* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download 01. State of Physics - University of Central Florida
Equivalence principle wikipedia , lookup
Negative mass wikipedia , lookup
Condensed matter physics wikipedia , lookup
Elementary particle wikipedia , lookup
History of subatomic physics wikipedia , lookup
Thomas Young (scientist) wikipedia , lookup
Lorentz force wikipedia , lookup
Old quantum theory wikipedia , lookup
History of optics wikipedia , lookup
Bohr–Einstein debates wikipedia , lookup
Newton's theorem of revolving orbits wikipedia , lookup
Work (physics) wikipedia , lookup
Special relativity wikipedia , lookup
Dark energy wikipedia , lookup
Weightlessness wikipedia , lookup
Equations of motion wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Faster-than-light wikipedia , lookup
Stoic physics wikipedia , lookup
Aristotelian physics wikipedia , lookup
Modified Newtonian dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Speed of gravity wikipedia , lookup
Classical mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Newton's law of universal gravitation wikipedia , lookup
History of general relativity wikipedia , lookup
Fundamental interaction wikipedia , lookup
Non-standard cosmology wikipedia , lookup
Flatness problem wikipedia , lookup
Physical cosmology wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to general relativity wikipedia , lookup
Chronology of the universe wikipedia , lookup
Electromagnetism wikipedia , lookup
Anti-gravity wikipedia , lookup
Newton's laws of motion wikipedia , lookup
The State of Physics at the Start of the 3rd Millenium Michael Bass, Professor of Optics and Physics School of Optics/CREOL University of Central Florida Orlando, FL 32816-2700 We live in a Newtonian world, in an Einsteinian universe, where quantum effects are critically important and yet gravity, the weakest of all known forces, governs the ultimate fate of all that there is. We also live in a world in which science and technology are integral parts of our everyday lives. You turn on a light, use a cell phone, put on glasses or corrective lenses, use an automobile, listen to radio, watch TV, travel on an airplane or benefit from some advance in medicine and don’t think of the events in science which made these modern marvels possible. We are concerned with how we came to understand the science that underlies our technological society, who were the people who contributed to our knowledge, how were they affected by the cultures in which they lived and how, in turn, they affected the culture in which we now live. This review of the state of physics at the start of the millenium is a broad-brush approach to the general underlying principles in physics, how they came about, who developed them, and how they impacted our society. It should enable one to understand what has gone on in the past in the context of where we are today so that we may understand where we are headed. Physics is the science by which we understand the workings of the universe. It is the science that underlies all other sciences and the thought processes developed in Physics are those used in the other sciences. For these reasons we consider its development to understand science in general. To understand the universe – from sub nuclear quarks (or even smaller super strings) to the entire universe – physicists have identified just four forces. Recent observations of the motions of galaxies and the recession speeds of galaxies at great distances suggest the existence of a possible 5th force that repels masses from one another (sort of anti-gravity) or that over very large distances Newton’s law of gravity may be a little bit off. These observations are so recent that they must be checked and re-checked to be certain. One thing is clear though – the universe is even stranger than it seems. The four forces themselves are not yet fully understood and yet they seem, thus far, to govern the interactions taking place between all particles. In addition, there are certain symmetries that result in the reality we perceive. The first force we ever knew about – we all sense it – is gravity and yet it remains the most mysterious of all. Perhaps because it is the weakest of all the forces gravity still defies complete explanation. However, since it is responsible for everything from the fall of an apple to the fate of the universe, it has been a subject of continuing study. While we all sort of know about gravity it was Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest physicist ever, who, in the mid-17th century, synthesized the data of Tycho Brahe, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Johannes Kepler into his remarkable, Universal Law of Gravity. Coupled with his even more spectacular laws concerning the motion of bodies he showed the remarkable fact that the gravitational force that holds us to the earth is exactly the same as that which controls the movement of the planets, stars, galaxies, and the universe. (Of course Newton didn’t know about © Michael Bass galaxies and the universe - those are 20th century matters - so he didn’t do all of this, but his law does.) Newton’s Laws of Motion are simple statements about how the motion of bodies change (or doesn’t) when acted on by external forces.1 They are: (1) A body in motion tends to remain in motion, or to remain stopped if stopped, except insofar as acted on by an outside force. (2) The rate at which a body’s momentum changes is equal to the net force acting on the body; mathematically this law is dp d (mv) F dt dt where p is the momentum, m is the mass of the body, v is its velocity and F is the force acting on it. Or, if m is a constant we have the more familiar F m d ( v) ma dt where a is the acceleration resulting from the action of the force. (3) If object A exerts a force on object B, then object B exerts an oppositely directed force of equal magnitude on object A. As accurately as we can measure in everyday life these laws work - we find no violations. However, as we will discuss later, when the body’s speed becomes too large, the definition of momentum in the second law must be modified. To do that properly we will need Einstein. Before we go too much further I must say a word about mathematics. It is the language of science and just as you need Chinese to get along in China you need mathematics to get along in science. Mathematics is used to represent in a sort of short hand notation the relationships between various quantities that constitute the body of knowledge called science. As a result we must use a little math to talk about science. To enable us to do this math had to be invented. In fact, that was one of the things that Newton did for science. He established the basis of differential calculus so that he (we) could discuss his physics. Of course, DesCartes in France and Liebnitz in Germany were not doing nothing. DesCartes invented graphing, an essential contribution and Liebnitz, in parallel to Newton, invented the calculus. We needed all of their work in math to be able to do the physics that we now consider. Back to gravity: Newton proposed that the magnitude of the gravitational force between two bodies of masses m1 and m2 and with centers separated by a distance r12 was 1 Sometimes in this review mathematical expressions are given. This review can be read by the non-scientist just by skipping the math. In doing so the beauty that results from the elegance of the math will be lost but the main concepts can still be