This is a very beautiful site. I am preparing a commercial product for high school physics. Can I use the images from this site into my commercial product?
Hi! Thanks! I fear it’s not that easy. Many of the images are coming from sites with a Creative Commons License and hence inherit the same (NonCommercial) license. Many others has copyright, and I use them within rights granted under 17 USC § 107 (fair use: for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research). Since (almost) all images at Science is Beauty include the source (and credit), I suggest that you go to the original quoted sources to find out about their use, or to apply for commercial use. Good luck!
“I mean the word proof not in the sense of the lawyers, who set two half proofs equal to a whole one, but in the sense of a mathematician, where half proof = 0, and it is demanded for proof that every doubt becomes impossible.”—
Can science answer moral questions? Sam Harris certainly thinks so.
It’s a very interesting question, I sure there are many followers who can provide more deeper insights than mine (so please, check out comments after a while). But here’s my opinion: Science can (and must) resolve some moral questions, but it can’t (and never will) resolve all moral or ethical dilemas. I get the impression that the opposite would be the same as denying the transcendence of man, and somehow his intelligence.
I think that in such discussions I’m very close to Stephen Jay Gould and pretty far away of Richard Dawkins, because I consider that metaphysics (and religion) are different fields in its essence (non-overlapping magisteria - NOMA, as was named by Gould), that they can do some collaborative work (and actually do), but always using different methods (even sometime incompatibles) and, of course, targeting different objectives.
Some examples via the University of California, Berkeley:
“Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language. It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience. Fortunately, mathematics is not subject to this limitation, and it has been possible to invent a mathematical scheme — the quantum theory — which seems entirely adequate for the treatment of atomic processes; for visualisation, however, we must content ourselves with two incomplete analogies — the wave picture and the corpuscular picture.”—
Congrats on your 2014 Weblog award. That's what led me to your site. On P53 you offer a Raymond Chandler quote:- "There are two kinds of truth: the truth that lights the way and the truth that warms the heart. The fist of these is science, and the second is art." WikiQuote offers 'first' rather than 'fist' - so is it you or it which is correct?
Thanks anon. And yes, this was a typo, fixed! (though I fear there will be hundreds propagated all around Tumblr - given that the post has +1200 notes). Cheers!
“If any philosopher had been asked for a definition of infinity, he might have produced some unintelligible rigmarole, but he would certainly not have been able to give a definition that had any meaning at all.”—
It makes me happy to see the structure of DNA as it is a meticulous piece of work. It grinds my gears to always see Francis & Crick with very few references to Rosalind Franklin. I mean that’s a real kicker.
Let’s just start with the Pauling thing. There’s a myth which is, you know, that Francis and I basically stole the structure from the people at King’s. I was shown Rosalind Franklin’s x-ray photograph and, Whooo! that was a helix, and a month later we had the structure, and Wilkins should never have shown me the thing. I didn’t go into the drawer and steal it, it was shown to me, and I was told the dimensions, a repeat of 34 angstroms, so, you know, I knew roughly what it meant and, uh, but it was that the Franklin photograph was the key event. It was, psychologically, it mobilised us…
Letter from Francis Crick to his son Michael, 1953
19 Portugal Place Cambridge 19 March ’53
My Dear Michael,
Jim Watson and I have probably made a most important discovery. We have built a model for the structure of de-oxy-ribose-nucleic-acid (read it carefully) called D.N.A. for short. You may remember that the genes of the chromosomes — which carry the hereditary factors — are made up of protein and D.N.A.
Our structure is very beautiful. D.N.A. can be thought of roughly as a very long chain with flat bits sticking out. The flat bits are called the “bases”. The formula is rather like this. […]
[…] In other words we think we have found the basic copying mechanism by which life comes from life. The beauty of our model is that the shape of it is such that only these pairs can go together, though they could pair up in other ways if they were floating about freely. You can understand that we are very excited. We have to have a letter off to Nature in a day or so. Read this carefully so that you understand it. When you come home we will show you the model.
Lots of love, Daddy
Sent by Marlareznor, see in their blog the original manuscript and a full transcription of the letter.
Hi, I'm a student and well Im doing my GCSEs and would like to do science for A Levels. I really love science, it's my passion, but Im scared that I won't be able to do it bc I got a c for my last assessment n I feel hopeless n tht Im not a natural so I shouldn't take it BUT I REALLY DO WANT TO. I revised ALOT, thought I understood it all but still got a bad grade. I can't stop crying abt it n was just wondering, if theres any tips that you could give me bc I really need someones help, thank you
If you really love sciences, you should not put you off with (eventual) bad grades… believe me, most of us have been there before or after. In the end the effort is worth it, and you’re too young to be discouraged. I remember a quote from Ernest Rutherford that may encourage you to keep fighting:
All of physics is either impossible or trivial. It is impossible until you understand it and then it becomes trivial.