Cafe Scientific, Southampton, UK, past talks

Some details on SWA science cafe talks of 2010
Some details on SWA science cafe talks of early 2011
To return to the main "4mg" Soton Sci Cafe file
To return to the main "fsnet" Soton Sci Cafe file
Latest update of this file 18 December , 2011
Some summaries etc of past talks held at the venue, The Southwestern Arms (upstairs room) , 36 Adelaide Rd, St Denys, SO17 2HW
Some hosts are not alowing remote linking now , so to view a "forbidden" picture you have to right click on the mouse and select "view". Not verbatim, and there will be homonyms, transcription, transliteration, typing and spelling errors in the following write-ups. Q&A , grouped under one "Q" tend to be dialogue with / multiple questions from one enquirer. ? for unheard / masked words , ??? for phrases.

10 January 2011
Scam electronic products - 2 case studies of actual physical scam items to view inside, with their advertising , 
history etc - any general pointers to items being scams ? 
Two more examples of  scam products for discussion .
conducted by Nigel Cook 

Monday, 07 February 2011 Subject: Fusion research and energy Dr Chris Warrick from the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy , Oxfordshire. About 1 and 3/4 hours with a break in the middle and about 38 people attending (Pool table balls, on-the-fly, supplying visual aid for showing the nuclear processes) The sun: a working fusion reactor - what we're aspiring to do. At Culham hope to make a power station with a miniature sun at the middle. In the sun fusion of hydrogen to make helium , release lots of energy, can in essence be replicated here on earth. The sun clearly puts out more energy than is put in. Why aren't we there yet? - its incredibly difficult. First problem is you have to get it very hot, the middle of the sun is 15 million degrees centigrade - H nuclei moving incredibly fast. As moving so fast , they will not stick together and then release energy - a chicken and egg situation. Without them being very hot and moving very quickly , they won't fuse, once they fuse they keep moving very hot and fuse, nove quickly , fuse . On earth , with our smaller sun , we have to compensate by making it hotter. Heating our plasma up to 150 million degrees C before you start to see any fusion happing at all. Contrasting with fission - the splitting of very heavy nuclei , just happens, uranium just splits being very unstable - releasing energy . With fission you worry about slowing down the reaction , not starting it. fusion - you worry about anything getting going in the first place. Fission/ fusion very similar words but the physics is very diferent. In the sun the 2 single H protons come together and the sun's immense pressure and temperature and over many stages they will finally form He , v2 protons and 2 neutrons and release energy that comes to us as heat and light. Repeating that here we would get nanowatts , very slow reaction . The sun only work because it is huge. Because huge and slow it will continue for another 5 billion years. So have to find other light nuclei - essentially anything lighter than iron will fuse in the right conditions, 2 things required to optimise: 1/ high probability that once these things start flying , they will stick together, called the cross-section , the proabability they are at. 2/ how much energy coming out Deuterium (D) , a common isotope of H , and Tritium (T) more problematic "super-heavy" H , they will fuse , just , 150 million degrees, they will form He and a gas Neuton coming out with a lot of energy as well . Thats a permanent reaction , they cannot go backwards. Why does it make energy? The binding energy that holds any nucleus together , something powerful has to be holding them together , as the neutrons don't want to stay where they are. Some of the mass , from Eistein , is used in an energy sense for the binding. He is well bound, needing not that much energy to hold it together compared to the original D and T, a net release of energy. D and T moving at something like 1 percent the speed of light before they will stick. The emerging components come out 30 times faster and 5 times faster. Much the same with fission but with U splitting , splitting to 2 nuclei that need less binding energy . Typically 10 times more energy released from fusion than fission . If the sun was a D/T reactor would have burnt out in the fisrst second of its life. Stars are relatively slow in comparison to man-made fusion. 3 criteria You need to maximize how many atoms within the plasma, there is a limit on achievable density. You need to get them moving quickly , the problem is at room temperature D & T are inert and happily co-exist. Beyond a few hundred degrees of heating, it becomes a plasma , ionised gas, the electrons have been stripped away, leaving the positive protons that naturally repel one another. Brute force in the sense of getting them moving faster so they can approach closer and closer then the replusion force is overcome and they get sucked in together, instead. Need a mechanism to hold the energy inside itself long enough to fuse and carry on working, the one we are struggling with. Tokamaks , ring shaped containers. The first experiments were with a form like a large neon tube , not enough to fuse. You cannot let the plasma touch the sides or it will never reach anything like 150 million degrees. Imagining all the most powerful heaters available all around the room here it would only reach a few hundered degrees. Losing all that energy at the surrounding surfaces You have to push the plasma in , away from the walls, using magnetic fields. A magnet to the side of a cathode ray tube TV will bend the electron beam. In the fusion plasma the charged particles are bent similarly . Magnetically confined fusion - MCF , these type of machines, doughnut surrounded by large magnets to deflect into a ring. The density is very low, the amount of gas we can support in there is tiny, a mass of a postage stamp, about 1/10 of a gram. The less there is, the easier it is to heat to 150 million degrees. On the inner wall the plasma is held off by a couple of cm , but the plasma is inherently unstable , hates being held, wants to break free like the flare-off from the sun . Likened to confining a jelly with lots of string, will always find a gap to flop out. The tighter the string the more the jelly squashes through any gaps. The sun has gravity to do this , easily. The inside layer of tiles is important engineering. Loose control of the plasma and it will hit that wall . Wall will survive because there is not much mass of plasma . Up to now the tiles have been made from carbon fibre , high melting point, robust and good under thermal shock. One problem is the carbon fibre loves T. D you can buy from standard industrial sources, explosive as H is but not radioactive or toxic. T has half life of 10 years, heavy Beta emitter , very nasty stuff , only a few grams at Culham , requiring voluminous and specialised handling. T cost 10,000 GBP a gram a 15 years ago, originally 200 grams from a fission reactor but now half has decayed, some has been "stored" in the walls making them radioactive. You want the T to be in the plasma, not being lost to the walls, adding to decommissioning costs. A future power station would have to use something other than C . JET has remotely operated manipulating arms , as humans cannot enter on a repeated basis. In the last months the thousands of C tiles have been stripped off , requiring them to be unscrewed . Replaced with Beryllium and Tungsten tiles, neither absorb T. A lot of engineering as well as science, magnets , electrical power handling, on site substations . JET has been there for 25 years, achievements - creates fusion close to where serious fusion could start to kick off , does not control the plasma long enough , of the order a second . Its made neutrons and 16/17 Megawatts , a very big wind turbine equivalent , unfortunately you needed 23 MW to heat the plasma, to get 16 out - JET cannot do better than that. Considering it is a machine designed in the 1970s , its still answering questions . How to get more out than in? 150 million degrees is as high as you can do Density is a physical limit Can only make it bigger, bigger means the energy inside the plasma stays longer . A saucepan of soup heated until boiling , turn gas off and soup will stay hot a long time , but some in a bowl and it cools a lot quicker. If activity on the sun suddenly stopped it would take something like tens of thoudands of years to cool down . Hence ETA being built now in the south of France. Ten times the volume and increase duration to 5 seconds. Maybe possible to push JET to output twice the amount put in but that is not good enough for a power station. ETA would squash into a corner of the furnace hall of somewhere like Didcot coal fired power station . It has to be big to work , so no replacements for car engines. ETA cost about 15 billion Euros , timescale of 10 years to build, it is started now. Commercial fusion will still be 30 years off , enormously complex and with multi-government funding regime, increases timescale. Is fusion a gamble? only if there are 3 or 4 alternative solutions possible , left up your sleeve, to solve future energy crisis. Fusion , if it were to work , is clean , some radioactivity but nothing long-lasting, easy to deal with waste product - benign He . Incredibly safe, considering it may be the hottest place in the universe, sitting in Culham , Oxfordshire, but it can't get out. Just 1/10 gram but if it tries to leave it touches the wall and terminates there. It cannot go into overdrive like fission can potentially. Put too much gas in - it stops, because it goes unstable. Fuels are very abundant, D probaly billions of years-worth, T is rare, needing breeding from Lithium which is pretty common , tens of thousands of year-worth. End of talk - break Question and Answers - Q: Why D and T not D and D ? as T is so nasty D+D will fuse , like all light material , requires 300 or 400 million degrees. D+T produces very fast neutron , 10x any faster than any fission. D+D can produce T . Could be goal to get D+D working Q where do you get the energy to start the process 100s of MW needed for the magnetic field, coming off the national grid. The grid needs warning , big pair of flywheels that generate a during a pulse about 400MW of power and another 350 MW off the grid 1 percent of the whole coutry's entire electricity usage Because the coils are copper, 32 large coils at several thousand amps and several thousand volts . Culham chosen for Jet as close to a power station - Didcot, with direct access to the high V lines . Q How do you measure the output energy and where does it go No turbines on JET, 23MW in and 16MW out was back in 1997, the last time run with D&T. D-T means neutrons made , on green belt, so dare not release radioctivity, so run on Deuterium and infer what would have been with T in. Perhaps in 2014 will run D-T again and try to get above a Q of 1 , more out than in. You measure the neutrons and let them go, there is no percentage in installing turbines. Q If the money for weapons research had gone into fusion research , where would we be? Don't know the weapons expenditure. 15 billion compares to the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. LHC at CERNE was about 3 or 4 billion . New aircraft carrier is about 5 billion . Each year the world spends 3 or 4 trillion on energy About .1 percent of that is spent on all forms of energy research , renewables, fision etc All major companies spend far more than .1 percent on research, if they didn't they would likelt collapse Q I expected the containment to be glorified Thermos Flask , reflecting the heat back in. Its not coming out as heat, unlike the sun producing heat and light. We want to minimise the radition, the energy comes out from the kinetic energy of the particles. If you reflected heat back they could not be robust enough. Beryllium would be more shiney than carbon. Q Why are those tiles not NASA Shhuttle ceramic tiles The original Shuttle tiles were Silcon carbide , similar properties, in future the Be and Tungsten tiles would melt at 3000 degrees C be much more hard wearing Q How is the T extracted from the Li ? You have to get the blanket design right - plasma, first wall then blanket, 2 m thick stainless steel cassettes filled with a kind of Li . If solid Li , the neutrons would penetrate , but bounce and heat up the Li to 4 or 5 hundred degrees and when slowed down react with Li to make T . If Li was solid it would be trapped in bubbles contained within. Blanket has to be some kind of granular design , sand or pebbles or liquid , ETA having to test each of these blankets . You need the neutrons to penetrate but whatever T is made needs to come back out. The Li would need to be replaced as in 4 years or so it would all be used up in breeding the T . So the blanket has to be replaceable. ETA will trap the neutrons but it still will not have a turbine even if just for PR reasons , powering something in the way of local lighting or something. Q How do you heat the plasma? 3 methods, big transformer down the middle that discharges and drives an enormous current around the plasma, as charged particles that is straigtforward, very low resistance, about 5 million amps inside JET , gets up to 10s of millions of degrees. Microwave generators , enormous gyratrons and other microwave sources, natural frequency in the plasma that can resonate like water molecules in a kitchen microwave oven. Excitation heats them up even more. Also send in beams accelerated by tens of KV , like a jet of steam into milk of an expresso coffee. Q How much do you have to scale up to get a descent output? ETA will produce 10 times more out than in. 50 or 60 in to produce 500 out . Not the 500 going in to produce 15 out of JET. Q How long before successful fusion. No doubt it will work but whether work economically another matter and still 30 years off When fission started in the 50s , Calder Hall etc , built as research reactors but they then put their energy on the grid. Badly inefficient as research setups by design not generators. Have been comunicating fusion for ten years but confidence has declined over those years but still confident that sometime it will work . As progress has been made, more challenges have sprung up. Fusion is hard science but the politics of fusion funding is even harder. As oil prices go up and up , you tend to see fusion funding following oil price. Q How long has fusion been tried? Culham been there since the 60s , the first true Tokamaks in the 60s in Russia. Culham JET build as a direct result of the oil-shock of the 70s . 1958 was zeta , saying then fusion was 30 years off , saw some neutrons, thought they showed fusion, went to the press, and the "too cheap to meter" phrase. They were not fusion neutrons and nowhere near with zeta. Q When you're building these fusion reactors , is there any material in its construction that in itself is quite rare, and prohibitive for expansion / commercial developement? Be is common, Wg common, vacuum vessel is Incanel a stainless steel , Li very common but large requirement commercially for batteries - plenty of Li in the seabed if land based sources dried up. If you went to D-D you would not need the blanket. The superconducting coils in ETA would be neobium-tin , the neobium is rare and expensive so could be an issue, if thousands of reactors. Hopefully beter/ cheaper materials would come along in the meantime. Materials is the main obstacle , generally speaking , at the moment. You could make a working reactor now, producing a gigawatt probably ,it would work for a period of time but not susainably without improved materials. Q Why not build ETA 10 or 20 times bigger? Because struggling to find 15 billion as it is, bigger and a lot more. Related- why cant you build one power station that supplies the whole UK? 40 or 50 GW. Economics make 1 or 2 GW the optimum scale, bigger like Drax at 5 or 6 GW, costs too much for maintainance in comparison. Fision power stations would have those same operational economic constraints . Q Is there some way of forcing oil companies to research into it? Oil companies are interested, we have talked to them, but it is too far in the distance. 15 billion is what BP is spending to clean up the Gulf of Mexico . Could you have some sort of levy ? Q Is there any problems getting the T in and He out? 2 ways, bottle of D to gas lines, valves then puff it to the outside of the plasma and it penetrates in . With T it is stored in the lattice structure of Uranium beds, heat up the beds, and releases the T and then down gas lines , carefully. It tends not to get to the middle, only half way in , ionised sitting there and not at the middle. Some will get to the middle but not enough. Favourite way is tiny pellets of D or T ice , fired via an air gun , get to the middle before they ablate and a big burst of fuel in the middle where you need it. He out , reaction happening billions of times a second in the plasma , He is useful initially as its hotter having some fusion energy with it , collide with incoming D and T, heating all up , alpha heating - heating from within the plasma. But if you cant rid it then end up with a He plasma , useless, as won't fuse He with He, or not at only 150 million degrees . So its an exhaust gas , the bottom region of the plasma is very bright , called the diverter, a couple of grooves, is in essence the JET exhaust pipe . Beneath that is a pump that suckes everything out from that region. The only place we let the plasma touch the wall and try and survive with intense local power loading , spread the power out , cool the plasma , new diverted design at the moment , that forces the plasma to go a long way before it hits and cools before it gets there , the superX diverter. The engineering there is very intense Q Could you use as a source of combined heat and power ? Probably not enough He, you only produce about 400 Kg of He a year for a 2GW plant. If you released it into the atmosphere it is a greenhouse gas, even then it is 10 million times less greenhouse forcing than the same size fossil fuel electricity generator. Q How do you measure the temperature ? In Hansard a lord quipped in answer to that in the 1980s " with a very large thermometer" ;-) It either melts whatever you poke in or the plasma puts itself out . You use laser beams to measure its temp. Low power laser beams fired down through the plasma. Evey millionth or so photon will scatter off in different directions. If they get too close to a nucleus they fly off in a different direction . You can measure the scatter , scattered energy giving , Thompson scattering, information on how hot it must have been to scatter in that particular way. How do you measure the density ? You know how much gas is put in but how much is picked up from the walls as well. Done by sending a wave through the plasma , in its passage it travels a bit slower , than through air, on converging both paths at the other end there is a relative shift , giving info on the density. Q How much of this technology has been developed specifically for this experiment? any spin-off benefits? Most things are just for us, little is off the shelf. Materials developed for Culham have been used in industry . The microwave systems have outside uses . Diagnostics is designed for Culham only , no other users for it. One-off designs don't come cheap. Q If you're generating T can you move to T +T ? That would double up the problem with T . D + Helium 3 is a possibility, although no He3 on earth. Common on the Moon. Would generate T so the T problem again. Q What technical advances would need to be made to make a fusion powered starship? Not in my remit. It would be an attractive option , for enormous velocities around the universe, it would probably have to be fusion Q The Americans are trying to develop multiple high powered laser fusion, is that a problem for European funding? Fuel in a tiny pellet , same sort of mass as JET and implode it with 192 enormous lasers, no confinement, get very hot and very dense , very quickly , fusing like mad (NIF). It will sustain itself for a short period of time for relatively little power in. Probably further away from a working power station than JET/ ETA. Repeat laser firing 10 a second , pellets coming in at that rate, very intense engineering would be required. But significant funding going into it. Hopefully both routes will work . There are some similariies and co-working in some shared areas, especially blankets and energy extraction . You can strap on a turbine to JET or ETA almost as an afterthought , not the case with NIF. Q You said if D+D ever comes you would not need a Li blanket, how would you get the heat out of that ? If you made protons by a clever way, the protons would get held in the magnetic field and then another clever way to extract just the protons , you can then just inject it into the grid as charged particles coming straight out - maybe. Even 30 years ahead , with fision power, there still will be steam and generators of Victorian technology almost. Q Is there any plans to take JET to distruction? Difficult to say when JET will end . If sure ending, then it would be pushed harder than previously pushed. Done 80-90,000 pulses now. Q Do you get something like an electomagnetic pulse , each time its fired up? An enormous magnetic field inside the machine. It dies off very rapidly , not emerging outside of the building, no general radio interference. You would not want to be next to the machine in use though. Q How do you find engineers capable of building these amazing things? With difficulty. A good flow of physicists doing PHDs etc, 40/50 or so. But for engineers is difficult sourcing , eg remote handling , very skilled engineering , some picked up from Formula 1. But finding enough quality engineers is hard. Similarly with technicians, for ages no appentiship scheme. Started 5 years ago as most of the technicians were coming up to retirement age. Without them no one to do the electical and mechanical work but now apprenices are coming through.

Presentation and talk by ecologist Philip Budd on lichen. Monday, 14 March 2011 Dificult to transcribe as pictures , distributed Q&A and a lot of latin terms, so probably many transcription errors, but here goes. What are lichens? Mixture of 2 things, living , but what Fungus and algae. The fungus part gives the base of the lichen and also abstracts minerals from the substrate that its on, be it bark or stone. The algae part uses sunlight to make sugars - photosynthesis. Also produces oxygen as a byproduct . The sugars cannot be obtained by the fungus part in any other way. How many species of lichen in Britain ? quite a good country for lichen variety , compared to many countries. About 1700 , about 700 in Hampshire, so less than half. For many more general species Hampshire has a higher proportion than that. A lot of the lichens are found only in the north of Britain or the Atlantic seaboard. Colder? They like it in the cleaner air of the north and west. Its actually the species of fungus that the lichen contains that defines the actual species of lichen. A particular species can have the same alae as othe rspecies of lichen. Any particular one has only one fungus. Lichens reproduces sexually and asexually . Asexually they bud little bits of themseelves off and sometimes you can see flowery looking bits that bud off and can produce new lichens . Sexuallt producing spores , like fungi , about a hundredth of a mm. They tend to produces disc like structures , the apothecia, where the spores are produced. Pic - a common yellow one on slate roofs , brickwork , trees and walls - Xanthoria Parietina , flat lobes and loads of apothecia in the middle. Q: Always yellow in all environments? Yes its the pigment in it, if in a shady environment then tends more green , if really in the open then more an orange yellow especially if dried off. Q: Is it the fungus that gives the colour? Yes the pigment is in the fungus. Sometimes the algae can contribute as well. If a lichen is very orange it may have an orange alga called Trentopohlia in it. It can live freely on tree bark and cause the bark to go orangey. You can get dyes out of lichen . Pic - Greener brown green , ona tree, a large genus called Parmelia . Now decided to split into 10 or 12 different genera. P that are warty on the surface , olive-green-brown colour they now call a genus Melanelia. And another split into Melanixia . Taxonomists are very annoying. They keep finding more about things and instead of leaving them alone , the more they find out, the more they find that some are not related to others that they thought they were. We end up with lots of splits and sometimes the names change bacjk to what they were before. All lichen consist of genera name and then species like all living things. We are called Homo Sapiens, someone may discover more about us and csll us Homo Stupidus or something. Usually with lichens the second part stays the same , the first bit, the genus that changes. Most of the lichen on trees are greyish or even whitish. This one tends not to produce apothecia , reproducing asexually - Glabatula, all the nobbly cental bits are tiny rods called Isidia , each wart can drop off and form a new lichen. Does not need to shed spores. Vernia Punastri , sample also , flat branching lichen , underneath it is white, on top grey. There are similar lichens grey on both sides. Commonest on oak, sometimes maple and lime. Parmelia Sulcastri , grey with white pimples and white network over and darker under surface. Powdery structures over called soredia , reproductive structures , usually near the middle. If there is pollution and the air gets cleaner , that is one of the first ones to come back. Q: How long do these things take to grow? A very long time , easily 20 years old, some can be as much as a hundred Q: Any of them poisonous Not in the sense that fungi are Q: Do humans eat them at all? Certain types such as rock tripe . Q: Is it genetics coming onto the scene , upsetting the taxonomy? Yes, mitachondrial DNA and the like Q: Previously it was colour, shape and form? Yes, that sort of thing plus a bit about their chamical composistion. Q: Can different species have the same algae? Each species of lichen has a particular fungus , but if they are closely related species they generally have the same species of algae in them. Sometimes more than one species of alga in them. On rocks and stone, mainly limestone, or concrete, . Tombstones of different alkalinity tend to have different lichen. Calophlaca Flavecens has numerous apothesia , reddish colour. If you drop an alkali on them it goes crimson /pink red. That is the same with all genus Calophlaca . On limestone tombstones we tend to see grey, white , black and yellow and the yellow is usually this , which can look a bit orangey/yellow, can go white in the middle as it dies off. Some have streaks of white or red on them as a result of alkaline bird droppings, having the same effect as the hydroxide. Its quite difficult to get lichen samples off tombstones. Q: Would you get lichens growing on glass, is there naturally occuring materials that are too smooth for lichens ? Glass is just too smooth. A new type of material they call marble but is usually highly polished limestone , that tends to have not much lichen on it. Unless there is errosion then they can get a hold. With bark, even smooth bark has a lot of lichens on as bark is never absolutely smooth like glass. Q: When a bird poops on lichen which reagent does it mimic? Most like hydroxide , high alkalinity. A limestone / gravestone community. Tend to be the black,grey white and yellow. Acid stone tend to be pinker in colour, brown and greyish green colours. This limestone group is mainly yellow Caloplaca Citrina which goes deep pink /crimson colour onn application of hydroxide. Black ones are verrucaria and white with black dots another sort of Verrucaria , have sunken discs , parathesia. A lichen that is just white on limestone then its probably Ascocilia - site specific lichens. Acid rock has totally different varieties. Usually lichens found on stone , you don;t get on trees. An exception is in the area of cement works , eg limestone area of Derbyshire around a cement works there were more rock lichens on the trees than there were tree lichens, because of the dust from the works, and the surface chemistry was more like rock than bark . Not how rough or hard the surface is, its the chemistry that matters. You can get tree lichen growing on rocks , in very wet conditions. A common tree one , with apothesia on the ends of branches , branching ones like the Lamerninia , grey on both sides and the discs . Lamerninia Vestigiata grey colour all over, common on Blackthorn and hedges . Some other Lamaninas have psoredia on sticks , a powdery surface. Smooth bark probably ash , 2 lichen types. A black line dividing the two . Laconora Clarotera and Lecidera Elechroma black apothesia on the grey warty surface. Q: Is that black line a gap ? They are just touching each other , and producing the line at the interface. A good identification tool is dropping chemicals onto lichen. I've mentioned sodium hyroxide, another common chemical for this purpose is bleach, thin bleach. Bleach on the Leconora does little other than appearing greener from just the wetting. But bleach on the other one goes bright vivid orange - a test for that particular species. The chemical is killing the part of the lichen that it touches though. Q: When they reproduce how does the fungus make sure the alga goes with it? If producing asexually , ie budding the two are already prepackaged. If its a spore , spores have to land in the right place , I think they have to land where some of the appropriate algae is living free and then the fungi can take it up. A very large number of spores produced but few produce new lichens. Q: If a spore lands in a bare patch then it will not grow? Correct An example of what was Parmelia , now called Hypotractina Revoleta has the blue grey body of the lichen and yellow-green powdery structures called soralia. They contain the soredia . Bleach on this goes bright pink-red. Killed off in high pollution areas but coming back when the air is cleaned up. Q: Pollution from what? Originanally from the burning of coal that contains sulphur. Then sulphur dioxide with rain or dew producing acid , killing lichens stone dead. Except for a few species that have become resistant. Less coal but other hydrocarbons with sulphur within , taken over. eg around Fawley Silvery undualting but fairly smooth, brown speckling , like nutmeg speckling on a custard tart - Parmelina Tiliacia (Tilia= Lime alkaline bark). In Southampton it tends to grow on maple trees, Southampton is about as far west as it gets - an Eastern England lichen. Only 2 sites known in Hampshire - one site is Southampton Common on 3 different trees. One which is smothered in it is just outside the Hawthorn Centre. An ash or Norway maple, uncertain. Another behind the Cowherds and the other between boating and fishing lake. Q: Is there a favoured aspect to the trees if an eastern species? I don't think so, these favour the south or west side A good book for lichen study is by Frank Dobson . Q: Will these physical samples stay in this condition permanently. They are all fried off and effectively dead. The commonest lichen in the New Forest - Flabo Parmelia Caproata whitey green colour the colour of luminouus paint on clock dials. A rosette form , similar to Soredians , the difference is that bleach to Caproate makes it turn yellow and the other turns yellow initially and then bright red. They are supposed to glow in the dark but no personal experience of that. Canolaria Concolor , do the same and it goes deep brown in colour. Q: Is it the lichen that changes colour or the associated fungus ? Yes its reaction with a chemical within a lichen . Sometimes a reaction with the algae component. Q: Do you get lichen in the likes of the arctic at one extreme or the Sahara desert at the other extreme ? All over the world. In the tundra arreas more common than flowering plants. Also high up on mountains , higher up than anything else surviving. Unsure about the very dry desert in the centre of Antarctica. Green -grey with black capothesia Buwelia Punctata mostly on pine trees, acid bark loving. Calaplactk Antara , orange apothesia in the middle and body flat with lobed edge silvery white colour at the very edge. Looks like cream and lemon curd in a partial mixture. Common on limestone tombstones and south walls of limestone churches. Will go crimson on applying hydroxide. Difflasia Kinesssens white -grey warty has a prenose appearance on the edge which means it looks like its been dusted with flour. On trees or stone. A common white one on limestone with plates that are called aerials with 3 or 4 dots , the apothesia embedded in the lichen. White frilly edge and a cracked appearance. Hertisaria , genus found on tree bark, Hertisaria Amora , meaning bitter extremely nasty bitter taste that when tasted lingers, a taste like dandelion juise. Some people cannot tast it. Greeny blue disc form , amongst moss on oak bark Normendina Pulchella , almost luminous . Again more in the New Forest rather than towns, requiring very clean air, Pertisalia Pertusa but in fact 2 lichens with a distinct dividing line Pertusa and Hibenia with warts. Another very much New Forest one , the barnacle lichen , fruiting bodies like barnacles, with inner and outer ring . Stelatrina Mepadingham generally on beech trees. One with a specimen on show , some lichen have patterns on them like writing , lirellae , pointed fingers slighly branching called Fayographis Dendritica and Graphis Scripta the more common one eg ( looking like karyotyped chromosomes under a magnifier.) The scriptforms are virelli , branching 3 or 4 times . These examples from Botley Wood SSSI . Q: What wins out between moss and lichen if they get into a battle? If on the north side of a tree then moss as damper and cooler. But you can get lichen growing on moss , the finer types. Entrgrapha Elaborata , white , one of the rarest lichens in Britain found in the New Forest on beech. Varicarum Moralis very common on stone. hite with central prathesia falls out leaving a ring with a black dot in a ring Varicaria Hockstetari . Lecidella Scabora on acidic rocks Protblastinia Rupestas (means grows on rock) also on brick, white or light grey isolated dark brown or orange brown apothesia in Southampton Old Cemetary , fromassisting a student with a project of comparing lichen growth with age of the gravestones. Came to the conclusion that most of the lichen were as old as the stone but growth rate only about half the rate for a comparable graveyard in Gloucestershire indicating the higher air pollution. Q: the errosion of lettering on gravestones is that due to air pollution not an etching function of lichen ? Lichen can possibly have an action but can also slow it down , frost action and errossion more disruptive. Ramalina Faranasia , with specimen on table, thinly branched , the warts on the edge have a floury appearance (hence faranasia) . Common by the seaside and blackthorn hedges. Laconora Campestris grey with white edge , lots of dark brown apothsia with a white rim . Common on brick and pavements including tarmac. Another one for tarmac is Laconora Neralis with green apothsia and a light greeny grey look like chewing gum on pavements . Q: Are there very garish lichen like some fungus can be? There is a branching one that looks like gold but very rare. Fedania Thimbriata on mossy tree trunks , goblet like. Blue -grey body , sort of lichen that arctic reindeer eat. Caloplaca Reederam is a distinct distribution confined to Kent in East Anglia. Lichen can have a worldwide distribution, much wider than a lot of other material , say flowering plants are more restricted. The spores are so fine they distribute so easily . White with orange apothsia , looking yellow from a distance. Caloplaca Dalmtica common on church walls. Thonia Vimosa grows on oak trees white with brown or pink brown apothesia . Has a blue green alga in it , Calima Crispum , jelly like with cyano bacteria in it found on artificial rock called Pulamite eg Holly Hill woodland park at Sarisbury green is the only place in Hampshire . Now unknown composition including concrete but formulated for Victorians to put in their gardens, grottos , stone bridges and even Dartmoor-like Tors. But not for pavements like terazo, a very rough "stone". One that grows on the old part of Northam Bridge, below the present bridge, Caloplaca Dissipians has no apothsia just sorelia . Would have grown on that site not transfered from the quarry. Cladonia Portentosa , has a specific use, for trees and bushes on railway sets, used by birds for their nests. Dyed for such use as pure white in colour. Fustidia Lighfootia on sallow bark, warty green with black apothesia with orange-yellow fuzzy blobs , the orange is another alga clalled Trentopolia . Q: Has anyone given lichen , common names ?. Any that are protected by law have to have common names . Caloplaca Lutielba , not too sure , is called the orange fruited elm lichen grows on elm so very rare now as few elms from Dutch Elm disease, so protected by law. Gilded gold lichen is another one. Horse hair lichen and oak moss are others. Protection because they are rare rather than being harvested for some purpose. So if one tree with a rare lichen on it then the tree has a preservation order on it. Trepelopsis Flexolsis that goes red on touching with bleach. There is another chemical Phenylalomene or something like that can be used for identification use, 3 main chemicals. Q: ARe there any medical aspects associated with lichen , like some types of fungus grow on humans? Lichen Planus on feet is probably a fungus . Some lichen are parasitic on other lichen and maybe moss . Q: Will your specimens last in a box for 5 years say ? Yes or I return them to the wild

11 April 2011, talk by Dr Robert Crittenden , Portsmouth University cosmologist, on the early Universe, in particular about the very first light, also known as the cosmic microwave background. [ about 1.5 hours, 29 people ] The very first light - light that predates the formation of any of the stars in the universe. Light that has been around for as long as the universe has been around - what atronomers call the cosmic microwave background. Microwave indicates the wavelength of the light, something like 3mm. That can be related to a temperature which is very cold, 3 degrees Kelvin, 3 deg above absolute zero. CMB , background because it fills the universe, basically it is coming from behind anything we see in the foreground like galaxies or stars or anything else we see. Going back about 50 years, to 1960, we knew the universe was expanding but there were 2 basic models talked about at that time. The steady-state model (SSM) - the way we see the universe is much as it has always been. Despite always expanding, mass was being created in the voids so the universe stayed exactly the same. The other, the Big Bang model a derisive name given to it by one of the steady state proponents. Against the idea of spontaneous genreation of matter , but the amount of matter is conserved. Then as the universe is expanding it must be getting less and less danse. If you turn the clock backwards and then say that the density must get higher and higher the further you turn the clock back. The temperature associated with that gets larger and eventuallly the density goes to infinity - the Big Bang. How to tell the steady state model was correct or the big bang model , BBM correct. One way to do this was if the universe did go through this big bang then there might be some relic, something left over from when the universe was much more dense, much hotter. If you squeeze the matter in the universe , getting denser and denser , getting hotter and hotter and eventually any particle that can exist, does exist . So in the early universe everything was around and basically , thermally connected. In the BBM , as the universe expanded , it cooled down ,and most of the things that were there either decayed away or anihilated with their anti-particles, So one of the few things that could be left over from that process is light. So CMB is light left over from that very hot point in the early universe. It is something that has to be there if there was a big bang, Thats what people started searching for in the 1960s. So in the mid 60s people started building experiments to try and measure this. As that was happening some other radio astronomers at the Bell Labs, New Jersey, were in the process of converting a telescope that was used to bounce , signals to/from one of the very first satellite communication devices . Very high altitude balloons they were bouncing signals off. They were converting this to an astronomical telescope. In the process they noticed some noise that was in the telescope that they couldn't get rid of. They looked as hard as they could for the source of that noise ,is it coming from New York city ?, generating a lot of electromagnetic radiation - no. It seemed to be coming from everywhere, they cleaned out the scope as well as they could, trying to understand but they could not get away from this noise. About that time whan they were struggling to understand what this noise was, they found out some people , in nearby Princeton, were building an experiment to look for microwave background, this light from the big bang. It clicked that what they were seeing in their telescope , this noise , was that microwave radiation. That was about 1965 and effectively the end of the SSM - its proponents stuck around trying to explain this radiation but it is very natural to get it in the BBM but have to struggle to get it in the SSM. Now the BBM is generally accepted by most if not all cosmologists, working today. One nice aspect of this radiation is , its rather inert, it doesn't react with anything very often. Its been around for near enough 13 billion years , since about 400,000 years after the BB that light has not interacted at all its still basically exactly the way is was. Unless it reached some very ionised regions it travels directly without interacting . So looking out at it what we're seing is a picture of the universe when it was an infant stage. Scale that to human lifespan , to an adult , then a picture of 12 hours old. So a photograph of the very early universe. Compare that to when the stars would have formed , on human scaling , about 6 months old. What does this baby look like ? if our eyes were receptive to this light. People discovered back in the 60s is that it is remarbably uniform. Basically if you could see it, it would look the same wherever you looked. If you had very good eyesight, you may be able to make out in the direction of Leo , its just slightly hotter than in the opposite direction . That is due to the fact that the Earth and Solar system is moving relative to the rest plane of that light. In the direction we are moving makes it a little bit hotter and the direction away from a little bit colder. Thats all anybody saw for about 30 years . Despite discovery in the 60s people didn't see any variations in this light until the 90s when I started studying it, not that I discovered it, About that time , when I was in graduate school, people discovered there were fluctuations in this light. Those fluctuations we knew had to be there at some level because we know the universe is not smooth today , so it could not have been smooth at earlier times as we need something to seed the structures that we see today. When we finally found fluctuations that helped confirm some of our models. My one visual aid is my WMAP beach ball, shows the most recent satellite observations . The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropic Probe, a satellite that went up 7 or 8 years ago. The goal was to measure these very small fluctuations , of order 1 part in 100,000. You would not be able to see this without extracting out the homogeneous part and just see the tiny fluctuations left over. The "equatorial" prominent (red on this globe which was passed around) ring is just the galaxy we are sitting in , it does emit in this wavelength through other kinds of means , we have foregrounds like that , that we have to subract off. The other , we believe, is coming from the very early universe. Those tiny fluctuations were basically due to gravitational instability , we start off with something very small and then some slight overdensity attracts things to it and then a runaway process that grows until you get some big fluctuations like stars and galaxies. The reason it is still interesting to study is that while the BBM has been very well proven we've measured millions of galaxies , measured their speeds from us. We know the universe is expanding , we have a lot of indo to support the BB but the BBM is itself incomplete in a number of ways . There are a lot of questions that it just does not quite answer . One problem is we can only extrapolate back to a certain point. If the fluctuations divererge and it gets to a temperature or energy levels that we do not know the physics for. We just do not know what happens then. We don't know why its expanding in the first place. We don't know why it has the kind of matter that it has. We don't know why there are planets and other things , why there is dark matter, why there is dark energy and other kinds of radiation at the levels that we see them . There is also a free parameter in this model , the geometry of the universe, which appears to be very close to flat. Much like you'd expect niaively the geometry to work. But it could have been much more curved than that. Also problems in understanding the fluctuations themselves . In the BBM its of finite age, therefore a finite diatance that signals can propogate at a given time. What we see is a universe that is smooth over scales that could not of communicated during that time. We do not understand how the universe could know to be so smooth given that a signal could not move from one point to another point . We also don't know where those fluctuations that started to seed the structure , where they came from. BBM doesn't try to answer that question. It just tells us what the background is doing. So we don't know why it was so smooth to begin with, we don't know why the fluctuations were of the level they were . Some of the answers we're trying to find looking at this data. the MB is good for looking for and understanging the nature of those fluctuations because you are seing the universe was very young and was linearly evolving. Basically everything is evolving very simply and so by studting what the fluctuations look like , we can very well understand how to extrapolate backwards and how those things depended not only on the starting point but also on what else was in the universe. So how it started and what it was made out of. We think that 95 percent of the universe is dark, in the form of things that we don't see directly , 70 percent in some mysterious dark energy and 25 percent this dark matter. MB can help us understand what the universe is made out of. Gives us a way to try and figure out what came before. We get some hints, trying to understand what caused the universe to look like it does. What caused those fluctuations in the beginning. We have a number of models for how that BB might have started - something called cosmological inflation, or maybe models involving extra dimensions related to string theory or quantum gravity . Many ideas on how things could have started and if those ideas are any good then they should tell us how those initial fluctuations were created and something about them. So we can use those fluctuations to test our models. Where we are going from here . This WMAP data that is on this beach ball is the most recent satellite. Right now there is a satellite up , called Plank, which is going to have better resolution than WMAP , increasing the number of pixels on that sphere by a factor of 10. About 10 times more info on those fluctuations than we have at present. We will better able to remove different kinds of foreground , different effects like our galaxy, and anything else that might be interfering with those fundamental fluctuations. We hope to look for other signatures of the models that caused the BB, the signatures of inflation. Things like impact of gravitational radiation which might come out in the MB. Tell us with more accuracy what the universe is made out of . Also maybe find something completely unexpected. Something that may give us a new direction , something in th estatistics of the fluctuations that will tell us maybe the universe wasn't isotropic or startrf in a different way than we had been assuming. Q Could there be an explanation of why there is slightly more matter than antimatter? It is one of the questions that we struggle with. Its a dificult question as we really only measure one number. Whatever produced that difference between matter and antimatter , hapened very early in th euniverse. By the time these fluctuations were created , that question had already been settled to some extent. All the antimatter had anihilated by that point, all that was around by that point was the matter. So allows us to measure the matter to good accuracy but won't directly answer that question. We have very little info other than the magnitude of the asymetry. The hope is particle physics models will try and answer that more directly. Observationally there is a limit to what you say about that. Q: Your beach ball shows our galaxy emitting microwaves, what makes you so sure that what you're seeing is not the cumulative effect of all the galaxies emitting similarly. Thats certainly true , our galaxy emits with a specific spectrum . How much there is , is a function of the frequency of the light that you see. So the light, that red band, is coming froming a specific mechanism caled synchrotron radiation , primarily from that. It has a particular spectral shape to it. Looking at the rest of the light it is a fantastic black body , which is precisely what the theory predicts and not what any of the foregrounds say. We do see other galaxies in that and we have to subtract them out, but they're not dominating that structure. That is what Plank will be very good at. Obsevations in many frequencies and use that frequency info to take away those foreground galaxies. We know precisely what that spectrum should look like for the cosmological signals, we can extract that out very well. Basically it is the best black body that anybody has ever seen. Q: This light has been around since the BB, its not affected by its passage, passes straight through things . Where has it been , where has it gone ? The light is radiated out, and get to wherever, and it would pass us. At the time the universe was filled with this light , so it was coming out of everywhere, in every direction. So what we are seeing is the light that was emitted towards us 13 billion light years ago. There is a sphere of radius 13 b ly, where this stuff originates around us. This happens to be the stuff hitting us at that time. If we wait another billion years then we will be hit by the dtuff emitted another billion ly further radius away from us. So its always coming at us , mostly passing through, as time goes on we are seeing a bigger and bigger radius . Repeat in a bilion years and we will see a different map. Looking at the universe in a differnt place. Q: It doesn't get affected by anything? gravity or anything. Gravity lensing, so it gets bent and if it passes through some ionised region . So often you have clusters of galaxies formed , most of the ordinary matter in galaxies is in the form of gas and if that gas is ionised then the light can be up-scattered and made hotter. The bulk , most of what we see isn't affected Q: One of the thigs I've learnt about the birth of the universe that space-time came into existance with the BB. Did that energy at the edge of space-time , was there a void between the two. Between the universe expanding and that energy . Its part of space-time , its filled with this radiation , its presence there , its got gravitational folds to it but its matter like any other matter and the universe is filled with this kind of matter. In terms of space-time , we know it gives a special frame to work in as its special relativity says ou should see the same physical laws whatever rest-frame you are in . Whats interesting is the special frame that is the rest frame of the MB , so it picks out a special frame. There is no real edge and so no void at the edge. A fundamental idea in cosmology, one of the assumptions , we are not in a special place. The cosmological principle that says our particular observational point is;nt special. Someone sitting another billion ly away from us should see somrthing pretty similar. There is no special point , no edge to worry about. Q: Are the fluctuations in intensity or temperature ? Both, they are interchangeable terms Q: so not ??? frequency ? There are thermal fluctuations , so fluctuations from point to point and at every point it is black body spectrum , those fluctuations are happening at all temperatures or all frequencies. We associate temperatures with them as it is a black body. Q: How hot did the CMB start off at ? As far back as we can