acquired. © Michael Bass F G m1m2 r122 The proportionality constant, called G, was introduced to take account of the units (if nothing else). It is clear from correspondence between Newton and Robert Hooke that Hooke first proposed the inverse square law and suggested that it might account for the motions of the planets. Hooke however, did not have the mathematical tools or skills that he would have needed to prove his point. As a result, he passed the suggestion to Newton and Newton, a generally nasty man, solved the problem but nowhere credits Hooke’s suggestion. Nasty or not, Newton had the nerve to declare the gravitational constant and the law universally applicable. Think of how bold this statement was – Newton, able to measure things on the earth and read of others’ observations of the motion of planets, was probing the entire universe and had the temerity to think he could describe it, and to do so so simply. In a moment we will see how this law actually reflects a symmetry of the world in which we live. Meanwhile, let’s look at the consequences of Newton’s Law of Gravitation: He said F G m1m2 r122 and was always attractive – pointing along the line from one mass to the other and was the force of body 1 on body 2 and of body 2 on body 1. Then using his 2nd law of motion he set F m1a G m1m2 r122 and used it to calculate the position of m1 as a function of time. (For the future note that a G m2 r122 is independent of the mass of the object, m1 whose motion we seek to determine. This is the one case in physics of a force giving rise to an acceleration that is independent of the mass being accelerated.) It is easy to calculate (though I won’t do it for you) from this statement that the orbit of a planet around the sun is an ellipse and that Kepler’s Laws of orbital motion are correct – they come from Newton’s law. Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation and his Laws of Motion were more general and we could use them to serve other purposes. The demonstration that the proposed system of mechanics and the law of gravitation could result in the observed motions of the planets © Michael Bass (Kepler’s Laws) was Newton’s crowning achievement. He did what Hooke was unable to do and did so in a manner that showed how his methods could be used to solve any mechanics problem. One early consequence of the success of Newton’s Laws of Motion and Gravity was that the universe could not be static. It had to either expand or contract but, since gravity was always attractive, the universe could not stand still. This produced a major conflict with then existing theological models. If the universe had to satisfy the law of gravity how could it be that which God established. That is, how could such a universe be established according to God’s ideas and totally at his whim when here was evidence that it wasn’t. Curiously the scientific community waffled over this issue until well into the 20th century when we now have clear evidence that the universe is currently expanding and we have some notion of the laws that govern the expansion. We will examine this issue in the course when we discuss cosmology. Another major consequence of Newton’s Laws but of less religious significance was what happens at the earth’s surface. We see that if m2 = Me, the mass of the earth, then m1a G m1 Me re2 but G, Me and re, the radius of the earth, are constants and so we can clean this up a little into the much more familiar F m1a mg where g = GMe/re2 is the acceleration due to the force of gravity. This is what Galileo Galilei in Pisa observed by dropping balls made of different material off the leaning tower. Actually, this is just a good fairy tale. While Galileo did live in Pisa and he did observe that all objects accelerated at the same rate no matter how heavy they were, he did so by rolling balls down planes. Balls rolling down planes moved slowly enough for him to accurately measure their displacements, velocities and accelerations. Objects dropped off the tower fell too fast for him to measure. By performing these experiments, Galileo not only demonstrated a critical fact of nature he showed us how to do experiments. He set up a system in which he was able to make reasonably correct measurements and then examined his data for regularities that might reveal the principles governing that which he studied. Speaking of Galileo it is important to note that he was also the first to make a telescope, confirm its performance on the ground and then turn it towards the skies. He was sponsored in this by the merchants of Venice who wanted to use telescopes to detect when a ship was coming into port before their competitors. In those days (as perhaps is still true) a few hours advanced warning could mean fortune or failure. We might say that the commercial culture of Italy gave rise to one of science’s most important discoveries. In today’s parlance we would say that Galileo had industry sponsors for his research. When Galileo looked skywards, what he saw produced a revolution in how we see ourselves in the universe. Galileo observed that Jupiter had moons. Prior to his work, the European world believed that the sun, moon, planets and stars were held in spherical celestial orbs rotating about the earth at their center. This was Aristotle’s universe and © Michael Bass had been working pretty well, with certain modifications called epicycles, for nearly 2000 years. There was no place in the celestial orbs for moons around Jupiter. Worse yet for Galileo, the Catholic Church had, sometime before, accepted the Aristotelian view. It had become dogma. Galileo was given the choice of death or recanting. At the time he was forced to recant in 1642 in Italy, a Catholic country, the Royal Society for the Advancement of Science was being formed in England, a Protestant country. The center of science moved out of the Mediterranean and to the north. It is sad to say that it has remained that way until very recently when scientific inquiry in some of the Mediterranean countries revived in the 20th century. Today we live in a world where Newton’s laws of motion apply – from colliding billiard balls and swinging pendulums to racecars and spacecraft. His law of gravitation explains the motion of astronomical bodies with great precision and, with Einstein’s refinements, is used to study the fate of the universe. There is something very, very critical in the form of the Universal Law of Gravity giving a force which falls off inversely as the square of the distance between the bodies, r12. Let’s examine this question from a geometrical perspective. Consider a mass m as shown. No matter m m1 r12 how weirdly the body is shaped, when we are far enough from it, it appears as a point mass. It is obvious therefore that its gravitational attractive force on mass m1 at a distance r12 away can only be determined by the total quantity of mass inside the sphere drawn in the picture. Therefore, we can consider the total flux (or flow) of gravitational force per unit mass across this surface (sort of like water being pulled in through the sphere). Since the problem is spherically symmetric and the total gravitational flux can only depend on m, we can write g F dA m where mathematically we have defined gravitational flux, g as the integral (or sum) of the dot product of the force of gravity per unit mass, F, with the outward pointing surface area vector. The force of gravity per unit mass can be thought of as the gravitational flux per unit area. When