1. Science and science practice
The kind of science that the people of the world are used to today is relatively new. Earlier, a very important person would say something and everyone else would accept it. Aristotle, a very important philosopher in his day, said that heavy things fall faster than light things (1)—nobody accepted that. Two thousand years later, a scientist (Galileo Galilei) experimented and discovered that this was not true, that heavy and light objects fell down at the same time.
The idea that a scientific concept can be tested in a laboratory to test its truth or falsity has pretty much changed the world of science. The credit for this new method of science is given to Newton (Isaac Newton). Newton was the first to discover that colorless light is actually a combination of different colored lights. According to the rules of the time, after publishing the theory, all scientists were supposed to discuss it, some to argue for it and some to argue against it.
Newton did not approach these discussions, passing colorless sunlight through a prism and splitting it into its inner colors. Not only that, he sent the split colors through a second prism and turned it back into colorless sunlight. The experiment is so irrefutable that no one should have the slightest doubt about his theory. But the scientists of that time were not used to this kind of scientific practice and were very upset with Newton for not giving them any chance to debate his theory, they felt that Newton had cheated them somehow!
No matter how much the scientists of that time disliked it, this is how modern science works. Scientists try to understand the world around us, trying to express as clearly as possible the rules by which nature governs this world. What can be the perfect and clear language from the language of mathematics? So the main purpose of science is to explain the laws of nature with a mathematical structure.
Instead of saying "the mass of matter is energy", scientists say in more precise mathematical terms, "the product of mass of matter and the square of the speed of light is energy" (2). These principles of science are discovered through observation or experiment. Sometimes some people come up with a formula just by thinking and other scientists have to experiment and find out whether it is true or false.
Copernicus created an example of understanding a mystery of science through observation. Those who saw the moon and sun or other planetary stars rising and setting in the sky assumed that everything revolved around the earth. What is the way to deny seeing it with your own eyes? But Copernicus took a closer look and realized that it was different – the sun was in the middle, the earth and all the other planets revolved around it.
When Copernicus first made the announcement nearly four and a half hundred years ago, it did not elicit much response. When Galileo accepted it a hundred years later and tried to prove it, the clergy suddenly followed him. Their scriptures declare that the earth is the center of everything, that the earth revolves around the sun, as if denying the scriptures. The Popes of the Vatican did not forgive him for that. It is almost a joke that Galileo was pardoned by the Vatican Church only in 1992. They can't be blamed - faith is the basis of religion, so one sometimes questions what is written in the scriptures, accepting it with deep faith. Science has no place for faith.
Anyone can question any scientific formula at will, then prove the truth of the formula by argument, observation or experiment. So if someone practices religion using science or tries to practice science using religion, neither science nor religion is of much benefit to anyone. Studies have shown that if corruption is done cleverly, it is possible to make huge sums of money without getting into trouble with the law. Despite the presence of such a “scientific fact”, we always give everyone an “unscientific” advice to live in reality and try to be unscientifically honest ourselves.
Science is not the only knowledge in the world, there are many things that cannot be proved by reasoning, observation or experiment, but we also practice them. Along with science, art-literature-philosophy has many such subjects and all of them have created the world's knowledge base and world's civilization. So it is not true that everything has to be explained in the language of science.
While Copernicus arrived at a scientific formula by observing the planets, stars, and moon-sun, scientists did not always rely on such observations. What you want to observe, if possible, make it in the laboratory and start experimenting with it.
Once upon a time it was thought that all the universes, planets and stars were immersed in an invisible substance called ether, waves created in ether like waves created in water. The scientists then began a hair-raising experiment, the purpose of which was to find out how fast the Earth was moving through the ether. Experiments by Michelson (Albert A. Michelson) and Morey (Edward W. Morley) showed that there is no such thing as ether. (Many poets and writers still don't get the news, they still use the word ether in their writings!) Scientists have tested and proven a concept as important as the ether, just as many other concepts have been tested and proven to be non-existent. Modern science in the world has become dependent on experiments, so a large part of scientific practice now depends on laboratories. Theoretical and practical science are now progressing hand in hand, one cannot imagine these days progressing without the other.
Apart from observation and experiment, of course, scientists always try to understand the mysteries of nature using logic. Great scientists have a kind of sixth sense, with that sixth sense they try to explain many things that ordinary people can't even imagine.
While Michelson and Morley did a hair-raising experiment that made the ether non-existent, scientist Einstein did the same thing in a completely different way. He developed his world-famous relativistic formula to unify some of the formulas of electromagnetism, with a great deal of thought and logic. His theory of relativity directly ruled out the ether, and Michelson Morley's experiment was proof of that.
So it can be said that our modern scientific practice is now developed depending on these three things: observation, experiment or reasoning. We all can't see science directly but we can see the use of science or technology quite easily.
There is no denying it anymore, the fascination with technology is blinding us at times, we are often unable to distinguish between what is science and what is technology. I am giving the credit of science to technology, or science has to bear the responsibility of the discredit of technology.
In today's consumerist world, it is very important to separate science and technology - if we don't, we can be in great danger.
—–
1. A heavy object and a light object falling down at the same time can be deduced by logic alone without any experiment. Let the heavier object fall faster and the lighter object more slowly. Now if a lighter object is tied to a heavier object, the lighter object will prevent the heavier object from falling faster, so the two will fall a little slower together. But we can also see in another way that the heavier and lighter object should be read faster. One way it looks like it will read slowly, the other way it looks like it will read fast. This confusion can be resolved if we assume the two will fall at the same speed.
2. Einstein's famous formula E = mc^2
2. Science vs. Technology
A very beautiful saying is said when comparing mother and child, the saying is. "If the son is bad, the mother is never." A life begins with a mother's love for a child, so what is strange about having such a great faith in a mother? We can change this saying about bad sons and daughters and apply it to science and technology, saying, "Bad technology is bad, but bad science is never." Meaning that science is knowledge and technology is its application, knowledge can never be bad, but technology can easily be terrible. When Einstein pondered his theory of relativity and wrote E = mc^2, his chest never once trembled with fear. But at the end of the Second World War, when the nuclear bombs in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of people in an instant, the hearts of people around the world trembled with fear. Here E = mc^2 is science and the nuclear bomb is technology – the distance between the two.
I don't want to start off with an ugly example when talking about technology. But people constantly confuse science and technology, so it's best to keep the two separate, even if only a little forcefully. There is an acceptance of science, as can be seen from today's religious books. To make a religious belief believable to the general public, the footnote reads "it is scientifically proven." We should be a little wary of technology trying to force its way into our lives by using this wavering acceptance of science.
No one will deny it, because of technology, our lives have become much easier. Let's talk about the communication system, we move from one country to another country in the blink of an eye. Once upon a time we had to fight with nature, nowadays we have brought much of it under our control. Nowadays in our country only upper class people can keep their bodies in air-conditioned room in cool frosty air on hot days. There is no end to such examples, all the wonderful technology to make life easier, what does anyone have to say against it? How about a little look?
In planes-cars-ships (or in factories) we use fuel oil or gas, burn it and extract energy from it and use that energy. We have to pay a price for using this power. That value is called carbon dioxide. Whenever we burn something in the air we produce carbon dioxide gas. It's not a strange gas, we draw oxygen into the lungs when we inhale and exhale carbon dioxide when we exhale.
There is no fear that all the living creatures on earth will end up with all the oxygen on earth one day by breathing in oxygen, or by burning fuel oil in the engines of factories, cars and planes. That's because nature has made a very beautiful system for the living creatures of the world, we use the oxygen we breathe to create carbon dioxide, green plants use that carbon dioxide to make their food through photosynthesis.
