The logic behind sections of this blog is based on two of my beliefs. The first is that scientists tend to over-complicate things when they try to inform the world about their discoveries. One reason for this is that the branches of 'science' and applied science (astronomy, biology, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, medicine, physics, psychology et cetera) all have distinct focuses and their own internal 'language' (or jargon). So, although they understand each other to some extent, they routinely use different jargon. Even worse, the focuses and languages used within any branch of science can be very varied. For example, I briefly met Professor Paul Nurse who got the Nobel Prize for his work on the cell cycle and cancer. I have done most of my work on the impact of drugs and/or physiology on behaviour, so our dialogue was somewhat limited. My second belief is that many journalists tend to over-simplify things when they attempt to inform their audience about science. I suspect that this is because they know that knowledge (and understanding of jargon) will be limited in sections of their readership. They consequently aim their reports at the lower end of scientific understanding. I feel that these two tendencies make it very difficult for the general public to make sense of much of the scientific information that comes their way (even when they are asked to vote on it). One reason is the language used, which is why I attempt to use simple (non-jargon) language in the blog. It hope that one can explain relatively complex ideas, starting with knowledge that most people (including children) will share (even if they have never 'done' science).
I would like to attempt to illustrate my approach by using a request from an adult friend, who, to the best of my knowledge, didn't study science. She told me (via Zoom) that she couldn't understand what black holes were and asked if I could explain them. This is well outside my comfort zone (this is astrophysics not biology). It seems to me, that the logical place to start is with gravity (as she and I will both have an idea what that is). Gravity, I would remind her is the attraction between objects in our physical world. Gravity is strongly linked to mass (the amount of material), so large and/or very concentrated bodies exert a stronger pull than smaller or more diffuse counterparts. For example, I would tell her, the sun has a much stronger gravitational pull than the Earth because it is very much larger. The impact of this force, I would go on to say, also varies with distance, so near objects exert a stronger pull than those that are further away. I would go on to describe how astrophysicists, using their powerful telescopes, found apparently empty areas of galaxies where strange things were occurring. In these 'event horizons', light could be bent and objects (even small stars) could disappear. They deduced that an intensely powerful gravitational force was dragging everything, which entered the event horizon, into it. As this included light (the fastest thing we know of), no image of what was eventually labelled (1967) a 'black hole', could be seen in the telescopes. I would finish with a little on current ideas about the likely formation of these structures. I would remind her that there are incredible numbers of stars but that they can be quite different (ranging from white dwarfs to red giants). I would also point out that astrophysicists believe that stars have finite life cycles, changing as they mature. The black hole, astronomers argue is caused by a giant star eventually collapsing on itself as 'dies'. This, they say, super concentrates its impressive mass into a very small area, generating intense gravitational forces that pull anything getting close enough into it. So this is the black hole.
Do any of my readers think this is a reasonable approach? Have you any criticisms about its accuracy or the language used? Wish me luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment