How Did Major Discoveries in Physics Change the Course of Chemistry - Term Paper Example

?Yunzheng Jiang PHYS 419 Term Paper Draft Undeniably, numerous technological advancements present today resulted from early discoveries though through critical inquiries of other previous scientists, which yielded to more developments. This is especially true in advancing and challenging what former intellectuals stated irrespective of their different specializations to come up with extremely complicated gadgets, for instance, in the communication field moving from stationary gadgets to hand held and mobile devices. Hence, prompting to the emergence of numerous integrations of already discovered theories together with other fields like philosophy and physics. Mainly, philosophy and physics fields in this case usually try to question the validity as well as authenticity of certain theories, which up to date have contributed to the raising of other essential questions. This led to more complex applications that have improved humanity’s standards of living besides drawing a clear distinction between man and other animals, which the latter do not possess such kind of heightened intellectual capacity. Some of the early major physics discoveries or developments that have greatly impacted humanity’s life comprise those of Isaac Newton and Faraday whose respective theories’ contributions are still evident today (Heidarzadeh, 2008). This is especially in the current world where some technological inventions trace their roots from laws these scholars brought forward, though due to certain sophistications unveiled by incumbent scientists appear as if they are completely new. Theme/Thesis: Therefore, this paper will critically highlight diverse major scientific historical discoveries with much emphasis on electromagnetism and thermodynamics unveiled by early inventors and controversies that characterize them even though their respective contributions led to major breakthroughs evident today (Heidarzadeh, 2008). Aristotle’s “Four Elements” Theory development In his “Four elements” theory, Aristotle contended all matter is composed of four basic things (Woody, 2008). These are fire, water, earth and air, which he called “elements”. According to his argument, the nature of these facets based on their characteristics usually present unique “opposites” (Woody, 2008). They have either cold and hot or wet and dry characteristics (Woody, 2008). Based on this expounding, Aristotle without doubt assumed all other things irrespective of their minor compositions each represent a unique homogenous substance though later he came up with a fifth category calling it “aether” (matter that occupies universe). Based on the aether hypothesis, this category comprised of “incorruptible” things whose existence is eternal besides being devoid of clear sign of aging (Heidarzadeh, 2008). This based on Aristotle is untrue because he contended the four matters are basic compounds of an individual except the fifth category (Woody, 2008). The four elements during creation were in proportion with each person’s magnitude though there is no evidence of unit quantities meant for given sizes of human beings. The most intriguing aspect concerning his theory was how he contended the four elements were unique or pure but did not exist anywhere secluded or being on their own except in combined form (Woody, 2008). After the invention of this theory for approximately 2000 years, it found numerous applications in both philosophy and other scientific related fields like physics as well as chemistry (Woody, 2008). Earth despite the scholar citing is a unique element comprises of numerous aspects including rocks and minerals similar to H2O, which based on the current scientific knowledge has elements of Hydrogen and water (Heidarzadeh, 2008). This is completely confusing because based on the current chemistry; it states an element is any substance having a homogenous material whose alterations is only by subjecting it to a chemical process or physical disturbance. This is either to gain or lose certain amount of material constituting it. Similarly, fire can only exist with the integration of other different unique aspects, which implies in their absence no such an “element”. These different aspects include heat, fuel and source of ignition responsible for causing friction or necessary vaporization of the fuel before realization of fire (Heidarzadeh, 2008). Aristotelian hypothesis was an adoption of Empedocles’ inference of the similar four elements, which comprised both celestial and terrestrial bodies whereby his thinking is still evident in modern atomic science though undergone significant developments compared to the then implications (Simonyi, 2012). The hypothesis’ application in atomic science was due to varied and unique characteristics that comprised them to suit their respective areas. This is in terms of mixtures once these elements combine though during his time Aristotle did not put forward impacts concerning their qualities except the four “opposites” he cited initially (Simonyi, 2012). Controversies In his quest of expounding more about both celestial and terrestrial bodies, Aristotle’s point of argument similar to Empedocles’ managed to survive throughout 