we integrate over the whole surface of our spherical shell and when we realize that, since the problem is spherically symmetric, F can only depend on r we find F (r )4r 2 m © Michael Bass or mm F (r ) m1F (r ) 1 2 4r which, with G as the proportionality constant, is Newton’s Universal Law of Gravity. Notice that we found the 1/r2, or the inverse square law, property of Newton’s Law of Gravitation from the fact that the area of a sphere is 4r2. What we have just done is apply to gravity the same thinking that led Carl Freidrich Gauss to what we now call Gauss’ Law in electromagnetics. We will see the inverse square law again and it will emphasize how the symmetry of our three space dimensioned world affects our everyday lives. We have seen what Newton did. Through his laws of mechanics and his demonstration of the validity of the inverse square law for gravitational attraction he gave us a means to evaluate the motion and changes in the motion of everything. He taught us how to deal with the motions of stars and galaxies as well as atoms and molecules of air (when considering them to be just smaller than normal, billiard balls). The mechanics that results from Newton’s contributions is one basis of our society’s technology. The others are thermodynamics and electromagnetism. With these three aspects of physics most of today’s technological world is comprehensible. It is intriguing to consider that the fundamentals of all three were well understood before the 20th century started. When we examine 20th century science we will see what it added to the body of physics and how some of that has permeated everyday life. Then we consider what the future of modern science might be. First though we examine thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is actually the sum of several conservation laws that are powerful tools for understanding things. Science invented conservation laws because they provide valuable guidance to the inner workings of the universe. Newton’s 2nd law dp d (mv) F dt dt gives us our first conservation law. For a system in which no net force is exerted on a body or bodies it says dp d (mv) 0 dt dt This reads that the quantity p = mv, the momentum, for the system does not change with time. A quantity which doesn’t change with time remains constant - we say it is conserved. Another way of thinking about conservation laws is to consider them as prohibitions. They prohibit any process in which the conserved quantity changes. This allows one to rule out such things as perpetual motion machines or propelling oneself through space without propelling something else in the opposite direction. © Michael Bass Two billiard balls of masses m1 and m2 which initially have velocities v1 and v2 collide and bounce off each other. There is (ignoring friction) no external force on the system and so we know that since momentum is conserved the final momentum of the system must equal its initial momentum. Mathematically this means that (m1 v 1 m2 v 2 ) before (m1 v 1 m2 v 2 ) after If you weren’t a pool shark you could compete by calculating the momentum of the system before and after the collision when planning your shots. No violation of the conservation of momentum law has yet to be found. It applies equally well to billiard balls, bumper cars and colliding subnuclear particles in multi-billion dollar accelerators. From the prohibition point of view we say that no event is allowed in which the total momentum changes when no external forces act on the system. With the advent of mechanical machines (water wheels for example) we knew we were converting one kind of something into another. By falling from some height the water made the wheel turn. In the process we converted a property that the water had when it was up high and didn’t have when it was down low into a motion of the wheel, its rotational motion. Later, when steam engines were invented - and science was forced to develop thermodynamics - the conversion process got even more complicated. Now we converted something which seemed to be stored in wood or coal (their property of burning and making things hot) into something in the steam (its property of being hot) and then into something in the motion of a wheel. To explain all these somethings science was forced to invent the energy concept - the something was energy and while we could transform one kind into another, it soon developed that in a closed system the quantity called Total Energy didn’t change - it was conserved. Temperature was introduced as a property of a system which enables us to believe that two objects are in thermal equilibrium - that is two bodies are in thermal equilibrium when both have the same temperature and so no thermal energy flows between them. This concept of temperature as defining thermal equilibrium gave us the zeroth Law of Thermodynamics. The law of conservation of energy is the First Law of Thermodynamics. It states that in a closed system you can only convert energy from one sort to another - you can’t create or destroy energy. This means that our machines can only do some limited sorts of things and we must put in energy (fuel) if we want to get something out (motion of our autos for example). The prohibition was that no machine could produce useful output energy without providing it with an appropriate input energy. James Watt’s steam engine could not turn a single spinner in a single textile mill unless the energy stored in the coal were released by burning to heat the water to make the steam. Once we had these concepts, and not wishing to let go of a good thing, we tried to figure out how efficient one of our machines could be. It seemed reasonable to ask, “If I put in some energy stored in the fuel, how much energy can I expect to get out in the form of useful work from my machine?” Sadi Carnot, a French engineer, analyzed this question for a certain kind of engine in the early 1800s and decided, an instinctive and gloriously correct conclusion, that it, now called a Carnot Engine, would be the most efficient engine possible. He wasn’t vain; he was right. As a © Michael Bass result, all engines must be less efficient and this comprehensive statement drew much study since many physicists wanted to have the most efficient engine. The result however was the development of a mathematical understanding of why Carnot’s was most efficient and others not. The mathematical statement of Carnot’s Efficiency Law is that there is a quantity called entropy that, for a closed system, must increase or, in ideal circumstances at least remain the same, whenever a thermodynamic process takes place. Entropy it turns out is a measure of disorder in a system. Since, in the real world, entropy must increase it means that disorder must increase. That means that events always happen from ordered (past) to disordered (future) states. In other words, Time flows forward! The statement that entropy must always increase or remain constant is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is the only place in physics where a law is asymmetric in time. Other laws are the same if you reverse time. For example, when two billiard balls collide you don’t know in what direction the clock was running. You can only tell that momentum was conserved. However, you can tell that when a broken cup rises up off the floor and re-assembles itself on the table top that time is running in the wrong direction. This is because the broken cup is much more disordered than the assembled cup and the second law says that events progress towards more and more disorder. The prohibition is that the cup never spontaneously rises off the floor. Of all the laws of physics, only the Second Law of Thermodynamics gives one a sense to the flow of time. It is curious that a basic, fundamental property of the universe results from asking about the efficiency of engines. Using an analogy with gambling, the laws of thermodynamics are sometimes stated as: 0. You are allowed to play. 1. You can do no better than break even. 2. If you play long enough you must lose. So science had already (before 1900) not only created new and wonderful things it had upset some long held views - the static universe was not possible and time flowed from past to future (time was not cyclic). It had also begun to permeate how people thought and what they did. Think of such phrases as “they have the momentum” and “where does she get her energy” to get a sense of how science had impacted everyday life. However, science’s most critical contribution to our lives was the electromagnetic revolution. In the late 1700’s people were examining things that had been known for long time but with a “new” view to trying to understand what was going on. Luigi Galvani was looking at frogs legs and saw them twitch when connected to a body charged by rubbing say cat’s fur on glass. Ben Franklin was risking his life to show that lighting was electricity; just the same kinds of charges as produced by rubbing one thing on another. Then in the early 1800’s August Coulomb- a civil engineer with the French Army - put forth a law that the force between two charged bodies of charges q1 and q2 and separated by a distance r12 was Fe k q1 q 2 r122 © Michael Bass where k was a constant introduced to get the units straight (that is since you had a force on the left and charge squared divided by distance square on the right, you needed a constant with the right units to make the equation consistent). Later on in the study of electromagnetics physicists realized that k was not some arbitrary constant but a fundamental property of the universe related to the speed of light. Notice in Coulomb’s Law that once again a force law has the inverse square law form. A German, Carl Freidrich Gauss, understood the implications of Coulomb’s law and turned it into the mathematically elegant form, now called Gauss’s Law for Electricity, which shows how electric fields are related to the symmetry of our three spatial dimensioned universe. Meanwhile others were studying magnets and magnetic forces. Biot and Savart, again in France, showed that moving charges - currents - gave rise to magnetic forces. However, no one then or since could find a single north or south magnetic charge; magnetic charges always came in pairs. No matter how finely you divided a magnet you still got a north-south magnet. You never got just a north or just a south. It seemed that while electric and magnetic forces might be related they were different. Then Michael Faraday in England showed that when a magnetic field (a spatial distribution of magnetic force) changed with time you could induce an electromotive force (a voltage) in a circuit. This brilliant former bookbinder’s assistant had invented the concept of fields of force to explain his observations since he had no formal training in mathematics. His conclusion, Faraday’s Law of Induction, leads directly to all our electric generators and motors. It is, therefore, the foundation on which our electronic world is built. It is what allows us to generate electricity. Think of our world without it! It is interesting to note that Faraday was supported by the Royal Society for the Advancement of Science, an organization that was funded by the British government. The Prime Minister of Great Britain, William Gladstone was not out of line when he asked Faraday what was so important about his idea. Faraday’s answer was that while he was uncertain of the details, he was certain that Gladstone would tax it. By midcentury the stage was set for someone to see the implications of all of this. It fell to James Clerk Maxwell in Scotland to see the symmetry. He realized that electric and magnetic forces were different aspects of the same phenomenon now called electromagnetism. Maxwell assembled 4 laws - Gauss’ Law for Electricity, Gauss’ law for Magnetism, Faraday’s Law of Induction, and Ampere’s Law for the magnetic fields due to currents, modified them a little and showed that electric and magnetic fields were related. They were not only related but were interchangeable. With these four famous equations and some one or two others which describe the way different materials react to electromagnetic fields we can solve any problem in electromagnetism - from the force between two charged “pith” balls to the design of a modern computer. Maxwell went further. He showed that his equations predicted electromagnetic waves that propagated in space with the speed of light. In fact, he showed that light itself was an electromagnetic wave phenomenon (contradicting Newton’s view that light was corpuscular) and set the stage for the interpretation of light as a wave phenomenon. As a result the phenomena of diffraction, interference, and ray propagation of light could be understood, and it seemed clear to everyone that light was best interpreted as a wave of electromagnetic energy. We shall see how this view was to be challenged in just about 50 years by the data that led to quantum mechanics. © Michael Bass Maxwell’s was the first unification of two forces, electric and magnetic, into one; it was the first use of mathematical symmetry arguments in establishing scientific principals and it worked! It explained many things, predicted many things and made possible our electronic world. A physicist’s “tee” shirt is sometimes seen with the words: “And God said, E q 0 B 0 E B t B 0 J 0 0 E t and there was light” The equations are Maxwell’s Equations. The quote is a physics joke. In these equations E is the electric field, B is the magnetic field, q is the total amount of free charge in the region, J is the density of currents flowing in the region, 0 and 0 and are constants which were originally introduced to compensate for the units in less general equations. What is remarkable and what Maxwell showed is that 0 and 0 are fundamental constants of the universe related to the speed of light through the relationship, c = 1/ 0 0 . Further, notice that Maxwell’s Equations are symmetric in E and B. For example, a time varying electric field gives rise to a magnetic field in the fourth equation and a time varying magnetic field gives rise to an electric field in the third. These equations help to explain how electric generators work or how energy in an electronic circuit gets through a capacitor. Maxwell’s Equations enable the solution of all problems in electromagnetics. With them only you can analyze an optics problem, design a starter motor for your car, plan a computer or build a cable TV system. While God may not have used Maxwell’s Equations as mathematically expressed above, they must have been what he/she had in mind when our universe got started because they are satisfied exactly in every experimental test yet conceived. In other words, they are how the world works. No one knew this for sure in 1873 when Maxwell’s results were made known. In fact, demonstrating that members of the British parliament were no more aware than any member of our congress might be, when told of Maxwell’s achievements one MP scoffed and said “Of what possible use can that be?” He was put down with the remark, “Sir, the same can be asked of a newborn babe?” You may not think of Maxwell every time you turn on a radio or TV or use a phone or a computer or play a CD or get checked out with a laser scanner, but his contribution to science enables them all. Thus, before 1900, science had produced the three underpinnings of our modern technological society: mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetics. In fact, it may be said, © Michael Bass and I say so here, that if no new science, only engineering, had been carried out since 1900 our world would be quite similar to what it currently is today (not identical, not as comfortable, but similar). In the 20th century our view of the universe clarified and became more complete. However, first it became more complex and less comprehensible. Science would have to turn over some of its own “apple cart” to get a better understanding of how things worked. At the turn of the century scientists were in a proverbial “pickle”. According to Newton, whose insights had been remarkably right in most things, there could be an absolute reference frame in the universe and all motion could be measured relative to it. Now in daily life we don’t much care about such things. After all the earth or your room is a good enough reference frame against which to measure motion. What was bothering scientists was that if there were such a reference frame then we should be able to measure motion relative to it. So for example when it was January the earth would be moving one way and when it was July the earth would be moving the other way. If Newton were right, the speed of light measured on the earth would depend on the earth’s motion relative to the so called rest frame or ether. That means that we should be able to sense our motion with respect to the absolute reference frame. We could do this by measuring the speed of light in the direction of the earth’s motion and finding that it was different from that measured in a direction perpendicular to the earth’s motion. Now this sounds as though it would be a simple experiment. However, the speed of light is very large (3 x 108 m/sec) and the earth’s motion in its orbit around the sun is very much slower (~100’s of m/sec). The result is that any differences in the measured speed of light due to the earth’s motion would be very small and consequently, the measurement would be very difficult. In Cleveland, Ohio an American physicist, Albert Michelson invented an interferometer that would be capable of the measurement. Together with an assistant, E. W. Morley, he put his interferometer on a concrete slab and floated it in a pool of mercury (it is fortunate that they didn’t both go mad because breathing mercury vapor causes madness). When they looked at the interference patterns they found, to their astonishment, that the speed of light was the same no matter how the earth moved. By rotating the interferometer so that different arms pointed in the direction of motion or perpendicular to it and observing that no change in the pattern of interference took place they were forced to this conclusion. For his work on the speed of light Michelson became the first American to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. The year was 1907. The result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that there could be no ether, no absolute reference frame, or else something very strange was happening to their instruments. In fact, a Dutch scientist, Hendrik Lorentz (who won the 1902 Nobel Prize in Physics for unrelated work on magnetism) and independently, William Fitzgerald in Dublin, suggested that the arm of the Michelson interferometer oriented parallel to the direction of motion contracted a little. Lorentz was saying the arm in the direction of the motion got shorter. Therefore, light traveled a shorter distance in that arm compensating for the movement in that direction and thus, giving the same value for the speed of light as obtained for light traveling perpendicular to the earth’s motion. Since, in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald picture, a ruler laid in the direction of the earth’s motion would also shrink by the same amount as the length of the arm, you couldn’t measure the contraction directly. As often happens, a scientist had got it right but not complete. That was left to a German, © Michael Bass born into a Jewish family, and working as a clerk in the Swiss Patent Office in Bern. In this job he had the time and freedom to think about the problem. Of course we are talking about Albert Einstein. While Einstein claims not to have known of the Michelson-Morley experiment in detail he certainly read the journals and knew of the difficulties engendered by its results. Einstein in proposing his Theory of Special Relativity was about to overthrow the central construct of the Newtonian universe. In it, Einstein said that there was no absolute reference frame but instead he proposed that all motion is relative. That is, any motion must be described with respect to some reference frame which may be moving with respect to some other reference frame which itself might be moving. In other words, Einstein was claiming that there was no absolute reference frame. The consequences of this idea revolutionized physics. Since any non-accelerating or inertial reference frame was likely to be moving with respect to any another, Einstein reasoned, it was essential that the laws of physics be the same in all inertial reference frames. He was saying that all observers, moving relative to each other without acceleration, must decide on the same laws of physics. This meant that we might measure different time intervals or lengths but we would always, no matter how we were moving, get c = 2.997924589 x 108 m/s for the speed of light. The implications of this were staggering. If a body moved near the speed of light its length in the direction of motion would contract, clocks on the body would run slower (since velocity is length/time this had to be so in order to get c for the speed of light in all cases), the mass of the body would increase, becoming infinite when the speed equaled c, and so the body could never reach a speed of c. No material body could ever move at the speed of light since it would take an infinite acceleration to ever move that fast. Einstein’s philosophic point of view that physics had to be the same in all reference frames also led to his famous relationship between mass and energy E = mc2 This relationship would make possible the nuclear science that led to nuclear weapons, nuclear medicine and nuclear power systems. What was amazing about Einstein’s initial relativity work, now called Special Relativity, was that it was not only explanatory, it was predictive, and it worked. It has never failed any experimental test. Strange as it seems from a common sense point of view the twin who travels in a space ship at a speed near the speed of light ages more slowly than her sister who stayed on the earth. You may ask, how can we be so sure? The answer is that we did the experiment. Ultra high precision atomic clocks, not twins, were compared as follows. One remained at the starting point and one was flown around the earth on a series of jet planes. The one that traveled came back having counted off less time than the one that stayed home. Einstein is completely correct; the twins age differently depending on their motion relative to one another. Einstein published this and other critical papers in the “wonder year” of 1905 yet he remained a clerk in the Swiss Patent Office and then a junior professor in Prague until 1914, when he was appointed Professor of Physics at the University of Berlin. During this time he worked on the principal of general relativity in which he examined the properties of physics in accelerating reference frames and in the presence of gravity. He proposed another brilliant insight. He suggested that being in an accelerating reference frame is indistinguishable from being in the © Michael Bass presence of a gravitational field. From this equivalence principle Einstein was able to show that gravitational fields caused the shape of space-time (he proposed that we live in a 4 dimensional 3 space and 1 time - universe) to be curved. Light would follow the shortest path from one point to another in this curved space-time and so light from a star would be bent by passing close to the sun. The observed position of the star when viewed close to the sun would be displaced a little from the position viewed from another place as sketched below. True position of distant star Sun Apparent position of distant star Light is bent as it passes through the sun’s gravitational field Observer on the earth An expedition to test Einstein’s prediction that gravity bends light was planned to take place in the Crimea in Russia in 1914 where a complete solar eclipse was to occur. To see a distant star in the light of the sun would be impossible. However, during a total eclipse, when the moon blocked the sun’s light, it might just work. Particularly, if you were careful and lucky. Luck was needed because the weather had to cooperate. Unfortunately, while the weather may have been all right, in 1914 luck ran out and World War I started. The test of Einstein’s prediction didn’t occur until 1919 when a British expedition to the island of Principe, off the west coast of Africa, under Sir Arthur Eddington confirmed the theory proposed by Albert Einstein, a German. Not only was Einstein instantly more famous than ever but the British-German aspect of the scientific endeavor was viewed as an aspect of rapprochement between the two former enemies. Many hoped it would signify the start of an era of cooperation between these countries and between others as well. As you know, that turned out to be wishful thinking. If light were bent by a gravitational field then light leaving a star would follow a curved path. If the star’s density became large enough the local gravitation would curve the light paths back on themselves and the light would not escape the star’s gravity. Since no information would ever get out of such a concentration of mass, it would, in effect vanish from the universe. Today this vanished concentration of mass is called a black hole and is the subject of much research. It is the fate of large stars when they have burned their nuclear fuel and can no longer avoid the pull of gravity. They collapse and form black holes. Black holes also seem to be present at the centers of galaxies and may have been present in the early universe. Such primordial black holes, some speculate, may be the cause of the non-uniformities we call galactic clusters and galaxies themselves. If so, they may be the reason be why we are here to wonder about black holes. © Michael Bass Meanwhile, Einstein in evaluating his theory realized that it required that the universe had to either expand or contract or expand so that eventually it would exactly stop. Einstein couldn’t accept the expansion or contraction - he believed the universe was static - and invented a term to add to his equations called a cosmological constant which, like antigravity, just balanced the universe so that it would be static. This was before an American using the Mount Wilson Observatory in California, Edwin Hubble, showed that the galaxies were rushing apart. The universe was indeed expanding. When he learned of these results Einstein admitted his error calling the “cosmological constant” his biggest scientific mistake. Today, it seems Einstein had it right after all as the “cosmological constant” may be the cause of the acceleration in the galactic expansion. More on this later. Einstein won the 1921 Nobel Prize for physics. He did not win it for his work on relativity that restructured our view of the universe and opened up unimagined possibilities. While relativity revolutionized our world the Nobel committees, knowing Einstein deserved the prize but not understanding (or thinking of) relativity gave him the prize for his critically important contribution to the understanding of the photo-electric effect. In this work Einstein made a major contribution to the development of quantum mechanics, which along with relativity, is one of the two major revolutions to affect physics in the 20th century. While relativity explained the universe as a whole and the very large scale of things such as stars, black holes, galaxies, universes and so on, quantum mechanics proved necessary to understand the very small. The workings of molecules, atoms, electrons, nuclei, protons, neutrons, quarks and so on are only understandable using quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics fails completely when applied to things that are very, very small. Here small means having dimensions of a molecule or less than a micron or two. As quantum mechanics developed it became clear that the very small was governed by a principle called, after its originator, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In simple terms it states that if we measure one property of a body, called A, with some degree of precision, A, then there is a conjugate property, B, whose precision can only be determined within the limit set by the relation A B h where h = 6.63 x 10-34 Js is Planck’s Constant. This means that if we know position with exact precision we can’t know momentum at all. Or if we know a particle’s energy precisely we can’t know when it was present. The Uncertainty Principle in fact sets a boundary to the early universe when the whole universe was very, very, very small. The Uncertainty Principle also set the stage for the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Niels Bohr, a Dane, proposed that we could only know the time averaged probability that a body be in a place. Einstein, while understanding quantum mechanics, couldn’t accept this probabilistic view of the world and pontificated that it couldn’t be so since “God doesn’t play dice with the universe”. In fact, all our evidence says that on a certain scale God (if there is one) doesn’t care that the universe can only be described statistically. On that scale, the world of the very small, things are not deterministic. Now let’s consider why we had to have quantum mechanics in the first place. In the second half of the 1800’s spectroscopists - people who measured the spectra of light emitted or absorbed by various things - reported curious lines in the spectra of the sun and of hydrogen and other gas © Michael Bass discharges. Since classical theories of these systems, no matter what they might look like in detail, could not give discrete sharp spectral lines, physics was in a quandary. Also, if one heated a body to some temperature, classical theories predicted that the body would emit far more ultraviolet light than was observed. Again there was a problem. In 1900, Max Planck, in