Module 3: Science and Technology

Importance of Experimentation: In controlled experiments the scientist varies parameters systematically, keeping track of what is held constant and what is being varied. Any systematic dependence of one quantity on another can be isolated and carefully investigated. Model Building: One has to build a model of the real situation in which the essential aspects are separated from unnecessary complications. The scientist speaks of idealizations. Physics is full of examples of idealizations: ideal gas, ideal fluid, frictionless planes, black bodies, and so on. Model thinking is very evident in the work of Galileo, Newton and Einstein. Newtons first law of motion (the law of inertia) describes what should happen in a situation which nobody has ever seen. Nonetheless, by studying this ideal situation carefully, we gain insights into the workings of nature. The scientist tries to understand situations where change is the order of the day. Paradoxically, he understands these by trying to find quantities that, amidst all this chance, remain the same (conservation laws). Thought Experiments: A thought experiment is one which can be carried out in principle but not in practice. Galileo and Einstein were past masters at devising thought experiments. By means of thought experiments Einstein demolished the idea of absolute time, i.e., that time is independent of an inertial reference frame, an idea which was inherent to Newtonian dynamics. Further thought led Einstein to sweeping revisions of common notions of space and time. The Scientific Method: Disciplined Questioning of Nature Coupled with Systematic Observation: The scientific approach consists in the setting up of hypotheses to explain how nature behaves under well-specified conditions and then in checking these ideas against experiments. The latter serve to confirm or refute the hypotheses. If a hypothesis is confirmed, the scientist seeks to extend and generalize the theory to encompass more phenomena. If refuted, the theory has to be modified, or rejected and replaced by another. The primacy of observations is stressed. A physical law is not believed simply because various authorities recommend it, as was the case in medieval times. It is believed when its predictions are tested and these agree with observations. One single observation which contradicts the theory is enough to falsify it. One might all genius the ability to formulate theoretical models which apparently contradict common sense but which nonetheless pass the experimental test. Predictive Feature of Scientific Theories: A characteristic of scientific theories is their ability to foretell what should happen in a given set of circumstances. Generalization: The aim in science is to extract general characteristics from a careful study of the observations by a process called induction.

Ad Hoc Hypotheses: Ad hoc explanations are theoretical artifacts specifically designed to square a theory with the data. Ad hoc elements in a theory are unsatisfactory and they are usually dropped when the earlier theory which needed them is superseded by a more general theory. Co-operative Nature of the Scientific Endeavour: Every scientist depends on the work of his predecessors and contemporaries. The Search for Simplicity and Harmony in Nature: The ancients tried to explain motions in the universe by using the most symmetric of all motions: circular motion at constant angular speed. This is a search for simplicity. While today we would not accept this simple idea, modern physics is still Greek in spirit. The belief in harmony and pattern in nature has motivated a lot of great scientific work. Belief in Rationality of Nature: Implicit in the scientific endeavor is the belief that nature is not arbitrary, that there are underlying laws which can be discovered by correct probing. Aesthetic Beauty: Some scientists stress the importance of the aesthetic beauty of a theory. To be sure, Einsteins gravitational theory is held in high esteem mainly because it accords best with nature. However, a further reason for its overwhelming appeal is that it is considered by many to be elegant and aesthetically pleasing, indeed perhaps the most beautiful theory ever written. Search for Truth for its Own Sake: Scientific research is often characterized by a desire to find and understand the truth for its own sake, irrespective of any utilitarian application the work might have. This attitude characterized the Greek spirit, many of whose philosophical schools stressed the search for absolute truth. How? and not Why?: Since Newton, physics has restricted its goals to explaining how nature works, not why it works as it does. The latter concern lies outside the domain of the subject. Precision in Measurement: In science it is important to measure as precisely as possible. In physics the values of some quantities are known to fantastic accuracy. Precise measurements have made possibly many advances in science, some of which were achieved by trying to account for small, minute even, deviations of observation from existing theory. What is crucial in science is not the absolute size of an effect but its size relative to the margin of error. If the effect lies outside the margin of error, it is important and should be investigated. Generalization: the search for a common denominator in a set of apparently different phenomena: The present search for a unification of the fundamental forces of nature is a capital example of generalization. In recent years, the unification of electromagnetism and the weak interaction in the electroweak theory earned Novel prizes.

-Human Equality What were the scientific reasons put forward to establish races? Their first argument was based on genealogy, or separation among races as a function of their geological age. They argued that the divisions of separate human races had occurred so long ago and brought about differences which accumulated slowly through the passage of time. This theory of ancient separation received its last prominent defense in 1962, when Charleton Coon published his Origin of Races. Coon divided humanity into five major races caucasiods, mongoloids, australoids, and, among African blacks, congoids and capiods. Most biologist reacted to Coons book with incredulity. The modern view is that human races are poorly differentiated subpopulations of our modern species, Homo sapiens, separated at most by tens of thousands of years, and marked by very small genetic differences. The second argument put forward was based on geography. Scientists argued, without any basis, that modern man must have originated in Asia not Africa. For this reason, in the early 1920s the American Museum of Natural History sponsored an expedition to the Gobi Desert in Asia, in order to find these ancestors. The expedition was a success in discovering dinosaurs and their eggs, but its major quest ended in utter failure, because humans did not originate in Asia, but in Africa. By the 1950s enough evidence had been collected to show that Africa had been our original home. However, some scientists were still prejudiced enough to deny Africa the origin of human consciousness. If Africa was the cradle of mankind, it was only an indifferent kindergarten. Europe and Asia were our principal schools. We now have proof to show that modern humans, Homo sapiens originated in Africa. After evolving in Africa, Homo sapiens spread elsewhere, throughout the globe. If human races within the one species of Homo sapiens were distinct, one would have to include these races under the heading of subspecies. Our variation is such that it does not allow the naming of subspecies. A reasonable division might be made on skin colour, only to discover that blood groups imply different alliances. Firstly, when so many characters exhibit conflicting patterns of variation, a subspecies cannot be established. Secondly, we interbreed wherever we move, breaking down geographically barriers and creating new groups. Thirdly, similar characters evolve independently over and over again; they destroy any attempt to base subspecies on definite traits.

The division of humans into modern racial groups only happened in the last few tens of thousands of years and therefore there was not enough time for humans to differentiate themselves properly. The third argument in favour of human equality comes from genetics. It is possible to calculate the genetic differences between people. It seems that humans are a rather homogeneous species, perhaps because they evolved so recently. Even though humans may be relatively uniform, some differences do exist. Africans as a whole are more diverse than other nations in the world. However, the fact that genes can be used to differentiate peoples, does not really say how different they actually are. -Genetic Testing Genetic testing is not a single technology but a whole range of technologies for finding the activity of genes in cells. The price of these tests ranges from $50 to $1000. Unfortunately, the more we learn about genetics, the more we realize that even a straightforward disease is complicated. Until a decade ago, most biologists thought that genetic diseases were caused by a single gene, although some diseases, follow this pattern. This model is quickly turning out to be false for most diseases like cancer. According to most estimates, everyone carries at least five to ten genes that could make one sick under the wrong circumstances. Genetic research has become big science. It has given birth to a powerful alignment of biomedical research, commercial biotechnology, and pharmaceutical innovation. The question is whether scientists can keep their hands clean in an environment that relentlessly increases in scope and scale. If they cannot, popular enthusiasm for the science could sour into suspicion and rancor. On the other hand, if everything goes well, we would understand ourselves better and everyone would benefit. -Scientific Intercourse Universalism: The acceptance or rejection of a claim made by a scientist does not depend on the scientists nationality, creed, or colour. All that matters is whether such a theory is more useful than the previous ones, in the light of known facts. Communism: Scientific goods have a common ownership, since the findings of science are the products of collaboration between research workers. Non-publication can have adverse practical consequences fruits of research maybe be denied to those who might benefit.

Disinterestedness: Impartiality and honesty are central to science. However, it cannot be separated from the continual scrutiny to which all scientists work is subjected. The possibility of exploiting the ignorant is condemned. Organized skepticism: Doubt is crucial to both scientific method and to the scientific community, which should be continually open to new truths. Faces with a novel claim, it is the duty of the scientific community to study in depth the results obtained before passing judgment. Because of this, science is always likely to find itself in conflict with institutions founded on truths drawn from other sources of authority. The need to communicate in science is so important that any interruption would be disastrous. Through both the spoken word and the written word, science is in a state of continuous social intercourse. Scientific meetings can be of many kinds. The objective is the same: to hear about recent research, which is then open to discussion and criticism. The individual scientist is under pressure to publish papers as an indication of personal achievement. In any scientific paper, other publications are used. These are known as citations. Some people argue that the scientific paper is founded on the principle of induction, according to which a scientist compiles data before trying to discern a pattern. A few scientists do work this way, but the majority does not. -Institutions of Science The term scientist is of fairly recent origin, having first been coined in 1833 but not widely used until the 1930s. Since the nineteenth century, there has been an increase in both the amount and complexity of research. Today, the enormous range of disciplines and style of science require a common definition of scientist to be all-embracing: one who practices the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the universe, based on the formulation of laws to describe observed facts. The hallmark of distinction for a scientist any scientist in any field is the Novel Prize. This was founded in 1901 as decreed in the will of Alfred Novel, the Swedish chemist, engineer, and inventor of dynamite. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awards the prizes in chemistry, physics, medicine, and since 18969, economics. Nominations for Novel Prizes are invited from Swedish and six other universities and from past Nobel laureates.

