On Dec 18, 10:28 am, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:49:15 -0800 (PST), norrin <adweil...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 17, 7:47 am, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> If you went back to 1920 and gave someone actual phrases from the
> >> future, what would be terrifying?
>
> >> The Great Depression
> >> atomic bomb
> >> artificial intelligence
>
> >> Worst of all, perhaps:
>
> >> World War Two
>
> >In 1920, the Great War had just ended.
>
> So WWII would sound sufficiently scary to the survivors.

Most people would say the Great War was unique and
wouldn't be repeated in the near future. Americans might
say the Civil War was similar or worse. It wasn't a surprise
that war comes again, but few expected it so soon.

> >The Great Depression was what happened in the 1880s.
>
> They'd more likely think of the 1893 depression here in the US.

The hard times of the 1880s were a precursor to the depression
of 1893. Some would say that the depression of the 1880s only
ended with the Klondike Gold Rush.

> >An atomic bomb is nonsense
>
> A well-read person in the 20s would know about atomic bombs. H.G. Wells
> wrote about them before the turn of the century (of course, what they would
> know about them would turn out to be wrong).

An atomic bomb cleaves the uncleft, which is nonsense.
Today we know that the atom isn't an elementary particle
and the name isn't precisely accurate. The educated man
of the 1920s couldn't tell you what atoms are made of and
might regard the question as misguided.

> >and so is impersonal intellegence.
>
> Actually, I would imagine the well-read 1920s person would parse
> 'artificial intelligence' as some scientific way of increasing one's
> intelligence.

Maybe. If so, they would be right for the wrong reason.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:37:02 -0800 (PST), norrin <adweiland@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 18, 10:28 am, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:49:15 -0800 (PST), norrin <adweil...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 17, 7:47 am, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> If you went back to 1920 and gave someone actual phrases from the
>> >> future, what would be terrifying?
>>
>> >> The Great Depression
>> >> atomic bomb
>> >> artificial intelligence
>>
>> >> Worst of all, perhaps:
>>
>> >> World War Two
>>
>> >In 1920, the Great War had just ended.
>>
>> So WWII would sound sufficiently scary to the survivors.
>
>Most people would say the Great War was unique and
>wouldn't be repeated in the near future. Americans might
>say the Civil War was similar or worse. It wasn't a surprise
>that war comes again, but few expected it so soon.
>
>> >The Great Depression was what happened in the 1880s.
>>
>> They'd more likely think of the 1893 depression here in the US.
>
>The hard times of the 1880s were a precursor to the depression
>of 1893. Some would say that the depression of the 1880s only
>ended with the Klondike Gold Rush.
>
>> >An atomic bomb is nonsense
>>
>> A well-read person in the 20s would know about atomic bombs. H.G. Wells
>> wrote about them before the turn of the century (of course, what they would
>> know about them would turn out to be wrong).
>
>An atomic bomb cleaves the uncleft, which is nonsense.
>Today we know that the atom isn't an elementary particle
>and the name isn't precisely accurate. The educated man
>of the 1920s couldn't tell you what atoms are made of and
>might regard the question as misguided.
>

Only if he had not followed work in physics. See:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1908/rutherford-bio.html

We have the formulation of a "disintegration" model for radioactivity in 1900,
the discovery of the nucleus in 1910, and the modification of elements by alpha
bombardment in 1919 (transforming nitrogen to oxygen, though he didn't know it
immediately). During the same period (as a bit earlier) the various decay
sequences were being elucidated, showing the radioactivity was coupled with the
natural transformation of one element to another.

So, anyone in the 1920s with an interest in science should have known that
"atoms" were no elementary, and could be changed from one form to another. They
would also know that these transformations sometimes gave off energy.

>> >and so is impersonal intellegence.
>>
>> Actually, I would imagine the well-read 1920s person would parse
>> 'artificial intelligence' as some scientific way of increasing one's
>> intelligence.
>
>Maybe. If so, they would be right for the wrong reason.

