Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:53 am Post subject: Newton’s View of the world
1. What is the evidence that light is a particle? A wave?
Euler theorized that light traveled as a stream of tiny particles. Grimaldi did an experiment studying the behavior of sunlight let into a darkened room through a small hole. He saw that the light spread out with different colors. He labeled this diffraction.. a way that light waves could be bent. Young did experiments backing up the light wave theory. He also explained some of Newton;s own experiments with light in terms of the wave theory. The only evidence we have is some scientists interpretation of a series of experiments and well thought out theories.
2. What is different about Faraday’s and Maxwell’s approach to science compared to that of Newton?
Newton’s method was to experiment first and build a hypothesis from the results. “hypotheses should be employed only in explaining the properties of things, but not assumed in determining them” (p.104). Faraday used experimentation to prove his hypotheses. He also used ‘thought experiment’ to make hypotheses that he did not have the ability to prove directly.. for example his theories about the Earth and Sun’s gravitational fields using his ideas about lines of force. All of Maxwell’s analogies were mathematical. He used equations to describe his theories about forces. “Any problem involving electricity and magnetism can be solved by using Maxwell’s equations” (p.112).
1. What is the evidence that light is a particle? A wave?
I honestly have very little of an answer to this question, though Sasha pulled out some good quotes. I mainly found evidence for light being a wave- Young's idea of how "each color of light corresponds to a particular wavelength and that the amount by which light bends when it is refracted or diffracted depends on its wavelength."
and then there was all the stuff about (young) how light waves are transverse, rather than longitudinal. Like sound waves (in the bellows of the accordian!)
But I couldn't really find much extrapolating on light being a particle. But maybe that just flew over my head.
2. What is different about Faraday’s and Maxwell’s approach to science compared to that of Newton?
Faraday and Maxwell were WAYYY more hypothetical. Or at least, much more about logic while Newton was much more empirical. Science had just started to take a turn towards empiricism with Newton, but then Faraday and Maxwell came along with purely logic as their reasoning. Maxwell had these very interesting mathematical analogies that didn't make sense small picture but did make sense big picture (aristotilean?? maybe?) and Faraday was able to think beautiful hypotheses, and think them pictorially... with accuracy.[/quote]
1. What is the evidence that light is a particle? A wave?
Although Euler found a ton of flaws with the particle theory, he made a very interesting connection to sound. "Sunlight is, with respect tot he ether, what sound is with respect to the air." (pg 106) Ether was the name of the medium the vibrations worked through.
2. 2. What is different about Faraday’s and Maxwell’s approach to science compared to that of Newton?
I think Faraday experimentally explored relationships more than Newton or Maxwell did. For example, he determined that electricity generated magnetism, and also explored the reciprocal (magnetism generating electricity). Maxwell did so mathematically, using equations in order to make electricity and speed quantifiable.
Like Olivia, I found it hard to come up with some solid text to back up the "light is a particle" theory, but there was more about light being a wave. I loved the similarity between light and sound in this way; that they both travel in waves. I'm not really sure how Euler made the distinction between the relationship that light has with ether and that sound has with air. I know that in this time they still did not have evidence that ether didn't exist, but how are ether and air scientifically different in this time period. Sorry if I'm not making any sense but I found this kind of confusing. But I found it much easier to think of light as a wave, because of the connections Euler made to sound waves.
I think that Faraday was more interested in cause and effect; what would happen to something, if something happened. For example, from the text, "If electricity could generate magnetism, Faraday reasoned, then magnetism ought to be able to generate electricity." Newton, or at least in this reading, focused more on looking closer at subjects like light.
I feel like much of this is repetitive but here goes...
1. What is the evidence that light is a particle? A wave?
A bunch of different scientists conducted experiments. Grimaldi was looking at what happened when a small amount of light was let into a dark room. What he learned was that different colors when the light spread, later named diffraction. This is basically bending light waves. Young set up an experiment with two pinholes with narrow slits. He realized that the colour of light is directly caused by its wave length and by the amount the light is bent, or is diffracted or refracted. Euler came up with the theory that lights was a moving stream of tiny particles.
2. What is different about Faraday’s and Maxwell’s approach to science compared to that of Newton?
Newton was the first person to use the method of starting any experiment with a hypotheses, “hypotheses should be employed only in explaining the properties of things, but not assumed in determining them” (pg 104). Maxwell was a believer in equations, and that everything can has an equation to explain it. He used math to create theories about forces, mainly electricity and magnetism. Faraday used 'thought experiments' and did not consider himself a mathematician. He worked in a very hypothetical sense "Faraday lacked the mathematical skills to develop this idea into a full explanation of the way light moves, but he had a clear physical picture of what might be going on..."
1. What is the evidence that light is a particle? A wave?
Newton tested Aristotle theory that "white light represented a pure, unadulterated form" (p. 102). By the use of EXPERIMENTATION, he discovered that there were seven colors in the spectrum. From a series of other experiments, Newton concluded that "white light is not 'pure' at all, but is a mixture of all the colours of the rainbow" (p. 103). In order to fully answer this question, we need to review the definition of a "particle." According to my dictionary, a particle is a minute portion of matter. In physics terms, it's the equivalent of "subatomic" or something smaller than or occurring within in atom. Aristotle said that light is a pure form, which arguably would mean light is its own atom. HOWEVER, Newton says no to that theory and says that white light is a MIXTURE of seven colors of the spectrum. This proves the particle theory. I was confused about the whole "wave" theory.
2. What is different about Faraday’s and Maxwell’s approach to science compared to that of Newton?
I see Maxwell as having a mathematical approach to science while Faraday approached science pictorially. That's what I got out of it.
1. From the reading, "He found that when the beam wen through a second small hole and onto a screen, the spot of light fringes. The light had spread out slightly, with different colours spreading different amounts, as it passed through the small hole." I also thought the quote "Sunlight is, with respect tot he ether, what sound is with respect to the air." was very helpful evidence. I had a much harder time finding evidence for light as a particle.
2. Newton was more theoretical (not sure if that is a correct term) meaning he started with a theory before he started the experiment, whereas the others developed their theories after conducting experiments.
1. i still dont quite know if light is a wave or a particle. does the fact that newton built that fantastic curved mirror thing with no chromatic aberration give anything away? i feel like theres something under my nose here that im just missing. i remember learning in intro to physics that light is a wave, so ill stick by that. and newton's theory is even called the wave theory of light! i need to talk this over in class with you guys, because the experiments, like Tasha said, branch out in all these different directions. if newton's idea was that everything in the universe is predictable (Page 105), then why would all these experiments lead to such varied conclusions? To Euler, light was a stream of tiny particles (Page 106).
2. Newton, as Sasha pointed out, went about his experiements the same way most scientific experiments are conducted in schools: hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. Faraday and Maxwell, first of all, were studying a slightly different topic than newton. light and electricity are related, but not one and the same. Faraday, like Newton, built a system to carry out an experiment, the suspended wire carrying an electric current (Page 108). Maxwell was slightly different. He based his whole idea around an analogy to water and whirlpools (Page 111). and rather than experiments, maxwell was more of an equations type of guy, because he was, as the reading said, one of the best mathematicians that ever lived.
either way, i really want to discuss this in class. i feel like we should do all sorts of experiments.....but i wont get my hopes up.
So I’ve been battling a bureaucracy for the past few hours, and after finally getting to academic work, the delightful forum here just deleted my post. So, sorry for lateness. Ecco qui:
What is the evidence that light is a particle? A wave? I had a hard time finding evidence for light as a particle, but it seems like Newton’s finding that light can be broken up and put back together supports this. According to Newton, you can pull light apart into groups of “corpuscles” that travel as particles, (which bounce off things) and separable into groups based on color and other (?) criteria. There was more concrete evidence for light as a wave, including
What is different about Faraday’s and Maxwell’s approach to science compared to that of Newton?
Faraday and Maxwell were more in their heads- more theory-and-logic based, it seemed, than Newton’s apple-dropping empiricism. Maxwell used some pretty snazzy math, Faraday had “the inspired ability to think pictorially”(109), and both were capable of “great leaps of imagination” (111).
Newton was one of the first scientists to require that evidence for theories be based on replicatable experiment results. We “enquire diligently”- sort of a pre-hypothesis, working in theory- then “establish properties with experiments”, and then “proceed to hypotheses for the explanation of them”(104). Is Newton’s idea of a hypothesis necessarily the same as Faraday’s/Maxwell’s? Because it seems like F&M came up with hypotheses first and tested them with experiments to prove them.
