Golden age of physics

A Golden age of physics appears to have been delineated for certain periods of progress in the physics sciences, and this includes the previous and current developments of cosmology and astronomy. Each “golden age” introduces significant advancements in theoretical and experimental methods. Discernible time periods marking a “golden age” of advancements are, for example, the development of mechanics under Galileo (1564–1642) and Newton (1642–1727). Another small epoch seen as a golden age is the unification of electricity, magnetism, and optics because of 19th century notables, including Faraday, Maxwell, and others.

Significant advancements in methods of investigation were introduced for celestial mechanics, which includes realizing a universal gravitational force, with the introduction of the telescope. Basing mechanics on experimental results was possible with the development of devices that could measure time, and tools for measuring distance. The advances in electromagnetism in the 19th century enamored physicists, as another golden age closed, and there was a reluctance to perceive further advancement. Hence, the progress of one era, termed a “golden age” has appeared to mark the completion of physics as a science. Yet, this perception has turned out to be erroneous. For example, around 1980, Stephen Hawking predicted the end of theoretical physics within 20 years. Around 2001, he amended his prediction to twenty years more from that year. Stephen Weinberg predicts a unified physics by 2050. Tadeusz Lulek, Barbara Lulek, and A. Wal – the authors of a 2001 book – believed themselves to be at the beginning of a new “golden age of physics“.

Paul Davies notes that whilst “many elderly scientists” may regard the first 30 years of the 20th century as a golden age of physics, historians may well, instead, regard it to be the dawning days of “the New Physics“.

The golden age of physics was the 19th century. According to Emilio Segrè, in Italy it came to an end in the 18th century, after the time of Alessandro Volta. He reported in his autobiography that Enrico Fermi felt that it was coming to an end in 1933. A golden age of physics began with the simultaneous discovery of the principle of the conservation of energy in the mid-19th century. A golden age of physics was the years 1925 to 1927. The golden age of nonlinear physics was the period from 1950 to 1970, encompassing the Fermi–Pasta–Ulam problem and others. This followed the golden age of nuclear physics, which had spanned the two decades from the mid-1930s to the mid-1950s. A golden age of physics started at the end of the 1920s.


The golden age of physics cabinets was the 18th century, with the rise of such lecturer-demonstrators as John Keill, John Theophilus Desaguliers, and William Whiston, who all invented new physics apparatus for their lectures.

See also:
Basic Science

A map of madness

Motivated by some recent news, a journalist asks a group of physicists: “What’s the meaning of the violation of Bell’s inequality?” One physicist answers: “It means that non-locality is an established fact“. Another says: “There is no non-locality; the message is that measurement outcomes are irreducibly random“. A third one says: “It cannot be answered simply on purely physical grounds, the answer requires an act of metaphysical judgement“.

Puzzled by the answers, the journalist keeps asking questions about quantum theory: “What is teleported in quantum teleportation?” “How does a quantum computer really work?” Shockingly, for each of these questions, the journalist obtains a variety of answers which, in many cases, are mutually exclusive. At the end of the day, the journalist asks: “How do you plan to make progress if, after 90 years of quantum theory, you still don’t know what it means? How can you possibly identify the physical principles of quantum theory or expand quantum theory into gravity if you don’t agree on what quantum theory is about?

Here we argue that it is becoming urgent to solve this too long lasting problem. For that, we point out that the interpretations of quantum theory are, essentially, of two types and that these two types are so radically different that there must be experiments that, when analyzed outside the framework of quantum theory, lead to different empirically testable predictions. Arguably, even if these experiments do not end the discussion, they will add new elements to the list of strange properties that some interpretations must have, therefore they will indirectly support those interpretations that do not need to have all these strange properties.


Is Atheism a water religion?

Scientists detects possible traces of water on a planet and then hours later we can read in the news “Life on that planet is possible!“.


But is a possible trace of water on a planet really a good sign for a life sustaining environment on a distant planet?

Let’s consider some of the requirements for a habitable planet:
– abundance of water (not just traces)
– a atmosphere rich of oxygen and nitrogen
– absence or low amount of toxic gases (like ammonia)
– a stable orbit
– a well balanced gravitational force in order to keep the atmosphere
– a evenly rotation of the planet which keeps day and night cycles in balance
– the presence of different elements in the right ratio for nutrition of the organisms

Despite of that, life does not evolve out of dead matter. Evolution and atheism are a religion based on materialism. Denying facts and acting with arrogance is correlated with emotional immaturity. These people promote a idea which embeds already a failure. Their world view is of the lowest quality you can still find today in people minds. Well, you may find traces of intelligence, but this doesn’t mean that they are intelligent. Whenever they find a small trace of a possible source of water on a planet, even if the water is bound in form of rust in iron-hydroxy, they cry out that they have found the prove that on that planet life could be possible. That is a religion, not science.

See also:
Why is Modern Art so Bad?

CNN effect

Foolish is the man who never reads a newspaper;
even more foolish is the man who believes what he reads just because it is in the newspaper.
(August von Schlözer, German historian and journalist of the late 18th century)

The CNN effect is a theory in political science and media studies that postulates that the development of the popular 24-hour international television news channel known as Cable News Network, or CNN, had a major impact on the conduct of states’ foreign policy in the late Cold War period and that CNN and its subsequent industry competitors have had a similar impact in the post Cold War era. While the free press has, in its role as the “Fourth Estate,” always had an influence on policy-making in representative democracies, proponents of the CNN effect argue that the extent, depth, and speed of the new global media have created a new species of effects qualitatively different from those that preceded them historically. The term’s coinage reflects the pioneering role played by the network CNN in the field, whose “saturation coverage” of events like the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the fall of Communism in eastern Europe, the first Gulf War, and the Battle of Mogadishu was viewed as being strongly influential in bringing images and issues to the immediate forefront of American political consciousness and beyond. Despite these origins, the term as used generally refers to a broad range of real time modern media, and is not exclusive to CNN or even 24-hour news cycle broadcast cable news.


In his research paper Clarifying the CNN Effect: An examination of Media Effects According to Type of Military Intervention, George Washington University professor Steven Livingston identifies three distinct aspects that fall under the broad term of the CNN effect. The media may function alternately or simultaneously as

(1) a policy agenda-setting agent
(2) an impediment to the achievement of desired policy goals
(3) an accelerant to policy decision-making

By focusing instantaneous and ongoing media coverage on a particular conflict, international incident, or diplomatic initiative, the news cycle effectively demands political attention, as governing politicians attempt to demonstrate that they are “on top of” current issues. The effect has been, according to Margaret Belknap, that “[t]he advent of real time news coverage has led to immediate public awareness and scrutiny of strategic decisions and military operations as they unfold”. Deeper penetration and wider broadcast of statements and actions by public figures may increase transparency, but it can also complicate sensitive diplomatic relationships between states or force an official reaction from governments that would otherwise prefer to minimize political risk by remaining noncommittal. The information revolution and spread of global mass media through the Internet and international 24-hour news thus accelerates the policy-making process, requiring a faster tempo of decision and action to forestall the appearance of a leadership vacuum.

The one thing it does, is to drive policymakers to have a policy position. I would have to articulate it very quickly. You are in real-time mode. You don’t have time to reflect.
(Former Secretary of State James Baker)

Time for reaction is compressed. Analysis and intelligence gathering is out.
(Margaret Tutwiler)

See also:
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
Spin (public relations)
Planetary Consciousness
Crowd manipulation
Propaganda War – Manipulating the Collective Consciousness
How to Benefit From the Newspaper

Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev

Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev was a Russian chemist and inventor. He formulated the Periodic Law, created his own version of the periodic table of elements, and used it to correct the properties of some already discovered elements and also to predict the properties of eight elements yet to be discovered.


In 1863 there were 56 known elements with a new element being discovered at a rate of approximately one per year. Other scientists had previously identified periodicity of elements. John Newlands described a Law of Octaves, noting their periodicity according to relative atomic weight in 1864, publishing it in 1865. His proposal identified the potential for new elements such as germanium. The concept was criticized and his innovation was not recognized by the Society of Chemists until 1887. Another person to propose a periodic table was Lothar Meyer, who published a paper in 1864 describing 28 elements classified by their valence, but with no prediction of new elements.

After becoming a teacher, Mendeleev wrote the definitive textbook of his time: Principles of Chemistry (two volumes, 1868–1870). As he attempted to classify the elements according to their chemical properties, he noticed patterns that led him to postulate his periodic table; he claimed to have envisioned the complete arrangement of the elements in a dream:

I saw in a dream a table where all elements fell into place as required. Awakening, I immediately wrote it down on a piece of paper, only in one place did a correction later seem necessary.

See also:
Elements in Homeopathy and the Human Imperfection
Classification of homeopathic therapists according to the element theory
Fibonacci, Homeopathy and the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements
Hydrastis and elements
The Secret Life of Plants

Programming of Life

Part 1

Part 2

See also:
Small hopping insect equipped with a set of living gears
The Beauty of Nature and the Universe
Evolution – Fact or Fiction?
Your Cells—Living Libraries!
The Zipf Mystery
We have just scratched the surface of what we know about the DNA!
Propaganda War – Manipulating the Collective Consciousness

The geoengineering world is populated by very overconfident, overwhelmingly male figures

Naomi Klein on geoengineering:

In general the geoengineering world is populated by very overconfident, overwhelmingly male figures who don’t make me feel at all reassured that they have learned the lessons of large-scale technological failure. When I went to this one conference that was hosted by the Royal Society in England, the Fukushima disaster had just started, and in fact a photographer I was working with—a videographer—had just come back from Fukushima and was completely shell-shocked. And I was surprised it didn’t come up the whole time we were meeting, because it seemed relevant to me. Yeah, we humans screw up. BP had been two years earlier. I have been profoundly shaped as a journalist by covering the BP disaster, the derivatives failure, seeing what’s happened in Fukushima. I’m sorry, but I think the smartest guys in the room screw up a lot. And the kind of hubris that I’ve seen expressed from the ‘geo-clique,’ as they’ve been called, makes me not want to scale up the risks that we’re taking.


It seems easier, more realistic, to dim the sun than to put up solar panels on every home in the United States …

Source: Dystopian Fiction’s Popularity Is a Warning Sign for the Future

See also:
Planetary Consciousness
Fluoride Does Not Reduce Tooth Decay
Can Humans Trigger Earthquakes?
Inside job
Recommended books – Part 1