10 0? According to the rule for
shifting the decimal point away from 1, the number 10 0 must be exactly 1. There is no shift of the
decimal point. The same conclusion can be reached from the rule for multiplication. For example, 10 -2
x 102 = 100, one hundredth of one hundred is one.

Let us return now to an examination of Table 1.1. It is worth expending some effort trying to visualize
the scale of this physical picture of the world. Ten miles or 1,000 miles or 3 inches conveys to us an
immediate sense of distance, but 10 -12 cm, the size of a nucleus, without some thought and
extrapolation and analogy, is almost meaningless. Since 10 -6 is of one millionth, 10 -12 is one millionth
of one millionth. If we could place one million nuclei in a line, this line would be only one millionth of
one cm long. If we diligently lined up nuclei, adding one nucleus each second (night and day), we
would have a line of nuclei one cm long after 30,000 years. If our one-centimeter line were expanded
to stretch from New York to San Francisco, how big would a nucleus become? It would be blown up
to a tiny speck which would still require a microscope to see.

Oddly enough, the structures of the world appear to grow simpler as we depart in either direction from
the size of man. There is no organization of constituents either in the world of the very small or in the
world of the very large that begins to approach the complexity and degree of organization found in
living creatures. It might be argued that there exist larger and more complicated degrees of
organization in the universe which man's limited intellect is incapable of grasping, but this is an
argument outside the scope of science. So far there is no evidence for any such organization and
much evidence against it. Indeed, the simple theories of the submicroscopic world have succeeded in
dealing with the structure of the stars and to some extent with the structure of galaxies. There have
even been some hints that the properties of the universe at large may be linked intimately with the
laws governing the submicroscopic world. To discover if this is true remains one of the most
challenging problems for the future of science.

1.4 The structure of science

As indicated in Table 1.1, special branches of science have come to be associated with particular
sizes and levels of arrangement of the matter in the world. But at a deeper level science has evolved
in quite a different way than according to the particular object studied. The structure of physics, the
science of f concern to us here, is not around objects or built the physical structure of the world, or
even about particular phenomena in the world. The basic framework of physics is rather a set of
general theories (a very small set, as we shall see), each of which describes a wide range of
phenomena and of objects. Mechanics, for example, one such general theory, accounting for the
behavior of matter over almost the whole explored range of sizes from the submicroscopic to the
cosmological Electromagnetism is another, whose area of application extends from the emission of
gamma rays by elementary particles up to the transmission of starlight throughout the universe. Some
of the branches of study listed in Table 1.1 are merely special areas of application of some general
theory. Atomic physics, for example, is the application of the theory of quantum mechanics to the
properties of atoms. Most of the special branches, however, draw upon more than one. general
theory. Hydrodynamics utilizes the theories of mechanics and of thermodynamics, and astrophysics
draws upon every general theory of physics in its effort to account for the world of the very large.
The arrangement of this book is in the main according to the broad theories that form the most natural
and most beautiful structure of physical science. There will be some exceptions, however. Indeed,
Chapter Two on elementary particles is an exception, for in this fascinating field of modern
exploration, there exist as yet no satisfactory general theories. Particles come first in our survey of
physics because they are the basic building blocks of the universe.

1.5 Theory and experiment in science

Some areas of science, especially in the fields of biology and psychology, are purely experimental.
Facts are being gathered and knowledge increased, but there does not exist the body of ideas,
concepts, and relationships that are collectively called theory to tie together the facts into a coherent
whole, that is, to "explain” the facts. In other areas of science, for example mechanics, the equations
of a well-tested theory have been so elaborately developed that the branch of science seems to be
almost a part of pure mathematics. But every area of science, regardless of its state of mathematical
development, differs in a very fundamental way from pure mathematics and from nearly every other
area of human activity. Science is essentially empirical. No idea in science survives because it is
esthetically pleasing, or mathematically elegant, or magnificently general, although many ideas in
science are all of these things. The idea must weather the test of experiment, and not just one
experiment. It will be attacked from all sides by every device that the experimenter can muster. A
scientist checking a theory is like a test-pilot wringing out a new airplane. He tries his best to break it
apart while hoping against hope that it will hang together. And with the theory as with the airplane,
one flaw is sufficient to bring about its destruction. (The parachute of the scientist is his sense of
detachment and caution. Occasionally scientists have thrown away their parachutes by falling in love
with an idea. The disintegration of the idea can result in the destruction of the scientist.)

Experiment is the final arbiter in science, but a science with only experiment would be a dull thing
indeed. In attempting to understand nature, man has sought much more than mere empirical facts. It
is the theories tying facts together that provide the challenge and reward of science. The new way of
looking at nature, the unexpected relation between different facts, the single equation governing a
vast range of phenomena – these are the things that give to science its stature and nobility.

Although the hard evidence of experiment can destroy a theory, no amount of experimental
verification can "prove" a theory. Every theory has to remain tentative, for two reasons. First, the
theory is to be capable of making an infinite number of different predictions, but man's finite
capabilities limit his ability to test the predictions. The test pilot, no matter how long under he flies the
airplane, can never put it through every conceivable maneuver conditions. He must test only what he
deems most important and recognize that a subtle hidden flaw may go undetected. So it with
theories. Newton's theory of mechanics survived two centuries of exhaustive tests, but finally the flaw
appeared.

Second, no theory is unique. The possibility must always remain open that a theory is supplanted, not
because experimental evidence forces its rejection, but just because an alternative theory is found
which, although neither better nor worse experimentally, is in some way more satisfying to man. It
may be conceptually simpler, possess a more economical mathematical framework, or appear in
some way to be deeper, more profound, and therefore more pleasing esthetically. This human
judgment of theory is as important as experiment itself in shaping the structure and the progress of
science. The scientist's faith in simplicity may indeed cause him to reject a complicated and
cumbersome theory even if no better alternative is at hand, just because of his conviction that a
simpler description of nature must exist.

An idealized version of scientific progress goes something like this:

 Experimental facts,
Laws tying the facts together,
Hypothesis,
Test of the hypothesis against past facts,
Prediction of new facts and further tests,
Theory,
Elaboration and application.
In fact, no such set pattern has been realized in the evolution of any theory in physical science, but
elements of the pattern can be discerned throughout the history of science. Near the end of the
sixteenth century, for example, Tycho de Brahe made accurate observations of the positions of the
planets in the sky. These proved to be vital experimental facts in the evolution of the theory of
mechanics. Brahe's assistant, Johannes Kepler, discovered the laws of planetary motion which in
capsule form neatly summarized the myriad of individual observations of his master, without in any
way "explaining" those observations. But Kepler's laws tied the facts together and made further
progress possible. Some decades later Newton drew together contributions to mechanics by Galileo
and by Hooke, coupled with his own inspired hypothesis of universal gravitation, and created the
theory of mechanics. The theory at once accounted for the past observations summarized by Kepler
and led to the prediction of new observations. It passed its most crucial test in 1846 when
astronomers pointed their telescopes at a certain point in the sky and discovered the new planet
Neptune where it was predicted to be. Elaborated by mathematicians and applied by astronomers
and by practical men, mechanics evolved and still stands today as a comprehensive theory
embracing the subject of motion of material objects over a wide range (but, as we now know, less
than the infinite range once imagined for it).

More often, theory and experiment have developed side by side through mutual cross fertilization.
The experimenter without ideas can discover an endless sequence of useless facts. The theorist
unbridled by the limitations of experiment can produce a stream of fanciful ideas that have nothing to
do with nature.