extrapolate Q: There was a time when matter and radiation were in equilibrium ? Thats how it is , at thbeginning everything that could exist , did exist. Sothere are barions, anti-barions , dark matter particles, all sorts of excitations of particles - a very hot thermal bath . At a temperarture above the energies of any particles we know about , all these rhing co-existing . Q: any photons were so energetic that they could convert to electrons or positrons ? At the beginning these things were converting back and forth all the time , in thermal eqilibrium between photons, electrons, protons created and destroyed all the time then slowly the universe expanded and cooled down . As that happened the barions hit the anti-barions and anihilated forming photons some electrons, anti-electrons were anhilating in a similar way. Eventually those things were mostly destroyed either through anhilations or through decays into such as photons Q:The hotons got less energetic so they could not turn into particles . They don't have anything to decay to because it is massless to begin with. Q: Do photons react with dark matter ? We don;t know . To some exrent we believe so Q: I read the flutuations necessary to produce galaxies is about 100 times less than the fluctuastions we see in the CMB and that therefore to produce galactic clusters there must have been some element of dark matter which contained the radiation so those regions became hot spots or cold spots. But if there is no interaction , photons with dark matter. I wondered id there a mechanism by which that can be explained? Is the 100 factor true? It is showing that we need dark matter . If we did not have dark matter , the fluctuations would have a hard time growing fast enough. The nice thing about dark matter is that it clusters gravitationally and continues to grow gravitationally even in the presence of light and things like that. If we just had ordinary matter , any fluctuations in it can be damped away and so that mechanism by diffusion means that without dark matter then the fluctuations would not be big enough to produce the structures that we see. That is for galaxy formation , we need dark matter to cluster after this stuff was emitted. You need amplification of these fluctuations and need a mechanism that is efficienfly magnifying things and dark matter is efficient in terms of continuing to grow wheras the ansence of dark matter would mean its harder to form them. Q: As dark matter doesn;t interact with light its hard to see it having any effect on light. It does interact gravitationally , it curves space and light reacts to that . The only thing we know about dark matter is that it interacts gravitationally, thats how we know its there. Q: The alternative presumably is that there is no dark matter and that Einstein's general theory is slightly out in some way. There ar ea lot of modified gravity models around now , that are trying to play around with this . People are more disturbed by dark energy than dark matter. To some extent dark matter is at least acting like other kind sof matter even if we cannot see it. Wheras dark energy is acting crazely in the sense that it is repulsed gravitationally . So most of the trying to tweak Einstein's theory is trying to explain that part of it. There are other models trying to explain the dark matter as well. but limited success so far. Q: Does the CMB radiation itself tell us anything about conditions at the BB ? Could we make CMB , then what we had to do to create it , might be lead into models of the BB? What was the BB . In some sense the BB is happening all the time. The BB , the original singularity , we thing was where things began but we do not understand. We can only extrapolate back so far. To create that in a lab would be pretty diffficult. Such extreme temperatures , like at the LHC , an environment where all these particles are created. Q: We know what the temperature would have to be if we wanted to make CMB ? It needs thermal equilibrium , sustained long enough to get that black body spectrum characteristic. Q: Is it that this was very hot at the start, because the universe wa sexpanding, space itself was expanding so the light is being stretched. What was blue is now red , the same light though.? What we hoped doing that experiment , trying to reproduce it, we would see what particles we generate, the zoo of particles . If we understood the physics , in the LHC and other places allows us to model better. That is the link beteween high energy physics and cosmology. Q: Is it a one time process or a continuous process ? Depends on who you listen to. Within our visible universe it seems like its a one time process. But there are models where you could have a cyclical effect , where you start with the BB , that gets turned around again and another BB , circular. Some theories related to string theory and extra dimensions wher you have the BB is a collision. That theory is that we are on a four dimensional surface in a larger dimensional space , other 4D surfaces around and these can collide . These models can collide over and over again , multiple BB. Thats an extension of what could have come before. Q: What is the shape of the universe ? It would seem to be very flat , from the CMB , we can use it to measure the shape. The characteristic scale in these maps , we can calculate . Then how big it is and how big it appears to us we get an idea of th ecurvature of th euniverse. Its flat, straightforward geometry . Its not hyperbolic or curved . Looking at topology , you might think that going far enough in one direction you may come back to the same point again. From the CMB we have no evidence of a non-trivial topology , that there is no connection between things. If it is strangely connected then its connected o na larger scale than we can observe. Q: I understand everything is moving away from everything else, there is no direction that you will see nothing and another direction see ??? Thats an assumption that we have , we don't need an edge . There is no edge, there is no centre , there is no special point . Every point is moving away from every other point. The entire space is stretching , so imagine we are ants living on the surface of a sphere. Start pumping up the sphere , each point moves away from all others but there is no point you can say is a centre , expanding from there only. Q: Does that mean there is a centre in another dimension? for your 2D surface of the sphere , it has a centre in the 3D, is there another dimension that could have a centre? There does not have to be. Not required, just space itself stretching. You don't have to have an extra dimension to have a consistent picture of all moving apart. Q: If you have multiple universes , could there be some that are cold dark The problem with multiple universes is that they are impossible to test. There are models where quantum mechanics generates new universes all the time . In cosmology we have a limit to what we can see . Our observable universe but as far as we know , is only a fraction of the total universe. We don't know if our observable universe is typical of the rest. The Theory of Inflation , a small patch has a tremendous amount of growth . Begin with a small area , change signals , that goes through fast expasion and the differnt parts are so far apart from each other that you cannot see them any more. Could be the physical laws in such parts of the universe are completely different. Could be inflation is happening in other parts of the universe, just we cannot see it. It quickly becomes very speculative as we do not have any data. Q: Do we know why the universe is at critical density ? Where if there was more matter, it would collapse, less matter it would expand. It used to be that we thought it was at critical density , saying something about the geometry of the universe. That was tied to what we thought would be the ultimate fate of the universe. That was before dark energy happened. DE is now ripping things apart , normally you expect gravity to slow things down . Things are flying apart with some velocity but with gravitational interaction that velocity should be slowing down. But that velocity is speeding up through DE . We now think this velocity will accelerate although it is at the critical density. Critical density is saying that geometry is important , we live in what is termed the flat universe. Explaining the flatness - how do we measure the curvature of something . The Euclidean idea and create a triangle and the sum of the angles should be 190 degrees on a flat surface. But you do the same on a curved surface , you get a different answer because you don't need the angles to be quite so big. We can measure those kinds of triangles within our universe, what we;ve done with the CMB and those triangles add up to 180. And always has been flat , back over all time, as far as we can tell. One of the BB models is inflation , it takes whatever curvature there and stretches it out , so if it starts to be curved , this stretching part makes it very flat. Usually if there is curvature, that curvature becomes more important as time goes by. Q: In relation to the lack of variation in the CMB . The Hubble Deep Field Image where they targeted the telescope on an otherwise blank patch of sky for 100 hours or 10 days or so, just to see what was there. And the image to me had perfect clarity , could have been any part of the sky . But what they were observing had been travelling for 10 thousand million years . I could not see any dispersion or scattering from dust or gravitational effects. It looked just like any set of galaxies you could see but much closer. How come its not dispersed, not deflected over 10 billion years by anything. 10 billion and 13 bilion years, not much difference in journey time. The effects of gravity to light rays is very weak , there are studies done on the Hubble Deep Field , where they tried to calculate through what is called weak lensing the matter in between. So you have the background image you paint on the sky , of the galaxies, and that comes through matter and it gets bent by a little bit, distorting those images somewhat. You can detect those distortions through the weak lensing . You find that galaxies that are perfectly round become slightly elongated , you have a shearing of the field, very small , a 2 percent effect. You do that with enough galaxies then statistically you can see that light coming through this patch , to a thousand galaxies, you see they are all stretched by a small amound , in the same direction. You think that bending is from matter sitting in between. That effect has been seen but is only at the percent level. So there is distortion in that Hubble image but its very hard to see. Q: Does that visible distortion in the Hubble image relate directly to the distortions in the CMB image ? The microwave radiation , we see, has also been distorted somewhat. Our observations so far, don't really have the resolution to pick that up yet. Hopefully with Plank and the satellite thats going on now , will have better resolution and be able to see that effect. That effect is independent of the frequency of the light , visible or microwave. One signature that you are getting gravitational lensing, becaue all light is being bent in the same way. Q: That must be quite difficult to pick out of the high resolution map, what are fluctuations and what are lensing effects. You have to do it statistically , you can't point to one thing being due to one or the other. Its whaen you have so many pixels, twisted only a little bit , you have to be creative in terms of the statistics that you do. What people have done is take this map and figure out what it might look like and get some guess what the thing that is doing the lensing and cross-correlate with the real distribution of galaxies. And they found there was some signal. To some extent its been detected in the CMB but its so weak at this point that its difficult to do any science with it and is only at the 3/pre? signal level. Q: Talking of distortion . Apparently before the background radiation was created yo had protons changing into neutrons , with neutrinos developed and then neutrons going back to protons and stuff. As the universe cooled eventually, the neutrinos were left over, that was before the CBM. Am I right on that ? Thats so. Q: What the possibility of detecting the neutrinos that were left , before the background, is there any possibility variations in that ? Light we can detect straightforwardly , neutrinos have such a small cross-section , billions passing through you all the time and you never know. So , they were coupled before so there is , just like the light, there is a cosmic background of neutrinos, coming at us , but its very low energy . Something like 3 degrees, related to that, and very hard to detect. How do you detect that, you can sort of detect indirectly, its got this density, if it wasn't there , its overall density is impoortant in terms . In early times the CMB light was the most massive thing and the neutrinos were significantly massive and so dynamically we can tell if it was there or not . But detecting it directly, very difficult just to detect it. Detecting to 1 part in 100,000 its really difficult . Q: Like gravitational waves? Higher than gravitational waves, depends on the level of gravitational waves that you're talking about , needing a detector the size of the moon perhaps. It is there, it could have interesting patterns , similar to CMB , going back further. So that would be a snapshot of the universe even earlier on. I'd have to think how old the universe was at that point, its very close to the beginning of the BB. We'd love to be able to see it, but very hard to see. Q: You said the microwaves in the CMB don't interact with anything significantly. But on the other hand they have interacted with the telescopes that have detected them . Hasn't there been enough stuff around for them to interact with , over all that time, that is should have changed that field? Theuniverse is quite empty , if it hits a planet or star then it stops and it would not be seen . Maybe transparent to a longer frequency of light. any given line of sight is likely to hit a star. Its also related to Ubbler's ??? paradox , if the universe was infinite in extent then taking any line of sight , going backwards, eventually you would hit a star. There would not be a night sky , it would be completely bright. So a finite age to th e universe to avoid this paradox. The universe being only 13B years old, passing through that time, we a re mostly hitting empty space. Q: Inotially wasn't everything closer together . Not close enough together. Q: The paradox to your paradox would seem to be , overtime you would expect things to get further apart and therefore more gaps, not less. Ubbler ??? was before people knew the universe was expanding. Was it infinite or finite . Q: Are there no dark lines in the black body radiation, in any direction? no absorption lines? There are absorption lines . Q: In those directions it has passed through a gas cloud , you can detect absorption lines ? I can't think of an example, these are very red shifted , very cold light. When the light was energetic enough and could be passing through something that had structure, those structures did not exist by that time, molecules did not exist . You can have absorption lines in principle , I don't think its very close to the peak . In those regions the universe is dominated by other kinds of emissions . Q: You just mentioned red shift, what was the original temperature of the light ? How far do you extrapolite backwards? The closer to the BB , the hotter it was. The BB model has been tested back to a temperature of 10 to the power 13 Kelvin (figure amended by later email) . It could go much earlier than that ,but that is the only point we have any kind of data. Q: For the universe and travelling for 13B years, it must have a red shift corresponding to that distance. Aren't there standard ways of calculating the original frequency ? As you get closer to the BB ,the red shift goes up. The red shift is simply the ratio of wavelength then to taday. Get closer to the BB , that red shift goes to infinity , because the temperatures are so ?? Q: We can't see that light so close to the BB , can we? I thought it was about 300,000 years before the light disengaged from the plasma. True, the light that we see , coming here , extrapolating back , goes very hot. The universe wasn't transparent till 300-400,000 years after the BB. 1000 Kelvin or so. Q: So that was the original temperature of the light that we see now? Yes Q: From your map, can we imply anything prior to that? Can we only imply back to the point that they became transparent? We can see the structures and we think we understand the physics that caused the structures to emerge. Q: Are those structures due to fluctuations in the vaccum , before the inflation or are they due to perhaps cells of dark matter. Is it the quantum fluctuations in the vacuum before inflation took place and they were locked in or due to dark matter containing those fluctuations? The original seeds, in the most popular model, are from inflation. Generated in the process where the universe was being stretched ,quantum mechanical fluctuations that were being pulled outside the horizon where things no longer evolve anymore and get frozen . Those things form the seeds of the structures that we see. We think we know the physics of those initial fluctuations , to get to the last scattering surface , the surface that we actually see. By looking at those we can try and infer the original fluctuations. Q: Where does the dark matter come into this? Dark matter is around at that time , the fluctuations we are seeing is in the photons , gravitationally influenced by the dark matter . Its happening about the time that the dark matter is becoming interesting. Early on in the universe what dominates is the light and the neutrinos and not until this light was emitted that we see dark matter becoming important. Not as dominant as it is today. Q: What you are seeing there is the last reflections , or the last interaction. Its processed but processed in a way we think we understand and can work backards to the original fluctuations. The nice thing is that as these fluctuations are so small , the evolution is very simple. The assumption is the light we are seeing is from the soup after the BB. But if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into ? Are we expanding into a fourth dimension or something like that. We have a mathematical description that says everything is moving away from each other at some rate and you can do that consistently in 3D and it does not have to be expanding into anything in particular. Q: I thought they found recently that areas thought to be empty were not empty ? We think that everywhere is the cosmological constant that fills space and radiation fills space . We do study where galaxies do exist and where they don't exist , we can have regions called voids essentially free of galaxies but could have dark matter in the voids that we just don't see. We can try to measure that and see exactly how empty the voids are . The generic problem is that we see what lights up , we see where the stars are forming, that doesn't necessarily reflect where the dark matter is. That depends on all sorts of physics, how stars form, how they interact , feedback processes where you form a star that can start ionising a region around it and make it harder or easier to form structure in that region. Where we see structure is not necessarily where the dark matter is. That a challenge we have to figure out , one thing that gravitational lensing is good for because it doesn't care whether stuff lights up . If matter is there it is going to bend space in the same way. Q: At BB the energy density goes to infinity ? Formally it does Q; Does the total amount of energy go to infinity , getting closer to the BB? We don't know the extent of the universe , we usually assume that it is in effect infinite so the total amount of energy is infinite . Q: At any cosmic time we assume the universe is infinite? because we think it is flat. A Euclidian plane extending to infinity at any cosmological time? There is no curvature and no topological structure. Q: So how could it have started as infinite from a point Its only a point if you go back to where everything becomes infinite thats when things collapse . In reality it is always infinite . At the moment the model is consistent that the universe is infinite , not that it is 13B years across, its got to be at least that big. As no great extraneous patterns in the CMB then we believe it must be at least an inferred 80 billion light years across. We do not know if its infinite, we only know what we can see. The model that is infinite is consistent with what we see, the simplest model. May have curvature to some extent. Q: So there is spatial infinity at the presnt time that could have come from a BB. Unless you extrapolate back to that infinite point it is still infinite. Ir makes no sense to take it back to that limit, you cannot measure anything there . So the universe is infinite at a finite temperature is what we go back to. Q: If you are conjecturing it is 80B ly across , over 13B years I could understand being 26 B ly across but to be greater it must have expanded at greater than the speed of light. ? That is a model dependent number , saying that if we living in a universe where one side continued over to the other side , how long could that distance be, before we see anomalies coming into the CMB. That is about the limit before you would see effects coming into this map. It is because we are seeing only a finite patch of that. If it is finite then there are degrees of freedom that you don't have. Q: Does that imply there is no apparent topology in that map to within that size . If there was a very large mass outside our observable universe would that distort the pattern? I was referring to the topology question, looking at a specific kind of topology , where this scale comes from. Other kinds of toplogy are a soccer ball topology , few adherents these days . Q: How accurate ar e the present computer models? able to reproduce that pattern there ? given parameters such as critical density and rate of expansion etc. It does the power spectrum very well . No model will predict this spot is a bit hotter than this other spot. Some models do have some geometry to them that could suggest relative hot spots but our models assume our universe is the same in every direction. With that you can predict the power spectrum of the fluctuations very well Q: Could you put any estimates to that ? A model predicting something observable is not then speculation ? The easiest way to do it is in terms of degrees of freedom. If we measure something like a million pixels here in the map , that boils down to something like 800 individual power spectra . Our models have something like 8 free parameters and fit those 800 data points very well . Q: Concerning the history of finding the CMB. At the time someone explained away this anomalous microwave radiation apparently being received as being due to pigeons nesting in the horn antenna . Is it an apochryphal story that that explanation held for some time before somone thought of clearing out these pigeons ? I've read some stories of it. Certainly one of the systematics that they tried to control , Ayres and Wilson , trying to understand why they had these signals. Q: It was no tthe case that that reason was accepted for some months ? I don't know, they were exploring a number of things and that was just one thing they tried . They took it apart and reassembled to figure out where this was coming from. Q: I just wondered what came first, the other, academic, group thinking of doing the same thing of needing a horn antenna and there was a ready made one just down the road . I though that in the intervening time , the explanation was these pigeons. So no one would have done anything except for the academic group down the road. They did not understand what signal they had, Robert Dickie , David Wilkinson one of his post docs were dscussing how big the signal should be and had theoretical values. Something we could go out and build and go look for. In the process of building somebody put them in contact with Peres and Wilson who had a working telescope in effect. Not until , via third hand, but I don't think there was any info flowing in the other direction that they had a signal . Q: I was just trying to establish around the scientific ethic - where you have an anomoly and a perfectly rational explanation comes along , the pigeons. (aside comment - known emitters of microwave radiation that they are) Q Why didn't Dickie get the Nobel prize , Jocelyn Bell for example didn't get a Nobel for quazars , she made the first observations. These 2 guys made the first observations purely by chance like Jocelyn Bell . There is a case for it , he wasn't alone . Other people predicted this beforehand , in the 50s at some particular temperature . That result arrived at independently at different places. He was the first to go out there experimentally to look for it . So it would have been fair to give Dickie the Nobel prize. (aside comment - thats the ethics side of things) Q: With the universe expanding, space expanding , are galaxies expanding in the same way.? There is a tendency for things to expand especially if they don't have very strong gravitational forces between them. Once they are close enough together , their internal gravitational forces overcome that stretching, then you don;t see it. One question is why isn't everything expanding . Why aren't molecules and everything expanding. On the small enough scale overwhelmed by other kinds of forces. Molecular distances don't depend on expansion any more. Similarly where yiou get into scales where gravitational atttraction takes over then that dominates the larger scale expansion. Things in a local group will eventually collapse , as local gravity is stronger than the expansion. Andromeda , nearest to our Milky Way won't go arbitrarily far away from us but will eventually collide with us. Q: You are saying the universe is infinite but is there a finite amount of mass ? If infinite in extent then infinite in mass , we know the density on average and that scales with the size . I have no information that the universe is infinite , its the simplest working theory . Anything else is more complicated. If infinity has some scale then you have to consider what that scale is doing , I'm saying take that scale to be as large as you want to , so its not observationaly interesting any more . It does not have to be infinite. There is no way to test that in practise. Q: If its globally flat and not infinite , so you have a non-trivial topology , what is the other option? I don't know if there is another option. If its not infinite and its flat then its got to have some non-trivial topology . Q: Some people were thinking it was toroidal. Toroidal is the simplest way, but there are other strange ways of tiling space that can be much more complicated than that and still be spatially flat. Even different ways of tiling space that is curved , the possibilities are more , So if its slightly curved then it could be more interesting ways of doing it. Q: Recently there has been a suggestion of slightly negative curvature . We have an error bar to it and the error bars are at 1 percent level , while it could be negatively curved , its got to be within that error. At some point before dark energy was discovered it was really though that it was probably an open universe . So we were far away from the critical density Q: Within those error bars could we say that the universe is accelerating , can it also include linearly expanding with time? The scale factor with tiome could be linear like Hubble's law . Hubble's law only works in short distances . We have seen deviations from that , some very good measurements from using super nova as standard candles. We can figure out how their brightness corresponds to how intrinsically bright they are , we can get the cosmology from that. Evidence from that rules out a linear effect. Q: On your globe there, is there an area , just because of the patterning , is there anything that looks interesting as to be something to zero in on?and perhaps improve data in that specific area One of the claims is that there is a cold spot . We think we understand the statistics of these maps very well. a Gaussian distribution. But some claim there is a patch that is colder than it should be in a non-Gaussian way. Its a bigger cold spot than you'd expect from random fluctuations. Q: And that might suggest? One interpretation is a big void there or a cosmic defect which is the way energy is wrapped up and is unfolding , a defect called texture . There are papers suggesting that . People argue firstly whether there is a cold spot , debateable as at 3 or 4 signal level , which is rare but possible , depends on what statistics you look at it with. The jury is out, there is no strong evidence of anything too weird going on. People talk of an Axis of Evil. Looking at the large scale structures in different scales and that the idea is that these are azimuthially distributed , in one kind of pattern. On different scales, the axes where these happen align , the so-called Axis of Evil. At the timing of Bush's statement. Later analysis has shown that the evidence for that is pretty small. Its not something anyone would have thought of looking for before you had any data. There is a problem of posteriori interpretation of statistics. You look at a map, see something strange, and ask how weird is it that I saw that strange thing? There is a lot of strange things that we could have seen . You cannot say that one particualar thing is rare , without considering how many strange things I could have tried to look at beforehand. You can't invent your statistics after having seen the data, and try to quantify how interesting the data is. You need to decide before you start looking. So you have a firmn basis for interpreting that data. (comment aside - like the Sidona face on Mars) How likely is it that there is a face on Mars? or scriptwriting perhaps - that would have been interesting to see. You have to be careful about picking out strange features. It is what we do, what our eyes are trained to do, pick out weird and interesting patterns. Q: Would you like to predict what you would like to see with the next satellite imagery, the next scale up on resolution? We would like to see gravitational waves , what we are presently really going after . Models predict these fluctuations but they also predict fluctuations in gravity which come about via gravitational waves. Those fluctuations also affect this stuff but if we saw those things then that would tell us the energy scale that inflation happens. This light is actually polarised and polarisation and intensity fluctuations. Gravitsational waves should leave a unique signature in that. If we saw gravitational wave patterning we could say something about when inflation happened , what was the start of the BB. Aswe increase the resolution , then other things like foreground galaxies become more important , so the interpretion is harder .

09 May 2011, Dr Peter Taylor presentation - "How rough is the sea?" - Determining the aerodynamic roughness of the sea surface from ships and satellites - it's smoother than you think! About 1.5 hours, 20 people Implications for flooding What I mean by surface roughness . The characteristics of water waves. How to measure how rough the sea is. Finally how rough is the sea. Why would we be interested in how rough the sea surface is, the aerodynamic roughness. The question of predictive graphs, understanding and forecasting huricanes . Important for weather forecasters and off-shore structures. Build an oil rig one foot higher than it needs to be costs a lot of money. The oil companies need to know exactly how high the waves are going to be in an area. Sea surface has effects on radio and radar propogation and scattering and that has implications for the military , trying to detect a low flying missile, overe the clutter on the radar return. Sensing the roughness of the sea surface from satellites. Local St Denys flooding pictures. March 2008 Priory Rd was flooded from the River Itchen. There was a high tide and a tidal surge and result was some of the houses were flooded. What causes the increase in the tidal height. The difference between an anticyclone and a low pressure area gives about an extra half a metre on top of the tide . However a gale , the most influential direction is from the south and makes no significant difference to the height. However 1953 large areas of Holland and East Anglia were flooded , 2000 people were drowned and the cause of this was a combination of very low pressure and very strong winds blowing down through the North Sea and causing a tidal surge, a storm surge that reached 3 metres over the normal tide. So for a case like this, how much drag the wind exerts on the sea is very important to forcast. For example to you want to close the Thames Barrage . Hurricane Katrina - which devastated New Orleans , a hurricane is essentially a heat engine, through evaporation of moisture on the sea surface , that condenses and gives off heat driving the hurricane. The heat released is balanced by sea surface drag . Both the evaporation and the wind strength governs how intense the hurricane is. Both of those depend on the sea surface roughness. What do I mean by sea surface roughness. What we really want to know is what the wind drag is , the force exerted by the wind on the sea surface . We define the wind stress as the horizontal drag force on the sea per unit area. A simple formaula is Stress is proportional to a drag coefficient (DC) and the wind speed squared. So it depends on the wind speed a lot and depends on the sea surface roughness. Since air density does not vary much I'll neglect it in these equations. Most of the research characterising turbulence was developed using flow through pipes. The flow in the centre is greater than at the edges due to the friction at the sides. With the wind blowing over the sea we have the same effect , in essence just one side of the pipe. As you go up in height from the sea surface the wind speed increases. If we have the wind at 10m to be 10m per second, go higher to say 30m it is a bit stronger but as you go down close to the sea surface , say 10 cm then you drop to about half the wind speed. A logarithmic type dependence . The exact shape of the profile depends on the roughness length (RL) which is a concept developed at (float and height)??? , related to the roughness of a pipe. Usually about a tenth of the roughness on the surface of the pipe. For the sea with waves it is going to be more difficult to define. Sincee we want to know the wind stress , we define this drag coefficient so if we measure the wind we can then calculate the wind stress. But since the wind is varying with height and itself depends on the surface stress and the roughness , everything is non linear in this talk. We get around the problem by defining a DC so it depends only on the surface roughness and whatever height we are measuring at. If we standardise our measurements to 10m the DC it is directly related to the RL. We don;t actually have to measure at 10m , we can adjust all measurements to as though they had been taken at 10m. The final complication is the area is a differnt temperature to the sea then we have to introduce a bouyancy term. And all the equations get a lot more complicated . Fortunately the effects of bouyancy are the same or smaller than what we see over land. Usually because at sea , the sea and air are at similar temperatures. So for the talk ignoring the effects of boyancy and assume the air is at the same temp as the sea. If it is at different temperatures then we know from measurements over land , we know how to adjust it. The thing that causes the roughness is the waves. So we go to the St Denys wavetank and a video demo. A wavemaker of a stone thrown into the R Itchen. Creating ripples across the surface , the shorter wavelength waves near where I threw he stone in are travelling slower than the longer wavelength ones . Important for consideration is the water here is about 1.5m depth, a lot deeper than the wavelength of the ripples. Long wavelength ripples , long period ripples, have come out a lot further towards the camera position than the short period waves. The speed of a water wave is given by Speed is dependent on the term with wavelength lambda in it and term with lambda and depth The ratio of the depth and wavelength , so whether the water is deep or shallow is significant. In my R Itchen waves, the depth was 1.5m deep, those were deep water waves because the wavelength was much smaller than the depth. In that case one term becomes 1 speed is determined solely by the wavelength of the wave. So in deep water speed is directly related to wavelength. When in very shallow water one term becomes 2 pi D over lambda and the lambdas and 2pi cancel out and speed id solely determined by the depth. In shallow water only the depth matters. Looking at waves coming into shallow water , the waves slow up , the wavelength decreases but it transpires that the period of the waves stays the same. Down at Boscombe Pier there is a web camera , to see what the surf is like. Some video recorded today. You gauge what the waves are like is to choose a fixed point like a pier support leg and time between each wave. Today it was about 4 to 6 seconds apart. Is that typical- yes. Waves on a beach in Dorset are typically 4 or 5 second period. Another pic of a day at Bournemouth , a good day for surfing , with a swell coming in from a storm , waves are 8 to 10 seconds apart . A really good surfing day maybe 12 seconds . But go to a tropical island and waves from a distant hurricane , and a buoy measuring period of 20 seconds apart. The surfers are tiny in comparison to the huge waves. That is the range of periods we may see coming in on a beach. Now if those waves were in deep water , given the period of the waves we can calculate how fast they will be travelling , speed directly related to period. So typical waves on an English beach are coming in at 4 or 5 seconds or 7 metres per second. 1 m/s is almost exactly 2 nautical miles an hour just a bit more than 2 mph. Good surfing swells about 18m per second, 40 mph. Those big swell waves coming in at 60mph . Very similar graph but now wind speed that causes those waves . So typical waves are formed by typical winds over the sea about 7m per sec. Good surfing swells from storms out in the Atlantic , gale force out there about 18 m per sec. The swells on a tropical island, from a hurricane, at hurricane wind speeds of about 30 m per sec. So deep water wave speed is similar to the wind that causes those waves. Correspondence is so good that when the Met Office asks ships officers to report on the wind speed , they don't give them an anemometer they just give them a card with pictures of the sea state. What happens when those waves come into shallow water. eg long swells from a hurricane , when the water depth is a 1000m then they're deep water waves and about 600m in wavelength. When they get to about half that, when the depth gets to about 300m , those waves will start slowing up. By the time the depth is 10m deep are travelling with a period of 10 or 15 seconds period because they are now shallow water waves. When I was preparing ths talk I was asked to mention tsunami as soon after the Japanese earthquake and tsunami . Taking that graph and collapsing it down ( to a 3 inch square lost in the bottom left of the projector screen ) and we now have a much longer period . About 200 Km of the sea floor changed in elevation creating a wave of wavelength about twise that, which meant a period of about 26 minutes. So the wavelength of th etsunami , about 270 Km. The deepest ocean trenches around that part of the Pacific are less than 11 km in depth. So a tsunami is always going to be a shallow water wave. And the speed it travels is always going to be determined by the depth of the ocean. Video simulation of the propogation of the tsunami . Coherent wavefront travelling at a speed determined by the depth of the ocean. Behind that is all sorts of reflections from island chains and shallower bits. But main wavefront travels as a coherent wave. Now looking at what happens when they go into shallow water . What was travelling at 250 m per second by the time it reaches water 50m deep its constrained by the water depth to travel at the same speed as all the other waves coming into that shallow water area at that depth. All the energy is concentrated by this slowing up , by a huge amount and why they are as destructive as they are. Another example of a depth limited wave is a tidal bore on a river. The bore is propogating at a speed that is determined solely by the depth of the river water, why it advances as a coherent front. In much the same way as that simulation of a tsunami going across the Pacific. Anothe rexample would be a flash flood . Going to the other end of the length scale. If you lightly blow over a pint of beer you form capillary waves. Capillary waves are a lot different to gravity waves in that the shorter the wavelength , now 1 cm or less , the faster they travel. Compared with gravity waves, the longer the wavelength then faster. There is a minimum speed for waves on a water surface of about 0.25 m per second , corresponds to a wavelength of 3.4 cm. You can see capillary waves when there is a gust over a pond. That results in small gravity waves and on their edge small capillary waves. These short wavelength waves are important. Although they look so small these are the roughness elements that are travelling slowest compared to the wind speed. So even in a gale , roughness elements like this are having an effect. And because they are about 3 cm wavelength and are similar to C- band radar wavelengths of 3.7 to 7.5 cm it means radar can be used to determing the roughness of the sea surface. We use that to determine the wind from space. Orbitting satellite with a radar scatterometer on it , working at about 6cm wavelength and you can monitor data from 10 minutes ago to as far back as you like. A plot of the winds around the UK over a week period. In one day about 4 measurements for any particular area. The radar is callibrated to give an estimate of the wind. But it is actually measuring how rough the sea surface is. Another satellite instrument that can give the roughness is a radar altimeter . The satellite is at over 1000 Km above the earth , but can determine the distance to the sea surface to an accuracy of 1 or 2 cm. If we average over time a plot between 1993 and 2008 that the mean sea level has risen by about 40mm due to the warming of the oceans and due to melting of ice on land . So about 2 to 3 mm per year rise in sea level and we can measure that from space. Those measurements are by sending a pulse down and measuring how long for the return. The skape of the returned pulse gives information on how high the waves are. If there is a lot of waves it smears out the echo return. The intensity of the return pulse allows us to estimate the surface roughness and hence the wind stress. At the time of the Indonesian earthquake and tsunami there were 2 sartellites using altimeters and the tsunami wave was detected in the signal of both of those. Too early to say whether the Japanese tsunami was detected by a space altimeter because of all the processing required . So no good for tsunami warning , the sampling and processing time etc means its been and gone before you detect it. List of techniques to measure the slope of the water surface, pretty difficult to do. We can try measuring wind change over height, again quite difficult. Less directly we can look at the turbulence in the air, scattering by radar is quite easy to do . To measure the slope of the water surfece - make a tank of water and blow water over it. An ICL facility that is 30m long , in Canada is one 100m long x5m x 5m . However big there is effects from the tank sides and bottom friction and the waves do not look like the waves on the sea. You can introduce a programmable wave making machine or make measurements in a reservoir eg near London Heathrow airport . But although a very direct technique to determing the wind stress it aint the sea. Will never be confident that we will get the right results. Second method was to measure change of wind with height . The Americans have a ship called Flip which can be towed out horizontally and then flipped so what was the bow sticks upright into the are. Put out a boom on a boom , this pic shows anemometers at 15 levels . But can only be used in relatively light winds , fine for the Pacific off California where its based . Could not be used in a storm and even with that sophistication almost impossible to achieve the required accuracy. So look at the characteristics of the air turbulence. Lumps of air swirled around by the turbulence. If there is an eddy coming downwards compared to surrounding air it will be coming from a height where the horizontal wind speed was greater and be faster than air going upwards from an area where the wind speed was less. So by correlating horizontal and vertical motions and speeds we can make an estimate of how much momentum is transfered vertically downwards and hence what the sea surface drag is. The "eddy correlation" method. The othe rmethod the "dissipation method" , the rougher the sea the more turbulence going to be formed. So if we measure the intensity of the turbulence we can get an estimate of the drag at the surface. So lot of wind speed , mean wind speed, measuring departures of the wind at any instant from the mean wind speed . The mean vertical wind speed is zero , we measure the fluctuations away from zero and correlate the two , horizontal and vertical. The mean of that gives us the wind stress. For the dissipation method then we just look at the power in the horizontal fluctuations . Instrumentastion requirement to measure vertical and horizontal components at about 1 Hz , once a second for 30 minutes at least, to measure all edies likely to be carrying momentum. Just looking at the intensity of the turbulence we can get away with measuring over a shorter time period but sample rate of at least 4 Hz. Sonic anamometers , developed and built by Gill of Lymington. Measures all 3 wind direction components at 80Hz . Measures time of travel in both directions between 1 pair of transducers, the next pair , and third pair. The trouble comes when you want to make measurements at sea. We can mount on research buoys but low measurement height of 3 to 7m , can only be used in calm conditions and the buoy follows the sea surface. Too big a breaking wave and it is likely to capsize . A meteorological buoy designes to withstand anything thrown at it but it swings about in a storm horrendously . The ongoing problem is you have this sophisticated instrument and you are sticking it out in the ocean and expect it to keep working. The alternative is to put the anemometer on board a ship. Placed high in the bow of a ship and wave them around substantially and cover them with spray over the bows. Requires placing a motion package with them , similar packages in buoys to measure waves themselves. Need the 6 components of motion, 3 rlateral and 3 rotational using accelerometers and gyros , integrating to get the velocities. Looking at the wind spectrum from ship-bourne measurements. In region of a few tenths of a second we just see vibration from the ship shaking. Around 10 seconds we get the motion of the ship rolling and pitching and also drift in the instrumentation. To use the eddy correlation method , need to correct for the ship motion over the whole range of frequencies and not distort the spectrum which is difficult. So turn to the dissipation method where just look at the amount of power in the spectrum in region of the spectrum between ship vibration and ship motion frequencies . The air flow is also being distorted by the ship itself. Determine a numerical model of the ship , mount in a numerical wind tunnel . Video of vertical sections of wind profile over a USA research ship so modelled. Also horizontal sections . Repeated for different wind directions. That gives a correction for the mean winds . For the turbulence characteristics thats more difficult. So numerical models for the effect of the ship on th ewind turbulence , requires a lot of computation and so far not particularly successful. DC v WS taken from a buoy and from a ship. From the buoy data we use the EC method and the ship the DM and correcting for the ship and reasonable correlation and agree with researcher Smith, a Canadian, in 1980. So how rough is the sea? The Danish have been pioneers of wind power. Open Danish farmland a DC of about 5 . Farmland with windbreaks about 1km apart a DC of about 8. With windbreaks closer together like building then a DC of about 15. Now look at out results for the sea , going from 0 to 30 mps DC does not reach 3, encompasses from calm to storm force and hurricane force waves. 15 m significant wave height and some waves of 30 to 45 m peak to trough. The waves travel with the wind and they appear smooth to the air flow. The Smith formula a straight line relation between DC and WS seems to work exceedingly well but cannot represent the physics as dimentsionally inconsistent. Dimensionless number vand velocity. To correct that you assume the roughness depends on the stress itself . Unfortunately for the North Sea research , relatively shallow, the roughness is greater than the Smith coefficient but a lot of variation with longer period waves giving bigger drag. To explain this it was suggested that the roughness depended not only on the wind speed but the direction of waves travel wrt the wind. Some of the waves were going into shallower water compared to the wavelength that gave a rougher value. We suggested it is how high the waves are and how steep they are that actually matters. That gave a better prediction for the results from the North Sea. But the present state of research is that different formula work better in different situations. To resolve this issue we need more data and extreme winds. To summarise it is important for us to know about the roughness of the sea surface , that whe waves move around the wind speed in deep water and in shallow water the speed is determined by the depth of the water. To obtain accurate measurements of th eroughness needs sophisticated approaches and under storm conditions it is difficult to say the least . Its almost impossible but its under those circustances that is vital that we know the roughness is. Its difficult to do measurements because they are so smooth because of the waves moving with hte wind , Even in storms the aerodynamic roughness is very smooth compared to land surfaces. We cannot predict the roughness well enough for example for the forecasting of hurricane movements. Acknowledgements to the MET team at Southampton NOC, the Bedford Institute in Canada and for many research crews that I've kept in storms when they'd much rather have been in port. Q&A Q: How does a wave know whether it is over deep or shallow water? It is the oscilation of the water in the lowest sections of the wave feeling the effect first. What sort of depth do they notice this effect.? The waves start to slow up when the depth is about half the wavelength. But for practical purposes a quarter of the wavelength is more the mark. Q: You mentioned numerical models. Has there been any simulations from the air and water interacting using lattice???- Boltsman methods rather than using a big tank? Using a numerical tank in other words. Yes but the problem is that we don't really understand enough about the details of what is happening really close to the wave, how the pressure fluctuates . What is the mechansm that transfers momentum from the air to the waves. The sort of problem being tackled numerically, either analytically or numerical models is looking at that , how the air flows over , how it then starts to develop waves on a surface. But still only at the level of confirming their drag results with real world data. Rather than having the accuracy to say this is what the drag would be in given conditions. Q: I seem to recall a debate about the maximum height a wave can get to in the ocean. Old maritime tales of monster waves but recent measurements have now found such monster waves and whether they can be explained. ? I think they can be explained . The debate is about - Taking the waves I've talked about then yes you can calculate a maximum steepness and a maximum height. And then the sort of waves reported from such as off Madagascar where they break up oil tankers and things like that are much bigger than you calculate as a maximum wind-wave as the sort I've been talking about. You can form other types of waves. By the time you have a lot of different wave trains , coming together, you can form solitary waves , solitons, and then in some circumstances the maximum wave height could become infinite in a sense. Q: What is the maximum that has been recorded , rather than inferring backwards from an evemt? I don't know. The maximum as recorded by an instrument is nowhere near the maximum wave that is likely to have occured. Because there is so few wave instruments out there. One of out ships recorded waves out in the N Atlantic , guessing, something like 20 to 30m significant wave height. Meaning about 90m peak to trough waves. We know there are waves out there a lot bigger than that. You don't pick that data up from analysing satellite data months after the event , maybe? The satellites cannot detect individual waves. So the maximuym peak to trough only occurs for a short time in one place. Even radar altimeters are still averaging an area of the sea surface. You can make estimates from that, but cannot actually say ehat it was. Q: You say that seas are much smoother than land. Does not surprise me but you said it was because the waves were moving with the wind. It must take some time for a wind to develop a wave front. Also when a storm is passing the wind can change direction . So the wind can go against the waves and must take some time to adjust due to momentum.? I explained about attrempts to explain departures from the average sort of drag. One of those is what is defined as the wave age and that would predict that in the case you are talking about when the wind suddenly changes direction or if the wind suddenly switches on that you should get a much higher drag. In practise we don;t fnd that in measurements. In a storm you haven't just got one set of waves travelling in one direction. Winds generate waves that fan out and all interacting with each other. So you have a complicated wave field and then the wind changes direction there are already some wacves travelling in that direction. I showed the pic of the little ripples forming on a pond with a gust of wind. That does not exite waves that travrel along with the wind . It exccites 2 wave trains that go out at about 30 degrees to the wind direction and the two are interfering. You don't see long lines of waves you see interference even right at the start a complicated wavefield. Q: If you are on a small boat and the water has a 2 knot tide in it and a wind is blowing of say of force 5 it makes a hell of a lot of difference whether the wind is going with the tide or against it. Wind over tide , why such a difference in those two scenario . Over and above just a change in directions ? Usually when you experience that, you are in shallow water. There is an interaction between the waves and the bed of the river or the sea and the current. That is why you get these strong tide races, like off Portland Bill say. If the wind is against the waves there then you often see almost vertical seas , like walls of water. People have modelled that and you don't get that unless you have the depth effect coming in, shortening the waves as well as the wind direction compared to the current. Even in the Bengula current off Madagascar the water there can be shallow although it is deep because of big swells and dependent on the wavelength. You can still have shallow water waves in what is usually considered to be deep water. Q: In terms of coastal errosion , the Environment Agency nopw , the strategy is managed withdrawal. A mile or so of salt-marsh is a lot better defense against errosive power than a fixed concrete wall. In terms of shallowness on waves can you explain the science behind that and in terms of sea level rise that makes it more important.? Managed retreat is mainly financial. Its a lot cheaper to flood low lying land than ot is to maintain sea walls. When er started off this research it was funded by the ministry of Agriculture, fisheries and Food in support of their storm surge warning service, run by the Proudman facility in Liverpool. At that time the policy was to build sea walls. As time went on harder to get money out of them to do our research , they had less money and adopted managed retreat approach. If you have a wave coming in a few metres deep water and hitting a wall, it still has all its power there . If you let it run along a long slope a long way , once it is a shallow water wave it is loosing energy. Once it starts breaking it is loosing energy . So give it long enough to run , it will have lost energy and if you want to build a sea defence further inland you don't have to build so big or so strong. Q: A signature of a tsunami , an impending tsunami, is supposed to be that water magically disappears from thre shore, what's going on there, in advance of the initial wave front? That usually seems to be what happens , it doesn't have to be that way. I'm not an expert on tsunami but presumably it depends what the sea bed has done as to whether the initial wave is a trough or a peak. But usually it does seem to be the case. People mesmerised on the shore looking at it disappear then the wave comes in. The withdrawal of the water is always going to happen more gradually than the wave coming in . You'll not ice that the sea has left when the peak comes along it has become very much a shallow water waveand by the time it reaches a beach it is a bore and so a vertical wall of water. Not really a wave at all, a bore. Q: Are there any new technolgies being investigated for measuring wind speed and turbulence perhaps by Lidar , perhaps better than sonic anemometer, although clever, not very robust.? Like for aircraft monitoring ahead for clear air turbulence. Gill in Lymington that builds the sonic anemometers developed initially from developing domestic gasmeter flow measurement. Because of the extent of turbulence in the air they tend to use sound because of its appropriate wavelength . Lidar tends to be for smaller scale . Recently there has been emphasis on measuring the carbon dioxide transfer between air and water and to do that you use infra-red device using absorption over 2 different frequencies . The problem with that sort of optical sensor at sea is that you have to have some sort of window that gets salt spray. Lidar sufffers in the same way. If there was enough money available . Whenever they build a wind farm they want to know in advance what the wind resource in that area is. They initially put up a meteorological tower with anemometers and measure the winds for a period. That would be ideal for this sort of research. We've tried and tried to get instrumentation on there to do this but because of commercial interests they won't let us. Or if we did get agreement we couldn't publish any data. A real opportunity lost. The Danish were a bit more forward looking and have done research in that way. In Denmark nuclear power went out of favour and the main nuclear research facility became wind energy reasearch establishment and I've colaborated there. Q: Are there problems calibrating satellite derived data with events down near the sea surface? Yes. You mentioned 40mm sea rise over the time these systems have been in operation. That because of being averaged over years, calibration doesn't come into it? The altimetry , we are pretty certain of that, there are a huge number of corrections that have to go into it , allowing for changes in propogation speed of the radar because of ionospheric effects , humidity, knowing exactly where the satellite is, what attitude the satellite is at. They carry laser reflectors and ground stations that bounce off signals on a routine basis to constantly monitor the atitude etc. They have to fly highe rthan normal meteorological satellites because the air drag on the standard met ones at 900 Km would be too large , affecting the orbit too much, so over 1000km high. Theres a lot goes into getting measurement data.

13 June 2011 , Is the future nuclear? Dr. Jim Smith of Portsmouth University, presentation and discussion on the health and environmental risks and how the media influence our perception of these risks. 23 people I've given this talk a lot over the 5 or so years. Its suddenly become more complicated because of the Fukushima accident. Mainly about Chenobyl , my research interest, I've been working in the Chernobyl exclusion zone for the last 20 years. Transfers through the human food chain and impacts on the ecosystem. In the 1950s/60s it was obvious the future was nuclear. Advert from the 1960s, the white-heatr of technology , the nclear age where electricity was too cheap to meter. The split atom was going to solve all our problems. Not so simple now , for a number of reasons. Many are economic and also because we've lost faith in nuclear owing to a number of high profile accidents. We were the first to generate electricity and first to have an accident. The Windscale one was closely followed by one in Kishtin in Russia. Both in facilities designed to produce plutonium for weapons programs. Both built in a hurray because of pressures of the cold war. Then Three Mile Island , 1979 in the USA. Severe in consequence to the reactor - a partial meltdown but very little release of radioactivity outside of the secondary containment. It did not result in any significant environmentalcontamination. The consequences could have been much worse. The most high profile was Chernobyl in the Ukrane. In March 2011 there was Fukushima (F) , was Fukushima as bad as Chernobyl ?. The gist seems to be bad but not as bad as Chernobyl (C). What have we learnt from Chernobyl. Soviet designed , RBMK, adapted for civilian purposes from design to produce plutonium. There are as always a myriad of contributing factors to the accident, but the design and operation were not up to the standards they should have been . Map of the Ukraine , border of Belaruss and Ukraine . Total destruction of the reactor and reactor building , 2000 ton concrete lid , blown away and radioctive (RA) material dispersed around site and wider environment and subsequently a 10 day fire that continued to spew out elements over Europe. The local pattern of contamination Caesium 137 , as in Fukushima concerns, because it is radiologically significant because it is energetic gamma and beta emitter which can cause external dose and also propogate through the food chain and crucially a long half-life (HL) of 30 years. Radiation around Chernobyl is dominated by Caesium . Map of contamination , about 1.5 megaBequerels per sq m, the dark areas, compare with F later on . 30 km zone , radius, a lot went into Belaruss , to the NE. There was rainfall in Belarus which washed the radioctivity out of the atmosphere. Some Belarus colleagues strongly believe that the soviets sent up fighter jets to make it rain on Belarus as it was moving onto Moscow. They were capable psychologically but capable practically is unlikely. Very significant contamination levels, up to 150 Km from C. RA material spread around Europe most notably in Finland, Sweden Norway , South to Austria , parts of Germany and some in the west of England , Wales and part of Scotland. Basically where it rained when the cloud passed over. Still now there are farms in Wales and Cumbria where there are restrictions on sheep because of Cs uptake in these upland environments - long term contamination . In the Ukrane and Belarus there are still areas where people were evacuated. What were the early effects . About 500 people working in and around C , plant operators, helicopter pilots dumping lead and boron on the reactor . Soldiers sent in to shovle burning graphite back into the reator section . Of those 500 , 134 wer ediagnosed with radiation sickness from very high dose of radiation , like Hiroshima and Nagasaki . Not really known how many died but probably about 40 of those 500. The authorities failed to get RA iodine into the food chain. Compared to F, scare of Iodine in tapwater , seaweed and vegetable products . Japanese much quicker intervention and we believe they managed to stop people consuming anything with RA iodine. The Soviets didn't do that and children in the area . RA iodine had HL of 8 days. After a few weeks all the RA iodine is gone but many children, particularly in Belarus were exposed to high levels of RA iodine. Initially 160,000 people were permanently evacuated from their homes. Subsequently up to about 1991 about 300,000 people were permanently evacuated. Pripyat , with C reactor in the background , 2 km from C , to house the powerplant workers. A town of about 50,000 people, and now desolate and deserted. People living a 19C lifestyle in the villages in the 1990s , horses and carts. The villagers were the most affected psychologically because they were moved from these small communities to cities. Observed health effects. Of the 134 with R sickness 40 people died approximately. Up to 2004 there were 4000 cases of thyroid cancer in children a severe increase . Cases per 10,00o children a steep increase , thsat is continuing. Children not getting continuing exposure but those exposed to RA iodine as children to 6 0r 7 per 10,000 . One of the reasons for controversy over the number of deaths is because we don't really know . With C a large population affected , millions of people received a small RA dose. Individual risk was very low , typically of the order 1 in 100 , 1 in 10,000 extra cancer risk in later life. The epidemiology, the study of the statistics is very difficult. Unless its thyroid cancer which has a very low natural rate of occurance it is impossible , with present knowledge and probably always will be , diufficult to distinguish R induced cancers from other cancers that happen in populations naturally. Between 25 and 30 percent of people in developed countries die of cancer. But we can make estimates . Based on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki (HN)outcomes on the survivors - still continuing as some still alive. All it is a best estimate , assuming that every dose of R presents a risk, no matter how small . However small there is an additional risk of cancer. For example if we make an estimate for the world population , adding up all the very small doses to everyone in the world and we multiply from the HN data we estimate 30,000 death from that. Not everyone accepts you should do this. For example if you take the population of the UK the additional RA dose to us was 1 mSievert . Every year in the UK we get an average of 2.7 mS from natural background R, radon in homes ,R from natural earth elements, flying X-rays etc. So C dose was much less that normal sources. A small number but if you multiply by the UK population you end up with 50 to 60 cancer deaths from C , in the UK. Add those sorts of calculations around the world and you get about 30,000 deaths. Some people argue that at these low doses we would not expect to see any excess cancer deaths. Certainly we cannot see it in the statistics but that is an area of controversy in the scientific community. Some people have argued that the social and mental impacts of C would have been worse than the R impact. I was involved in the IEAE/UN global forum report and the WHO contribution was to study the cancer impacts of C and the mental health/social impacts . Their conclusion was the mental health issues over 20 years is the largest health problem associated with the C accident . The movement of people, the relocations , feelings of being victims of the accident and a complicated system of compensation for those affected and a feeling of victimhood , feeling that C has blighted the rest of their lives. Because they misperceived the radiation risk. In comparison to every-day risks it has not been as big a factor as originally perceived. That mental health impact is very significant. Its worth looking at the risks to the liquidators . One of my colleagues is a Ukranian liquidator , In the months after the accident about 300,000 people sent into the exclusion zone to clean up the effects of the C accident - in the terminology of the Russians - to liquidate. The average dose for them was 100 mS which gives an added risk factor of between .5 and 1 percent. Compared to the risk factor of being a smoker which is 50/50 added risk. There have been studies opn the liquidator population that suggests they have changed their life styles. More risk taking, more likely to smoke , more likely to drink excessively. Those added risk taking factors are probably more damaging to their health than the radiation. One comment in the 1990s when the exclusion zones were being drawn up was that if you did the same in the UK then you would have to evacuate Cornwall. Not a million miles from the truth. The dividing criterion was set at 5mS a year. We know many people, 100,000s , around the world get doses from natural radiation of more than 10 mS a year. Occupation doses like long haul aircrew , from cosmic radiation, especially going by polar routes and doses of 5 to 6 mS a year are not unusual. Ecological effects . video game based on Cherobyl. A lot of people think the C zone would look like man-made hell. ae there mutant animals running around with 5 or 6 legs? Cue Simpsons episode of Bart catching a 3 eyed fish in his local nuclear power station pond. Are there 3-eyed fish at C ? Immediately after the explosion there were some serious effects on small areas around the reactor. The red forest about 4 sq km which died and was cut down and expect severe impacts on animal life of that area. A lot of cattle were evacuated from the zone. Some died , principally from destruction of the thyroid , from RA iodine . A second generation was bred and no obvious physical defects were found. Lakes and aquatic systems in the effected area. A cooling pond heavily contaminated in the accident. Looking at the number of fish in lakes around C. A graph of lakes with increasing RA contamination. Blue total number of species and red the number of rare species from the red data book of rare species of the Ukraine. There is no pattern. So Kiev reservoir relatively uncontaminated , very large system lots of species. Smaller lakes, fewer habitats fewer species . Cooling pond very large aquatic ecosystem , 40 species , 2 red data book species . No obvious impacts on the aquatic ecosystem biodiversity . Looking at aquatic insects and population diversity and abundance indicators in different lakes . Related that to the Cs137 contamination and differnt ? characteristics. 4 Graphs of increasing contamination lake Goboki? probably the most contaminated natural lake in the world. Various diversity indices , abundance, dominence - the upshot is no evidence seen of the radiation exposure. In fsact Goboki lake had the highest number of different species of the different lakes. A bit of a row in the science community over whether we can see any effects from C radiation? . We know there were effects early on but can we see anything in the ecosystem now? Some studies say yes , others no. We don't see any serious effects on the overall health of organisms and particularly on organism populations. So we cannot say any 3-eyed fish at C. What the Belarus and Ukranian scientists have found is that there has been a dramatic decrease in animals associated with humans , pigeons, rats, sparrows, and increase of abundance and biodiversity of wild species. Not because radiartion is good for the ecosystem but because human activieties of cutting trees, ploughing fields , hunting animals and fishing etc ar emuch worse to the ecosystem than radiation damage. Humans move out and the ecosystem recovers and now abundant ecosystem. The is data to show that the diversity and abundance of mammals is similar to nature reserves in Belarus. Fukashima - causes and consequences. Magnitude 9 earthquake one of 5 biggest eathquakes in history and the biggest to hit Japan. Caused a tsunami , at F greater than 10m because 10m was the height of the sea wall there. Speed and power of the wave overpowered the sea defences at F and flooded the reactor buildings. Initially the Japanese were denying it but eventually it became clear there was breach of the primary containment , the steel and concrete vessel that held the reactor core of 3 reactors. Partial meltdown of 3 reactors. The reactors shut down as they should - automatic systems there and elsewhere around the world, immediately on detection of an earthquake. F reactors shut down as designed , problem is that in a nuclear shutdown you don;t loose all the heat and you don't loose all the heat generating capacity. Something called fission-heat , the products of uranium decay stioll in the reactor , still producing heat and that heat has to be taken away. At F , the back up diesel generators and the national grid , to power the cooling of the reactor , could take weeks to take away this heat. Both failed and effectively in 3 of the reactors there was no cooling. The heat built up to such an extent that reactor fuel reacted with water to produce hydrogen that then exploded. Major release of RA nucleatides including the dreaded Cs137 which cause dthe long term problems at C. The releases have not stoped now but are very much lower than those earliest days after the accident. A map about a week after the accident, the US dept of energy flew a gamma survey over the area , measuring radiation doses, the red area about 100 microSieverts an hour , the same as the most contaminated area of C you see at the moment. Anothe rplot showed the Cs137 deposition. The red plot extending 30 Km out to the NW and 10 to 15 Km wide, everything in that area is as high as the evacuated areas of C. An eductated guess is that the area currently being evacuated , some not evacuated yet is about 500 to 1000 sq km, not as big as C. C was about 10,000 sq km. You can't say what areas will be permanently evacuated as depends on limits Japan has set and what clan up mediation they can do but guess is much areas will be permanently evacuated. Contamination of foodstuffs will last for decades. After all that can we think about buidiong new nuclear power stations. In the UK we had a pretty developed plan to 4 build 4 new ones initially , F has put that on hold. Germany will not now build any new nuclear reactors and shutting down the existing ones. Maybe a sensible thing to say but not sensible until fully evaluated the impacts of F. Why are we going back to nuclear. Fossil carbon emissions are going up exponetially , temperatures going up, we think one is related to the other and that we must reduce our carbon emissions., Carbon contents of fuels, nuclear , renewables , gas , oil and coal. Nuclear and renewables to create carbon to produce concrete, but in comparison to fossil fuels it is very low. World energy use from all sources , from US Energy information administration , 1970 200 units , around 400 in year 2000 and projected to be about double again in 2030. We are hooked on unsustainable sources of energy. In thhe UK we generate about 20 percent from nuclear, getting pretty old , unlikely able to extend especillay with recent events in Japan. By 2020 8 nuclear plants will close in the UK and the share will drop to 4 percent. And so an energy gap. Whats good about nuclear. Low carbon emissions in use, good supply of materials to produce nuclear energy. Problems - what to do with nuclear waste. Still not burying waste. Do the economics stack up. Is it too expensive to dispose of safely and potential for catastrophic accidents. Despite F I'm still sceptically pro-nuclear. The question is whether we are prepared to put up with a small risk to our health to protect the environment. The lesson from C, devastating consequences for the local population, not least because of the upheaval, psychological consequences. But has not done long term damage to the environment. But after f do we trust nuclear. Nuclear has a very big scare factor. If you think about the things we don't like are things we don't understand, things that are technological , associated with horrific events, F, C Hand N. Have , to most people, unknown health risks. Nuclear ticks all the boxes of things that scare us. This is partly why at C there has been big psychological impacts , stories of people not wanting to help C refugees as they were scared as they were contaminated. Rare but it did happen. Stories of women having abortions because they were scared of the impact of R on their child. Nuclear is a difficult thing to sell. Wgen I go to C I switch on the Geiger counter and I hear it clicking like mad, and a badge that tells me the risk, but something inside me tells me that I don't like this. Do we trust nuclear . Before F I was confident that we should move to the French model which is 80% nuclear and moving to 20% renewables. Since F my confidence has been shaken. Q&A 50 years of nuclear power has resulted in was it 2,000 sq km of land permanently uninhabitable. If we continued building new power stations at the rate you suggest , how much land are we steadily going to render unuseable? How long it is unuseable very much depends on the crieria set down. A lot of areas around C could be reinhabited now but it is politically not acceptable. That means it is still unuseable because we accept it as being unuseable. If you look at the radionucleides released from C the Cs will all be gone in say 200 years . Plutonium , Americium will be still there but the dose rates from them will be pretty insignificant. If you assume an accident every 25 years , 3 major accidents that have led to evacuation , Kishtin 1957, C 1986 and F in 2011. Is that sustainable . They always say that reactors become safer - that was my line always but I'm now more hesitant . Up to F things were much safer. F was a 1971 design. , built in an earthquake zone. I never expected to see another accident in my lifetime - I was horrified. Its dented my confidence in the industry and the general populace probably much more. If we think that 1 reactor in the UK will blow up in that way , we would say no. Comes down to what is the risk and do we say it is an acceptable risk. Q: what is the alternative ? Q: In C there is an exclusion zone and they've said we will write that off. Its a huge country compared to Japan a small island. I have been getting the impression they intend decontaminating there ending up with only a very small area that is off limits, is that possible or are we looking at wiping out 2000 sq km, every time we mess up? If we look at the really badly contaminated areas it looks like between 500 and 1000 sq km and if you try to clean up , what can you do. At C they removed topsoil , top few cms. Multiply that amount of soil over 1000 sq km , that is an intractable waste problem. Basically you can;t do it. There are other things possible, deep ploughing , shields you from the radiation. It would not surprise me at all if there was 500 to 1000 sQ km unusable for decades. Q: a decade is different to 200 years. Decades, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a hundred years, in some of those areas. I think you have to say its a balance of risk , if you think there is a significant risk of an accident in the next 50 years then you don't do it. Q: If one occurred here you would say loose the New Forest. If I was a deep green , ie the environment was more important than people , then I would be pro-nuclear for a different reason. Because of what has happened at C , we have 3000 sq km nature reserve. Its the biggest nature reserve in Belarus , for the environment I genuinly believe they are not a long term problem. Because of the damage done to the environment by living there they are a benefit to the environment. A question of priorities and blance of risks. The IAEA initial conclusion in their report on Japan , the Japanese responded well to F. Given all the other tsunami and earthquke problems they did so. I think the human health effects of F will be very low but perhaps the sociological and psychological consequences , and economic consequences will be more serious. Q: Do these exclusion zones represent an opportunity for the disposal of nuclear waste? In theory yes. There was a lot of international pressure on Ukraine to close down the remaining C reactors. Finally closed in 2000 because they were bribed to by the international community , for political reasons. The ideal place to have a nuclear reactor is in the middle of the C exclusion zone. But for political reasons it was closed down. Politically what is acceptable . Nuclear new-build and nuclear waste is an issue of public perception. Q: Regarding nuclear waste what is the potential of accidents involving buried nuclear waste and what would be short and long term effects be? The UK has decided we will build a geological disposal , buried 500 to 1000 metres under rock, probably in Cumbria. Currently it is vitrified into a boro-silicate glass , encased in steel and then concrete and then buried. For a criticality incident, the waste escapes , aggregates in one place - in theory you could have an explosion. I don't think it is a serious possibility. But eventually this waste will leak out, 10,000 years the steel and concrete will fail , water will get through and waste will leak out but I don;t believe by a significamnt amount. Q: so risk associeated with a generator accident is higher than risk associated with waste containment? Thats my view, yes. We've been stockpiling waste for 50 years in the UK. In 10 to 50,000 most RA has decayed away, there is still things like Chlorine 36 and Iodine 129 but low levels compared to what is in the waste now so I don't see it as a big problem then. Q: Why have they not started throwing it into holes in the ground? If we have a thousand year plan is that not something we can get cracking on . A thousand years is a long time compared to piling it up in a barn waiting until we have a 10,000 year plan ? A good point. Why don't we just get cracking, probably politics ,not having the balls. They have agreed to go down a route I agree with. Communities with a waste repositary have to volunteer. Why volunteer because there are jobs , investment. Only 2 councils have volunteered , both next to Sellafield. Mainly because most of the local councillors are connected with Sellafield in one way or another. In Finland they've designated an area and started the block laboratory and exploration . Because of the jobs coming in. Why not get on with it. Its more dangerous where it is now sitting in Sellafield waste ponds than down in geological repositries. Q: So hang up is just political disagreement rather than what is the right thing to do with it? After lots of options they;ve decided that geoplogical deposition is the route to take. Q: Politics and economics, what is the politics of the supply of yellowcake? Which are the biggest suppliers and their political stability. Especially if everything is to be scaled up and economics of supply and skywards pricing comes in? Yellowcake is uranium oxide ore, where does it come from . It comes from friendly countries like Canada , Australia, Nigeria not so much . Our allies have significant stockpiles of U and at the moment its cheap. Its got cheape rafter F (LOL). Supply does depend on price but at least 70 years of known deposits. There is also Thorium , again a big stock of that . A huge stockpile of weopons grade plutonium that would much better be used in reactors. Its not sustainable. The politics of supply is easier than OPEC and oil supply. Q: on the thorium issue, are there any existing Thorium reactors ? No there isn't . Winfrith was an early site for studying nuclear reactions and did try one but AFAIK no one has built a working one. Q: Is it technically feasible with current technology? Thats what I'm told Q: Haven't the Indians done a lot of work on that? Maybe. Q: If we take the new Finish reactor with overcosts and overruns, and transfer to the UK situation. Will they be flooded by rising seas and be bankrupted? Thats an economists question. The government will probably insure them as no one else will. Private companies making them will make the economic decisions. It is probable the government will subsidise them , like subsidising solar and wind. Sea level rise is a an issue , yes. All our nuclear power stations are built on the coast , but you can buiold a seawall better than the Japanese i'm sure. Two of the new build plan reactors are on the Severn Estuary. There is tidal bore there , what are the risks. Q: I have a neighbour who is very anti. He spends a lot of his time in New Zealand , is he correct that NZ is non-nuclear and energy independent. Are they only able to do that because they have a low population? They have oil and coal so they are spitting out carbon dioxide. The whole south highland is hydro and the north uses they're own supplies of oil and coal. In effect , exporting they're high grade and buying in similar quantity of low grade for power generation ( audience member knowledge). But only one small geothermal plant. Q: Concerning supply, we've situation with gas supplies to Europe, controlled by Russia. I think its less of an issue with nuclear because we have friendly suppliers of U. The volumes involved are thoiusands of times less and can stockpile it. Q: We talk about the risks of nuclear but we don;t hear of the risks of other power generation systems. Those are not risk free, not just because of climate change but coal mining accidents , from pollution and even radiation from coal fied power stations even. There is natural radiation in coal. The number of lives lost in coal production etc is vastly more than nuclear. so far. Effects on mioers and air pollution. Uranium mining is potentially dangerous for the same mining reasons but there is much less volume. We accept natual radiation because it is all around us and we are used to it . Vastly more people have died from natural radiation than from man-made. Q: Has anyone done a study on if we did not have nuclear what coal,gas and oil wopuld have been used instead. Perhaps that would have wiped out the reserve stocks of those fuels if there was not nuclear? Probably not that much. There are 500 or so nuclear reactors , but compared to the others still a small number. Q: An aspect about F I have not seen in the media anywhere. I'm assuming the problem with the storage ponds was they packed them too close together. Over here we don't rely on a forced circulation of the cooling water. They needed a pump circulation process. They were fvery full . I think reactor 4 they defuelled it and added to the fuel rods in the storage pond. Fuller than they should have been because they had not got around to reprocessing. I'm not sure about the forced pump cooling. New reactor designers say they are passively safe , but I've not figured out how this works. If there is a shutdown like at F and all backups fail then there is apparently a passive system that takes away the heat. Q: You said UK nuclear was dropping imminently from 20% to 4% production , if we started building now can we catch up? The problems are planning permissions and regulations. Q: are China power staions nuclear ? I'me aware of loads of coal fired. Up until F they were building a lot of nuclear stations as well. So that would be a large effector on the yellowcake pricing. Q: What is the worst some terrorists could do if they got control of the inside of a nuclear reactor? If they knew hopw to wind up to full tilt . Say an explosion worse than C. For C there was about 30% of the Cs released , Iodine about 66 percent released. So of the volatile fission products in the reactor that tend to cause more problems . In theory a terrorist could make an accident 3 times worse than C. Q: You don't think a terrorist could do worse than C ?. Pretty hard. All the UK new builds will be , for the UK, relatively remote areas. Q: Is it an engineering problem that forces reactors to be closed down after 30 years or whatever? Due to weld failure from the radiation? compared to coal fired stations they'd just get another boiler or generator and carry on Partly that and safety issues come more and more to the fore. Which makes it less economic to replace parts. Q: With the new UK reactors , are the French likely to be building them? The considered designs are EDF of France and the US Westinghouse. We don't build them now. Q:Apparently some countries are building self-contained nuclear power plants. For sale , on the market now? They used to put reactors in satellites but they were'nt reactors with criticality but just enough plutonium and strontium to produce heat . The Russians have conme up with as plan for a floating reactor. If you start to get worried about it , you pull the plug and it sinks. Q: I was surprised to find , a few years ago now so may not apply now, that one of the local incinerator complexes has a licence to incinerate low level radiated waste in the form of contaminated lab gloves or clothing. ? Could you explain why and how they are allowed to do that? It cannot be incinerated , just distributed through the air The amounts are so low. Some of it stays in the ash. But if it goes up the stack , I hope they have done some research. Q: I don't see why it should preferentially stay in the ash? It depemds on the temperature of the incineration. If you put caesium in soil in a muffle furnace at several hundred degrees most of it still stays in the ash.

 Dinos philosophy
18 July 2011 , Ian Bryant , School of Education, Southampton University Presentation : The Philosophy of Science - "The impossibility of scientific truth", and will range from Aristotle, via Kant, to Nagel ( with a pause to take refereshments from Popper and Kuhn). 41 people , about 3.5 hours duration because of extended Q&A, talk about 1.5 hours. Blue is the text of powerpoint panes. The Impossibility of Scientific Truth ? Ian Bryant School of Education University of Southampton email (removing the Zs) I'm probably on a hiding to nothing tonight because I want to have an argument, not an ongoing argument during the course of my talk but afterwards I would be delighted to have it. I often argue with myself. How many scientists in the room? How many professional philosophers in the room? I'm on a hiding to nothing with the professional philosophers, but I'll see what we can do. I'm worried about the status of the concept of truth. It gets banded about a lot. I want to expose and reflect upon how its used by scientists in science and by philosophers in the philosophy of science. Let me be clear what I'm not going to do. I've got no interest this evening in revealed truth, religious truth , moral truth or judicial truth. I'm only interested in scientific truth. I'm trying to come to some conclusions as to whether it is reasonable to persue it. Do philosophers think that scientists are reasonable when they persue it . Scientists don't care they just get on and do their science and they leave questions like this to sad cases like me who practise philosophy and the teaching of it for a living. Among the things I do is teach the philosophy of research methods to educational research students, masters and PHD. Including those who are science practioners and those going into science education in schools. I have an interest in the topic of science but I'm not myself a scientist and I wouldn't know how to conduct a controlled experiment if you were to put a gun at my head. What I want to do is to develop an argument. I need to say something about the nature of arguments first. Arguments involve a lot of noise and a lot of talking past each other , where you don't see the point at issue. I want to construct an argument and hopefully better understand what an argument is. For the first half of my talk is to go along with me. Some of the things I will be doing will be ground-clearing terminology. Sounds boring but I'll try and make it interesting by giving examples as I go. Its a kind of linear session and its the first time I've ever used powerpoint. So lets have an argument. ok? 2 ( from an exchange of Letters in The Independent, 1996) “Fish stocks in Loch Ness are too low to support a monster, therefore a monster does not exist” “The reason why fish stocks in Loch Ness are low is that the monster keeps eating them” This was from an exchange of letters in the Independent 10 or 15 years ago. About the Loch Ness monster, whether it exists or not. Whether it exists or not is arguable. I don't think anyone in the room would doubt that. There's one argument from one of the letters. Fish stocks in Loch Ness are too low to support a monster, therefore a monster does not exist. And here was another argument, the next day. The reason why fish stocks in Loch Ness are low is because the monster keeps eating them. Both of those things, I think we all can agree, whatever else we may not agree on, cannot be simultaneously true and not true. There cannot be and not be a Loch Ness monster. That leads me to my next point about arguments 3 Arguments are assertions, backed by reasons, containing assumptions . Arguments are assertions, we assert things, backed by reasons . If your assertion is not backed by reason you can't have an argument. If someone says there is a god, doesn't give any reason and somebody else says there isn't a god and doesn't give any reason there is no argument. The argument is about the reason for the assertions , thers is or is not a god or something. But also almost all arguments. including mine tonight, will contain some assumptions. Some of them I know about , I'm not perfect - I'm a philosopher , I'm not a computer and I'm not god. And so some of my assumptions may be unknown even to me. Here's a little task for you as we go through the evening. Building a complex argument out of little bits. I'm going to try and engineer an argument. The argument is going to be - the impossibility of scientific truth. Which doesn't actually bother scientists because they just get on with what they're doing. But it bothers philosophers of science who talk about truth. So a lot tonight will be about truth-talk and related things, to clear the ground first. The assumptions built into any argument 4 Assumptions about … what is ‘real’ ? what is ‘true’ ? what are ‘facts’? these questions are entangled in a whole bunch of - ologies and -isms What is real, what is true, what are facts. Arguments are usually about the nature of these things. Reality or illusion , truth or falsity, fact or supposition/fiction. Now the problem, and I will lead you through a swamp. These questions - what is real, what is true , what is facts ? are entangled in a whole bunch of "ologies" and "isms". Remember Maureen Lipman in the BT ad. She was phoning someone and saying "my son has just got an ology" . Lets look at some ologies and isms 5 A bunch of - ologies Ontology - being Epistemology - knowing Phenomenology - appearing / seeming Teleology - purposing Methodology - proceeding Ontology - will figure quite large, each of these are logically distinct. Ontology is about questions of being isness, what kind of things are there. And is the isness of something like the earth , the same as the isness of a sub-atomic particle. So its about being. Epistomology - is about knowing . Phenomenolgy - is about appearing or seeming and is a quality ofxperiencing things as they appear to somebody with sense experience. Or seeming being like some things is not ther same as being it. A painting of a tree is like a tree but its not a tree. Its an appearance of a tree and it has phenomenology - how does it appear to the viewer? Does the picture of a tree appear to the perceiver in same way that an actual tree appears to a perceiver. Teleology - is about purposing . There are loads of arguments going on at the moment in evolutionary biology about the purposes of evolution . It also comes into religious disagreements about scientists and the purpose of existence. These things are mutually entailed. Methodology - is technioques of proceeding to find things out. Including tried and tested research methods - blind-testing , experimental controls, all the rest of the things that scientists do. 6 A bunch of - isms Realism Materialism Determinism Empiricism Idealism Dualism Relativism Reductionism Now the isms. You can adjectivise those . in arguments you can accuse people of being realists/ materialists etc. Like the ologies they are mutually implicated in getting to those assumptions of what's reality , truth and facts. Realism - the belief that there are real entities and we can discover their properties, not figments of the imagination. Materialism - entails realism in the extent that not only does it believe in real things , like billiard tables, chairs and whatever else, but it also thinks they are composed of material stuff. We are mostly commoin-sense realists and materialists. If we weren't we would keep bumping into things. Determinism - Do we need to explain why something is , by explaining what determined it. What was its cause , determinism is what science is all about . To determine the cause of something. Empiricism - is about the notion that the only things that science can deal with are measurable entities. This raises the question - when you think you've discovered an entity in some way , but you don't know how to measure it, what do you do. Do you give up empiricism, nevertheless you still are realist and materialist. Idealism - a view that , from the 17C philosopher Berkley , we are all here on earth as manifestations/ realisations of god. So it is ideas that drive the way the world is. Rather than stuff and what its made of and how it can be measured. In order to know something,you have had to have ideas about something. How is that you have ideas about something. We get to that in 15 minutes. Dualism - is the notion that there is an objective way of looking at the world and a subjective way and ] that they are logically distinct. They aint. Which makes the world very interesting. Later we will look at some subjectivities that we cant know anything about but they are there . How can we assert that we can't know about them , but can assert that they are there- watch,wait and follow. Reductionism - is the notion that all the laws of nature are ultimately reduced to the laws of mathematics . So Biology is reduced to chemistry which is reduced to physics which is reduced to maths. Any ultimate theory of everything can probably be reduced in its simplest form , to equations of pure mathematics. I will come back to that later. Any cosmologists amongst you? One astronomer. I'm in trouble on this, bear with me. Thats the isms Back to Aristotle. All philosophers like to start with him or Plato/ Aristotle is better for our purposes. 7 Back to Aristotle On Interpretation The declarative view of ‘truth’ To say of something that is that “it is” is ‘true’, whereas to say that “it is not” is ‘false’. Conversely, to say of something that is not that “it is” is ‘false’, whereas to say that “it is not” is ‘true’ - ‘truth’ is a logical matter of non- contradiction and excluded middle The Declarative view of Truth. What is truth. He declares it like that. That may be bleeding obvious - from where we are now 21C, but it wasn't that obvious to the Greeks. The meaning of truth. To say that something is, that it is , is true. That is to say its not, is false. Conversely to say that something is not , that it is, is false. Wharas to say it is not , is true. So far so good. So blindingly bleedingly obvious. But note this . Aristotle's declarative view of truth makes truth a matter of non-contradiction. Either something is true or it isn't. We'll get to partial truths and approximate truths a bit later on . There is an excluded middle, either something is true or it isnn't - no middle. There's no more-or-less true or more-or-less false. There are questions raised by subsequent philosophers about that. Aristotle makes it a logical matter. 8 The paradox of the liar, and self-reference e.g. “This sentence is false” Why a thing is – because it is ‘caused’ Aristotle’s causes: Physics material - ‘stuff’ formal (eidos) structure/design efficient - agency final (telos) - purpose What about the paradox of the liar. Several of Aristotle's freinds came up to say things like "this sentence is false" . Well if its true that that sensence is false then its false because its true. If its false then its true because it is false - there is the paradox. Philoophers for 16 hundred years scratched their heads, worried a lot , went to early graves worrying about the paradox of the liar. We can get over that by excluding statements which may be true or false , those statements that are self-referential. The self-referential statement is a statement that includes something about itself. That whole sentence includes the word "sentence" - its self-referential. If you avoid self-reference then you avoid the paradox of the liar. Aristotle, in his physics, he talks about causes, he wants to explain things. He puts things down to 5 main causes. Material causes , the stuff that things are made of. Formal causes, the idea that puts stuff together. The design and structure. Efficient causes - the agency of the stuff. Think of a house , the stuff would be the building materials, an idea about building a house, a design or blueprint, an agent - the builders . That does not completely explain houses . Houses are houses because they have certain purposes. They're not rocket launchers , they are to live in. They have a purpose - where we get the word teliology from . Aristotle has a notion of truth and a tyeory of causal expnation - thats all we need. Every other philosopher has had to have that , but almost all have tripped themselves up . I'm probably tripping myself up tonight - but we'll see. 9 Being (ontic) and truth (epistemic) “being” is a condition for attribution, but is not itself an attribute “being” is insistently indifferent: Why is there something rather than nothing ? - Because there is ! Lets go back to this word "being" and truth. Being is an ontic quality - it is ontological and people have scratched their head on the nature of being from time immemorial. Truth is an epistemic knowledge, truth is about is about knowledge, being is about being. Being is a condition about attributing something to something. When you say something IS something, the IS is the being that is doing the attributing of something to it. But being of itself is not an attribute and there's not much more you can say about it. Despite Heydinger spent about 2,000 words on it and Jean Paul Sartre roughly about tje same. Being is insistently indifferent , it IS, that's all you can say about being , IS. What we want to do when looking at scientific arguments , we want to know what they say about the isness of various things, what are they . What is there out there in the universe, or multiverse even. So the answer to the qustion that little kids pose . Why is there something rather than nothing . The only answer is , because there is. Isness is a condition for even asking the question, what is being. There has to be isness , there has to be something with a quality , to ask the question. We'll come to Descartes in a minute. Now truth. 10 “truth” is a quality of propositions about attributes of being, and is not indifferent. Truth is a stake (i.e. it is possible to be ‘mistaken’). “Snow is white” is true if snow is white, but is not true if snow is purple. Truth is not inherent in anything that there is. Truth is always a quality of propositions or statements abouts attributes of being. Truth is not indifferent , being is indifferent, its just insistently is. It doesn't care whatever else is going on around it. Truth does - truth is a stake , it is possible to be mis-taken about the truth. In parenthesees, with truth its always possible to lie. There is a stake to truth, there are no stakes to being. The thing about scientists is that they are interested in trying to ascertain the truth of existence , beings, things. This is where we get into interesting territory, because of confusion between the ontic -being, and the epistemic truth. Lets take the classic declarative correspondence theory of truth. Snow is white. Is true if , it is a fact that say snow is white but is not true if snow is purple. Truth is at stake here if you declare , to your fouryearold, who's never seen snow before. Wait until you see snow Jimmy , its purple - you're lying. You know it for what it isn't. So truth is a stake and truth is a declaration of a proposition about something outside the proposistion. Now reality. 11 Reality To ask “What is reality ?” is normally to ask what sorts of ‘things’ are real. Let’s say ( on a generous view) … Stuff, events, processes, thoughts and their products and minds which think of these things. To ask what is reality , I'll take a common-sense view of this and I'm a realist. I'm actually a critical realist, not a sceptic - you'll see why , later on. To ask what is reality is normsally to ask what sorts of things are real. I'm going to suggest on a generous view , of things that are real. Not just stuff , material stuff in the universe , or multiverse, ther's stuff. A lot of it in this room right now. It seems to be behaving itself quite well. There are events, things happen, in time. There are processes, like evolution, radioactive decay . But also real are thoughts , and their products, including the thoughts and products of scientists. Scientists who are realists would not say that their thoughts and products are unreal. They really do have thoughts and products and minds which think of these things. We have to include minds in reality. Minds , the agency of thinking about the real is part of the real - they really are minds. We can't get away from that. They may be of a different character than the reality of stuff, events and processes. They may be mental phenomena rather than physical phenomena , but they are real. Myths are real in the sense that they are not about real things but they really are myths. They are part of human thought processes and products. So lets have a generous view of reality. Now lets move foreward to Descartes 12 Descartes’ cogito raises two sorts of problems concerning ‘truth’ as ‘certainty’ If the only thing of which one can be certain - i.e “ I think therefore I am “ then how to deal with a)mind-body dualism (subjectivity/ objectivity) b)The possibility of deception (the evil demon) We all have heard of this - the cogito - I think therefore I am. It raises 2 sorts of problems about thinking about truth as being certain. Leichtenstein said , whereof one cannot speak with certainty then our function should remain silent. None of us in this room speak with certainty about anything - we might be wrong. We might be deluded , we might be victims of illusion of one kind or another. We might be the victims of lies and all the rest of it. But we think we know a common sense truth about common day, common sense ral objects. And we're right to think that. We'd better believe that there's a chair there and its not an idea of a chair , when I go and sit down upon it. If its only an idea of a chair, then that idea is going to collapse, when I try and sit on it. If its a real chair I'll be able to do things with it. It serves our purposes that there is a real world and that we know ordinary , common sense truths about them. Ordinary common sense truths are noit the stock-in-trade of scientists. Descarte's idea - I think therefore I am tried to sort out , of what can I be certain. And whan he answered the question I could be certain that I think , theefore I am., I could be certain of it because that is the truth. We've got a problem with this. Descartes asserts that he is, he asserts it by the thinking that he is , and ther's got to be an agent of thought and that agent his him. So he is in htis case a thinker. So he's got a mind , he's also got other bits of him and he can think of these other bits as well . He's not just A mind , he has a mind. And he's got a mind by virtue of having other things as well - none mind , a body. He's got a brain - not just a brain. He has a brain but he only has a brain by virtue of having other things as well. There is a problem , there seems to be 2 different sorts of entities here with different qualities. Mind on the one and body on the other. Agents of thinking and minds are only available to the posessor, nobody else in this room knows whats on your mind, except you. Except you were to tell them, you have private knowledge . Its real knowledge, its true . Same for everybody here. An experiment with my postgrads - thinkof something. Now tell me what you're thinking . 3/4 would not divulge what they were thinking at that moment. Minds are ours. Bodies are ours too. If I hurt my body , I feel the pain of it. If I hurt your body, you feel the pain of it, not me. I might feel the angst of having hurt you bit that is not the same as the physical pain he will feel. Descarte's second point. Remember he was living in the 17C when all this kind of stuff was about, in France, protestant England, Europe, in particular. The idea that he is being deceived, that he really does think . That actually he doesn't. somone else is planting the thought in him that he thinks. The possibility of the evil demon. The possibility of being deceived. This is what realists want to assert. We are not deceived when we think there is a real world and we can know somehting about it, 'approximate' it - the truth. Move forward a century and 2 more problems for scientists doing science and justifying what they do. 13 Neither experience (Hume) nor reason alone (Leibnitz) is able to provide knowledge of the world. Experience can’t give form and reason can’t give content. Sense impressions need ‘categories’ in order to assert what experiences are experiences of …. Step forward, Kant We come to Scotsman Hume and Leibnitz. Each of them say that science puzzles about idea how to account for various kinds of experiences. Witnessing certain objects do certain kinds of things in experiments, experiencing those events. Or experiencing any common sense events. Experience cannot provide certain knowledge of the world. This is Humes famous problem of induction. No matter how often you see a white swan , you cannot be sure all swans are white - they're not. We can limit the scope of that assetion by saying , all swans are white in Europe . But you cannot make it a universal truth. So induction from only seeing swans to including all swans are white does not get us certain knowledge. Leibnitz argues that actually knowledge of the world is available simply through the process of reasoning. How the world must be. Independent of any kind of observations about the way that it is. The problem here is this - both are wrong but both in a sense are partly right. Experience cannot give form to what we experience, how do we know it is an experience of until we can apply a concept to it. We see white swans flying through the air . Unless we alrready have the concept of swans , to attach to the experience we've just had in seeing these things - we don't know that they're swans. So experience needs form. And forms are things that we need to be able to reason about . One of the reasons we reason that swans are not robots is that their form is different - they don't look like each other, unless you have a robot swan. Experience cannot give form , reason cant give content. Sense impressions, what we experience through our senses, what the world displays for us to witness need categories. In order to assert what experiences are experiences of. Otherwise we just see blurs. In other words the categories give focus, form to the experience. Experience of a colour red and a colour blue , is not possible to make a distinction between the two , unless you have a concept of colour to begin with and there are differences in colours. 14 For Kant, ‘truths’ can be …. a priori – independent of experience a posteriori – dependent on experience and can be … analytic - affirmative by definition synthetic - substantively affirmative Conditions for the possibility of experience: categorical imperatives So Kant comes forward now and he's a bit of an idealist. He says this - the mind is innately equipped with certain ideas - this is what makes him an idealist. And these are the ideas , the tuths about those ideas. Things can be true , independent of experience , independent of your experience or your experince . 2 plus 2 is 4 , it is true , it is axiomatically true it is an a priori truth. A aposteriori truths depend upon experiences . Whether it is true that it is raining or not , for yourself without someone else telling you - you have had to have the experience of it , either raining or not , when you go outside. Truth can be analytic , affirmative by definition - self-contained , the problem is they don't tell us much else. All bachelors are unmarried - is an analytic truth , affirmative be definition . If all bachelors aren't unmarried we'd better change the notion of married or bachelors . So its true but it doesn't tell us anything else. We can substitute one part of the definition for the other. We can refer to bachellors or unmarried men. It tells us nothing else about the world, but its true. Synthetic truths are truths that tell us something else other than what is contained in a definition of something. They are substantively affirmative. There is a moon is subtantively affirmative , its not made of green cheese . Its a synthetic truth because its truth depends on , not self- reference to the moon but observingwhat the moon is or isn't. Now Kant comes to the possibility of having an experience , we all have experiences. Have you ever asked yourself , why am I having this experience , rather than another experience . Or better still, what am I to make of this experience that I'm having. Well we need some conditions for making sense of any experiences that we have. Kant called these, categorical impoeritives. They're a priori , they're necessary, innate we're born with them, they're there and they're conditions fo rthe possibilities of having an experience - so here they are. 15 Among Kant’s CI s are …. Substance Cause Space Time Number Order Identity Note: these are not 'real' but conceptual requirements for the possibility of realising something as being We have an innate sese of substance , cause, space , time, number, order and identity. If you don't think its true, just try and imagine that 5 minutes after a child is born , suckling at its mother's breast . Being able to do so , having an experience, not being able to have a conversation with itself about it , yet, but knowing what kind of experience it is depends on most of those kind of things, being known to it. These are not real things , these CIs. They are conceptual requirements for the possibility of realising anything or something or anything at all as being an experience. 16 Theories of truth 1. Correspondence 2. Coherence 3. Pragmatic 4. Disquotationalist 5. Primitivist 6. Pluralist 7. Survivalist 8. Impositional Now we come to theories of truth I will dismiss 7 of these but I need to talk about all 8 very briefly. Correspondence theories - the most famous is , the truth aof a propsition or statement corresponds to the facts. Thats all this theory says , it begs a number of questions. What counts as corresponding to and how can a statement about something correspond to the actual something . Is it attached to it like a plaster, the truth do not have statements attached to them saying "I am a chair" true of a chair. So how do we match statements to matters of fact - we'll come back to that problem. Its compatible with the notion of fit . Proposistions about facts can be more or less true, approximately true. It is approximately true that I'm 5 foot 9 , its not exactly true , I'm a medium size man. A middle-aged man , that's sort of true . A man of X number of years is more precisely true. So correspondence to the fact allows us some kind of notion of precision of fit. We will return to this - I am a correspondentist. Most leading cuurrent philosophers are likewise. There are also coherentists . Truth is a matter of what actually fits together with , coheres with , a whole bunch of other beliefs. If it fits with those beliefs , if its not contradictory , then its true. If all the people in this room cohere about something , then that something is true . For all practical purposes for the people in this room. Though it may not be true for someone who has just arrived from the Amazonian jungle. Thomas Khun is the best known example . There are pragmatic theories of truth . Some of these want to doispense with the idea of true , all together. We've seen its interesting but its quite complicated. We've not really got the handle on it yet. Pragmatist theories of truth , truth as usefulness, what it is useful to believe . Its useful to believe that a taxi will pick me up , when I call for a taxi and not Belerathon riding Pegasus. Its not logically impossible , hihghly unlikely, and it ccertainly wouldn't be useful for me to believe that. If I did believe that I'd be thinking how do I get on this thing , where am I going to sit. The warrant for pragmatic theories of truth is useful, to get us what we want. There is disquotationalist theories , remember we started with a definitional theory of truth , a statement or proposition is true if the thing its quoting about is the case . People like Vilanhelm - Twine ?? , American philosopher , say just do away with the quotations. Don't say "snow is white " is true if snow is white, why don't we just say snow is white, just get rid of the quotation marks. Then there are primitivists like Donald Davidson , who say , actually truths are such a primitive term that it can't be refined or defined. In that sense it is like being , all you can say about it. It has attributes but the attributes are not the inherent truths of things but the truths of statements about things. The truth of something is primitive in the sense that it is either true or not. Primitive notions of truth don't hold hostage to approximately true , or maybe false. Its not definable , like being. We accept it as a primitive notion. There are pluralist views of truth . There are truths that are true in different domains. Religious truth is not the same as scientific truth , not the same as judicial truth. Not the same as common-sense truth . They inhabit different domains and therefore need to be treated differently . They are not all embracing. You can have lots of little approiximate truths about the world but no over-arching truth about the world. There are survivalist notions of truth. What wins out in an argument, what survives. Truth is a naturally selective process , truth is the fittest to survive in an argument. Its demolished all others - is rendered true. That's not so differnt from the final one the impositionalists. I imagine there are a lot of social scientists in the room , social philosophers. The impositionalist notions of truth stem from Fuko's notion of truth being an effect of power. There aren't truths , just true true things and the powerful get to decide what is true and the powerless just have to go along with it. Truth is imposed , in other words , there is the necessary and inveitable political dimension to truth. Bits of all of those are true about truth. Bits of those are credible as accounts of truth but they've all got problems . I'll say something of the problems and then what all of them miss. What counts as correspondence in the correspondence theory is not clear. 17 All theories of truth have their particular problems. Also, there is something about ‘truth’ that can only be captured by notions of intention and reference (Putnam) ‘truth’ is a posit about something Assertive statements about something are not the same things as what the statement asserts. To assert in a statement about something is not the same as waht the statement actually asserts. The statement is the agent of the assertion. What is asserted is the object of the assertion. How can they be mapped or corresponding. There are 2 versions of correspondence theory verificationists and falsificationists. The verificationists say that truths are verified by facts and the falsificationists - that truths can stand as long as they are not falsified by the facts. Snow is white but imagine climate change in 50 years from now , and snow becomes purple , not logically impossible and it won't be true. A statement is either verifiable or falsifiable. What counts in the second one for coherence theory is a justifiable reason for a belief. Pragmatists say truth is what is useful for us to believe or for getting what we want. Sometimes we get what we want by lying cf whats been going on in the newspapers recently (phone-hacking). The disquotationalists raise the question , can we actually do without language . I don't know a way of asserting something except in a language. You can't do away with the linguistic elements of statements. The primitivist one begs the question - is it hte case that one cannot define truth , witout any other concept, it is a necessary proimitive . It cannot be defined except in its own terms. Truth just is insistently is or isn't. All got problems. Of course the survivalists and impositionalists of truth would make truth arbitrary. Well they had some pretty good arguments among scientists in the 17C and some truths won out but they didn't stay true for very long. Subsequently shown to be false by other arguments. We have temporary truths. Truths which are true for now . It was true we lived in a Newtonian universe , pre 1900 but its not true that we do now. So maybe survivability has got something to do with truths that stand the best tests of interogation. The most fit to withstand falsifiability. Impositional truths wiould make truths arbitrary or contingent on dispositions of power and that cannot be right. That would make force giving the better argument. There is something missing from them all . This is where it gets really interesting. Truths can only be captured by the notions of intention and reference. I will define them and give examples of them a bit later. Truth tends to say something about something , it is intentional. When you say , it is true that you are intending to be taken by the receiver of that statement of saying something true , you intend that. You cannot intend , with good will , to say something like , it is raining but I don't believe it. It simply would not make sense. To say it is raining is to posit something , to intend it to be taken that, and about something , the raining. So a truth is a posit of something that intends and refers , hold on to those ideas of intention and reference. Whether you can refer to unobservables. 18 “Facts”: their ontic, epistemic, objective and subjective features (Searle) “facts” cut across three sets of distinctions … intrinsic (I) v. observer-relative (OR) … ontic (ON) v. epistemic (E) … objective (O) v. subjective (S) consider the following examples …. We've had some fun about truths , now what about facts. Facts have various qualities , the ontic epistemic etc. Facts cut across 3 sorts of distinctions. They can be intrinsic to something, it is a fact that this thing intrinsically is or has something . Substance is composed of stuff. Stuff is intrinsic to substance . There are observer-relative facts , depending on how you receive something. It might be true that the letter you receive is a congratulation or a rebuke , depends on how its worded , by the sender , and depends on how its read by the receiver. It is observer relative. They are still facts but OR facts. They are true , relative true to the observer. Facts can also be ontic or epistemic. Facts of being or facts of how we know them. They can also be objective or subjective. I spent most of my professional life with students worrying about whether they can remove subjectiveness from their research to make their work valid. But there are distinctions to be made about facts. Some people think that facts are just objective things out there - they aint. 19 1. Objects have mass and occupy space/time 2. This object is a paperweight 3. The moon causes the tides 4. The moon is beautiful tonight 5. Earthquakes can result from tectonic plate shifts 6. Earthquakes are bad for property values 7. Minds are mental phenomena 8. I am in pain 1= I, ON-O; 2= OR, E-O; 3= I, E-O; 4= OR, E-S 5= I, E-O; 6= OR, E-O' 7= I, ON-S; 8= OR, E-S 8 statements there . 1 Objects have mass and occupy space or time , but its an intrinsic fact - I'm going down to the formulae at the botom , they are I , ontic and objective 2 A paperweight is OR , for some other observer it may not be a paperwight but a doostop. We know it being a paperweight because of certain qualities it has and where it wa s bought and what bought for etc so E-O 3 The moon causes the tide . It is intrinsic to moons that they cause tides , the moon has got no say in the matter. That's what moons do , they have that causalioty that produces those effects. Regardless of who the observer is , regardless of what your subjective opinion is. The moon is beautifil tonight. Is O-R, it may be beautiful to you but may invoke feelings of horror, sadness or something yo somebody else. And its epistemically objective. Something inside us, we kow it to be beautiful, an effect of our subjective judgement. Its still a fact for us. Earthquakes can result from tectonic shifts . Intrinsic that they can cause earthquakes , not allways, other conditions have to be there also. They might be caused by something else. It is epistemicably objective, not just subjective judgement. 6/ Earthquakes are bad for property values. O-R, depends on who is doing the observing. If you're being paid tens of miullions to do the cleanup , earthquakes may not be bad for property values. Depends on whether you are a buyer or a seller . A cheaper , damaged property , then maybe not bad for property values. Epistemicably objective because we have some facts about earthquakes and what they do to property values. Now where the interest comes in for the rest of the evening lies. I want to argue for it as a fact , minds are mental phenomena. They have a phenomenology. I'm going to argue that as a fact , that minds are mental phenomena, but its an intrinsic fact about minds. Thats what minds are - mental phenomena. If they're not that, what else are they. If they are not at least that. I'm going to suggest its ontological , a being of mind and also subjective , O-S. My mind is not your mind. Science has not mastered mind transference . 8 I'm in pain - thats O-R, I might be in pain as a fact but it doesn't make it a fact that anybody else is necessarily in pain. Its relative to the observer, or expperiencer in this case. And its E-S, being in pain is something that happpens to subjects. Or entities having subjectitvity. The manifestations of the pain may be different in each case, but htey are E-S. So facts cut across those 3 distinctions I/OR, ON-E, O/S Now we get to 1936 20 Ayer’s hubris Language, Truth & Logic (1936) Sense experiences capture ‘reality’. No rational study is possible of anything beyond the scope of empirical investigation or logical demonstration. All else is “nonsense”, in which ‘truth talk’ is a beguilement of language and as fruitful as the attempted herding of cats ! Ayer when he was 24 years old , and publish a book with the intention of destroying all metaphysics you should be accused of a certain amount of hubris. Ayer became part of the school known as logical positivists. If you agree with Ayer , we can go home right now. Sense experiences capture reality . He writes , no rational study is possible of anything beyond the scope of empirical investigation. Talk of spirits or god is empirically undemonstrable , unassertable, immeasurable. You can't logically demonstrate it from any premise and therefore god-talk , spirit-talk , purpose-talk is non-sense . Its pure being-talk, he really lays into Heidigger. He says this, although I don't agree with him , he alerts us to something that we should be very careful of. When you have an argument , watch your words. Beware of the beguilement of language. When you're asserting things like reality, truth , facts. It doesn't get us anywhere to say truths are things that correspond to facts , if there is a dispute about what counts as facts. It won't clear up the notion of what's true. All else other than things can be measured or logically demonstrated , a priori or empirical truths , all else is nonsense he says. 24 years of age and he destroys 2, 000 years of philosophic metaphysics in one book. But he's wrong, except in sofar as he says this , truth-talk is the beguilement of language. And its about as fruitful as the attempted herding of cats. He's read all this truth-talk the way from Aristotle via Leibnits, Hume, Descartes and Kant and concludes - we're getting nowhere with this - he took it out. Lets just talk about what could be logically demonstrated or empirically proved , nothing else. All else he says, is nonsense. He goes on that you cannot have an argument with anybody , who by his erms, is talking nonsense. You can have an argument about logic or argument about measurable instances of facts but you can't have any other kind of argument. All the rest is about preferences , its not about facts or logical demonstrations. And its litterally NON sensical - it makes no sense. He's got a point . When you read a philosopher and they comne up with an arresting statement even if you don't believe it think about why you've been arrested. I was arrested by his metaphor about the herding of cats. It maybe be impossible to herd cats but it maybe interesting to try. 21 The phony ‘science wars’ and lazy relativism Popper – logic of scientific discovery The warrant for scientific claims is falsifiability – conjectures & refutations In the 1960s and 1970s particularly they're issued a war, constructed as a war, between two schools of thought about science. It was dubbed the science war. This was a war that scientists didn't have but philosophers of science did. Because philosophers of science have nothing better to do than go to war with each other. Then we get Karl Popper. I did interview him once in the 1970s and he once gave me the complement of saying to me , that that was an extremely interesting and important question . Popper and Kuhn are doing two different things but most people didn't see them as doing 2 different things. The evidence of them doing two different things is right there before you. Its in the titles of their major works. Popper writes a book Logic Verspukschen ? , the logic of scientific discovery , in the 1930s about the same time as Tahsk was talking about truth and Ayer about nonsense . Writes a book mid 1930s translated in the 1950s as the logic of scientific ? , thats what he's interested in , the logic of scientific discovery. How is it possible science accumulates , how does it build on discoveries , how do the truths it posits about the world , become more resistant to being falsified. The warrant for any scientific claim is that it should be falsifiable. And if you're making a scientific claim or you're theorising about something, the theory or the claim should say something about what would make this wrong - false . The scientific theory for Popper is a challenge thrown out to other scientists , that is what I coinjecture, now prove me wrong. And in fact I want you to prove me wrong. Popper is wedded to the noble aims of science because its the only profession where, in fact , people are saying , prove me wrong. In the meantime they are making all kinds of progress. Freud is not falsifiable and Marx is not falsifiable , that their theories are not scientific. That''s Popper's clear point. Science is about making bold conjectures and then trying to get others to refute them. And they are true , provisionally. In so far as they resist falsification. True approximately maybe, but true only ever provisionally. We lived in a Newtonian world for the best part of 2.5 centuries. It was falsified. It also specified the conditions for its own falsifiability and that's why it was science - not religion. Kuhn is doing something different. 22 Kuhn – structure of scientific revolutions ‘normal science’ under assumptions A1 accumulation of anomalies A1 called into question at some critical point, paradigm shift / conversion to ‘normal science’ under assumptions A2 … so, science moves from settled – puzzling -- problematic – revolutionary – readjustive -- resettled Kuhn is asking questions about the structure of scientific revolutions. Looking at the history of science, its progressions and developement , the things its discovered. The applications of all the technologies - we can say science has progressed. Its progressed according to a certain sort of historical pattern. The routine stuff that scientists do in their labs every day , is practised under a set of assumptions, lets call those A1. But at certain points when they're practising their science certain anomalies accumulate. Facts that can't be accounted for by the existing version of hitherto accepted laws and facts they worked with. So at some point A1 get called into question . At a critical point more and more of them are being called into question , the first time you check your observations, you check the facts. Laws are more robust than facts. You don't want to challenge Newton unless you've got the facts and you've got to be sure of your facts. At some critical point , the paradigm shift or the conversion , this is Kuhn's word conversion. Popper and all others got up in arms shouting conversion , that smacks of religion. That smacks of religious conversion , smacks of irrationality . Conversion is the things that converted do. Conversion is the process of being converted by something outside your control and scientists should be in control . Back to normal science, settles down again, under new assumptions . Physisists no longer teach and research Newtonian physics they now deal with quantum mechanics and relativity theory. And some of them are trying to put the 2 together and good luck to them. So science moves from settled to puzzling to problematic to revolutionary to radjusted to resettled. At all those stages, truths can only ever be atbest provisional, never final, never total. Scientists are also in the business of explaining things , not just discovering new facts but expaining them. If we think about truth as having a reasoned belief , explain your belief to me, why you believe something is true . If you explain it to me , I'm more likely to beleive your belief is true, than if you couldn't explain it to me. Belief comes with explanation . One warrant for truth is reasoned belief. Being able to explain why you beleive something , not just asserting it. As I said earlier, if you simply assert something then there is no argument. The only response is so what. The world is a triangle , so what. I think that the world is a triangle because X,Y,Z with reference to certain axiomatic mathematical principles perhaps and other sorts of things - its starts to get vaguely interesting. Its still not interesting enough to believe , but it starts to get interesting. So what you have is the explanans 23 Explanations and beliefs: understanding ‘truth’ as reasoned belief Hempel’s “covering law” model L1, L2, L3, ….. etc explanans F1, F2, F3, ….. etc ____________ E explanandum These are the things that do the explaining and then you have the explanandum , the thing to be explained. The puzzling set of events or hitherto unknown fact. The explanans is in the covering laws , to explain a new phenomonon is astronomy for example , a discovery of something new , by reference to other facts of planetary motion that we know, say, and the laws of such motion, tghat we take as being true. That is what Hempel calls a covering law. Explanation by reference to covering laws L1,L2,L3 and facts F1,F2,F3 , they will provide the explanans for the thing to be explained . What explanation is - is inference. We can't prove things , we can't prove causality in the same way that we can prove such as the axioms of logic . We have to infer, its a version of induction. 24 Inference as explanation (alleged) cause O --------------------------------> O Purported cause (unseen) Effect (seen) H ----------------------> E Likelihood (anterior probability) <------------------------- Inference (posterior probability) Supposing we have an effect , we see something happening , we are the first person to see it, we spotted it through our telescope , for the very first time. And we might explain it by hypothesising a supposed cause of this effect. This effect is due to . Going from purported cause to , which might be unseen , but you might be able to see the effects - often the case in things like astronomy. You hypothesise and in the hypothessi certain effects have an anterior probability, some things as being likely. Or from the effects you can infer a hypothesis , a kind of posterior hypothesis. I don't want to go into the technicalities of the logic of it except to say that inferences are a form of reasoning , effects to cause, to probable cause rathe rthan from cause to effect. What scientists do when they're theorising about the world, they've found something puzzling, they're doing they're normal science in Kuhn's terms or they're applying the laws of scientific discovery , in Popper's terms, it doesn't matter , they're not in conflict. They are coming up with IBEs. 25 Inference to the best explanation (IBE) 1. It is reasonable to believe that the best explanation of any fact is ‘true’ 2. F is a fact (or, it is ‘true’ that F) 3. Hypothesis H explains F 4. No available competing hypothesis explains F as well as H does 5. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that H is true They are making inferences to the best explanation. And here comes the inference. A chain of reasoning. It is reasonable to beleive the best explanation about any fact, is true, Lets say F is a fact , which is the same thing as saying it is true that F. Lets then suppose the hypothesis H explains F , we hypothesise that H is an explanation of F , this new fact or puzzling fact. And we also suppose there are now available competing hypothesees that explains the fact as well as this one does. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that hypothesis is true. that is IBE but note , there are two issues from IBE. 26 two issues from IBE … a)It is reasonable to believe H is not the same as “H is true” b)what counts as ‘best available’ explanation ? 4 candidates … best approximation to ‘truth’ coherence of ‘fit’ with other beliefs elegance simplicity (Ockham) Its reasonable to believe a hypothesis is true is not the same thing as saying it is true. Truth is not reasonable belief . That may come to you as a bit puzzling . The reasons for the reasonable belief have to be subjected to high scrutiny, particularly for the assumptions within them. It may be reasonable to beleive something is true for all practical purposes , that does not make it true. That is important. Now the othere issue from IBE is what would count as the best available explanation. We've chosen H over other possible hypothesies, what we think is the best. Why might we think its the best explanation , and therefore reasonable to belive it. The answer is that its the IBE either because its the best approximation to the truth ( if only we could know the truth), . If all we can have is IBEs rather than truths the best apporoximation to truth still begs the question in a way. Or its about coherence of fit, this explanation fits with the other beliefs that we have , within Kuhn's sense , the paradigm for doing science. Or you might have another one ,Elegance. One of the reasons why the model of DNA , the double helix, was quickly taken on board by crystallographers and biologists was for its pure beauty and elegance of the geometry. Or you might go for Occam , Wiliam of Ockham , 14C , his famous razor . Faced with a number of competing explanations , prefer the simplest one. Other things being equal go for the simplest. In the IBE scientists usually take the simplest explanation to be the IBE. What it means is this and why I have some problems with some of the following. Simplicity also means, for Occam this, do not multiply superfluous entities. Do not posit , in your hypothesis , entities that might save the rest of the theory , that may explain the events, but are totally superfluous or are just downright wrong. Now for some wonderful examples. 27 Let’s explore IBE a bit further, by looking at ….. Mice and cheese Neptune and Vulcan Right and wrong inferences Look at mice and chesse, you're in bed. You hear scratchings around the wall , the patter of tiny feet. You get up to go to the bathroom and the chesse has gone. The IBE for that series of experinces and events , call them what you will , even facts, would be that there is a mouse in the house. It may not be the best available, it might be a rat but its a better explanation than my son's toy robot has been on the loose because he forgot to switch it off. The best explanation there, one that coheres with another set of beliefs, that of common sense. That robots that go off in your child's bedroom in the middle of the night don't thereby go off and steal the cheese - its much more likely that mice do. So the hypothesis - its a mouse, is a best inference for the explanation for the disappearance of the cheese. The sound in the wall and the pattering of feet across the floor - its not true. It might be true , we don't know but its the best inference and offers the strongest reason to believe that it is true. Now lets take Neptune and Vulcan. And lets go back .... [ transcript to be continued ] 28 More examples from science of “getting it wrong” phlogiston caloric vital force ether cold fusion 29 The ‘no miracles argument’ (NMA) for scientific realism - Musgrave, et al 1. Science has been successful in explanation, prediction, application 2. This success is neither miraculous nor accidental Scientific theories are falsifiable, even so … 4. The best explanation of this success is that scientific theories offer robust and credible accounts of the way the world ‘really is’ 30 Brains in a vat – a refutation of scepticism thoughts are representations having intentionality and reference – they signify ‘things’ by the use of concepts. To ‘mean’ something is to intend and refer but what about ‘illusions’ ? Imagine that you are nothing more than a Brain in a vat (BIV) - Putnam 31 BIVs can receive sensory inputs, fed by an evil demon. Sensations can have no ‘meaning’ for BIVs - they can neither ‘intend’ nor ‘refer’. BIVs can have no thoughts, not even Illusory ones In “BIV-ese”, ‘brains in a vat’ does not refer to BIVs, ergo one cannot be a BIV. Note: the important reference distinction between ‘being’ and ‘having’ a brain 32 Consciousness and subjectivity: “what “is it like to be a bat ?” (Nagel) 1. we have no conception of what an explanation of the physical nature of a mental phenomenon would be 2. the fact that an organism has conscious experience at all means that there is something that it is like to be that organism 33 3. we cannot experience ‘batness’ in any experiential terms available to us, i.e. by extrapolation from our own case 4. reflection on what it is like to be a bat must lead us to the conclusion that there are facts that do not consist in the truth of propositions 5. the condition of ‘being a bat’ is real, but beyond our conception 34 6. What would be left of what it was like to be a bat if one removed the viewpoint of the bat ? 7. Bats can’t have a “knowing that it is Beethoven” experience, any more than we can know what it is like to be a bat. 8. Bats, and by extension any other sentient beings, inhabit different subjective worlds, each of which are nevertheless ‘real’ 35 The limits of reductionism: Conscious experiences cannot be ‘reduced’ to the firing of neurones Theories of the world cannot be reduced to mathematics Consider the following …… 36 We can’t make existence dependent on what is observable … so what do we do about non-observables ? | yes | no yes OK | DELUSION O ------------------------ no ? | OK | Existent/non-existent classes are logically Distinct from observable/non-observable ones .... this is intrinsic to moons that they have that causality. They cause those effects regardless of who the observer is, regardless of what your subjective opinion is. The moon causes tides - fact. The moon is beautiful tonight is observer relative, it might be beautiful to you but may invoke feelings of horror or sadness in somebogy else. It is something that is epistemically subjective, it is something we feel .... glitch .... You have E at the top there , either something exists or not , yes or no. If we say there are observable things that exist thats ok. If we say there are observable things that don't exist we are ok with those. If we say there are things that don't exist then we are deluded . What do we do about things that do exist but are non observable. How to we proceed and how does science proceed. It proceeds purely through suposition and reduction. 37 Hypotheticals and unobservables Cosmologies and the Big Idea – a theory of everything Pure speculation and faulty logic: 2 issues First, “everything” is all – inclusive (let’s call it a totality of ‘somethings’ and ‘anythings’). As such, it must embrace all of the following …. And this is where scientists quest for the truth particularly in subjects like cosmology and a kind of quantum mechanics of the mind , this is where it fails. Lets think about some hypotheticals and some unobservables. Mind is an unobservable. Multiverses, hyperspace,strings are unobservable. Inside a black hole is unobservable. Cosmologists have some big ideas and physicists as well , because cosmologists tend to be astronomers and physicists. Most of them do very complex pure mathematics, multi-dimensional mathsm set theory , not much else. Yhey don't talk about entities, they talk about numbers. I want to argue that the big idea of everything rests on pure speculation and faulty logic. There are 2 issues here. If we could take them literally then everything must be all inclusive, its non compromising . Uf its not everything its most things. Lets call everything a totality of somethings and anythings. As such this totality must embrace all the following 38 What is known and what is (as yet) unknown, the inexplicable. Phenomena which are inexplicable are nevertheless real and not reducable Second, is a “theory of everything” … ? a) a singular theory / meta-theory b) an amalgam of lots of little theories about little things that are restrictively ‘true’, or domain - specific It must embrace what is known , yet unknown but also must embrace what is inexplicable. Take the inexplicable out of everything is not then everything. Its just something. ??? inexplicable are real and not reducible. So reductionism doesn't work . The second point is what is a theory of everything. What does it mean , is it a singular theory , an all embracing theory or a meta-theory , a theory of theories, or is it an amalgam of a lot of little things about little things. Which are restrictively true ??? of physics. If its that then its not a theory of everything. You have not got the amalgam, some people think the amalgam is mathematics. 39 What about string theory, hyperdimensionality, multiverses ? Their postulates are not about ‘obervables’ but entirely mathematical and inferential They do not meet the requirements of scientific theory to be empirically adequate, i.e. referring to observable, measurable entities / processes So string theory , hyperdimensionality , multiverses (I'm not a cosmologist, I know a bit about the philosophical issues around them) are not about observables , they are mathematical and entirely inferential . They do not meet the requirements of scientific theories, to be empirically adequate. If true or approximating the truth must refer to observable entities and processes , the things we call facts. If it doesn't refer to facts , merely suppositions and mathematical inferences, its not science, its pure speculation. As that is the case we cannot have a theory of everything. We can have aproximate truths about kots of little things. So if you take my original quastion - the impossibility of scientific truth , with a big T and all embracing I think its impossible. That doesn't mean to say science doesn't deal with the real world, it has been successful. I'm a realist and not a sceptic and I'm not an idealist about these. I accept that there are things about the world and multiverses that are unknowable even to science. The best service that science can do for the public is to stop talking about them as if they were knowable. Science does itself and the public a dis-service if it claims that mathematical models and speculations stand in for evidence of the real world. But maybe we don't need to talk of truth at all and what I was going to play , but have over run in time , was a 3 minute video by Richard Rorty on why we don't need the notion of truth at all. 40 We cannot have a theory of everything We can generate ‘approximate truths’ about lots of little things But …. Maybe we don’t need talk of ‘truth’ at all …. (Rorty video) (URL needs confirming) And remember, we can always be fooled ! A very laid back American philosopher and appealing and beguiling attitude to questions of truth in philosophy. And remember we can always be fooled. I wish to close by telling you a story . Remenmmber I referred earlier to meaning, intention and reference and why we need to understand those terms if we want to understand things like minds and how they work. And after all scientists have minds and their work in the same way that your or my minds work, just trained to do different sorts of things. This is the true story of the Scarpiopone ? What is a scarpiopone I hear you ask ? its a story told by Umberto Eco in a book called Kant and the Platypus. Which is a riot and a hoot and one chapter on the problematics of being, where he lays into Heideiger . (Reading a page from that book {copyright issues to transcription ? }) Questions and Answers Q: Not so much a question as a comment on observables. As time has moved on different things have become observable. Beyond light you could see with your eyes and now includes all the electromagnetic spectrum . Is gravity ovservable or do we just infer it. If we are talking about observables I want to make a distinction between things that van be observed, whether or not they have been but are in principle observable and things I would want to assert for reasons that Naggel gave in his "bat paper" that are real, existant but nevertheless in principle unobservable except to the bat. When you say at the moment , what might be a reason for you to beleive that in the future they may not be unobservables. I take your point. Each of us is actually on fairly firm argumentative ground. I agree "at the moment" thing is a good qualifier. I think observable at the moment versus not observable at the moment is not the same as observable in principle and non observable in principle. What I'm wanting to assert is non-observable of things that nevertheless are real. I want to take sides with Naggel to say that minds of other sentient creatures , there is something that is like to be , that they have conscious experiences , they don't have the concepts that we do. They cannot assert something, an assertion is an assumption that higher organisms have . With that quantifier, I would say that there are things that are observable , niot yet observed but maybe in the future, your point, but in principle unobservable because to observe something is to observe it as something. You have to give it Kant's cartegories and so on. I don't think those kinds of categories are apposite in terms of reductionism. Phenomenology is about 2 sorts of things, about appearances to us and also appearances to other things that get appearances. I think things appear to bats , scientific evidence that sonar appears to bats . I think a sense of its cave appears to bats and if they didn't appear to bats they would not know of where they could hang upside down from . I think bats have feelings and appearances , not describable in any terms available to us. The imperatives for saying what an experience is , we cannot experience "batness". Q: Going back to the start , everything that was real , like the experience of a bat ??? By real I don't mean substantive real, I don't think there is stuff . Part of what mental phenomena are inducible partly , the workings of neurons might ultimately be reducible by say quantum mechanics or mathematics Take all that is so reducible away I think there is still something left. What that something left is , what it seems to be like us, doing feelings , doing intendings, they are mental phenomena but they are not a neurological equivalent. Yhoughts, REM states and all the rest of it , going on in your mind thats recordable, reducible , empirical but there is something ineffible , a wonderful experience, an intriguing experience . Why is it intriguing, because we have a subjective view , we have minds . Say we say something to soebody else or we provide evidence of our minds work , brain scans or whatever, we are privy to the content of out minds. It is a private realm which is real , I really do have a mind, I'm not a brain in a vat. In view of that , parts of mindedness are not reducible but we still have them and they are real Q: Imagine the experience of the sum of the parts that we could break it down into. If you call to mind now in your imagination a famous painting - don't tell ne what is is. Call it to mind and ask yourself , by calling it to mind you are intending the object, you are referring to something. My question is this - is there something other than psychochemical processes in the brain , my answer would be yes it is not so reducible. Q: ... you've got an image How can you make sense of it . You can speak sensibly of a biochemical process , of receiving a sense in brain , there are the optics and stuff that fires in the optic nerve , firings of neurones etc are implicated in all of that. You can see it as a sensient person , to you right now. Quite out of the blue you call something to mind , calling something to mind and receiving the call to mind of it is not the same as receiving ??? I cannot think of a sensible biophysics of it. But it is just memory There is a problem with memory of where is it stored, the circuitry of what it is stored on I think there is some sense of some of that being true , they get deposited somewhere, they are there but I think there is a problem with imaginings and recal.l Rather than with being presented with images or remembering something that we first received . I think they are differnt kinds of phenomena Q: What you remember is from past experiences you can then take from that and piece together new things. Still in a biological way. This is where I take issue with reductionism . Lets say the mind is stuff , you can reduce to all the actual things that makes mind work. Logically , not practically, if you can so reduce it , there is no reason if you can so reduce it then you can so re-assemble it. Say it was experimentally possible to reduce all the bits of bat right down to all the firings in the bats brain and you reassembled it , my argument would be that you would not reassemble a bat. There is something left over that you're missing and what you're missing is precisely the subjective point of view . Nagel says that very clearly in his argument. What would be left of what it was like to be a bat if you took away the point of view of the bat. Q: If you had a simulated robotic bat it could behave just like a bat , how could you say that that robotic bat was not a bat as a subjective point of view. That is the point that Nagel made , behaving like a bat is not being a bat. I could behave like a bat by hanging upside down in a cave , I could have all the sonic equipment but not experiencing batness. Q: How do you know that the bat is not just like the robot, You are making the assumption that there is a bat state of mind. I agree there is an assumption that sensient organisms have conscious experiences Q: If you could make a robot bat sufficiently like a bat , would it be a bit and if not, why not? Because it does not have a bat's subjective point of view, what we call consciousness. Q: We cant create that from pieces? No because you are trying to construct a phenomenon from bits. You don't construct phenomena tyou experience them. I'm happy with the idea of emergent phenomena , because your shifting away from the emphasis on stuff . What would be the difference in stuff producing emergent phenomena and stuff that doesn't. Ayer would think about things like purpose and emergence as metaphysical, nonesense, just because you have no empirical evidence. I have no empirical evidence that there is something that is what it is like to be a bat. But I'm convinced by Nagel thet there is something that is like to be a bat , justy that we can't know it. Q: ???? doesn't that change the nature Unobsevability in principle rules out the possibility of it being observable in the future. It cannot and will not be observed in the future. eg What is it like to be a bat, unobservable in principle and never will be observed. Q: Whats it like for a person who was born blind, to be able to see? They would not have had my esperiences. They may have had approximate experiences . There is more to having an experience than just receiving a sensation. Q: If you take away the physical stuff from a person then they cannot have experience.? I agree with that. Brains in vats cannot have experiences. All it can receive are sensations . Think of yourself as having fingers , even to refer in though as having fingers, brains in vats can't refer. They are innert recipients of sensory inputs. Even if the BIV is shown by a mad scientist , asuming they could hear, this is you . Q: You didn't mention social sciences in you talk. Life is short , I am a social scientist Isn't it a western rationalist obsession the notion of Platos ideas . I agree with you , I have given you a western notion of truth, of cause etc. There is Islamic science, Confucian science etc on causality and conditions for reference etc . One knows best where you grow up and mine is entirely Eurocentric. But I don't expect partial truths about truths, ergo there is a feminist perspective, a black perspective on the truth - there aint for me as a realist. It doesn't surprise me when I assert that about science and nature but does surprise me when I refer to social institutions . And the notion of facts that you need to understand for social institutions is differnt to the facts you need to understand for facts in the natural world. Let me give you one example , money is a social and institutional fact. Truth is by agreement , everyone in this room belives that this piece of paper is a 20 pound note. It is a fact by coherence , everybody believes it, but also what John Serle philosopher called an institutional fact, because its used by everyone in an agreed way. A more basic fact is ats a piece of paper about 2.5 x 4.5 . We know it as money, we know what it does. It could be a fake 20 pound note but it is still then an institutional fact . Facts in the social world have different ontic and epistemic properties Q: Do you think terms like social science or economic science should be used because you said we could not talk about superstrings and the like ? I didn't say that. We can talk about them but we must be careful about what we assert of the truth in them. Some of the economic/social sciences try to copy the natural ones and some think they never should. I think they all assert certain kinds of truths about molecular facts. Social sciences assert truths about institutional facts . They are both facts, institutional facts are about stuff but they are not real. There really is government there really is money, there are proxies for money but you cant reduce it to be a set of electronic traces on a bit of stuff its more than that. Physics cant get to the institutional facts about money and social sciences cant get to the molecular facts. Q: Why did Nagel choose bats rather than some other animal He chose bats because close enough to us as sentient beings and mammals but sufficiently different so they're experiences are almost entirely different. The great apes have many experiences similar to ours. for instance. Q: You could say I will never know the mind of another person By extension Nagel says, imagine ourselves in relation to a bit as an alien would be in relation to us. Only we can know what its like to be us. We as all the invidual I I s Q: Different experiences for man or woman? There is lot in what its like to be a woman that I wold like to argue is the same as for a man but some difference. Whether those differences can be bridged by biomechanical considerations, change the chemistry hanges the experience, I don't know. Logically there is no reason to suppose that molecule by molecule we cant equate to batness and we get to the point where we would be a bat. At what point do we loose what its like being human anbd start to know what its like to be a bat. After all its a thought experiment/ Q: Don't you have to have self awareness of a bat for that to work? The strong case is that bats do have self awareness , the weaker case is that they have conscious experience but does not necessarily mean they have self awareness. Nagel says at the beginning that consciousness is what makes the mind/body problem intractible. One is not an epiphenomena for the othe rand one is not reducible to the other. Q: So reductionism cannot apply to any living organism? I would go along with that. Most philosophers of mind would go along with that. I don't want to argue minds having priority over matter in all this. I'm a critical realist. I think reality consists in stuff and events, processes and thoughts and representations. There really is in the worls myths, they aren't real but are about real things . Velerathon riding on Pegasus is not real , it is a myth, but it really is a myth. It is a product of thought and they do exist in the world. There are other existences including you and me telling our children stories about these existences. Q: As a way of conceptualising how ideas get transferred , you have a though, perhaps generated by a biological being , made of stuff, transferred and stored in their body. 2 questions about that. What would be the carrier . If you were Maxwellian in the 1920s you would say something equivalent to language , in the mental spoace something equivalent to the aether in physical space. If we insist it is understandable by reduction - we never will understand it. Q: Is conscience binary, either you are conscious or not conscious? and if a grey area how can reductionism apply there. I don't think it can apply in processes like intending or referring . Then there is dreams , lucid dreams etc. Q: If you got to the point where you could create something that could refer, in the way you say. You would not be able to see in the same way that the thing you created. For the BIV as well as receiving sensory input lets suppose it can send out output. Output consists of the biophysical workings of itself. Somehow we give it the ability yo intend and refer. I don't know what would be in the output states observable , ie lines on a graph, I don't know if any of that would be evidence of intending or referring. The empirical evidence of intending or referring are phenomena , real , not physical and so not reducible. You can't build an intending and referring being. When we intend it comes because we know how to use signs in the sense we know how to refer something as something , we know how to use signs. There is something about that that is innate and irreducible , what Kant means by the categorical imperative. They are the conditions for the possibility of intending or refering but they are not cause, they are simply there. In the same way that being is just there it doesn't say anything about ? just that it is. Q: There is a philosophy called monism that all things have some aspect of mind , even an atom or an apple or rock. Some sort of mindstuff in some sort of configuration. Mindstuff is an inherent part of the way that matter is. Perhaps in the arrangement of matter. You've given me a hook to hang some material on , I'd like to play with those ideas. Q: How can you explain altering who you are due to drugs or other people with mental illnesses. Alteration of the stuff and change of experience. Take mind altering drugs , changing your sense of self. What doesn't change there is still something that has what its like to be you its just the something is different. And the drugs have made you different. You've not changed the basis of the phenomena being experienced . Again the ontic thing, there is something that is what its like to be you. But it is changeable , you sare not the same person now as 15 years ago and only you can know that. Even if you tell me what its like to be you I cannot experience what its like to be you. Neither can I experience batness. Q: I can say I believe in god , I believe the basis of all reality is god. Either you have to accept that point of view or never will. Why can't you accept there are unanswerable questions. Either from the POV of science or philosophy . Some say the problem with philosophy is it leaves everything as it was. You cannot attribute the unexplainable to the actions of some nebulous force. If I was being Ayer I would say that was pure non-sense , nonsense. Its like talking about fairy dust, it makes no conceivable sense. Q: People who have a religious conversion suddenly see the world in a different way. You either see the world as reductionist or involving the mind as an irreducible face of the world. Yo u see it one way or the other , not reconcilable. 2 problems the mind/body problem , and the other is the dualist problem . Some aspects of having a mind is reducible to the firing of neurons , there other aspects of experiencing phenomena which is an activity of minds that is not so reducible. Not a question of being reducible or not reducible but the question of asserting things in slightly different domains. I'm acting like a responsible scientist when I say that and also acting logically as a philosopher. There are aproximate truths or minitruths or uuseful to believe in particular domains. You say what you think to be the case and don't proclaim beyond that. Q: I don't like the concept of reducing mind to brain but going the other way. If you made a brain and put it in a body you would consistently end up with a body. Then you have a referential problem , as Putnam and BIV posed the problem. The distinction must be made between being a brain , which is what the BIV is and having a brain which is what we have. You always must make that distinction. My argument is stretching a point when I start with sub-molecular and neurons firing relating to mind and then argument by similar logic the logic of the postulate of unobservables and the only way you can say observables is by having hypotheticals , this flies in the face of Occam's Razor, you should not multiply superfluities, keep it simple - Occam. As far as I know , true for scientist and non-scientist string theory and the geometries of hyper reality are fiendisly complicated mathematically and thats all that they are . Physics at that end is almost pure multidimensional maths . I can get my head around n-folded doimensions in space and time and almost get my mind around the notion of black holes , also the notion that time is not linear but enfolded to ask the question what happened before the big bang . I cannot get my head arounf saving the phenomenon of possibles by possiting loops called hyperstrings and claiming that they exist because somehow you can explain their existence by some kind of maths. I know string theory is impossibly complicated, I don't . A tiny number of people who really understand it but the point is you can develop string theoty and out of it a theory of gravity . From that they can make predictions and make observations in the real world. I think you have it the wrong way round. I can send you philosophical , not mathematical ways we can talk about unobservables by a man called Vasman ? . Because he's an antirealist he is interesting because he sees there is faulty logic in the way scientists talk about unobservables. And I would go along with him on this. You would say there is this complicated maths about strings out of which falls relativity. I would say the way cosmologists have been doing the science ts the other way round. They've taken relativity and built from that to the idea of strings . If you're infering to the best explanation of there is for multiverses you might want to argue for strings, the way they behave mathematically eloquently and beautifully . Myself and others not leading-edge cosmologists can't get their head around moving simultaneously enfolded multidimensions. Mathematicians can describe any conceivable world , by definition conceivable, but its never going ot be a real world. Q: developing theories that try to explain unobservables . The point of science is its a dynamic interplay between experiment and theory . This is an extension to the n-th extreme. There are things being tested now at CERN that will either prove or not some of those theories. And something new would have to be deveo=loped to plug the theoretical gap. This whole area is mathematically feasible, mathematically dodgey, and philosophically quite contradictory. Q: Has science ever cared about philosophy? I said right at the beginning scientists just get on doing their science and I'm a realist, scientists are successfull . I'm glad I live in a world where we've got them . Q: There are respected scientists that strongly disagree with stringtheory - its taken a lot of energy out of physics that could have been put elsewhere. Its a paradigm that everyone is flocking to for the grants etc and politics. I agree entirely with what you say. Most of the representations of this theory is only possible on a computer so does technology lead the science? It might be that fact the computers make the maths possible is why the scientists are doing the maths. End of session - as Last Orders is declared over the tannoy Southampton Science Café, July 18, 2011: Bibliography In the preparation of my talk The Impossibility of Scientific Truth I have found the following sources useful: A. Books R. Scruton – Kant: A Very Short Introduction (OUP, 2001) J.R. Searle – The Construction of Social Reality ( Penguin, 1996) C.G. Hempel – Philosophy of Natural Science (Prentice-Hall, 1966) M. Lawrence – Philosophy on Tap (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011) P. Cave – How to Think Like a Bat (Quercus, 2011) R. Trigg – Philosophy Matters (Blackwell, 2002) G. Lakoff & M. Johnson – Metaphors We Live By (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980) Z. Sardar – Thomas Khun and the Science Wars (Icon Books, 2000) T. Nagel – The View from Nowhere (OUP, 1986) H.S. Thayer (ed.) – Pragmatism: The Classic Writings (Hackett, 1982) P. Feyerabend – Against Method (Verso, 1975) R. Rorty - Consequences of Pragmatism (Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1982) B. Academic Papers, etc. C. Norris – “Metaphor, Ontology, and Scientific Truth: Against Some Dogmas of the New Anti-Realism” M. Warnock – “Scientific Truth is not the Only Truth Out There” THES 27 Sept. 2002 “The Correspondence Theory of Truth” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy H. Putnam – Reason, Truth and History (CUP, 1982) “The Brain in a Vat Argument” M. David – “Neither Mentioning ‘Brains in a Vat’ nor Mentioning Brains in a Vat Will Prove that We Are Not Brains in a Vat Philosophy and Phenomenoligical Research LI, 4 (Dec 1991) A. Brueckner – “If I am a Brain in a Vat, Then I am Not a Brain in a Vat” Mind 101.401 (Jan. 1992) N. Cartwright & R. Flegg – “String Theory Under Scrutiny” Physics World Sept. 2007, pp. 14-15 H.L. Hasteley “If we could prove String Theory wrong, I would be thrilled!” New Statesman 11 June, 2011 T. Nagel – “What is it Like to be a Bat?” Philosophical Review LXXXIII, 4 (Oct 1974) pp. 435-50 W. G. Lycan – “What is the ‘Subjectivity’ of the Mental?” Philosophical Perspectives 4 (1990) pp.109-130) Y. Nagasawa – “Thomas vs. Thomas: A New Approach to Nagel’s Bat Argument” Inquiry 46, pp. 377-394 D. Pereboom – “Bats, Brain Scientists, and the Limitations of Introspection” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (June 1994), pp. 315-29 J. Kekes – “ Physicalism and Subjectivity” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 37 (June 1977), pp. 533-36 “The Coherence Theory of Truth” “Propositions, Arguments and Truth” “Aristotle: Logical Methods” E.A. Castro – “Some Mistaken Arguments Against Objectivity and Truth in Science” Rev. Acad. Colomb.Cienc. 21 (79) 119-123 , 1997 “Truth” P. Thagard – “Coherence, Truth, and the Development of Scientific Knowledge” Philosophy of Science 74 (Jan 2007), pp. 28-47 “Should we Trust Science?” A. Fursman – “Scientific Realism – The Proof’s in the Pudding” A,Musgrave – “The ‘Miracle Argument’ for Scientific Realism” R. Stern – “Coherence as a Test for Truth” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LXIX, 2 (Sept. 2004), pp. 296-326 J. Barrow – “Theories of Everything” J.P. Moreland – “Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn” JETS 48/1 (March 2005) pp. 77-88 J. Cohen – “Truth and Public Reason” Philosophy and Public Affairs 37, 1 (2009) F.A. Muller & B.C. van Fraassen – “How to Talk About Unobservables” Analysis 68 (2008), pp. 197-205 A.J. Ayer – Language, Truth and Logic (Penguin, 1980) D.J. Singer – “The No No-Maricales-Argument Argument”

08 August 2011 , Roger Anderton presentation : Modern physics - based upon misunderstandings surrounding Einstein ?
Talk , the Einstein aspects covered on and Some of the Q&A ... Q: Can you give us a quote on this unified field threory. Yes, its been out there for some time. Q: In September I'm presenting my paper at a physics conference , unified field theory. Conference , the Boscovitch Symposium in Pavia, Italy and background to Boscovitch, born 1711 Before Einstein came along the most famous scientist, after Newton , was Boscovitch. What happened in historical terms was , Newton came out with his theory, the theory was not complete. One of his followers was Boscovitch, continued on from Newton, making it a unified theory. From that you get all the ideas of fields , and a unified field theory. In the 18C ? Yes, he was a catholic priest , came over to England, they made him a fellow of the Royal Society. He went back and as a consequence that allowed the Catholic Church to lift its ban on the helo-centric theory. After that Newtonian theory was allowed to be taught on the continent, in France. They were going on the Boscovitch unified theory . The papers at this conference on this same sort of thing? They're different papers. Boscovitch was very influential. , very big. Will there be anyone from the establishment there? I don't know. Q: Is there any new physics or new experiments , comes out of Boscovitch UFT? There must be as its unifying gravity with electro-magnetism There must be new effects where gravity is affected by electromagnetism and stuff, experimental observables. The big thing about Einstein is that he did predict things. He did change his mind. Einstein said if such and such happens then this will be observed. Yor UFT should have things that people can go and check? , someone independent of the Boscovitch group. Kelvin : "There were only two dark clouds on the horizon of physics" , the top physicist of his time. Those cloiuds turned out to be quantum theory and relativity. He was saying that Boscovitch's theory was confirmed. You had the confirmation then but it got got diverted by what Einstein was doing. Einstein explained the so-called ultraviolet catastrophe , Plank came up with an adhoc thing that seemed to work although not understanding it at the time., Only Einstein knew it was a revolutionary idea and took it further. Are you saying that Boscovitch could also explain these phenomena ? Yes , you got it from a more theoretical point of view. He would not have known about the UV catastrophe in those terms. From Newtonian theory you had wave-particle duality theory which was already quantum theory. It got excluded from the text books because everything went over to Einstein. I think Einstein was at Pavia at one time and I think thsat was when he got familiar with Boskovitch theory. Einstein's wife came from the same country as Boscokitch. Boskovitch is considered the foundation of atomic theory. When you had people like Fermi, Dirac , people working on the atom bomb they were refering to Boskovitch theory as being the basis of what they were working on. Atomic theory - unified atomic theory. .... 2/ 09/4/50

keywords for searchengines , scicafshadow, scicafsoton, Southampton Sci Caf, Southampton Science Café, Café Scientifique, scicaf, scicaf1, scicaf2

e-mail  email address ( for anti-spamming reasons please remove all 5 dots ..... between co and m ) Plain text only (see below)

Please make emails plain text only , no more than 5KByte or 500 words. Anyone sending larger texts or attachments such as digital signatures, pictures etc will have them automatically deleted on the server. I will be totally unaware of this, all your email will be deleted - sorry, again blame the spammers. If you suspect problems emailing me then please try using my fastmail or my account. If this email address fails then replace with or replace with part of the address and remove the 9 (fsnet one as a last resort, as only checked weekly)
keyword for searchengines , scicafshadow, scicafsoton, Southampton Science Café, Café Scientifique, scicaf, scicaf1, scicaf2 , free talks, open talks, free lectures, open lectures , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,