Physics discoveries

I’ve been thinking a bit more about the comment I made yesterday that there used to be a time that physics discoveries were made by people but now we just need to build a machine to do it (the LHC). 

The major science discoveries, almost by definition, are unexpected and can be very serendipitous. The discoverer wasn’t out there looking for something new per se, but, through some lucky sequence of events, it presented itself to him  (and, unfortunately, most physics discoveries are still ‘him’ not ‘her’). Three examples spring to mind: Oersted’s discovery that an electric current produces a magnetic field, Becquerel’s discovery of radioactivity, and Geiger/Marsden/Rutherford’s discovery that an atom has a nucleus.

In Oersted’s case, so the story goes, he was giving a lecture (1820) on this new ‘electricity’ thing, and just happend to have a compass sitting on his bench. He saw that when the current was switched on, the compass needle moved. The skill of the physicist here was to realize that this phenomenon was something that should be investigated further, which Oersted duly did, to great success.

In Becquerel’s case (1896), he found that unexposed photographic plates had somehow become exposed. Rather than waving this away and thinking that somehow light must have leaked in, he tracked it down to the fluorescent uranium salts that he was preparing to experiment on. Yes, Becquerel got lucky, but it was his careful experimenting afterwards that resulted in him recognizing that something ‘new’ was happening.

One could argue that the discovery of the atomic nucleus was less down to luck – after all, Geiger and Marsden were carrying out an experiment (in 1909) to look at the properties of alpha particles (i.e. discover ‘new’ knowledge about this particle) – but what they got was completely unexpected. Again, careful consideration and analysis of the phenomenon by Rutherford led him to conclude that the positive charge in the atom must be concentrated in a nucleus – a previously unknown piece of physics.

None of these steps forward in physics was ‘expected’ (though in Oersted’s case there was already some suspiscion of a link between electricity and magnetism). Yes, to some extent, these physicists created their own luck, and certainly exercised skill in recognizing and interpreting what they saw, but, fundamentally, they weren’t expecting to see something sensational. Contrast this with the LHC, where something entirely new (but, of course, we don’t quite know what yet) is anticipated.   A machine to do physics for us.

One thought on “Physics discoveries”

  • I agree that “The major science discoveries, almost by definition, are unexpected”, as said in the case of Oersted or Becquerel. Even in my case, amazingly the counts noted were 28 times higher than expected from Rb XRF source, when tested with bare photomultiplier tube 9635QB, in 1988. Four years of experimentation hinted that it could be light emission with very low quantum yield. Two optical techniques that I have developed gave definite evidence for an unexpected “UV dominant optical emission” (room temperature atomic spectra of solids) from both radioisotopes and XRF sources. My sub-atomic research lasted 9 years at the laboratory and 12 years more after retirement until I published the research work in 2010. The findings were entirely new to current physics and most complicate to understand. Eventually, the 21 year research gifted to the scientific community a crop of Six Fundamental Physics Discoveries. Bharat Radiation emission from radioisotopes and XRF sources with energy at eV level is the tenet of these discoveries.
    Two more emissions from radioisotopes and XRF sources were reported in 2011: Bharat radiation followed by UV dominant optical emission by a previously unknown atomic phenomenon.
    [author]M A Padmanabha Rao[/author],
    UV dominant optical emission newly detected from radioisotopes and XRF sources,
    Brazilian Journal of Physics, vol. 40, no. 1, March 2010,
    [tag] [/tag]
    Key to the Six Fundamental Physics Discoveries in the above paper:
    1. UV dominant optical emission detected from radioisotopes present as radiochemicals.
    2. UV dominant optical emission detected from XRF sources present as salts.
    3. UV dominant optical emission detected from metals at room temperature when present as radioisotopes or XRF sources.
    4. Bharat radiation.
    5. Bharat radiation causing a new class of Atomic Spectra of solid radioisotopes and XRF sources at room temperature.
    6. Previously unknown atomic phenomenon
    New Atomic State of Solids (solid radioisotopes and XRF sources). Atomic State of matter exist in Sun
    • Shown a gap in Electromagnetic Spectrum where location of newly reported Bharat radiation is located.
    Application of experimental findings on UV dominant optical emission from radioisotopes and X-ray sources to hospital patients.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *