Eureka! Archimedes Revealed 244
pin_gween writes "The Mercury News has an AP wire that shows science uncovering history. 800 years ago a monk scrubbed the text off a goatskin parchment to write prayers. Nothing unusual there, except the parchment contained writings from a copy of Archimedes' Palimpsest. Now scientists are using x-rays, generated by a particle accelerator, to cause tiny amounts of iron left by the original ink to glow without harming the delicate goatskin parchment. It takes 12 hours to scan one page, then the information is posted online."
First Post... (Read on) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First Post... (Read on) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First Post... (Read on) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First Post... (Read on) (Score:2, Funny)
12 hours?! (Score:2)
Eureka! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that, and the fact that some monk dude scrawled his love letters to god all over the bloody text!
Re:Eureka! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eureka! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Eureka! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Eureka! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Eureka! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Eureka! (Score:4, Insightful)
Screw Godwin's Law. This is one of those rare times when the comparison is appropriate.
This was on NPR last week (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This was on NPR last week (Score:3, Informative)
Of course they hadn't started with the X-Rays at that point.
Text read (Score:5, Funny)
2 Pints of milk
Brithday card for aunt Mavis
Re:Text read (Score:2)
pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels; bring home for Emma
Re:Text read (Score:2)
Re:Text read (Score:2)
Re:Text read (Score:2)
Best. Book. Evah.
--
BMO - tents mended here
New stuff (Score:4, Informative)
Re:New stuff - Infinity (Score:4, Interesting)
Not quite perfect (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not quite perfect (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not quite perfect (Score:2)
Re:Not quite perfect (Score:2, Informative)
The palimpsest includes writings from authors other than Archimedes, though he is by far the best-represented.
Um, look up palimpsest... (Score:2, Informative)
The object in question IS the palimpsest, not the text hidden on it. At least NPR got that much right
So you'll know ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So you'll know ... (Score:2)
Re:So you'll know ... (Score:2)
Regressive Upgrade (Score:3, Interesting)
Library Studies to the rescue (Score:5, Informative)
The summary says "Nothing unusual there, except the parchment contained writings from a copy of Archimedes' Palimpsest," using the term palimpsest incorrectly. By calling it "a copy of Archimedes' Palimpsest," the summary implies that Archimedes wrote something--a Palimpsest--which was then copied and found on this random scrap of parchment.
In actuality, a palimpsest [wikipedia.org] is a parchment already inscribed where the original ink was scraped off for reuse. Parchment, being the skin of a calf, sheep or goat, was in the Middle Ages very expensive (there is an argument that the Gutenberg revolution was fuelled more by cheap paper then by the printing press, but I digress). It was not discarded, but often reused by monks in Medieval scriptoria.
Many works from antiquity, once thought lost, are found serendipitously through palimpsest, many of them pagan works overwritten in favour of Christian ones. So, what we have found is a palimpsest of a manuscript copy of Archimedes, not a copy of Archimedes' palimpsest
Damn kids today! The GoodOldDays when I as a kid.. (Score:5, Insightful)
are common, children no longer obey their parents and the end of the
world is evidently approaching." --Archimedes goatskin, 210 B.C.
-
Re:Damn kids today! The GoodOldDays when I as a ki (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Damn kids today! The GoodOldDays when I as a ki (Score:2)
[wry grin]
I don't remember which philosopher it was (Seneca?) but he pretty much expressed the above sentiments about what he lamented as the unthinking, reckless youth of his time, complaining at length that they were obssessed with pleasure-seeking at the cost of thinking and contributing to
Electron bombardment (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
What Archimedes Forgot (Score:4, Funny)
Excuse me (Score:5, Funny)
OK... So where are the Translations??? (Score:3, Insightful)
If there's one thing that drives me nuts about science these days is that there seems to be such an effort to maintain a hard line between the academics and the "public"...
Admittedly, they could be buried deep in the website somewhere were I coudn't find them... or, maybe they are still working on official translations and don't want to put anything that's inaccurate on the site, but I doubt it- Instead, the passages the translated probably sound boring and so they'll publish it in obscure science journals- All the public will hear about (I fear) is "Look! We're so cool for recovering the pampliset!"
True, they are cool for translating this thing, I agree- But why not give the public a better pathway into understanding the meaning of this find by showing us the money? Would it really kill them? Maybe we, the public, can appreciate the inherent value of even some obscure, boring-sounding passages?
I have the same complaint about PBS and the recent special on "String Theory"- These science programs (which are admittedly better than nothing) work so hard to be accessible that they put a subconscious barrier between "average people" and "scientists" that I think becomes self defeating to the advancement of science- A PBS program on String Theory would be far more awesome if there was an attempt made to make the program a gateway into the science, giving a few basic formulas and some feeling for the real science. Sure, the formulas might seem a bit boring and basic and maybe some folks won't take the mental effort to try to follow along... but a small peek "under the hood" (even if you don't understand it) would still be far more interesting than a bunch of bland generalizations that just tells you they don't think people really care about the important details. </rant>
Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? (Score:5, Informative)
The hard line is in your head. Scientists are part of "the public".
The only thing stopping you from becoming a scientist is a few years of education. During this process you will not only learn the important stuff but also more importantly you will learn where and how to find the knowledge you need. There's no conspiracy to keep information from you, but it seems that you want to know things without actually having to learn them. No one is obligated to pour knowledge into your head. That stopped once mom and dad got fed up of answering your questions as a toddler. You can find all of those "obscure science magazines" at any decent library, or online. Perhaps you would also like to complain about scientists writing in "obscure technical jargon" in these magazines as well?
Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? (Score:3, Informative)
I am being a little hard on them, admittedly... I just think they created this nice public website for a purpose and giving some preliminary translations would further that purpose beautifully...
> No one is obligated to pour knowledge into your head...
The Walters Art Museum receives extensive government grants which stipulates that they offer educational resources to the public.
Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? (Score:5, Informative)
Preliminary translations will take months - once the have deciphered the images, this isn't just a case of running it through Bablefish.
The first step is character recognition - a human has to examine each character and determine what it is. Once that's done, entire words can be examined to see if they actually are words. (Foulups in the character recognition can pridace wgrds taat kjflas moue aljefh.) Once *that* is done, the words can be strung together and sentences roughly translated - if they orange bluebird, then they have to redo some of the earlier steps. Worse yet, the meaninings of the various Greek words don't map directly into English - so each of the words and possible meanings have to be compared and considered in context. (A single sentence can possible have anywhere from 2-3 to 5 or more possible meanings.) That process has to be repeated again at (what would correspond to) the paragraph level, and then again at the chapter and book levels.
Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? (Score:2)
I agree with the parent completely - I was hoping to see translations too. Considering the amount of money that has been spent to acquire this imagery, it would be ludicrous to assume that some very knowledgeable people in this field are not translating the text as soon as it is revealed.
Dan East
Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? (Score:2)
1) Hasn't it occurred to you that perhaps they haven't been translated yet? It's one thing to do a cursory reading of a text to understand what it's about but translating it is a totally different process
Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here you go, here's a rough, almost meaningless translation of a few lines of one of the transcripts [no, I'm not kidding you; I've taken this from the second directory in the DATA section of the website]; it's almost meaningless because I simply never understood half of what Archimedes was writing (never was good with geometry):
as (then) [Nu] of a cone [Kappa][Theta] where from the height of [Nu] of the cone (thus) the circle [Nu] to the diameter around the circle [Beta][Zeta] is then equal to this same
Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks for hunting that down- I think that's great! I just wish they would work that fragment into the introductory section of the website- Anyone who's ever had geometry in high school can gleem all kinds of useful things about this fragment:
1. It shows without much doubt to anyone that they have achieved success, by a direct example.
2
Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? (Score:3, Informative)
I should point out that what I posted was my own incredibly rough translation from the Greek, not a translation by the Archimedes Palimpsest folks. There are good reasons they don't want to officially translate it yet - in classics, you tend to publish a complete transcription and a complete translation together (see the Oxyrrhynchus Papyri for hundreds of examples) months or even years after announcing what you *think* you've found. I tried reading those photos, and they are illegible to me - someone who,
Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? (Score:2)
"Teacher, when will we ever use this? What's the use of knowing ancient Greek?"
And that's why they don't bother to force-feed the "public" to the level of those who study on their own and become scientists.