17Th century. This is because what he claimed during then was observable by mere human eyes though no involvement of any testing. However, due to humanity’s inquisitive nature, his theory encountered numerous arguments questioning his validity based on what an element comprised. This encompassed varied emergent clear definitions and advancements after him mostly evident between 18Th and 19Th centuries presented by different scholars who even came up with chemical equations, for instance, Jean Beguin (Boundless, 2013). Hence, this period marked the start of developing the present periodic table whose exact commence or clear depiction was between 1829-1870 comprising of numerous inclusions of diverse elements’ categories mostly based on their respective properties, which was contrary to Aristotle’s argument about “element”. During 4Th century BC, due to lack of clarity concerning what then caused diseases, Greeks utilized the “Four elements” premise to explain about different health related setbacks they experienced in life. They argued “four Humors” were the core aspects that comprised human blood whereby interrupting them resulted to a person being ill, hence giving more information about body fluids. However, major controversy characterizing this Aristotelian premise is the aspect of prime matter (Macauley & Project Muse, 2010). According to him, once an element undergoes any process meant to distort it in anyway ought to force the element to lose its initial form and gain another, which is not evident with some of the “four elements” he cited (Macauley & Project Muse, 2010). This is evident in the case of earth, which undergoes changing process to loose its initial form into another emergent and tangible form like soil, which is completely impossible with fire. This is because fire entails three essential components to have its existence and does not loose anything through distorting or through any known chemical process to form an emergent state (Macauley & Project Muse, 2010). Based on this theory’s expounding during then it was very easy to understand compared to other philosophers’ works. However, his extent of comparing every aspect with these elements comprising the world tends to differ especially when it comes to human behavior and other aspects characterizing an individual. This is because he argues everything is similar to the relayed four elements whereby the heavier ones, which are earth and water, tend to displace the lighter aspects. Literally, this is acceptable but its authenticity is hard to prove. This is when basing on the current extremely complex aspects comprising integration of different effective approaches especially those encompassing human behavior and psychology. Electromagnetism The current intriguing innovations evident especially in the field of electromagnetism probably could not have attained their complex realizations today if it were not for Faraday’s initial breakthroughs through the premise of electromagnetic induction (Slater & Frank, 2012). However, his initial state of discovery despite currently highly regarded by numerous scholars, was extremely significant. However, this it could not adequately address present day’s applications without various and diverse developments that have taken place so far including those of Maxwell. Before Faraday and Franklin Hypotheses came into existence, people relied on atmospheric electricity though this in numerous scholars’ works does not exist because they tend to disapprove it citing it has inadequate academic backing. This is in comparison to the latter advancements significantly those of Faraday and Lenz’s contributions, which cited the existence of induced E.M.F due to alterations caused by circuit changes (Bird, 2012). However, these clear depictions and statements came into being after numerous trial-and-error experiments involving a conductor cutting across a set magnetic field (Bird, 2012). This is evident especially in Centre-zero Galvanometers incorporated with a straight magnetic bar to indicate effects of an induced field (Bird, 2012). In comparison to the present, this premise has extended its applications even in extremely complex applications though advancements are still emerging as technological knowhow continues to be evident. For instance, this is noticeable in varied today’s gadgets whose core mode of operations utilize Faraday’s original idea coupled with setting of an induced magnetic field (Nichols & Williams, 2009). Compared to other numerous both physics and chemistry hypotheses, electromagnetism does not bear significant contradicting arguments especially among scholars. Therefore, this hypothesis is evident in numerous advancements all bearing almost clear elaborated and proven experiments concerning how certain equipments operate, for instance, movement of microscopic bodies once they are in the magnetic field (Horsley, 2013). Hence, coming up with classical equation meant to determine mass centre of any given subject placed in a classical field (Horsley, 2013). This approach is valid especially for any dielectric mostly characterized by susceptibilities in complying with Kramers-Kronig (Horsley, 2013). Other essential ideas besides Faraday’s that contributed to the current state of electromagnetism’s advancement include Ohm, Amp`ere, Weber, Galvanism and Maxwell theories (Mansuripur, 2011). These contributed immensely to the current myriad of advancements including capacitors, antennae, batteries and others despite their workings being solely from each other after the initial unveiling of E.M.F from a magnetic field. Hence, implying electromagnetism compared to other advancements whose roots emanate from original ideas of respective former inventors, does not exhibit-heightened divergences so far that have taken place challenging these arguments. Controversies Evident major controversies that aroused intense debates despite almost each premise bearing a strong backing include plane wave angular momentum paradox whose prediction theoretically tended to be zero and Abraham-Minkowski controversies (Pfeifer, Timo, Heckenberg & Rubinsztein-Dunlop, 2006). The latter before current resolution encompassed kind of an electromagnetic energy momentum tensor, which was evident in dielectric bodies where based on the argument’s proponents, the two experimental data expounding it were extremely different despite supporting the same hypothesis (Pfeifer, Timo, Heckenberg & Rubinsztein-Dunlop, 2006). This controversy its core proponents included Abraham and Minkowski where each came up with different equations; the former citing materials that tended to influence the speed of light in such a way were slow to depict the same characteristic with electromagnetic fields. Conversely, Minkowski in his argument cited the opposite of what his colleague claimed implying such materials ought to exhibit heightened momentum. This disagreement despite numerous advancements and emergent ideas in the same field persisting for almost a century currently has found a resolution. However, there were resolutions so far suggested by certain scholars regarding this controversy but most of them come up with varied constraints and assumptions or frameworks, which they adopted (Pfeifer, Timo, Heckenberg & Rubinsztein-Dunlop, 2006). This was to show how they come up with their respective arguments though during then, they were not conclusive enough to present a concrete basis. Consequently, this norm of adopting certain frameworks in depicting the validity of the controversy has to some extent led to emerging of errors though not allowed in the realm of scholarly studies. Plane wave angular momentum paradox, which is the second controversy, is about even angular allotment of force with a created electromagnetic wave (Pfeifer, Timo, Heckenberg & Rubinsztein-Dunlop, 2006). However, Stelwart (2005) has presented an elaborative resolution of this controversy compared to Abraham-Minkowski, which adopts a devised framed in its quest to impose a created solution. Thermodynamics Undeniably, thermodynamics in comparison to other varied and essential scientific concepts utilized globally cannot equal it. This is due to the concept’s widespread applications ranging from household equipments to industrial processes whereby the latter encompasses consideration of enthalpy, entropy, heat and gas. However, each due to their respective properties areas of applications based on industrial processes vary significantly. This state of technological knowhow started with inventing of temperature whereby 1600s scientists cited heat comprised of small microscopic components of matter responsible for transporting it from one region to the other through the ordinary forms of matter. Since then to date, thermodynamics has tremendously evolved and enabled man to conquer even the then predicaments that seemed insolvable and hard to fathom especially launching anything in the sky like current planes to equal and even surpass birds. However, similar to other concepts this advancement up to date has not lacked respective hypotheses, which current experts still use and associate them with certain characteristic exhibited by nature. These encompass laws despite the variance of their applications act as unifying factor because that particular process or method borrows a certain idea from them. Thermodynamics comprises of three key essential laws, which are first, second, third and Zeroth mandate with the task of drawing principles of matter as well as behavior exhibited by materials once they are undergoing a give process. The first and second laws based on scholars’ arguments are extremely essential and due to their relations seem to tie together despite having close distinctions. The first principle asserts the existence of energy in varied forms but devoid of any characteristic of it undergoing destruction, whereas the second upholds the hypothesis of increasing entropy in the case of any given system in isolation. The third and final contends the possibility of zero entropy with matter in its perfect crystalline at the temperature of absolute zero. Based on these laws’ implications, the only emerging concept about them encompasses energy, which is the core aspect driving global economy. This is in terms of driving industrial processes as well as other varied equipments commonly utilized by people to ensure their comfort, for instance, in transport. Controversies The major controversy in this field regards the second law versus evolutionism (Erickson & Murphy, 2013). Based on sentiments so far presented by opponents of the second law, they contend those supporting it tend to imply both human and other life forms on earth could have emanated from nothing to the state they are to date. This is because the law implies entropy exhibits an increasing property from a system of lower energy level to its destined position. According to evolutionists, the notion of emerging from nothing to existence is untrue especially basing their arguments on varied evolution premises so far established and proved to be correct. Hence, proving this is a debate that will not only lack adequate and proper foundation meant for arguing but also will continue forever (Erickson & Murphy, 2013). This is due to lack of understanding of just a small scientific concept whereby both evolutionists and proponents of second law by the day continue to wage planned “facts’ war” against each other. In addition, evolutionists while arguing their side question their counterparts how possible could it be something big like universe emanating from nothingness to have the current size and still fail to continue the process. This is because there is no known proven method meant to ascertain whether as per the second law continues its process of expanding (Erickson & Murphy, 2013). Conversely, proponents of the second law do not argue anyhow but have established exactly where it can adequately apply coupled with assumptions involved (Erickson & Murphy, 2013). The latter cites “an isolated system” coupled with contending universe is a matter constantly undergoing disarray. Hence, implying its shifting is from high to lower energy levels, which is contrary to consideration offered in its exact premise for easy calculations. Therefore, the second premise contrary to the evolutionists’ arguments is mainly for comparisons such that one is capable of drawing conclusions based on an ideal situation. Mostly, this is quite evident in physics whereby there is an essence of making out how a certain aspect ought to work and result to suppose there is devoid of any constraints. Controversy between these two premises encompass the second law in its reality cites matter is constantly undergoing random disorderliness, which is contrary to what those holding to evolutionism arguing of nature’s improvement since its creation (Erickson & Murphy, 2013). Evolutionists contend nature The two hypotheses based on the presented argument in their respective expressions end up being against each other whereby one is supporting gradual creation whereas the other disorderliness, which is not the case (Erickson & Murphy, 2013). Proponents point of argument is an assumptions meant to calculation comply with varied aspects integrated in the law to express its hypothesis, which is also evident in other areas though for convenience. References Bird, J. (2012). Electrical and Electronic Principles and Technology. United Kingdom: Routledge. Boundless (2013). Chemistry. Boundless: Boston. Erickson, P. A., & Murphy, L. D. (2013). A history of anthropological theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Here are the quotes concerning debate between evolutionists from the book, “…White was impressed with the second of Thermodynamics, which stated that the universe is running down structurally and dynamically, resulting in increased entropy, or disorder (Erickson & Murphy, 2013, p. 106).” “……According to white, biological evolution works in opposite direction, taking “negative entropy” from the universe and increasing order in the production of complex forms of life (Erickson & Murphy, 2013, p. 106).” Fermi, E. (2012). Thermodynamics. New York: Dover. Heidarzadeh, T. (2008). A history of physical theories of comets, from Aristotle to Whipple. Dordrecht: Springer. Horsley, S. A. R. (2013). Motion of Microscopic bodies in the electromagnetic field. Cornell University Library. Retrieved on 19Th November 2013 from Jenkins, H. D. B. (2008). Chemical thermodynamics at a glance. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publisher. Macauley, D., & Project Muse. (2010). Elemental philosophy: Earth, air, fire, and water as environmental ideas. Albany: State University of New York Press. Mansuripur, M. (2011). Field, Force, Energy & Momentum in Classical Electrodynamics. Oak Park, IL: Bentham Science Publishers. Mansuripur, M. Resolution of the Abraham-Minkowski Controversy. Cornell University Library. Retrieved on 19Th November 2013 from Nichols, C. R., & Williams, R. G. (2009). Encyclopedia of marine science. New York: Facts on File. Pfeifer, R. N. C., Timo, A. N., Heckenberg, N. R. & Rubinsztein-Dunlop, H. (2006). Two controversies in classical electromagnetism. Proc. SPIE 6326, Optical Trapping and Optical Micromanipulation III, 63260H. DOI: org/10.1117/12.678953 Simonyi, K. (2012). A Cultural History of Physics. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Slater, J. C., & Frank, N. H. (2012). Electromagnetism. New York: McGraw-Hill. Stewart, A. M. (2005). Angular momentum of the electromagnetic field: the plane wave paradox resolved. Cornell University Library. Retrieved on 19Th November 2013 from Woody, A. (2008). Philosophy of chemistry and pharmacology. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Read More