On Dec 19, 10:21 am, P. Taine <u...@domaine.invalid> wrote:

> >> >An atomic bomb is nonsense
>
> >> A well-read person in the 20s would know about atomic bombs. H.G. Wells
> >> wrote about them before the turn of the century (of course, what they would
> >> know about them would turn out to be wrong).
>
> >An atomic bomb cleaves the uncleft, which is nonsense.
> >Today we know that the atom isn't an elementary particle
> >and the name isn't precisely accurate. The educated man
> >of the 1920s couldn't tell you what atoms are made of and
> >might regard the question as misguided.
>
> Only if he had not followed work in physics. See:
>
> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1908/rutherfor...

It's more likely that an educated man would know Greek than
physics. A chemist who knew about the nucleus might be able
to guess that electrons orbit in shells, but that's just a theory.

> We have the formulation of a "disintegration" model for radioactivity in 1900,
> the discovery of the nucleus in 1910, and the modification of elements by alpha
> bombardment in 1919 (transforming nitrogen to oxygen, though he didn't know it
> immediately). During the same period (as a bit earlier) the various decay
> sequences were being elucidated, showing the radioactivity was coupled with >the natural transformation of one element to another.
>
> So, anyone in the 1920s with an interest in science should have known that
> "atoms" were no elementary, and could be changed from one form to another. >They would also know that these transformations sometimes gave off energy.
>

Is it obvious that, given that mass is energy and radiation is
a form of energy, a radioactive element must lose mass?
Or is it only obvious from hindsight?

Someone with an interest in science isn't always a scientist.
A scientist isn't always educated, especially not in 1920.
Anyone can be a scientist if they can work with the tools of
science in a constructive way.

: norrin <adweiland@hotmail.com>
: Is it obvious that, given that mass is energy and radiation is
: a form of energy, a radioactive element must lose mass?
: Or is it only obvious from hindsight?

Yeah, by 1920 that should be obvious. Einstein published his
"E=mc^2" paper[1] in 1905, and it was all about that very issue;
that an object emitting light must lose mass, and vice versa.

Of course, how obvious it was to how many people is an issue.
But by then, I think the notion was fairly widely distributed,
despite the Eddington comment[2].


[1] Of course, E=mc^2 doesn't actually appear in that paper, which is
entitled "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?".
(Or... that's the english translation of what it's entitled.)
He actually used the equation m=L/c^2.

If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation,
its mass diminishes by L/c2 . The fact that the energy withdrawn
from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no
difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion
that The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if
the energy changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by
L/(9 * 10^20), the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass
in grammes. It is not impossible that with bodies whose
energy-content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium
salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.

--- Einstein, 1905 paper

[2] when asked if it was true that only three people in the whole
world understood relativity, he paused a while, then said something
like "I'm not sure who the third one is". (my google-fu doesn't
locate the story for the usual phrasing and references...)

But that's 1) appocryphal, 2) an exageration, and 3) really about
general relativity afaik; special relativity is easy-peasy. You
only need SR for a "mass go boom" realization.


Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:48:43 -0800 (PST), norrin <adweiland@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 19, 10:21 am, P. Taine <u...@domaine.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> >An atomic bomb is nonsense
>>
>> >> A well-read person in the 20s would know about atomic bombs. H.G. Wells
>> >> wrote about them before the turn of the century (of course, what they would
>> >> know about them would turn out to be wrong).
>>
>> >An atomic bomb cleaves the uncleft, which is nonsense.
>> >Today we know that the atom isn't an elementary particle
>> >and the name isn't precisely accurate. The educated man
>> >of the 1920s couldn't tell you what atoms are made of and
>> >might regard the question as misguided.
>>
>> Only if he had not followed work in physics. See:
>>
>> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1908/rutherfor...
>
>It's more likely that an educated man would know Greek than
>physics. A chemist who knew about the nucleus might be able
>to guess that electrons orbit in shells, but that's just a theory.
>
>> We have the formulation of a "disintegration" model for radioactivity in 1900,
>> the discovery of the nucleus in 1910, and the modification of elements by alpha
>> bombardment in 1919 (transforming nitrogen to oxygen, though he didn't know it
>> immediately). During the same period (as a bit earlier) the various decay
>> sequences were being elucidated, showing the radioactivity was coupled with >the natural transformation of one element to another.
>>
>> So, anyone in the 1920s with an interest in science should have known that
>> "atoms" were no elementary, and could be changed from one form to another. >They would also know that these transformations sometimes gave off energy.
>>
>
>Is it obvious that, given that mass is energy and radiation is
>a form of energy, a radioactive element must lose mass?
>Or is it only obvious from hindsight?

I think that by then (but I don't have a citation to hand) that they knew that
alpha particles, at least, had mass, simply by their trajectories in magnetic
fields. I don't know when they figured out that they were helium atoms, but
probably not too much later. So, if an atom of, say radium, is spitting out
helium atoms, and changing into the next element in the decay sequence, they
certainly knew that atoms were not atomic in the original sense. They had also,
before 1920, nailed down the relationship between the X-ray diffraction patterns
and the atomic weight, so they could see that the difference equaled the a.w. of
helium.

As to the orbits in shells, that comes along with Bohr's combination of
Rutherford work and the new-born quantum theory, not anything a chemist would
have thought of. And of course, "orbit" is hardly the right word, as the shell
is simply the peak of the probability function.

>
>Someone with an interest in science isn't always a scientist.
>A scientist isn't always educated, especially not in 1920.
>Anyone can be a scientist if they can work with the tools of
>science in a constructive way.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:37:02 -0800 (PST), norrin <adweiland@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 18, 10:28 am, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:49:15 -0800 (PST), norrin <adweil...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 17, 7:47 am, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> If you went back to 1920 and gave someone actual phrases from the
>> >> future, what would be terrifying?
>>
>> >> The Great Depression
>> >> atomic bomb
>> >> artificial intelligence
>>
>> >> Worst of all, perhaps:
>>
>> >> World War Two
>>
>> >In 1920, the Great War had just ended.
>>
>> So WWII would sound sufficiently scary to the survivors.
>
>Most people would say the Great War was unique and
>wouldn't be repeated in the near future. Americans might
>say the Civil War was similar or worse. It wasn't a surprise
>that war comes again, but few expected it so soon.
>
>> >The Great Depression was what happened in the 1880s.
>>
>> They'd more likely think of the 1893 depression here in the US.
>
>The hard times of the 1880s were a precursor to the depression
>of 1893. Some would say that the depression of the 1880s only
>ended with the Klondike Gold Rush.

The depression of the 1880s didn't hit the US as hard as it hit Europe,
primarily because development in the West was still ongoing and expanding
(as well as the influx of immigrants fueled by the effects of the
depression in Europe). By the 1893 Great Depression (actually technically
a recession, but it was still called a depression), the western expansion
was pretty much sliding down, and the artificial impetus of the 89 Alaskan
Gold Rush had slowed (note that there were spikes like the Alaskan Gold
Rush happening throughout the 1870s and 1880s, not always for gold (it was
silver in Nevada in the early 1880s), or even precious minerals, there were
major land rushes during the 80s and 90s, with the last one occurring in
1895 (the most famous one was the settlement of the Unassigned Lands in
1889, usually referred to as the Oklahoma Land Rush)

>> >An atomic bomb is nonsense
>>
>> A well-read person in the 20s would know about atomic bombs. H.G. Wells
>> wrote about them before the turn of the century (of course, what they would
>> know about them would turn out to be wrong).
>
>An atomic bomb cleaves the uncleft, which is nonsense.
>Today we know that the atom isn't an elementary particle
>and the name isn't precisely accurate. The educated man
>of the 1920s couldn't tell you what atoms are made of and
>might regard the question as misguided.

The term "atomic bomb" was coined by H.G. Wells, and was used in his story
"The World Set Free", which was published in 1914. His bomb very
specifically was powered by radioactive decay (nuclear fission).

Worldkenmen (and one incredibly important Worldkenwoman) have known that
firstuffs could be cleaved as early as 1903 (when Pierre won his Nobel and
Marie won her 'first' Nobel)

--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)

William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote:
> By the 1893 Great Depression (actually technically a recession, but
> it was still called a depression), ...

What's the distinction?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 21 Dec 2007 23:35:07 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> By the 1893 Great Depression (actually technically a recession, but
>> it was still called a depression), ...
>
>What's the distinction?

There are definitions with variations, but generally an economic recession
is falling national product (economists say 'negative growth', ain't they
cute) for two or more quarters. A recession becomes becomes a depression
by lasting a lot longer.

Wikipedia quotes Sidney Harris' definition, which probably says it best; "a
recession is when you lose your job; a depression is when I lose mine".

--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:37:02 -0800 (PST), norrin <adweiland@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 18, 10:28 am, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:49:15 -0800 (PST), norrin <adweil...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 17, 7:47 am, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> If you went back to 1920 and gave someone actual phrases from the
>> >> future, what would be terrifying?
>>
>> >> The Great Depression
>> >> atomic bomb
>> >> artificial intelligence
>>
>> >> Worst of all, perhaps:
>>
>> >> World War Two
>>
>> >In 1920, the Great War had just ended.
>>
>> So WWII would sound sufficiently scary to the survivors.
>
>Most people would say the Great War was unique and
>wouldn't be repeated in the near future. Americans might
>say the Civil War was similar or worse. It wasn't a surprise
>that war comes again, but few expected it so soon.

Which is exactly why "World War Two" is a scary phrase.


Jasper

In article <2b8pm3t2dlkbpa4fa8gr19bkvgtqt6uad8@4ax.com>,
William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote:

> (economists say 'negative growth', ain't they
> cute) for two or more quarters.

Negative growth is good when applied to cancer, for example.

Analog of "advancing backwards".

norrin <adweiland@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A chemist who knew about the nucleus might be able to guess that
> electrons orbit in shells, but that's just a theory.

By 1920 it was known that each atom contained a tiny nucleus, which
was orbited by electrons. It was believed that the nuclus consisted
of protons and electrons, as the neutron had not yet been discovered.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 22 Dec 2007 15:46:32 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>By 1920 it was known that each atom contained a tiny nucleus, which
>was orbited by electrons. It was believed that the nuclus consisted
>of protons and electrons, as the neutron had not yet been discovered.

But it was known that the mass did not add up.

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>By 1920 it was known that each atom contained a tiny nucleus, which
>>was orbited by electrons. It was believed that the nuclus consisted
>>of protons and electrons, as the neutron had not yet been discovered.
>
>But it was known that the mass did not add up.

Um, no - it was known that the -spin- did not add up. The mass "doesn't add up"
even when you look at protons-and-neutrons - curve of binding energy - and that
is something science is okay with. But when you have 14 protons and 7
electrons in a nucleus, each with half-integral spin, but it turns out to have
integral spin overall, then Something Is Wrong.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> By 1920 it was known that each atom contained a tiny nucleus,
>> which was orbited by electrons. It was believed that the nuclus
>> consisted of protons and electrons, as the neutron had not yet
>> been discovered.

> But it was known that the mass did not add up.

Yes, but it was known that that was due to the differing energy
content of different nuclei, which is how people knew that vast energy
was available from nuclear reactions if only someone could figure out
how to tap it.

The spins didn't add up, either. It's now known that that's because
neutrons exist, and that a neutron isn't just a proton combined with
an electron. When a proton plus electron turns into a neutron or
vice versa, as happens in nearly all fission and fusion reactions, a
neutrino or antineutrino is emitted (or, far less likely, absorbed)
to make the spins add up right.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.