To play, click or drag one or more tiles to move them into the empty space. Repeat until you have reconstructed the image.
Image courtesy: iStock/vasantytf; iStock/extravagantni
Fancy some more? Check out our puzzles page.
The post The science of being ‘cultured’: a slide puzzle appeared first on Physics World.
The New York Times recently published a 124-page special issue of its Style Magazine entitled “How to be cultured”. According to the cover of this glossy, ad-driven supplement, the contents were “idiosyncratic” but amounted to a “compendium of what you need to know right now”. The material had been “chosen by experts” for the purpose of “teaching readers how to be more cultured”.
Curious as to what would be included, my hopes were raised by the magazine’s lead editorial. It said that the issue “celebrates expertise, a quality ever less valued in our culture today, where learnedness and firsthand research can be overshadowed by slick presentation and dumb certainty”.
Now, I’m not naïve. I know that the New York Times Style Magazine caters to advertisers, who in turn cater to wealthy readers who feel the need to spend gobs of money to get culture. It didn’t therefore surprise me to have to leaf through 40 pages of adverts for jewellery, champagne, watches and home furnishings before finally coming across the table of contents.
I saw headings for film, food, music, theatre, fashion and the visual arts. Shakespeare showed up several times: over half a dozen plays, sonnet #94 and one of his monologues. There were entries for 1930s movies, animated videos and films from Brazil. One page on food and drink covered porridge from Norway, meat from Mexico, lemonade from Vietnam and wine from Austria.
There was no mention of science in “How to be cultured”, nothing at all
Novels from the US, UK, France, Japan, India and Brazil made the list, as did selections of music from medieval times to opera and hip-hop. Samples of theatre, puppetry and architecture made it in too. But there was no mention of science, nothing at all. The closest I found were architectural materials such as plaster, glass, steel and textiles.
The absence of anything scientific should not have shocked me; in fact, it reminded me of the British scientist and novelist C P Snow’s 1959 essay The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Even back then, Snow lamented that humanists and scientists were living in two separate cultures divided by a “gulf of mutual incomprehension”.
In the essay’s most famous passage, Snow wrote that “a good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists”.
“Once or twice,” he went on, “I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of ‘Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?’”
Snow did not stop there. “I now believe,” he continued, “that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, ‘What do you mean by mass, or acceleration’, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language.”
“So the great edifice of modern physics goes up,” he concluded, “and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had.”
Snow’s tone was snobby and arrogant, but he was on to something. Can someone who knows nothing about, say, Einstein’s equation E = mc2 or about Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle really be called cultured? Sure, cultured individuals don’t need to know much about these topics. But they ought at least to realize that those equations concern how mass and energy work and the inherent limitations to what humans can know.
I’d say those are principles fundamental to the formation, maintenance and fate of the universe – and ones that a cultured person ought to know something about. Indeed, references to them are routinely found in arts and popular culture. Einstein’s equation has made the cover of Time magazine, while the uncertainty principle has been taken up by novelists, theologians and comedians.
Shouldn’t a cultured person be acquainted in some way with the existential threats facing the world?
Further, shouldn’t a cultured person be acquainted in some way with the existential threats facing the world? Wouldn’t such a person have to have an inkling of the way a carbon molecule absorbs and emits heat, of how vaccines work, and of safe and unsafe levels of substances toxic in high doses? How cultivated can an ostrich be?
Of course, there was nothing about the second law in “How to be cultured”, or about any other science of the sort Snow had in mind.
Nothing about scientific equations, experiments, theories or facts that a cultured person ought to know.
No discussion of dark matter, dark energy or of quantum physics, genes or vaccines. Nor about the Pythagorean Theorem or the double-slit experiment.
Culture refers to the influences and values that are embedded in the way we live. Judging such influences and values – deciding which influences and values ought to be so embedded – is a tempting but arrogant game.
So let’s play. Imagine that you are among the experts charged with compiling a “compendium of what you need to know right now”. What would you include of science – and why? Send me your contributions, and tell me why they are what we need to know, and I’ll write about them in a future column.
Send your thoughts to Robert P Crease at robert.crease@stonybrook.edu.
The post Tell us what science you need to know to be ‘cultured’ appeared first on Physics World.
Demons might be mythical, but for hundreds of years these imaginary creatures have been fantastically useful for thinking about science and the humanities. For physicists, the most famous demon was dreamed up by James Clerk Maxwell in 1867. His creature appeared to violate the second law of thermodynamics by letting hot molecules in a box of gas go in one direction through a trap door, leaving cold molecules behind.
Inspired by the rich history of demons, my Stony Brook University colleague Elyse Graham and I created what we believe is the first university course that both studies demons and teaches students to code them. We taught the course, entitled “Demons to think with”, for the first time in spring 2025 and again in spring 2026, each time to almost 100 students. The course proved to be a great way of getting students in the humanities and sciences to talk to, work with, and learn from each other.
We surveyed demons from ancient times to the present and discussed their presence throughout art, literature and religion, where they prey on human vulnerabilities to steal souls. We also taught students about what computer engineers call “daemons”, whose malicious members prey on human vulnerabilities via clickbait and other temptations to steal passwords and social-security numbers. But what struck Graham and me most was the sheer number, variety and ambition of scientifically informed demons.
One species was what we might call one-off demons, which explain puzzles about a specific phenomenon. Back in the early 1950s, explanations that rely on this kind of demon were parodied by the American psychologist Wendell Johnson in his 1946 book People in Quandaries: the Semantics of Personal Adjustment.
Once upon a time, Johnson wrote, people were puzzled by the fact that they could rarely find a lead pencil when they needed one – and when they did, its sharpener was sure to be filled with pencil shavings. A committee was appointed to develop a theory to explain this conundrum.
According to this made-up theory, there are lots of little people called plogglies who live underground. “At night, when people are asleep,” Johnson wrote, “the plogglies come into their houses. They scurry around and gather up all the lead pencils, and then they scamper over to the pencil sharpener and grind them all up. And then they go back into the ground.”
Even though it was impossible to know when, where and on what the plogglies will act, Johnson pointed out, this was a brilliant theory as it accounted for two mysteries at once.
Another species of demon comprises law-governed demons. The Princeton University physicist Eric Rogers gave an example in his 1960 book Physics for the Inquiring Mind. Demons cause friction, in this explanation, because they “stand in front of things and push to stop them from moving”. These demons are transparent and too small to see, and the more demons there are, the greater the friction.
Oil reduces friction because it drowns the demons, while heavy objects crush their bones. The laws of friction spring from the fact that the demons have strict habits in the way they rush out of the pores of a surface and get crushed or drowned, and multiply and return to duty at a steady rate.
Law-governed demons play what I think of as a metaphysical role, for they explain the agency behind the regularities of a phenomenon in a way that can be divorced from the regularities themselves. Scientists can study and apply the laws of friction, for example, independently of the demons that cause it. The laws can be studied in what philosophers call the “immanent frame”, apart from whatever transcendent features are involved in putting them in that frame. That lets philosophers and scientists go their separate ways.
A third category of demons are what we might call placeholder demons. In 1959 the US physicist David Pines proposed the existence of a massless, chargeless quasiparticle that is an out-of-phase collective excitation of electrons. With a nod to Maxwell, he named it Pines’ demon, reinforcing the term with an improvised acronym (Distinct Electron Motion + on).
Back in 2023 a team of researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign discovered the particle – a kind of plasmon – using specialized electron spectroscopy in strontium ruthenate. Pines’ creature was a placeholder demon because it simply gave a name for something that we know is lurking in the immanent frame and only have to find it.
The emergence of quantum physics at the start of the 20th century spawned a new generation of instructional demons
Physicists, finally, use instructional demons. Its most famous member is Maxwell’s demon, mentioned at the beginning of this article. Even a century and a half later it still teaches theorists about the intersection of energy, entropy and information. But the emergence of quantum physics at the start of the 20th century spawned a new generation of instructional demons, including two from Nobel-prize-winning physicists.
In 1911 Marie Curie wondered about a demon that could manipulate quantized packets of energy, while in 1935 Arthur Compton imagined a demon that could open a door for “good” photons and slam the door on “bad” photons that might trigger a stick of dynamite. Working out how far these demons could get – whether law-abiding, law-breaking or law-bending – teaches physicists much about the intersection of information, entropy and quantum mechanics. Instructional demons teach theorists not so much about pieces of the immanent frame as about the structure of the frame itself.
As the science historian Jimena Canales showed in her 2020 book Bedeviled: A Shadow History of Demons in Science, demons inhabit even the most methodical and evidence-based thinking. Scientific demons are like other kinds of demons in that they are wily supernatural creatures with superhuman powers. They are unlike other kinds of demons, however, in that they don’t try to take advantage of human vulnerabilities to change us but try to take advantage of nature’s vulnerabilities to change it.
Postulating demons with supernatural powers is a way that scientists have used to explore nature. Studying scientific demons therefore not only tells us about nature but scientific thinking itself.
The post Meet the demons: four mythical creatures that inhabit science appeared first on Physics World.
Displayed in a sealed case at the National Archives Museum in Washington DC, the US Declaration of Independence is – alongside the Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address – one of America’s most sacred documents. Just a single sheet of parchment, it was signed on 4 July 1776 by 56 representatives of 13 colonies, declaring themselves free of British rule. Even though years of fighting followed and Britain did not officially recognize the colonies’ independence until 1783, America dates its birth to that signing.
For many American citizens, the Declaration of Independence is greatly revered. I remember my grandfather had a copy mounted in the entryway to his home, and when I was 10 years old offered me $1 if I memorized it. I had no trouble with the start, for the document’s first sentence is arresting. “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another”, decency requires that “they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”.
The second sentence is equally exhilarating and unforgettable: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”. I didn’t discover until years later that this evidently didn’t include women, slaves, or the people referred to as “merciless Indian Savages”. Four truths later, the signatories zoomed in. When a government destroys “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” it is the “Right of the People to alter or abolish it”.
King George III was doing just that, they claimed, and the signatories followed with a laundry list of appalling grievances that amounted to tyranny. These included: obstructing justice, bending judges to his will, sending agents to harass and murder people, giving amnesty to those agents, transporting people overseas, cutting off trade with the rest of the world, making the military responsive to himself alone, and on and on.
Current US president Donald Trump claims that the Declaration of Independence led to “the greatest political journey in human history”. The document, he adds, set an example for the world. “The Story of America Makes Everyone Free,” he writes on an official website that has been counting down the days, hours, minutes and seconds to the 250th anniversary of the signing.
The enormous attention that the US administration is paying to this anniversary has made me wonder, however, whether a government today could destroy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness badly enough to make it necessary to alter or abolish it. The answer was staring me in the face. What if it destroyed science enough to make citizens vulnerable to natural threats?
I’ve therefore been trying to imagine a revised declaration. Among the self-evident truths, I think, is that human beings are endowed with the right to protection against nature, that the purpose of science is to understand nature and its threats, and that a sovereign’s duty is therefore to foster science and act appropriately on its findings. A no-brainer, right?
These truths are more important than ever in the 21st century, I envision the document saying. Until recently in human history, nature could be treated as an inert stage for human activity. But human activity can now interact with nature in a destructive way to threaten human life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We experience such destruction in the degradation of the Earth’s atmosphere, in rising sea levels, in the spread of infectious diseases, in the increasing pollution of land, sea and air, and in coastal floods and water shortages. The current US administration, I’d continue, is not only doing nothing to prevent this destruction, but also actively campaigning against people who are fighting it and trying to make the world safer.
Human freedom and independence require developing science to understand and cope with nature’s threats. When science is ignored, nature rules
The administration claims that stopping these attempts increases the freedom of US citizens. It does not, however, and instead enslaves us to nature. Human freedom and independence require developing science to understand and cope with nature’s threats. When science is ignored, nature rules.
Yet the current US sovereign, a wannabe King, has made unprecedented attacks on science. His ignorance, denials and repudiations have unleashed untold damage and destruction to the health, welfare and safety of citizens. His actions threaten not only our lives but human lives elsewhere. His actions even threaten the global conditions that make human life possible at all.
My revised declaration would follow with a long and easily verifiable list of modern-day grievances. These would include the fact that Trump has declared that threats whose existence is scientifically well-established are hoaxes, scams and have “no basis in fact”. He has prevented agencies from investigating these threats and from developing technologies to use against them.
He has fired people who study these threats and installed political appointees to oversee funding of research. Despite publicly denying and ridiculing findings about climate change and rising seas, he has admitted their truth when it comes to protecting his own golf course.
The US administration has also declared, contrary to scientific findings, that claims of outbreaks of disease have been “fabricated” and that vaccines do not work. It has cancelled grants to develop vaccines, attacked vaccine makers, revoked recommendations that children be vaccinated, fired experts in vaccines, and damaged the process of vaccine development.
The US administration has sought to gut or close the most important US science agencies. He has withdrawn the US from international agencies that track and address the most important threats to human life and health. He has invented false facts about nature and forced US agencies to agree with him. And he has damaged and extorted America’s top universities by trying to dictate their research, hiring, admissions, courses and curricula.
My document would reach a rousing conclusion.
A people, it would say, are only truly free and independent when they and their offspring are able to live in a safe environment, not stalked by disease, and educated freely without government interference. A sovereign who ignores and damages science is unfit to be a ruler by exposing the people to the enslavement of nature. Citizens in a democracy have the right to a leader who does not enslave them to nature.
The final sentence of the document would be: “Let us take those rights back.”
Like the Declaration of Independence 250 years ago, my imagined one may seem revolutionary but only expresses what Thomas Jefferson, the author of the original, called “the common sense of the subject.”
The post What a modern-day US Declaration of Independence should say appeared first on Physics World.
Login