Oh, as for your original question? Perhaps it takes some time
Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? (Score:5, Insightful)
how can anyone really get a feel for the importance of this discovery if they don't post some of the translated texts? Oh, I forgot- We're supposed to accept the fact that it's important because they say so
Well, unless you have a background in Archimedes, mathematics, or ancient greek (all the domain of "they"), I don't think you're going to be able to understand the importance of even a translated work. Despite your protestations, all opinions on this kind of thing aren't equal. People who have these backgrounds are much more qualified to interpret what this stuff means (and no, that certainly doesn't include me by any stretch of the imagination). I find this attitude kind of strange. You don't actually want to learn any of these subjects, but expect to be able to just read a 2200 year old text and instantly understand the context of the work without listening to what other more qualified people have to say. Would you expect someone who doesn't know C++ to be able to instantly know what the source code of a program means without knowing C++?
It's more than a little funny that you're critisizing the researchers for publishing the raw scans of the data, (so anyone in the world can study them), but not instantly freely publishing the fruits of their labor. There is often a quite valid criticism of researchers hoarding the raw data of vitally important pieces for years. I believe the dead sea scrolls are a prime example of this. But that's not the case here. If you really wanted to you could learn greek and translate the thing yourself. That's the only "barrier" that exists here.
There's also another important point to make here. Have you seen the scanned texts? Even with the special x-ray enhanced versions it's a big mess. It's not as if this is a 20 minute job via google translation. This kind of thing is generally done very slowly with groups of people working together. It's also a competition between all these groups to make discoveries. There was a really good Nova special on the text a few months ago, and translating the texts was a very painstaking process.
Instead, the passages the translated probably sound boring and so they'll publish it in obscure science journals- All the public will hear about (I fear) is "Look! We're so cool for recovering the pampliset!"
Well, science has long used scientific journals to communicate polished ideas to other people in the field. The papers are written for a specialized audience, so the general public likely wouldn't understand the vast majority of them since it's assumed everyone has a general background in the area of expertise. The main barrier of these journals isn't the obscurity of them. With a little less laziness you could easily go and find the names of them. The main barrier is just expense. It costs a lot of money to subscribe to these journals, so your average Joe just can't afford them. There's a movement to change this because scientists don't like spending thousands of dollars on journals anymore than average Joe does, so many people are moving towards publishing on the internet.
True, they are cool for translating this thing, I agree- But why not give the public a better pathway into understanding the meaning of this find by showing us the money? Would it really kill them? Maybe we, the public, can appreciate the inherent value of even some obscure, boring-sounding passages?
Science takes time, and research isn't free. At some point I'm sure that a concensus translation will be available. It might be even made available for free, but I would have no problem with charging money for it. Why should they be expected to give away thousands of hours of work for free? You seem to have this attitude that if it's not published on the front page of the New York Times, then the scientists are trying to hide something.
I have the same complaint about PBS and the recent special on "String Theory"- These science programs (which are admittedly better than nothing) work
Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? (Score:2)
Because 99.99% fo the time the importance of said discovery isnt known. Even if it is, it is hard to convey the importance of said discovery is to people.
Lets hypotheticly take the discovery of a magnetic mo
Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? (Score:2)
I just worry if we don't expect such press rel
Re:OK... So where are the Translations??? (Score:2)
Yes and No- If my favorite TV program had a report saying a scientist did something amazing and there's an easy, concrete way to show what this amazing thing is (such as giving an example of a couple of translated sentence fragments that were previously lost to history) I wish the public would expect them to do that.
> if you're now complaining that those journals are hard to read...
Report Card Grade "enhancements" (Score:2, Funny)
Palimpsests, awesome! (Score:2)
Some great paintings, writings, and music manuscripts were covered by their own artists/writers, not just by others. One should, in my opinion,
Re:Palimpsests, awesome! (Score:2)
One should, in my opinion, remember to knock the artist/writer on the head with a stick - before they destroy their own work.
You're assuming that it's easy for them to do this. In my experience, destroying your own work is about the hardest thing you can do -- even if you know it's crap. It's much worse than being being hit with a stick.
After trying to destroy the manuscript of an unfinished novel of his, a writer was once forced to admit that manuscripts don't burn*. Even if they're destroyed, they'll
Scientific Undiscovery (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Scientific Undiscovery (Score:2, Funny)
Doesn't everybody?
KFG
Maybe they'll uncover Archimedes' long-lost proof (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Maybe they'll uncover Archimedes' long-lost pro (Score:2)
I watched the webcast (Score:2)
Re:Too cool! (Score:5, Interesting)
It was probably the only reason we got these writings in our hand.
If it was just the text of archimedes, then it would have been destroyed during the dark ages...
Since it was a prayer book, nobody dared, and now we have the data.
Every action has consequences, and some of them are inconcieveable
Re:Too cool! (Score:2)
The Dark Ages period is generally agreed to be 500 C.E. to 1000 C.E.. This copy of the text of Archimedes was erased, cut up, and written over in the 1200s. The original (or a copy of it) had survived most of the dark ages, until the most recent copy was made.
Re:Too cool! (Score:2, Funny)
Yet again religion is all that protects the march of scientific progress from obliteration at the hands of destructive ignorance.
Re:Too cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Archimedes manuscript is not the only manuscript reused to make the prayer book - there are several other texts that were also used, including some others which are now also our only remaining copies. These include both pagan writers and other Christian texts. Again, we have little reason to think that any of these would have been considered particularly unique at the time.
Events have not been kind to ancient manuscripts generally; what we have left today is only a relatively small sampling of what was originally a vast ancient literature. The Church has often been blamed, and in the case of pagan religious texts there may be some justice in the charge; but what have doubtless been much bigger culprits for the bulk of the destruction have been marauding armies, fires, floods, and simply the ravages of time as old manuscripts decay without having been copied.
Re:Too cool! (Score:3, Funny)
Let me get this straight, Istanbul was Constantinople? So, now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople?
I guess its been a long time gone, when they used Constantinople. Hmm... Why did Constantinople get the works? I know i shouldn't ask since it's probably nobody's business but the Turks.
Re:Too cool! (Score:2)
Re:Too cool! (Score:2)
It was probably the only reason we got these writings in our hand.
That doesn't make it a good thing to scrub off important science and overwrite it with religious texts nor does it redeem what happened --- it only makes it accidentally good in this particular case.
Re:Explain those "dark" ages (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Explain those "dark" ages (Score:3, Insightful)
And the Roman Empire collapsed when religion became the only thing worth worrying about. You cannot just ignore the effect that christianity had in the collapse of the empire. When religious leaders [wikipedia.org] started killing scientists [wikipedia.org] and burning their libraries, it's very hypocritical to call the churches "bastions of learning and knowledge".
Re:Explain those "dark" ages (Score:5, Interesting)
Mob of Jews kills Christians. Mob of Christians get angry, seek revenge, kill Christians and burn some stuff. That's hardly a matter of being for or against learning and science. It was opposing tribes rioting against each other. Reminds me very much of Northern Ireland, where the problems are really two cultures clashing, rather than two religions.
I'm sure that members of the church did at times have in influence on the decline of the Roman Empire, something I never claimed to ignore, but as the church and state become intermeshed, that brought corruption, so it is more an illustration of the problems of church getting mixed up, rather than a proof of Christianity being anti-knowledge. i think that that the way the church got so involved with the state is a travesty and thoroughly unbiblical. Constantine made a lot of mistakes in that regard.
The church of Rome actually had very little influence on many areas of Christianity e.g. Celtic Christians and Eastern Orthodox during this time, so it's also rather unjust to tar all of Christianity with the same brush, especially given that the Protestant view is that the Roman church became increasingly corrupt during this time, requiring the Reformation. Christians involved with the Reformation had a very high of science and knowledge, seeing it as the Christian's duty to investigate God's creation, just as many monks had previously seen it as their duty to record history, providing us with a great part of the little history we have from the 'Dark Ages.' Incidentally, this view was carried on into latter centuries and well embodied by such scientists as Faraday and Maxwell, who were very passionate about science, but also staunchly evangelical Christians.
I suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia article on the Dark ages [wikipedia.org] to see some of the misconceptions and biases that people have concerning the term and the time.