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:14 am Post subject: crazy progressive old scientists.... BLAAHGH
1. What is the evidence that light is a particle? A wave?
I beleive Newton was the one who propogated the theory that light was made up of particles. He beleived this because of his experiments with colors and prism. Like when he lined up those two prisms and shot light through them he got white light again instead of more diluted colors. I really liked how Newton was all about finding the evidence before bringing out the hypothesis. I think this style of empirical thinking was the basis of how modern day scientists go about their research. So the wave theorists like Grimaldi, Euler, Young, and more seemed to build of each other as they went along. Grimaldi went on about diffraction and Euler worked with that diffraction theories he had and discussed how that could not work with the theory that light comes in particles. Young even built off Newton's own experiments in support of the wave theory. I know this isn't really talking much about the evidence, but the way that this history of sciecne progressed is really pretty fuckin cool.
2. What is different about Faraday's and Maxwell's approach to science compared to that of Newton?
The biggest difference in their approaches that I notice right away is that Maxwell used a lot of mathematics while Faraday used a lot ideas and pictoral descriptions. However, Maxwell used his math and previously learned knowledge to create analogies and relationships between completely different topics like electricity and heat so as to further his own knowledge and theories. I don't think Faraday did this as much.
let me just start off by sayin that 'light' was often used as a substitute for the word truth, and can be interpreted as such in the reading if you're looking for a philosophical take... but to get back to basics... the evidence supporting wave theory was the refraction of color. but this was used incorrectly to presume that light then travels like sound, at different speeds depending on the density of the medium. This is an example of using evidence to support a theory or hypothesis, something that newton was against. perhaps in part for this reason he sided with gassendi who advocated a corpuscular approach. he then found that although waves tend to bend around obstacles, light rarely does and thus must not be waves. Newton pioneered the scientific process and strived to use empirical evidence to explain time and space, while others like maxwell used the innate logic of time and space (a priori) to analyze the empirical. its a fundamental difference that goes back to kant and hegel. ultimately newton set the tone of the next half millennium in terms of dictating the standards of what qualifies true science. he certainly had success in his methods.
Evidence of particles—waves bend around obstructions, but obstructions block light. If light traveled in waves, it would travel around obstructions; since it doesn’t act this way, it’s improbable that light is a wave.
Evidence of waves-(evidence of a bunch of experiments)
Grimaldi let a little bit of light into a dark room and saw that the colors diffracted—bending light waves
Young—does experiment with two slits. They come out different colors—different colors=different wavelengths
As far as how Newton differs from Maxwell and Faraday—This is where I confused myself. Newton was clearly more experiential, more on the side of an objective reality, and would have disagreed with Hegel that thought is empirical. He believes that anything you want to claim as truth needs to be proved by physical experiment. “This is what science is all about. No matter how wonderful your theory may be, if it does not match up wit hthe results of experiments, it cannot be correct. pg104” He is clearly Kant-ian “Newton’s legacy combines the idea that the behavior of everything in the universe is predictable…[i]and the fact that relatively simply laws intelligible to human brains are all that is required to make the universe tick([/i]pg 105)”<--LIKE WHAT KANT SAID ABOUT A PRIORI STUFF--like exactly. whereas Maxwell and faraday are hegelians. With them thinking is experiential enough for hypotheticals to be proof. maxwell used a priori knowledge kinda hypothetically together to reach his conclusions.
(p.s. sorry for posting so late. I accidentally fell asleep too early, and woke up and realized I still had to post. )
hey guys, I didn't read anyone else's posts because I just woke up, and I only have half an hour to do this, so i appologize if i repeat. .
What is the evidence that light is a particle? A wave?
Newton thought that light was a particle because it can be seperated out into it's elements, and when you put don't an object in it's way, it moves in straight lines, but this theory wasn't correct. Young and Maxwell both believed that instead of being particles, light was made of waves. They aknowledged that the waves were of comperable size to the particles, so that explains for Newton's misunderstanding. People got really pissed when they said that they were particles though, because they thought Newton was the best at everything. A particle just moves differently than a wave, and the only reason you can explain the rainbow effect on the edges of a reflection of a lense is by saying that light moves in waves, particles wouldn't do that. Also, this Young kid was a genius, so I'll stick with his idea on this one.
2. What is different about Faraday’s and Maxwell’s approach to science compared to that of Newton?
Well Newton was the man when it came to science, he developed the scientific process thing, which is used alll the time now, and Maxwell contributed too with his 'hobby' of figuring out light, but maxwell was more of a mathematition.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
bureaucracy for the past few hours, and after finally getting to academic work, the delightful forum here just deleted my post. So, sorry for lateness. Ecco qui:
