Slashdot Mirror


The Most Beautiful Experiments in Physics

TheMatt writes "In this month's 'Physics World', Robert P. Crease asks the question: what is the most beautiful experiment in physics? Some criteria quoted are that it must change what people thought, must not be too complicated or expensive, and, most importantly, be within the reach of students (which leaves out Stern-Gerlach or Michelson-Morley). He also has a page at BNL reprinting the article, with a place for suggestions from the community on their opinion." I'll nominate a simple one: Foucault's Pendulum. :)

6 of 521 comments (clear)

  1. Here's an odd one... by FortKnox · · Score: 5, Informative

    What about Gallileo's hypothesis about the Feather and the Hammer that was proven on the (IIRC) Apollo 14 mission?

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  2. Eddington, 1919, proving general relativity by Cally · · Score: 5, Informative

    My vote (without reading other comments) goes to Arthur Eddington's validation of Einstein's relativity by demonstrating that the sun's gravity bent the light from nearby stars. But how do you see stars when they're right next to the sun? Good lateral thinking, very ingenious...

    --
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
  3. Re:Back to Basics by pomakis · · Score: 4, Informative
    dropping a bowling ball and a light foam ball to demonstrate how mass is independant of gravity.

    But this experiment is a bit misleading. Mass isn't actually independent of gravity. It is just extremely negligable when the second object is billions of times more massive than the object in question (like a bowling ball as compared to the Earth).

    The force of gravity is proportional to the sums of the masses of the two objects in question (m1 + m2), and the Earth (m2) has a mass of 5.9736 × 10^24 kg. Try the same experiment by comparing how fast a bowling ball falls in comparison to a bowling-ball sized neutron star. (Of course, you wouldn't want to drop them at the same time, because you'd then be dealing with a three-body problem.)

  4. OT: Eratosthenes vs. Chris Columbus: True Hero? by GuyMannDude · · Score: 4, Informative

    Eratosthenes accurately estimated the diameter and circumference of the earth with a stick. That's beauty.

    Quite right. This beautiful experiment is explained and recreated in Carl Sagan's Cosmos series. Not only that, but Eratosthenes did this many years Before Christ. By the time that Christopher Columbus petitioned the royal court for funding for three ships to sail westward from Portugal to India, scientists already knew the circumference of the earth pretty damn well. Well enough to know there was no way in hell Columbus would ever make it. But in 1492 -- and this is still true today, unfortunately -- the intelligent advice of scientists was disregarded by the rulers were blinded by visions of wealth and power and the Queen funded Columbus' journey. Turns out, unbeknownst to anyone, that Columbus' ass was saved because there was a land mass closer than halfway. Columbus decided that since he had sailed west to get to India, and ran into some land, had indeed reached India and proclaimed the inhabitants Indians -- a misnomer which exists to this day.

    Although Eratosthenes was a true genius the world hails Christopher Columbus as a hero even though his accomplishment was sheer accident. What does this tell you about how the world views science and scientists?

    GMD

  5. WRONG! glass is NOT a liquid by Sebastopol · · Score: 5, Informative

    it is an amorphous solid, refer to this urban legend...

    An Urban Legend

    The legend usually appears in any of the following forms:

    Antique windowpanes are thicker at the bottom, because glass has flowed to the bottom over time.

    Glass has no crystalline structure, hence it is NOT a solid.

    Glass is a supercooled liquid.

    Glass is a liquid that flows very slowly.

    Glass is a liquid.
    The prolonged survival of this legend, chiefly among English speakers (and particularly among North Americans) is puzzling -- especially when one considers that glass and glassy materials are readily available, and one can easily verify if one can pour a gallon of glass, or drain a pint of obsidian.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:WRONG! glass is NOT a liquid by Phanatic1a · · Score: 4, Informative

      Glass doesn't even flow on geological time scales. Glass will not flow, period, unless it rises above its transition temperature, Tg. For plain old window glass, and in the limiting case of infinite time, Tg is over 250 degrees C. On shorter time scales, it's over 500 C.

      Glass does not flow. It is an amorphous solid with a shear viscosity well, well in excess of 1014.6 Poise, placing it well, well within the solid regime. If it flowed on even geologic time scales, flow would certainly be observed in telescope mirrors and other optics that are precise down to fractional wavelengths.

      Jesus. Go read the link that was posted earlier. There's nothing pisses me off like people who ignore readily available information in favor of propagating the same old misinformation.