Re:Explain those "dark" ages (Score:2)
Re:Explain those "dark" ages (Score:2)
Re:Explain those "dark" ages (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Explain those "dark" ages (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Explain those "dark" ages (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Explain those "dark" ages (Score:2)
you will not resolve "the entire question of religion" by evaluating its effect on society. first you will have to resolve whether the objects of religious belief are actually *real* or *imaginary*.
if they're imaginary, you can go on to discuss whether religious fantasies have a net positive or nega
Re:Explain those "dark" ages (Score:3, Informative)
"This concept of a 'Dark Age' was created by Italian humanists and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature.
Re:Explain those "dark" ages (Score:2)
There's a really good book about this story: How the Irish Saved Civilization [allaboutirish.com]
Re:Too cool! (Score:2)
Aside from an incorrect spelling, what was wrong with his use of "inconceivable"? The dictionary [answers.com] defines it as "So unlikely or surprising as to have been thought impossible" and the thesaurus lists "unimaginable" and "unthinkable" as synonyms. We also have the antonyms "fathomable" and "likely", which means pretty much exactly the opposite of the grand-parents intended meaning.
So, do you have anything to say for yourself, or do you just enjoy being mean on /.?
Re:Too cool! (Score:2)
Memorable Quotes from The Princess Bride [imdb.com]
Re:Too cool! (Score:2)
Re:Too cool! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Too cool! (Score:2, Insightful)
And besides as far as most were concerned at the time, this is old stuff from a dead civilization, make room for our new more modern method.
More likely, he simply didn't understand what was written there. The monks might have been better educated than most of the other folks, yet not that many of them knew Greek. Things get forgotten pretty fast if noone understands them.
Re:Too cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too cool! (Score:2)
Meh. I knew I should've RTFA before posting a comment. Now that I have, I almost regret posting it.
Anyway, I still think the writings of Archimedes were erased from ignorance (ie they simply didn't care about Archimedes), not because someone found that it didn't conform with his world view.
Re:Too cool! (Score:3, Informative)
Mod parent down (Score:2)
Re:Too cool! (Score:2)
Doc deleted from parchment really ever deleted? (Score:2)
Just thing of it -- you can't delete a doc from parchment either without some CSI guy scanning it back in.
Re:Your argument is not symmetric (Score:2)
Yep, pretty much. Everything else is just a way to unwind so we can be fresh to do more science the next day...
Re:Your argument is not symmetric (Score:2)
That's one form of distorting what I said that sounds suspiciously close to some form of jesuit debating technique. Did you study at a jesuit school? I never wrote that science is the "be all and end all of life". What I wrote is that it's wrong to believe something, anything at all, is that "be all and end all of life", the way religious people think about their religion. Scientists do not think like that.
When you have a scientific approac
Re:Your argument is not symmetric (Score:2)
Actually I went to fairly standard state schools before reading Physics at Keble College, Oxford.
Re:Your argument is not symmetric (Score:2)
Well of course he was engaging in hyperbole; hyperbole is a rhetorical device. Obviously he wasn't doing physics in his spare time if it was his full time job. The point he was making is that there are more important things in life than physics.
Incidentally, where did I bring prayer into things and what on earth does it have to do with science? One is asking for the intervention of a supernatural God, the other involves the creation of a model that best matches our observations of the natural universe. Pr
Re:Too cool! (Score:2, Informative)
Actually paper was not always as plentiful as it is now. In fact, as recently as the 1800's, paper was a valuable commodity. (reference: history of paper [wikipedia.org]) It's unfortunate, but likely, that countless important works have been erased and resued. Heck, even most of Leonardo DiVinici paintings were crea
Re:Too cool!-scarcity. (Score:2)
During the Renaissance, a number of works by "great" artists (as they are recognized now) had their works "re-used" for the canvas. Before fairly modern times, art mediums were very expesive, and not easy to come by. More often than not, you had to reuse what you had.
Think of it as mideval recycling.
Re:at least he didn't use it for other things (Score:2)
Re:The proper way to write this is: (Score:2)
But apparently you love Deadwood [quizfarm.com].
Re:The proper way to write this is: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The proper way to write this is: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:interesting (Score:2)
Not all christians can be lumped together, not only that, before modern times the only histories of the world WAS religion, you can't blame humans for the times and ages and lack of knowledge of the age in which they were born.
Next people have motivations beyond their christianity, because one labels one 'christian' si