Innovation Or Coordinated Organization Of Scientific Facts, The Real Mark Of Sustenance?

 “Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow.”- William Pollard

“The construction of life is at present in the power of facts far more than convictions.”- Walter Benjamin

‘Innovation’, as defined by Dr. Ramon Sanchez, Harvard University, is the process of using creative acts to generate a quantifiable outcome. Essentially, it is the outcome of an interaction of creativity with ability or intelligence. Today, we live in a world that observes innovation on a very regular basis. Take for example, the creation of the first smartphone to the discovery of the Higgs-Boson Particle to virtual reality; we live in a very fast paced world which requires newer and newer ideas more frequently than ever. However, as students of physical, formal and life sciences, we do often study the theories of great scientists such as Faraday, Dalton, Thomson, Chadwick, Bohr and many others. These theories are often presented in the form of compilations of postulates that have been derived from the scientist’s experiments. For example, look at Dalton’s Atomic Theory. Four (or five, in some cases) postulates that have been inferred from his observations and some of other scientists, inferences that make complete sense when placed together and help in explaining other such laws and theories. It is this form of compilation of data in such theories that I refer to as ‘coordinated organization of scientific facts’. Personally speaking, I find both coordinated organization of scientific facts and innovation equally important because together they form a cycle where the creation of one generally results in the. It is true that without innovation, we as humans cannot progress or evolve. However these facts and ideas are generally inadequate until they are compiled and analyzed together. To explain my point of view, I will now talk about Faraday’s experiments with electrolysis and the history of the atomic model and show how important innovation and organization of facts are for each other.

In 1832, Michael Faraday showed that electricity could be passed through aqueous solutions of certain substances which he took to calling ‘electrolytes’. He also observed that passing electricity through these solutions caused chemical changes, a phenomenon he called ‘electrolysis’. During electrolysis, Faraday also observed that the charged particles would migrate towards oppositely charged electrodes and either get accumulated on them or escape in the form of gases. Faraday’s experiments further revealed that matter is electrical in nature. Faraday summarized his results in the form of two laws (now known as Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis). These laws provide a quantitative relationship between electricity and matter. They also imply that electricity is discrete in nature.

This is an example of innovation paves the way for organization of facts. Faraday used his creativity and experimented, resulting in him making a discovery. He compiled the results that he obtained and presented all the data he had, leading to the formation of two scientific laws. And we all do know how important electrolysis is. The next example will be that of organization of facts preceding innovation.

After the electron and the proton were discovered by Sir J.J. Thomson and E. Goldstein, Thomson proposed the first model of the atom in 1904 in order to answer the question regarding the arrangement of particles in atoms. This model is known as J.J. Thomson’s Model or the Plum-Pudding model of the atom.

Thomson’s model basically said that an atom was a sphere of positive charge in which electrons were embedded like plums in a pudding, therefore the name. It was a good attempt at discovering the structure of an atom but more than that, it is a very good example of the importance of facts when innovating. At this point of time, the neutron had not been discovered. Therefore this model failed to explain subsequent experiments done on atoms, such as the 1911 Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden experiment which I will talk about later. Thomson’s model was not a bad model but it did not take into consideration, the possibility of a nucleus or another particle. Therefore, it was rejected shortly after it was proposed.

In 1911, E. Rutherford, H. Geiger and E. Marsden performed the historical α-particle scattering experiment which proved the presence of a nucleus within the atom. The experiment essentially involved the scattering of α-particles using a gold foil. This experiment provided a wealth of information about the composition of an atom. It was the main reason why the Plum-pudding model of the atom was abandoned. Thus, this experiment changed our whole idea of the composition of an atom. It brought out facts that scientists earlier had not known and this led to another great innovation. It was because of this experiment that Rutherford came out with his own model of the atom.

The Rutherford atomic model, also known as the nuclear model of the atom or the planetary model of the atom, described the atom as a compact positively charged core called a nucleus, in which almost all the mass was concentrated. Around the nucleus, the light, negative constituents called electrons revolved at some distance. It was a good model because it showed that the positive charge was in fact concentrated around the centre. But it did have the same issue as Thomson’s model. Due to the lack of knowledge about our missing particle, his model showed an incomplete structure. Rutherford did predict that a kind of neutral particle with mass equal to that of a proton had to be present in the nucleus of an atom in 1920 but he could not support his hypothesis via experimental means. It was only in 1932 that James Chadwick discovered the neutral particle that Rutherford was talking about, a particle that we now call the neutron.

Also, Rutherford’s model assumed that the atom consisted of a heavy positively charged nucleus around which negatively charged electrons moved around in orbits in an empty space. This was not possible because of Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Theory. If this theory were to be followed, the electrons on losing energy in the form of electromagnetic waves would decrease in radius and collide with the nucleus, resulting in the collapse of the atom. The facts were already in front of him but his failure to adhere to them resulting in the disapproval of his model.

It took time but with each new innovation, our set of facts related to the structure of the atom became more and more complete. In 1913, Niels Bohr came up with his own atomic model that adhered to all the theories and laws that had been proven earlier. It, a radical departure from earlier, classical descriptions, was the first that incorporated the theory of quantum mechanics. It could not explain the spectra of atoms, the formation and geometry of molecules, the dual nature of electrons and was not compatible with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. It did however lead to the creation of the Wave Mechanical (or the Quantum Mechanical) Model of the atom, the model that is studied even today.

Enough of the past though, I think it is time to talk about an idea that is a bit more modern. TRIZ, developed by G.S. Altshuller, is a problem solving method based on logic and data which accelerates a person’s ability to solve these problems creatively. TRIZ stands for ‘Theoria Resheneyva Isobretatelskehuh Zadach’ (‘Theory of Inventive Problem Solving’ in English). It provides repeatability, predictability, and reliability because of the algorithmic approach it follows. TRIZ is based on two basic principles:-

• Somebody, sometime, somewhere has already solved your problem or one similar to it. Creativity means finding that solution and adapting it to the current problem.
• Don’t accept contradictions. Resolve them.

A list of the 40 principles that TRIZ uses has been provided below. These are 40 organized facts with almost no connect that have been compiled and are used to find innovative solutions.

In the end, I would like to say that innovation and coordinated organization of scientific facts cannot hold much significance in the fast pace of the modern world if they are kept separate. Only when they are brought together and incorporated with each other they can act as probably the only true mark of sustenance there is in our path towards scientific and technological evolution. I will now end my essay with a quote by the current richest man in this world (as of 23rd August, 2017), Bill Gates,

 “I believe in innovation and that the way you get innovation is you fund research and you learn the basic facts.”