Although Novels will stated that his prizes should go to those who during the preceding year have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind in practice the prizes have usually recognized research conducted several years previously. The proliferation of scientific institutions bears witness to several historical changes. Firstly, the formerly amateur craft of science has become professionalized, leading to the setting up of bides designed to represent the career interests of research workers. Secondly, international collaboration is reflected in the emergence of bodies such as WHO and UNESCO. Thirdly, societies devoted to the advancement of science have helped to encourage public interest in science. -Marie Curie In Paris, Marie studied chemistry at the Sorbonne, at the same time working in a laboratory in order to meet expenses. It was in the laboratory that she met Pierre Curie: I noticed she wrote later the grave and gentle expression of his face, as well as a certain abandon in his attitude suggesting the dreamer absorbed in his reflections. In 1896 X-rays were discovered by William Roentgen using a Cathode Ray Tube. In the same year Professor Henri Becquerel noticed that uranium salts and pitchblende give off X-rays. Becquerel presented the problem to Marie, to extract a yet unknown element from the pitchblende ore. Marie and Pierre dropped all their wok to undertake this search. They had to borrow money since they had none. Luckily, the Austrian government donated a ton of pitchblende ore. From then on, they worked incessantly. We lived in a preoccupation as complete as that of a dream, remarked Marie. The bitter winter of 1896 found them still laboring in their shed. Marie developed pneumonia and three months had to pass before she was strong enough to resume work. After two years of work they had extracted a small amount of bismuth salts which showed the presence of a very active element, which appeared to be 300 times as potent as uranium. In 1898, Marie announced the discovery of a new element, which she named Polonium. The Curies kept on working with what was left. This appeared to possess chemicals even stronger than polonium. After five more years of hard work, Marie presented her Ph.D. thesis with respect to the new element to come from pitchblende radium, which was 300 times more powerful than uranium. Even now, it is thought that this thesis is the greatest single contribution of any Ph.D. thesis in the history of science. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1903. Even though they were poor, they refused to patent their discovered. Their work was one of pure science, their sole object to serve humanity.

Marie was asked to take up the chair of physics vacated by the death of her husband at the Sorbonne. She then dedicated herself to the extraction of radium as a pure metal. After four years of hard work, she isolated radium. For this work, she was awarded the Nobel Prize for the second time, the only scientist to do so in difference disciplines. -Evolution as Fact and Theory The rise of scientific creationism in the US as well as the rest of the world is based on arguments which are anything but scientific. The creationists have presented not a single new fact or argument. First, they argue, evolution is only a theory, and there are debates about certain aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists cannot even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? The second argument centers on a popular philosophy of science: falsification. The primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories, that is, conducting experiments in which one tries to disprove the theory. Going back to facts and theories, evolution is a theory, but it also a fact. Facts and theories are different things. Facts are the worlds data. Theories are ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Moreover, fact does not mean absolute certainty. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth. Darwin himself was clear but this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning. In order to understand evolution as a fact, one has to try to understand the mechanisms (theory) by which it occurred. The final point is the one surrounding debates. Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health. It is always interesting to see old information interpreted in novel ways. Biologists are not debating whether evolution occurred. They are debating how it happened. Biological evolution as a fact tells us that life is not immutable but constantly changing. Living organisms, whether plant or animal, are constantly trying to adapt to a constantly changing environment. Also, evolution tells us that species can change into new ones. What kind of mechanisms exist to accomplish evolution? These fall into three main types: 1. Natural Selection: it is unconscious, automatic, blind, yet essentially non-random. The theory states that, given enough diversity among individuals of the same species, some will be more successful than others at obtaining food, mates, and so on. Therefore, their genes are more likely to be passed on to the next generation, since tey will always

have more offspring. From one generation to the next, there could, therefore, be differences in form and behavior, making the individuals of that species more suited (or adapted) to the environment. 2. Sexual Selection: This results from the exercise of mating preferences in favour of individuals expressing certain genetically determined factors. 3. Bad Luck and Natural Disasters: Although rare, natural disasters are important for evolution, as they can exterminate certain forms of life, paving the way for new forms. Disasters on this scale are not so much the effect of bad genes, organisms do not have time to adapt to a changing environment but, rather, that they were plain unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, there is abundant, direct observational evidence in action, from both field and laboratory. The evidence ranges from countless experiments on fruit flies to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest. The second argument for evolution the case for major changes does not involve direct observation of evolution in action. Major evolutionary changes require too much time for direct observation. However, we can infer them from results that still surround us: fossils. The third argument is that nature is imperfect. This strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should make organisms perfect: a sharks teeth; echo location in bats; the human hand. Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. For example, a rats legs, a bats wings, and a humans arms are all inherited from a common ancestor. An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Also, some adaptations came at a price of the same organisms that use them. In humans, one copy of the sickle cell gene acts against malaria. On the other hand, if someone has two copies of the gene, it leads to sickle cell anemia. -Atomic Theory The idea that matter is made up of atoms is an old one. Is it attributed to a Greek philosopher, Leucippus, and was developed by his student, Democritus. An extreme materialist, Democritus maintained that in such a world of complexity and variety, atoms are the only reality and the only forces. According to position, size, shape and impenetrability. Furthermore, if they are indestructible, their position can give many shapes. With one stroke of pure reason, a fundamental truth about the nature of matter had been uncovered. However, the atomic theory of Democritus was not universally accepted. After a century of debate, atomism was rejected by Aristotle. Aristotle gave atomic theory considerable attention, but was forced to reject it because of its remoteness from the world perceived by our senses. Since Aristotle dominated thought for more than a millennium, atomism fell into decline.

The Roman poet Lucretius was obsessed by the idea of atoms. His On the Nature of Things functions as a book of poetry, science and morals. Lucretius gives many example to illustrate the existence of atoms. One of his most beautiful examples concerns milk diffusing in water. Does the milk actually disappear into nothingness? If so, what happens to the bulk of the milk? Where does this sub-division stop? According to Lucretius, if one thinks of matter as being composed of atoms, diffusion can take place, since the molecules of milk can hide between the molecules of water. Unfortunately, Lucretius used atomic theory to deny the existence of God during his own lifetime and on into the seventeenth century, he was branded an atheist and his doctrine was condemned. Atomism was confused with atheism, and the scientific world was deprived of many of its correct explanations. People like Kepler, Galileo, and Thomas Harriot invented a new method: the scientific method base on experimentation and mathematics. It was Harriot, in London, who re-introduced the atomic hypothesis. Unfortunately, he published very little, chiefly because he was formally charged with atheism, a serious felony at the time, and did not dare to expose himself. About 40 years later, when young Isaac Newton began to study physics, he wrote: the first matter must be attomes. What is really astonishing is that Newton guessed correctly that atoms are in turn made of more elementary components, and those of yet smaller ones. The next major step in atomic theory began in the early nineteenth century with the work of John Dalton, a school teacher from Manchester. It all began with the modern system of shorthand symbols like H for hydrogen, O for oxygen, Au for gold, and so on. The important discovery that water consists of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen is neatly summarized in the formula H2O. In his atomy theory of chemistry, Dalton thought of atoms as i. Indestructible and impenetrable ii. Having different weights depending on the material He proposed the word element for those materials which are made up of just one kind of atom. J.J. Thompson was responsible for discovering the electron in 1877. Enter Lord Rutherford, one of J.J.s former students. His experiment consisted of firing alpha particles (from a radioactive source) at a layer of gold foil. While most of the alpha particles penetrated the gold foil, a small number was deflected. To Rutherford, this result was astonishing. He said later that, It was as though you had fired a 15-inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it had bounced back and hit you!

A year afterwards, the answer came to him. He concluded that an atom must consist of a very small, extremely heavy, positive charge, with electrons spinning around it. The sphere itself is about 10,000 times as large as the nucleus. Niels Bohr explained the structure of atoms by using a theory that had first appeared in 1900 quantum theory. Quantum theory was developed by Max Planck. One of the many paradoxes involves the electron. At times, it behaves like a particle and, at times, like a wave. Unfortunately, there is nothing like a particle-wave. This issue was resolved in 1927 by a German physicist, Werner Heisenberg, and is known as the Uncertainty Principle. He concluded that electrons are particles by we can never know everything about them. This startling result, and countless others, show that at certain times, intuition and common sense do not have a place in science. A possible explanation is that our brains have no evolved (biologically) to deal with these strange situations. Nevertheless, physicists rapidly proved the value of quantum theory by explaining a wide range of phenomena, so much so that today quantum theory is often cited as the most successful scientific theory every produced. -From Pythagoras to Einstein: The Evolution of Ideas about the Cosmos The Pythagoreans Pythagoras formed a kind of influential religious sect which was still in existence at the time of Plato 200 years later. The Pythagoreans believed in harmony within nature, which they associated with properties of numbers. They made some beautiful discovers in the theory of numbers. One of these caused them great consternation: they discovered irrational numbers: numbers which cannot be represented as fractions. In astronomy the Pythagoreans put forward the idea of a spherically-shaped Earth freely floating in space. They even allowed for the possibility that the Earth moves around a central fire which, however, was not the Sun. The Pythagorean belief in a harmonious and orderly cosmos remained, and it informed the work, 2000 years later, of people like Copernicus and Kepler. The former was indeed proud to consider himself a disciple of Pythagoras. The Earth is at rest at the centre of the universe. Aristotle makes a sharp distinction between the realm of the heavenly bodies (stars and planets) and the sub-lunar world. The planets lie on the surface of translucent spheres, which are bounded by the sphere of the fixed stars. The motion in this realm is ideal: circular motion at constant speed of a combination of such circular motions. Plato, Socrates pupil and teacher of Aristotle, assigned to astronomers the task of devising geometrical models, using combinations of uniform circular motions, to account for the motions in the firmament. However, he felt it was none of their business to probe deeper into

the reality behind the appearances. The task of the astronomers was simply that of saving appearances. For the ancient, the heavenly realm was unchanging: no creation or destruction was possible. By contrast, the sub-lunar world was subjected to flux. Claudius Ptolemy Claudius Ptolemy elaborated an intricate geometrical scheme to account for motions in the firmament, charting the heavens from an observatory not far from Alexandria. Ptolemys great synthetic system lasted virtually unchanged for 1500 years until Copernicuss time. nonetheless, the enormity of the undertaking seems to have taxed the ingenuity of even such a resourceful astronomer as Ptolemy was not averse to fiddling with the data to enforce agreement with theoretical notions. In Ptolemys world-picture, the Earth is at rest at the center of the universe. In his system, only the Sun and moon actually revolve around the Earth in simple, ideal motion. In all, Ptolemy required 40 circles. Little wonder that no physics could emerge from such an involved scheme. Was his complex model of wheels within wheels just a useful fiction? Ptolemy, the observational astronomer, took the pragmatic view that the inelegance of the solution reflected that of the problem. Copernicus Nicolaus Copernicus was the first to work out in detail a system in which the planets, including the Earth, revolve around the Sun. His is thus a heliocentric system. In the complete Copernican picture the sun is at rest but is not quite at the centre of planetary orbits. Copernicus required 48 circles. However, the fact that comparable accuracy could be obtained from a system which involved a drastic shift in point of view (from Earth-centered to Suncentered) represents a signal advance. In acknowledgement of this, we speak of the Copernican revolution. The simplified Copernican system, in which the planet moves in a circle with the Sun as centre, is equivalent to the simplified Ptolemaic system. A point worth mentioning is that, from the absence of parallax of fixed stars during the Earths orbit, Copernicus concluded that the stars must be very far away. Tycho de Brahe Tycho de Brahe is best known for the skill and patience with which, for a quartet of a century, he observed and recorded the motions of the planets against the background of the stars. Two incidents convinced Tycho of the untenability of some views of the ancients. In 1572, he observed a nova which appeared suddenly in the constellation of Cassiopeia and faded from view 18 months later. Tycho observed it closely, recording how it changed in time. The supernova disturbed Tycho because he was unable to detect any apparent motion. He thus concluded that it did not belong to the sub-lunar world, since objects in the sub-lunar world shift their positions unmistakably with respect to the stars. He thus reluctantly concluded that there was change in the supposedly eternal and unchanging heavens. In 1576, Tycho observed a comet. Aristotle had thought that comets were atmospheric phenomena. However, from his measurements, Tycho concluded that the cometary orbit was

farther from Earth than the moon, and, in fact, crossed the orbits of the planets. Besides confirming change in the heavens, this observation clashed with the notion of the crystal sphere of the ancients, on the surface of which planets were supposed to move. Johannes Kepler Johannes Kepler brought to his work a Pythagorean belief in the harmony of nature, a consummate mathematical ability, and a deep respect for data. Keplers three laws of planetary motions are often considered as the first example of basic laws in physics. They played a major role in Newtons formulation of the law of universal gravitation. A number of lucky circumstances helped Kepler further. Firstly, he acquired Tychos exstensive observations which were of an accuracy unparalleled at the time. Secondly, the orbit of Mars, to whose study Kepler devoted many years, departs strongly (more than the observational errors) from a circle. On Mars a lot of reliable data was already available since it is one of the more easily observed planets. Thirdly, the orbit of the Earth is almost circular. In the course of this investigation Kepler noticed that the discrepancy between theory and observation could reach up to 8. To Keplers mind, this was unacceptable because it was much larger than Tychos margin of error (only 2). Kepler came to the conclusion that the orbit is reproduced perfectly by an ellipse with the Sun situated at one focus. Keplers second law of planetary orbits states that the radius vector from the Sun to a given planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. This implied that the speed of the planet increases s it comes closer to the Sun. Thus, with regard to planetary orbits, the ancients were proved wrong on two counts: planetary orbits are not circular and they are not described at a constant speed. Kepler discovered a third law governing planetary motions: the square of the orbital period (T) is proportional to the third power of the planets mean distance from the Sun (R; T 2 ~ R3). The discovery of this law greatly satisfied Kepler and he rhapsodized at length on the harmony in nature. The planetary system is now very simple, and the Sun occupies a central place. As Kepler rightly surmised, this force must in some way be related to the Sun. Keplers work made inquiry into a fundamental question in physics possible: given a planets speed and position at one particular time, what will its speed and position be at a later time? although Kepler himself never pose the question, his great contemporary, Galileo made the first steps in its solution. Galileo Galilei Galileo Galilei is rightly considered as a major figure in the scientific revolution of the seventeenth-century because of his important contributions to the study of motion, his astronomical observations, and his careful use of the scientific method. Einstein called him the father of modern physics. Among Galileos astronomical discoveries are a) The discovery of mountains on the moon, whose heigh he also calculated b) The discovery of the phases of Venus c) The (joint) discovery of sunspots and their migration across the Suns disc, which eh correctly attributed to the rotation of the Sun about its acis

d) The fact that the Milky Way is an agglomeration of stars e) The discovery that Jupiter had moons (of which Galileo discovered four), a sort of miniature solar system. Many of these astronomical discoveries undermined several long held ideas. For example, the Earths moon had blemishes like Earth, and the planets do not shine by their own but by reflected light. Galileo was a supporter of Copernicus but seemed to have ignored the work of Kepler. Indeed, the whole correspondence between Kepler and Galileo has a strong ring of rivalry to it, particularly from Galileos side. Isaac Newton Isaac Newton gave a mathematical treatment of motion which united under one common description all terrestrial and celestial phenomena. His three laws of motion reduced to special cases all types of motion studied by his predecessors. From his law of universal gravitation can be derived Keplers three laws of motion, an exercise occupying two pages in a modern textbook. Newtons first law of motion (the law of inertia) states that a body continues in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change that state by the application of a force. Newtons second law states that force is needed to change the state of motion. The third law makes precise an idea we get out of watching billiard balls hit each other. If ball A hits ball B, A exerts a force on B and B exerts an equal and opposite force on A. Newton asserted that this action equals a reaction property of forces is universal: whenever two bodies interact, the force exerted by the first body on the second is equal and opposite to the force exerted by the second body on the first. Newton also enunciated his law of universal gravitation: every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation, r, and is directed along the line joining the particles. In magnitude F = Gm1m2/r2 (G = universal constant of gravitation) Albert Einstein Albert Einstein influenced the development of modern physics in all its aspects and formulated a) The Special Theory of Relativity b) The General Theory of Relativity. In (a) Einstein demonstrated that the Newtonian belief in absolute time is wrong. Special Relativity Theory includes Newtonian mechanics as a special case, valid for speeds much less than the speed of light. Among the predictions of this theory is the equivalence of mass and energy. (E = mc2), an equation known to everybody. In the General Theory of Relativity Einstein proposed a geometrical theory of the gravitational field which includes Newtons gravitational theory in the limit of weak fields. It is worth mentioning that Einsteins work set the stage for quantitative investigations of the large-scale structure of the universe (cosmology), not just local properties as the solar system. This was particularly timely because observationally cosmology came of age this century through two major discoveries

a) Hubbles discovery of the expansion of the universe b) Penzias and Wilsons discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.