Germany, proposed that light could only appear with finite energies given by E = h where h was a constant now called Planck’s constant and the frequency of the associate light wave. Only now it was a quantum of light or a light particle with energy determined by the frequency of the light wave. Already there was a problem. Planck introduced us to light quanta but could not do so without retaining some of the wave nature of light. The problem was, and remains to the present, the issue of the particle/wave duality of light. It was, and for many is still, a very unsatisfying way to understand how things work. After only about half a century, the wave theory of light which had been so successful was challenged by the notion that actually light was, in some sense, particle like in nature. It seemed that Newton’s idea that light was made up of corpuscles was in some respects correct. Planck’s idea that light came in quanta enabled him to explain the spectra of black bodies and overcome the deficiencies of earlier classical models. His idea was applied by Einstein in 1905 to explain the photo electric effect. By about this time electrons and nuclei had been discovered and the planetary model of the atom had been proposed. However, the classical model where an electron circled the nucleus like a planet circling the sun had a problem. The electrostatic attraction between the negatively charged electron and the positively charge nucleus would eventually cause the electron to collide with the nucleus producing no atoms at all. But there are atoms and they are stable. Niels Bohr and the quantum theorists proposed that while in the classical model electrons could occupy any orbit they wanted to, in the proper quantum mechanical model the electrons were restricted to only a few, special, stable orbits. The orbits were quantized and when an electron changed from one quantized orbit to another it changed its energy. In so doing, to conserve total energy, the atom either absorbed or emitted a quantum of energy in the form of one of Planck’s quanta. But think for a moment - since only certain transitions could occur, only certain discrete quanta were possible and only certain specific spectral lines (wavelengths of light) could be expected. These would be characteristic of the atoms and would explain the spectroscopists results. Bohr’s model was given mathematical rigor by Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac and others. The accuracy and utility of quantum mechanics was proven by numerous experiments. Both theory and experiment were eventually demonstrated with very high precision. Quantum mechanics now forms the basis of our understanding of all sorts of things. Today, the combination of quantum mechanics with gravity, a relativistic but classical theory, is the goal of physicists seeking to understand such things as black holes, star histories and the early universe. They seek something called quantum gravity. By mid-century physics had Newton’s mechanics which worked perfectly and quite precisely for speeds much less than the speed of light; thermodynamics telling us how energy changes types and why time flows from past to future; electromagnetics giving us electricity, radio, © Michael Bass TV and electronics; relativity explaining the structure of our universe; and quantum mechanics explaining the structures of atoms and subatomic particles so that we have lasers and solid state electronics and nuclear magnetic resonance. As all this developed researchers began to understand that only four forces were needed to explain the interactions between the particles which we could observe. The weakest force is gravity. It is always attractive and is the interaction between all bodies having non zero mass. The range of gravity is unlimited. The next strongest force is electromagnetism describing the interaction between charged bodies and which can be either attractive or repulsive. It is many millions of time stronger than gravity and also has unlimited range. Then comes the weak nuclear force that is responsible for holding nuclei composed of protons and neutrons together. It is attractive, has a range of the order of the radius of a nucleus (~10-13 m) and is much stronger than the electromagnetic force. Finally comes the strong nuclear force that holds individual protons and neutrons together. It is always attractive, very short range (it acts inside a proton), and very, very, very strong! Modern physicists are trying to unify these forces. Maxwell had shown that electric and magnetic forces were different manifestations of one force, electromagnetism. Today physicists are trying to find out if all four forces are different manifestations of a single force. Their thinking goes something like this: if the energy of the particles were sufficiently high, the interactions caused by all these forces should look the same. The problem is when, if ever, could this have been so? As far as anyone can tell, only once in the history of the universe could such conditions have existed. Only at the instant of its beginning could all forces in the universe have been indistinguishable. At that instant, when energies were extraordinarily large (temperatures many trillions of times that of the sun’s interior), when the universe was pure energy, too hot to contain particles, there was only one force. As the universe expanded and things cooled down it became possible for particles to exist and the symmetry of having only a single force was broken. The forces separated and our universe of particles and massless quanta of light came into being. So far we know of Maxwell’s unification of electric and magnetic forces. Then between 1961 and 1972, Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam showed how to unite the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces. Their electro-weak unification has been demonstrated experimentally and led to their sharing the 1979 Nobel Prize. They and others have pursued grand unified theories to try to unify the electro-weak and the strong nuclear forces. A number of models have been proposed but there are problems. These models, called GUTs, predict that a proton will decay in ~1031 years. Now the time since the big bang is only ~1010 years and we only live ~102 years so this isn’t easy to measure. However, if we take ~1031 protons we can try to see if 1 proton per year decays. The experiment is conceptually very simple. Take a tank of very pure water, put it underground where the cosmic ray background radiation is weak, surround it with detectors to sense a decay and watch and wait and wait and wait. So far we have no evidence for a proton decay and so its lifetime must be >1035 yrs. There is a problem here to be solved. More disturbing and vastly more complex is the problem of unifying the quantized forces, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear, with that classical force - gravity. Trying to do this is the field of many researchers. However, time and space restrict this discussion to the work of Stephen Hawking. He contributed significantly to our understanding of that ultimate gravitational event, the black hole. From this work he realized the thermodynamic properties of black holes and showed that they don’t, can’t, violate the second law of thermodynamics. Stated differently, © Michael Bass Hawking showed that no black hole is “naked.” They are all surrounded by an event horizon that remains forever in our universe but which prevents any information from the interior from leaking out and violating the 2nd law. Hawking then became interested in quantum gravity and now studies it. He has done all this while suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or “Lou Gehrig’s disease”. He can’t speak understandably, use his hands to write or draw or use a conventional computer. He must carry out his research entirely in his own mind and use a special computer to communicate his results. Given the fact that the universe is expanding and the body of knowledge we now have, it is only reasonable that physicists are trying to construct a picture of how the universe came into existence and what is its future. If we trace the expansion back to the beginning it seems as though the universe started with a very hot “Big Bang” about 13.7 billion years ago. It then went through an exponential inflation to a very large size accounting for the fact that the universe is essentially the same on the large scale everywhere we look. The inflation also accounts for the small nonuniformities that grew into the galaxies and galactic clusters that we see in the universe. The evidence for such a beginning is overwhelming. First there is Hubble’s evidence for the motion of galaxies away from each other. Then there is the universal ~3 K black body radiation which is a remnant of the radiation present at the moment of the Big Bang and which is seen virtually uniformly throughout the sky. Arno Penzias and Robert W. Wilson of the former Bell Telephone Laboratories won the 1978 Nobel Prize for discovering the presence of this cosmic background radiation. Further evidence for the Big Bang model of the universe comes from the fact that the measured ratio of helium to hydrogen in the universe is what the model predicts. Very recently, though still to be verified by independent measurements, the polarization of the microwave background that the inflation predicts has been detected. There are issues to be resolved concerning the model such as how did the non-uniformities we see form in so little time though confirmation of the inflationary universe may take care of this. For example, as we look out into the universe we see galaxies, galactic clusters and super clusters as well as immense regions void of any visible matter. The Big Bang model must allow for such structures and it is being studied and revised to do so. In recent years it has become clear that in addition to ordinary matter that makes up about 4% of the universe there is dark matter that is about 26% of the universe and dark energy that is the rest. The model has to account for all three. Another intriguing feature of the Big Bang, as alluded to earlier, is that at the beginning energies were so high that the four forces were unified. Thus, the study of the very small is being united with the exploration of the entire universe in efforts to understand how unification occurs. Cosmologists are also concerned with the future of the universe. Humankind won’t likely be there to see it but we would like to try to figure out what is the ultimate end of all things. Consider the Big Bang to be analogous to firing a rocket off the earth. If it has too little speed, gravity will cause it to fall back to the surface. If it has too much speed it will escape the earth’s gravity and fly off into space, or it could have just exactly the right speed to slowly rise into a permanent orbit around the earth. In the case of the universe the Big Bang is like firing the rocket. The universe itself is like the rocket. Depending on how much mass is present (how much gravity there is), the universe can expand for a while and then fall back in a “Big Crunch”, go on expanding forever, or expand but ever more slowly until, after an infinite time, it comes to a halt with all matter (if any remains) infinitely far from all other matter. We don’t know which of these scenarios © Michael Bass will play out. The problem is in determining how much matter there is in the universe. The visible matter in the universe is barely a few percent of the critical mass needed to produce closure. However, there is evidence from the motions of the galaxies that there is a great deal of matter that we can’t detect. This so called dark matter interacts gravitationally with other matter and could provide enough additional mass to cause the universe to either re-collapse (the Big Crunch) or slowly stop expanding. One of the most interesting problems in modern physics is to try to identify the “dark matter”. It may be in the form of huge numbers of Jupiter-like objects that do not emit enough radiation to be detected or it may be black holes. Another possibility is that the fundamental particle called the neutrino, thought to be massless, may actually have a very small mass. Since there are immense numbers of neutrinos in the universe, a small mass could have major consequences. In fact, experiments have shown that some neutrinos do have a finite amount of mass. These experiments showed that one type of neutrino changed into another type and that can only happen if they are traveling at less than the speed of light. In that case, they have mass. Or dark matter may be more exotic and result from such things as weakly interacting massive particles or WIMPs. No matter the source of the dark matter, we have to have dark matter to explain the motion and distribution of galaxies in the universe and so our cosmology is incomplete. In the next paragraph you will read how it is even more incomplete than we thought. In the first years of the 21st century astronomers made a startling discovery. Since Hubble’s work it was known that the galaxies were flying apart from one another. Further, it seemed that the rate was constant and was a measure of the universe’s age. With better telescopes and light detectors evidence began to come in that showed that galaxies that were more than a few billion light years away were moving away faster than they should have been. The recessional speed was accelerating. The explanation of this is a difficult problem for scientists. They have to determine either that there is some, as yet, unknown force driving the acceleration or that Newton’s inverse square law breaks down at very large distances. This acceleration is attributed to something called dark energy and it makes up something close to 70% of the universe’s mass-energy content. At the present time we don’t know enough to explain what it is. However, the observations won Nobel prizes in 2011for Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt and Adam G. Riess. Scientists around the world, are working on finding an explanation for dark energy that works and satisfies our ideas on what is good science. The foundations of our technological world were established before the start of the 20th Century. Since then, physics has continued to develop making it possible, for the first time, to seek scientifically valid answers to such questions as how did the universe come into existence and what is its fate. We may have asked those questions in the past but then the only possible answers would have come from theologians. Today science may provide them. That is, it may give answers based on a method allowing for testing and verification - answers not requiring belief alone. We are a long way from complete answers but parts of them are in hand and with the effort to finish the work comes a deeper, more complete, and more satisfying understanding of the universe and our place in it. © Michael Bass