Their food is actually our food, not only food, but through the process of photosynthesis, green plants return that oxygen from carbon dioxide back to us. We are immeasurably indebted to green plants for the oxygen we need to survive on Earth. A green world is not only beautiful to look at (the retina of our eyes is most sensitive to this green color) but our breath is guaranteed by these green plants.
The fact that oxygen will decrease and carbon dioxide will increase due to burning more fuel in the world is not yet a matter of concern, the cause of concern is actually another matter, those who follow the earth must know about that matter, the matter is the Green House Effect. Green house thing is not in vogue in our country.
In our country the temperature never drops too much so there is no need to build a greenhouse to keep plants alive (or green) in winter. Greenhouses are in vogue in the winter country, where even though it is cold outside in Konkan, inside the greenhouse there is a comfortable warmth to keep the plants alive. A greenhouse is actually quite simple – a glass house.
Sunlight enters the greenhouse through the glass but cannot escape, trapping the heat inside. The question may arise that what can enter through the glass - it can also come out, so why is it stuck inside? That's because the light that enters the greenhouse through the glass is absorbed by the soil inside the walls or trees. Then when they radiate, it radiates as heat.
The wavelength of light is short, so they can pass through glass; Heat waves have longer wavelengths, but they cannot pass through glass as easily. So the energy as light enters the greenhouse and is trapped as heat.
People have been building such small greenhouses in their homes and nurseries for a long time, but in the last century they have unknowingly built a huge greenhouse. This greenhouse is our earth and the glass house is carbon dioxide gas. Carbon dioxide gas traps heat in the Earth in exactly the same way that glass traps sunlight into heat inside a greenhouse.
Therefore, if the amount of carbon dioxide gas increases in the earth's atmosphere, the temperature of the earth also increases. Scientists estimate that human use of fossil fuels has increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the air by about 14 percent. Because of that, at the end of this century, the temperature of the world is expected to be two or three degrees Celsius higher than what it should be.
It may seem like what else! But actually these two or three degrees can change many things in the world. A large amount of ice is stored in the polar regions of the earth, if the temperature of the earth increases a little, some of that ice will melt and flood the low-lying areas. The first country to sink under water is the country whose name is Bangladesh because the average height of this country is only twenty feet above sea level.
The big western countries will live a luxurious life by burning fuel in planes, cars, ships and big factories and for that Bangladesh will pay the price of submerging the whole country, what can be a bigger injustice than that? Has anyone noticed how a technology as harmless as driving a plane-car-ship can cause great havoc in the world?
Air-conditioned rooms were mentioned when talking about making life comfortable. Not only the house, but during the Iraq war we know that all the jeep tanks of the Sajawa forces are now air-conditioned, the soldiers no longer have to suffer from the heat while fighting. The gas used in air conditioning or aerosols is called chlorofluorocarbons, abbreviated as CFCs. Innocently named C.F.C.
The gas is not harmless at all, this dangerous man-made gas is slowly spreading into the atmosphere and then rising up into the atmosphere that protects us from the ozone layer. It has started to eat. Ozone is made up of our familiar oxygen atoms. The oxygen we breathe in the air is made up of two oxygen atoms, while ozone is made up of three oxygen atoms. Without oxygen we cannot live for a moment but ozone is absolutely harmful for us.
A small amount of ozone is around us from black smoke from factories or cars, but the main ozone on Earth is 12 to 30 miles up in the atmosphere. A very thin layer of ozone covers the entire earth, protecting us from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun by absorbing them. Without this thin layer of ozone, ultraviolet rays would reach the earth directly and destroy us.
But that's exactly what's going to happen with CFCs. A terrible thing happens when CFCs float through the Earth's atmosphere and reach the ozone layer. Ultraviolet rays break down CFCs and release a gas called chlorine from within. This chlorine gas reacts with ozone and turns it into oxygen. Due to the lack of ozone that used to protect us from ultra violet rays, the terrible rays have started to hit the earth. If one percent of ozone decreases, two percent more ultraviolet rays will reach the earth and five percent more people will get skin cancer.
Not only that cancer will be more, people's immune system will decrease - malaria, typhoid and other diseases will be more. Plants will also become weak, not wanting to grow easily. A terrible disaster will descend on the world.
Scientists have observed that the ozone layer has started to decrease drastically. Not only has it begun to shrink, but the weight layer over Antarctica has actually leaked – not a small leak, but the size of the United States. What a terrible thing! For a little extra comfort in our lifestyle, we have chosen a technology that is closely related to the existence of the animal world on earth. Lest one think that this is the only example - such examples are numerous, and cannot be exhausted.
Science is not a problem, but technology can be a big problem. One big reason why science can't be sold is that technology can be sold. Einstein didn't make a dime by figuring out E = mc^2 (his Nobel Prize came for the photoelectric effect) but has anyone thought of the billions of dollars being exchanged around the world in the race to build a nuclear bomb? Since technology can be sold, it is controlled by businessmen, multinational companies.
There are many examples in the world where businessmen (or companies) have pushed a bad technology into people's lives with the help of their money. Only a few days ago we started watching videos with VCD DVD. Earlier we used VHS, Cassette in video cassette player to watch videos. When these technologies first hit the market, there were two types of videocassettes. One is the Beta which was small in size, modern and advanced.
The other is VHS. Which is large in size, underdeveloped and malnourished. But VHS, the cassette, was owned by a powerful multinational company and forced its way into the market, forcing the advanced beta technology out of the market. In terms of technology, it is not a question of which one is more advanced, it is a question of which company is stronger.
Not only do low-level technologies take over the market for business reasons, but many times modern technologies are also kept in boxes. The best example of this is television. In today's world, there is hardly a person who has not seen television. Everyone has their own opinion about television. But one aspect of television that no one will dispute is its size. The size of the television is huge.
The picture of the television can be seen on the front screen, so why not just that screen as a television then it would take up much less space and we could hang it on the wall of the room like a picture frame. Those who have thought a little about these things know that television technology is made with cathode ray tubes. This tube fires electrons from the back onto the television screen, moving the electrons through the electric and magnetic fields to produce images on the television screen. Electrons need a lot of space behind the screen to get through, so the television can't be that small.
But the interesting thing is that about thirty years ago today RCA of the United States. A technician at a television company invented a new type of television that did not use cathode ray tubes and was so thin that it could be hung on the wall like a picture frame.
This revolutionary new technology was supposed to displace the bulky televisions of the medieval era, but that did not happen. RCA The company thought they had spent billions of dollars building huge factories to make conventional televisions. Now, if you want to make this new type of thin finfin television, not only will you have to set up a new factory with billions of dollars, but the previous factory will also be out of order.
They have already captured a market in conventional television that will also be lost – etc. etc. Many kinds of financial problems. everything Thoughtfully, they literally boxed up such a wonderful invention of technology and went back to making old fashioned televisions. I can clearly understand the disappointment of that scientific gentleman.
Almost two centuries after that new technology was reinvented, we started seeing it on laptop computer screens. I will see it again in televised form within the next few days, but much later.
So far the discussion has been like a one-eyed deer. Only negative things are said about technology but one should not think that is the only thing, that technology is so insignificant compared to science that we will always just laugh at it. First, our current civilization is a gift of technology.
Now technology has to be used to research science, not only that, a few days ago the Nobel Prize in Physics was given to scientists along with an electrical engineer. The experiment was made possible because the machine with which the experiment was conducted had solved its mechanical problem.
There are so many wonderful examples of technology around us that there is no comparison. We have all heard the term fiber optic. A hairlike optical fiber core made of glass so small that it can be seen with a microscope, it is possible to send millions of telephone conversations simultaneously through this tiny single core. This impossible achievement was done by the technologists. Light is used to transmit information through optical fibers.
The technicians had to make the glass transparent so that the light would not be absorbed inside the glass. 1000 dB to absorb light at one kilometer when first started. Engineers refined it to make it so transparent that only 0.25 dB of light is absorbed in a kilometer of optical fiber. If you want to write the number of times that the glass has to be refined, you must put four hundred zeros after 1! (Five zeros after 1 equals lakhs, seven zeros equals crores, so if I want to say it in words, I have to say ten billion billion billion billion ... fifty-seven times in total!) I don't know of any other example like this in the history of the world!
So no one should abuse the technology or the technicians. They gave us the civilization of our new world. No one should forget that. Just remember that there are greedy people in the world, there are inconsiderate people, they can burden the world with unnecessary technology or inhumane technology, they can fill it with garbage.
To clean up the world we have to look to the faces of scientists and technologists. Because only they can give us the real world.
Science and the Language of Science–Mathematics::
Let's say a person earns one rupee on the first day of work (we know the amount of money is not much but the amount of money is not important in the matter we are going to discuss). That man brought 2 rupees on the second day, 3 rupees on the third day. Thus on the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh days it brought 4, 5, 6 and 7 rupees respectively. Now if we ask how much money the man brought home on the eighth day, then almost everyone will say eight rupees.
This is a reasonable answer. There is a pattern to his earning, we are not told what that pattern is but we can infer it from his income stream. That's what science is all about, trying to infer the pattern behind the observations. If not enough observations are made, this pattern or rule cannot be fully grasped, leading to errors. Science doesn't care much about that because a formula in science is not like a divine word, it can be changed if needed – it is being done all the time.
If a mathematician were asked about our man's earnings, he would not be quick to answer. Perhaps Vuru would say to Kuch, “How will I answer this? You have told me about the first seven days and proved it. Don't do the others!” We'll probably try to argue with the jugular vein, saying, “I can see it's making more and more money as it goes.
So if the number of days is n then the amount of money earned is also n” the mathematician can say with a soft smile, “Why the amount of money earned is n + (n-1)(n-2)(n-3)(n-4)(n- 5)(n-6)(n-7) may be.” We will then be surprised to discover that this formula gives 1 to 7 respectively for the first seven days but gives 5048 on the eighth day, if anyone doesn't believe me, check the numbers for n. That's the difference between math and science, science can change with new experiments and observations, math doesn't have that opportunity. We always want to prove mathematics so completely that once it is proved and accepted as a theorem, no one can disprove it. That is why we rely so much on mathematics and use mathematics so boldly to explain science to understand it.
Whenever something is proved in mathematics, it is always a complete and perfect proof, but the formula in science is not like that. It comes from a few experiments or observations, new observations, new experiments or new thinking can change a formula of science. Is it a weakness of science? In fact, that is not a weakness, not a limitation, but that is its beauty or strength.
Scientists believe that the rules by which nature operates are always simple and beautiful, they have seen it over and over and learned to believe it. They are looking for that law, explaining with a few observations and experiments a vast unknown world that is not easy for the human resources of the earth to realize.
There are some excellent methods of proving mathematical formulas, one of them is the method of contradiction, the English word contradiction means inconsistency and this method actually uses contradictions to prove mathematical formulas. In this method, to prove a formula, something is first assumed; Argumentally proceeding from there, an inconsistency is encountered – then it is said that the first one is assumed. It must be wrong so this discrepancy! I think an example will make it easier to understand.
A whole number greater than 1 that is not completely divisible by any number other than 1 is called a prime number. 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17… these are examples of prime numbers. 2 is the smallest prime number and is the only even prime. The largest prime number ever found has about two million digits, even if written in small print it would take about ten thousand pages to write the whole number. But this prime number has a peculiarity that it can be written very short, then it will be (2^32,582,657)-1, a very short form of course! Mathematicians and other enthusiasts are constantly trying to find new prime numbers. As the number gets larger, the probability of getting a prime number decreases, but that means the number of primes will never run out. Euclid proved this more than two thousand years ago. This proof by contradiction method is so simple that anyone can understand it.
The proof starts like this: Let's say that the prime numbers are not actually infinite - that is, if we can find all the prime numbers, we will find that there is a large prime number and no larger prime number. If the largest and last prime number is Ph then we can do something interesting. By multiplying all the prime numbers in the world and adding 1 to them, we can create a new number P which will be:
P=P1xP2xP3x…..Pn+1
A little observation will show that this new number is not divisible by any number. Any prime number Pi, P, P; Dividing by , the quotient will be 1. There is no need to divide by numbers that are not prime because those numbers are actually made of primes (eg 14=2×7, 30=2x3x5, 32=2x2x2x2x2). A number that cannot be divided by any number other than 1 is a prime number, so Euclid showed that if there really is a largest and last prime number, then a larger prime number can be created. A direct contradiction or inconsistency! To resolve this inconsistency, the first assumption we started with is incorrect, namely that there is no such thing as the largest prime number. That is, the number of primes is infinite.
There is another type of proof in mathematics called induction method. Before explaining how this method works, a story can be told about one of the world's greatest mathematicians, Carl Friedrich Gauss. Legend has it that this mathematician started doing math before he started talking. A big danger with him in school is that he does whatever maths he is given in the blink of an eye, the teacher has no time to breathe. One day, seeing no other option, his teacher asked him to write 1 to 100 in a notebook and add it.
He thought it would keep Gauss busy for a while – it would take a while to write down so many numbers! But Gauss wrote down the answer in the blink of an eye and brought 5050! The teacher's eyes widened and asked, "How did you do it?" Gauss said, “When adding 1 to 100, if the first 1 is added and the last 100 is 101, the second starting number is 2 and the second last number is 99, which is 101, and this is true for all such numbers. That means there are 50 101 ie, 50×101=5050, that is the sum”. The teacher must have lost his mind after hearing!
Now we can see the problem for ourselves. If we add from 1 to 100 and add up to 73 then what is the sum? Or if you add from 1 to 2083 what is the sum? If the last number is n then the sum is n(n+1)/2, we can check that this is true for small numbers but what is the proof that it is always true, even for large numbers? To prove that this is true, what must be proved for all the numbers one by one?
In fact, it is not necessary to prove that n(n+1)/2 is true for any number n, it is sufficient to prove that it is true for any n. If adding from 1 to n we get n(n+1)/2 then adding from 1 to n+1 we surely get (n+1)(n+2)/2 Now we can see the same thing in another way, since 1 Adding n to n gives n(n+1)/2, adding n+1 to that we get the sum from 1 to n+1 which is n(n+1)/2+(n+1) A little algebra shows that it is (n+1)(n+2)/2, that is, exactly our formula. So our formula is shown to be true by induction.
Such methods of proving mathematical theorems have been developed for literally thousands of years, but in 1976 the method received a major shock, a shock that has not yet fully recovered.
The matter began in 1852 when someone suddenly asked how many colors are needed to paint a map? Countries are also distinguished by different colors on the map, and no matter how complex the map appears to never need more than four colors to paint (Figure 3.3) but is there really any evidence for that?
In 1976, two American mathematicians named Kenneth Epil and Wolfgang Haken proved that it is possible to paint any map with four colors, and there was an uproar around the world not because of the proof but because of the process. A large part of the problem they proved with logic, some parts that cannot be proved with logic, they proved with computers! Mathematicians of the world are in danger. What kind of insanity is it to use computers to bypass methods that have stood for thousands of years to prove mathematical formulas? Will they accept it, or not?
Mathematicians were forced to accept it after much hesitation. For the first time in the history of the world, a machine had to be placed alongside humans in the proof of a mathematical formula. Will there be a time in the future when this machine will completely remove humans?
No one knows the answer, although the popular belief is that the answer to this question is 'no'!
