Search Documents

By Donald C. Branford

The place of geophysics in the curriculum of a college or an engineering school has been much discussed. There is uncertainty as to whether the graduate may be called a "geological geophysicist" or a "geophysical geologist." Some have used the term "geophysical engineer." The question of the specialized undergraduate curriculum versus a general undergraduate training in the parent sciences with the addition of cultural electives has been and is still being argued. The literature during the past Io years shows that there are two rather definite schools of thought on this subject. The prospective employer, engaged in active geophysical exploration, visualizes the graduate in terms of the routine work he will do in the field. The school administrator, grounded in many years of tradition in the cultural type of education, visualizes the graduate in terms of his position in a political and cultural society as well as in his work as a professional geophysicist. Both are right and both wrong. A third school of thought, that of the student himself, has been almost totally ignored. It would seem best, for the purpose of this paper, to treat these various points and allied material separately, and then to integrate the conclusions as a set of conditions that should be fulfilled as far as possible in the ideal curriculum. At the end the relationship of our findings to the curriculum that has been tentatively adopted at the University of Pittsburgh will be considered. Divisions in Definition or Field of Geophysics Geophysics is that field of science in which geological and earth problems are solved with the use of physical and chemical techniques. Altogether too much attention has been paid to the artificial separation in this science of the commercial applications from the so-called "pure" or academic geophysics. The only real difference in the two types of work is one of scale of operations. In the commercial field the scale is large in terms of fmancial backing, immediate economic importance, and speed of operations. In the academic field the scale is large in terms of breadth of interests, in eventual economic importance, and length of time allowable for theoretical investigations. In exploration work the scale is small in terms of dimensions, since the methods are applicable only to the outer 20,000 ft. or SO of the earth's crust. In academic work, the student is not pressed for results of immediate economic importance, and therefore can afford to spend more time on problems that seem unimportant at the time. In the sense of background knowledge of the parent sciences necessary to the geophysicist, no essential difference can be found. Physics, chemistry, geology, and mathematics together, and in their proper proportionate amounts, form the matrix from which geophysical ideas and methods may spring.

Jan 1, 1946

By W. C. Krumbein

Geological problems are approached from a geometrical (space relations) viewpoint, a kinematical (time sequence) viewpoint, or a dynamical viewpoint. The first two require sound training in conventional geology and in field methods. The third approach requires a solid foundation of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Modern training for geologists should include close integrltion of basic sciences with geological principles. Introduction Our knowledge of the earth has increased tremendously during the last half century. We know more about its surface configuration, the distribution of its natural resources, the proccssion of living forms that inhabited it in the past, the chemical composition of its oceans, the areal distribution of its surface rocks, the movements of its atmosphere, and so on. Not only do we know more facts about the earth, but we have a better understanding of the processes that take place on and within it, such as the nature of earthquakes, the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, the chemical equilibria involved in the formation of igneous rocks, the mechanics of stream flow, the dynamics of the earth's origin, and so on. Many sciences contributed to the sum total of this knowledge, including such established disciplines as geology, geography, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology. Out of this accumulation of new knowledge grew also a group of new sciences, such as seismology, oceanography, meteorology, volcanology, hydrology. Collectively these latter are known as the geophysical and geochemical sciences, and to a large extent they began as branches of geology. Until the turn of the century, for example, the study of earthquakes (seismology) was a part of geology, although as early as 1846 Mallet, a physicist, had suggested that the subject could be investigated by elastic-wave theory. Comparatively little progress was made along these lines until the seismograph was developed near the turn of the century; since then, additional earthquake data have accurnul~ted rapidly, but more important, the interpretation of these data essentially has kept pace with their accumulation. In similar fashion, meteorology was generally considered a branch of geology as recently as one or two decades ago. Considerable progress had been made in such aspects as weather forecasting, but the science dates its recent rapid rise from the year 1911, when Bjerknes first applied the principles of dynamics to the analysis of air masses. The rapid development of such disciplines as oceanography, volcanology and hydrology was due in part to the application of principles of chemical equilibrium, of dynamics, and of thermodynamics to earth problems, by men who were essentially physicists or chemists by training. The last half century, therefore, and particularly the last two decades, saw the influx of numerous chemists and physicists into the realm of the earth sciences. In the meantime the main body of geology itself showed a marked growth, and

Jan 1, 1946

By W. C. Krumbein

Geological problems are approached from a geometrical (space relations) viewpoint, a kinematical (time sequence) viewpoint, or a dynamical viewpoint. The first two require sound training in conventional geology and in field methods. The third approach requires a solid foundation of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Modern training for geologists should include close integrltion of basic sciences with geological principles. Introduction Our knowledge of the earth has increased tremendously during the last half century. We know more about its surface configuration, the distribution of its natural resources, the proccssion of living forms that inhabited it in the past, the chemical composition of its oceans, the areal distribution of its surface rocks, the movements of its atmosphere, and so on. Not only do we know more facts about the earth, but we have a better understanding of the processes that take place on and within it, such as the nature of earthquakes, the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, the chemical equilibria involved in the formation of igneous rocks, the mechanics of stream flow, the dynamics of the earth's origin, and so on. Many sciences contributed to the sum total of this knowledge, including such established disciplines as geology, geography, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology. Out of this accumulation of new knowledge grew also a group of new sciences, such as seismology, oceanography, meteorology, volcanology, hydrology. Collectively these latter are known as the geophysical and geochemical sciences, and to a large extent they began as branches of geology. Until the turn of the century, for example, the study of earthquakes (seismology) was a part of geology, although as early as 1846 Mallet, a physicist, had suggested that the subject could be investigated by elastic-wave theory. Comparatively little progress was made along these lines until the seismograph was developed near the turn of the century; since then, additional earthquake data have accurnul~ted rapidly, but more important, the interpretation of these data essentially has kept pace with their accumulation. In similar fashion, meteorology was generally considered a branch of geology as recently as one or two decades ago. Considerable progress had been made in such aspects as weather forecasting, but the science dates its recent rapid rise from the year 1911, when Bjerknes first applied the principles of dynamics to the analysis of air masses. The rapid development of such disciplines as oceanography, volcanology and hydrology was due in part to the application of principles of chemical equilibrium, of dynamics, and of thermodynamics to earth problems, by men who were essentially physicists or chemists by training. The last half century, therefore, and particularly the last two decades, saw the influx of numerous chemists and physicists into the realm of the earth sciences. In the meantime the main body of geology itself showed a marked growth, and

Jan 1, 1946

The papers that appear on pages 326 through 367 were presented at two joint meetings of the Mineral Industry Education Division, Geophysics Committee, the American Geophysical Union and the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, at the A.I.M.E. meeting in New York on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, the Mining Geology Committee, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Committee on Applications of Geology of the ilmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists also took part.

Jan 1, 1946

The papers that appear on pages 326 through 367 were presented at two joint meetings of the Mineral Industry Education Division, Geophysics Committee, the American Geophysical Union and the Committee on College Curricula of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, at the A.I.M.E. meeting in New York on Feb. 17 and 18, 1941. At the first meeting, the Mining Geology Committee, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Committee on Applications of Geology of the ilmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists also took part.

Jan 1, 1946

For four years your Committee has been engaged in the study of problems connected with the educational preparation of professional geophysicists. The Present report represents the conclusions drawn from the investigations and deliberations undertaken since it was first organized. These studies have shown that the evolution of geophysics has proceeded along lines that differed from those marking the advance of classical geology. The latter science developed as a descriptive one, dealing with directly observable terrestrial phenomena, and the elementary, rational explanations that could be offered therefor. The fact that these phenomena were also chemical and physical in nature was seldom given more than passing acknowledgment. During the last half century, however, a new approach to problems of terrestrial phenomena has become of greater significance. This new attack has come through the sciences of physics and chemistry, as the people trained therein have investigated the facts of the earth as problems in their respective sciences. This development has been chiefly at the hands of European investigators, and European universities have long recognized it by establishing departments or institutions of geophysics. In the universities of North America, their arbitrary departmentalization into fields of physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc., has prevented the academic recognition of such domains of science as geophysics and geochemistry. In consequence, the development of these subjects in the United States has been largely at the hands of nonacademic institutions, while the universities themselves are evidently in a state of confusion as to how the subject should be handled. In some places an attempt to teach geophysics is made in the physics department, in others in the geology department, in some in the engineering school, and occasionally as a cooperative effort; a Department of Geophysics is seldom found in North America. In some instances, proper academic plan. ning has been precluded by interdepart. mental jealousies, or by lack of appreciation of the significance of the subject. For the background upon which these conclusions are based, the reader is referred to reports previously issued or SPonsored by Your Committee. The "First Report of the A.I.M.E. Mineral Industry Education Division's Committee of Geophysics Education, 1939," summarizes the replies received to question-

Jan 1, 1946

For four years your Committee has been engaged in the study of problems connected with the educational preparation of professional geophysicists. The Present report represents the conclusions drawn from the investigations and deliberations undertaken since it was first organized. These studies have shown that the evolution of geophysics has proceeded along lines that differed from those marking the advance of classical geology. The latter science developed as a descriptive one, dealing with directly observable terrestrial phenomena, and the elementary, rational explanations that could be offered therefor. The fact that these phenomena were also chemical and physical in nature was seldom given more than passing acknowledgment. During the last half century, however, a new approach to problems of terrestrial phenomena has become of greater significance. This new attack has come through the sciences of physics and chemistry, as the people trained therein have investigated the facts of the earth as problems in their respective sciences. This development has been chiefly at the hands of European investigators, and European universities have long recognized it by establishing departments or institutions of geophysics. In the universities of North America, their arbitrary departmentalization into fields of physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc., has prevented the academic recognition of such domains of science as geophysics and geochemistry. In consequence, the development of these subjects in the United States has been largely at the hands of nonacademic institutions, while the universities themselves are evidently in a state of confusion as to how the subject should be handled. In some places an attempt to teach geophysics is made in the physics department, in others in the geology department, in some in the engineering school, and occasionally as a cooperative effort; a Department of Geophysics is seldom found in North America. In some instances, proper academic plan. ning has been precluded by interdepart. mental jealousies, or by lack of appreciation of the significance of the subject. For the background upon which these conclusions are based, the reader is referred to reports previously issued or SPonsored by Your Committee. The "First Report of the A.I.M.E. Mineral Industry Education Division's Committee of Geophysics Education, 1939," summarizes the replies received to question-

Jan 1, 1946

and would also contribute to the post-war employment. -As far as the future is concerned, I doubt whether any of the present geophysical methods will ever be developed to directly indicate ore. However, the geochemical methods and certain combinations between chemical and geological methods now used might be the answer to our prayers for direct and more definite methods of determining the quality of the ore or its relative metal content. Geochemical and spectrochemical analysis of minute content in ground waters, in soil or in plants and trees, living or dead, will be extremely important and I would venture to predict that in the very near future each mining or exploration company and each assay oflice will have its own spectroscope equipped for accurate chemical analysis, not only to guide the daily work in the mine, but also for identifying ores as well as for guiding exploration, geological mapping and the evaluation of geophysical indications. These methods, although they are still in their infancy, promise very much for the future. Radioactivity methods could also be helpful when sufficient facilities for radioactivity determination can be made available. They have already been used to a great extent in oil exploration and experiments have shomn great promise for ore exploration also. As for future surveys of large areas, the exploration for physical contrasts will be made from the air, using aeroplanes, helicopters, etc. Already electrical and magnetic methods have been designed whereby the instruments are carried in the aircraft and by automatic recording the location of anomalies is made in a simple enough manner. It should be possible in this way to cover, say, a square mile in an hour. Later Discussion Replies to Dr Lundberg. J. B. Macelwane.*—Someone has said that if a person knows his subject well enough he can explain it in words of one syllable. The point is well taken and I think the converse is also true. If a person cannot explain a subject clearly in simple words, it is either because he has not sufficient command of the language, or he is not master of his subject. Now it is obvious, it seems to me, that the remedy for both of these unfortunate conditions lies not in less education, but in more. If Dr. Lundberg has met geophysicists who confused and discouraged prospective clients by their inability to talk the language of the mine owner or of the mining engineer or geologist, the fault most probably lay in the geophysicist's lack of sufficient training; but it may also have been the want of ordinary common sense, which no amount of education can supply. It is hard to understand the position taken by Dr. Lundberg. Does he regret his own extensive training? noes he wish to say that he would have had greater success in geophysics if he had been only a mine hand with an instrument and a rule of thumb? As a matter of fact, I find it rather difficult to account for his presentation before this Committee on Geophysics of an emotionally distorted picture of the Report of the Committee on Geophysical Education, after the lapse of an entire year since the Report was read and discussed in its proper place, unless he honestly thinks he is handicapped by his knowledge and training and wishes to warn the whole profession against a similar fate. I regret that I am obliged to disagree so emphatically with Dr. Lundberg's thesis— but I believe it would be dangerous if left unchallenged, both because of the inaccurate statements it contains concerning the recommendations made in the Report and because of the ultimate discredit that would be bound to fall upon genuine geophysics if Dr. Lundberg's recommendations were extensively followed out. S. F. Kelly.*-—The argument that a science and its practitioners can be improved by debasing the standard of educational preparation is indeed a strange argument to come from the pen of a man with the education of Dr. Hans Lundberg. In criticising the Committee report, moreover, he has to a certain extent set up a straw man to belabor. The statement that the Committee report recommends that

Jan 1, 1946

and would also contribute to the post-war employment. -As far as the future is concerned, I doubt whether any of the present geophysical methods will ever be developed to directly indicate ore. However, the geochemical methods and certain combinations between chemical and geological methods now used might be the answer to our prayers for direct and more definite methods of determining the quality of the ore or its relative metal content. Geochemical and spectrochemical analysis of minute content in ground waters, in soil or in plants and trees, living or dead, will be extremely important and I would venture to predict that in the very near future each mining or exploration company and each assay oflice will have its own spectroscope equipped for accurate chemical analysis, not only to guide the daily work in the mine, but also for identifying ores as well as for guiding exploration, geological mapping and the evaluation of geophysical indications. These methods, although they are still in their infancy, promise very much for the future. Radioactivity methods could also be helpful when sufficient facilities for radioactivity determination can be made available. They have already been used to a great extent in oil exploration and experiments have shomn great promise for ore exploration also. As for future surveys of large areas, the exploration for physical contrasts will be made from the air, using aeroplanes, helicopters, etc. Already electrical and magnetic methods have been designed whereby the instruments are carried in the aircraft and by automatic recording the location of anomalies is made in a simple enough manner. It should be possible in this way to cover, say, a square mile in an hour. Later Discussion Replies to Dr Lundberg. J. B. Macelwane.*—Someone has said that if a person knows his subject well enough he can explain it in words of one syllable. The point is well taken and I think the converse is also true. If a person cannot explain a subject clearly in simple words, it is either because he has not sufficient command of the language, or he is not master of his subject. Now it is obvious, it seems to me, that the remedy for both of these unfortunate conditions lies not in less education, but in more. If Dr. Lundberg has met geophysicists who confused and discouraged prospective clients by their inability to talk the language of the mine owner or of the mining engineer or geologist, the fault most probably lay in the geophysicist's lack of sufficient training; but it may also have been the want of ordinary common sense, which no amount of education can supply. It is hard to understand the position taken by Dr. Lundberg. Does he regret his own extensive training? noes he wish to say that he would have had greater success in geophysics if he had been only a mine hand with an instrument and a rule of thumb? As a matter of fact, I find it rather difficult to account for his presentation before this Committee on Geophysics of an emotionally distorted picture of the Report of the Committee on Geophysical Education, after the lapse of an entire year since the Report was read and discussed in its proper place, unless he honestly thinks he is handicapped by his knowledge and training and wishes to warn the whole profession against a similar fate. I regret that I am obliged to disagree so emphatically with Dr. Lundberg's thesis— but I believe it would be dangerous if left unchallenged, both because of the inaccurate statements it contains concerning the recommendations made in the Report and because of the ultimate discredit that would be bound to fall upon genuine geophysics if Dr. Lundberg's recommendations were extensively followed out. S. F. Kelly.*-—The argument that a science and its practitioners can be improved by debasing the standard of educational preparation is indeed a strange argument to come from the pen of a man with the education of Dr. Hans Lundberg. In criticising the Committee report, moreover, he has to a certain extent set up a straw man to belabor. The statement that the Committee report recommends that

Jan 1, 1946

By M. M. Slotnick

It was once aptly said that a sign of approaching senility is ceasing work on a subject and beginning to talk about it. Perhaps that explains why, after many Years in which Part of my duties has been the training of college men in various branches of petroleum exploration geophysics, I have now begun to talk about it. In making an outline of what I believe ought to be discussed under the general heading of the title, I found it almost impossible to subdivide the ideas into an ordered set of discrete subjects. Rather, the pertinent remarks seemed to interlock almost everywhere. The consequence is that it will be necessary to start with the conclusions and then try to justify them by jumping back and forth. However, based on the types of men with whom I have had to deal, the subject naturally divides itself into two parts. In the first part, I should like to deal with the case of those undergraduates whose natural bent is toward the physical sciences and who may decide to enter the geophysical fold as a career. The other part will deal with those many men, geologists and engineers for the most part, who have drifted into exploration geophysics by one means or another, and whom it is necessary to train for geophysical work while they are occupied in their routine jobs. Here it may be in point to remark that most men in exploration geophysics at Present have been developed from precisely the latter group, and that the problem of training here is of great importance even though, in this paper, it will perforce occupy the secondary place. Training oF a Geophysicist The outstanding reason for the perplexing problem on the training of a geophysi-cist is that ideas differ on the answer to the question: "what is a geophysicistp" ln any of the scientific "specialties," like physics, for example, it is relatively simple to pigeonhole a man as being qualified to call himself a physicist. That appellation applied to an individual does not mean that he has mastered only the branches of intellectual endeavor usually associated under the broad name of "physics." we expect him also to have a more than mere acquaintance with mathematics and chemist~ and some understanding of most of the other sciences. But note this important point—we expect our physicist, whom we have chosen as an example, to be intelligently trained so that, if necessary, he can and will know how and where he can get the proper information on a subject in which he is not a specialist; he will know how to absorb that information and turn it to his uses. It seems to me that this is the outstanding characteristic of a man who can truly call himself a scientist: that he is a specialist in one of the broad branches of science in that he has enough training and discipline in the scientific approach so that, when called upon to do so, he can inteugently absorb knowledge from another bordering science (and all sciences not only border upon one another to some extent, but more often, overlap One another), and

Jan 1, 1946

By M. M. Slotnick

It was once aptly said that a sign of approaching senility is ceasing work on a subject and beginning to talk about it. Perhaps that explains why, after many Years in which Part of my duties has been the training of college men in various branches of petroleum exploration geophysics, I have now begun to talk about it. In making an outline of what I believe ought to be discussed under the general heading of the title, I found it almost impossible to subdivide the ideas into an ordered set of discrete subjects. Rather, the pertinent remarks seemed to interlock almost everywhere. The consequence is that it will be necessary to start with the conclusions and then try to justify them by jumping back and forth. However, based on the types of men with whom I have had to deal, the subject naturally divides itself into two parts. In the first part, I should like to deal with the case of those undergraduates whose natural bent is toward the physical sciences and who may decide to enter the geophysical fold as a career. The other part will deal with those many men, geologists and engineers for the most part, who have drifted into exploration geophysics by one means or another, and whom it is necessary to train for geophysical work while they are occupied in their routine jobs. Here it may be in point to remark that most men in exploration geophysics at Present have been developed from precisely the latter group, and that the problem of training here is of great importance even though, in this paper, it will perforce occupy the secondary place. Training oF a Geophysicist The outstanding reason for the perplexing problem on the training of a geophysi-cist is that ideas differ on the answer to the question: "what is a geophysicistp" ln any of the scientific "specialties," like physics, for example, it is relatively simple to pigeonhole a man as being qualified to call himself a physicist. That appellation applied to an individual does not mean that he has mastered only the branches of intellectual endeavor usually associated under the broad name of "physics." we expect him also to have a more than mere acquaintance with mathematics and chemist~ and some understanding of most of the other sciences. But note this important point—we expect our physicist, whom we have chosen as an example, to be intelligently trained so that, if necessary, he can and will know how and where he can get the proper information on a subject in which he is not a specialist; he will know how to absorb that information and turn it to his uses. It seems to me that this is the outstanding characteristic of a man who can truly call himself a scientist: that he is a specialist in one of the broad branches of science in that he has enough training and discipline in the scientific approach so that, when called upon to do so, he can inteugently absorb knowledge from another bordering science (and all sciences not only border upon one another to some extent, but more often, overlap One another), and

Jan 1, 1946

By Walter H. Bucher

This symposium is designed to lay the basis for a general discussion of the place of geophysics in the training of geologists. As there is danger that in the ensuing debate individual interests may be given emphasis out of proportion to their place, we shall do well to view the whole field of geological inquiry in order to see the problem in true perspective. The Nature of Geological Inquiry "Basic" and "Complex" Sciences It is convenient to divide all science into two major divisions, the basic and the complex sciences. The basic sciences separate out from reality such entities as "substances" and "movements," describe their behavior in terms of arbitrary units of measurement and derive from them by progressive abstractions concepts and patterns of behavior that exist between them, so-called general "laws" and "properties" of nature. The complex sciences, on the other hand, deal, with little or no abstraction, with those objects of reality that are accessible to man in the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere. Their work comprises two types of inquiry. One is concerned with abstractions to the extent of dealing with types rather than individuals—that is, with such things as plants, animals, protoplasm; clouds, streams, gla- ciers; volcanoes and mountain ranges. It comprises the search for general properties and patterns of behavior or "laws" that characterize the objects and their reactions to each other. These properties and laws apply always, everywhere. They are independent of the stream of time. We may call the results of this sort of inquiry timeless knowledge. The other type of inquiry is concerned with the objects themselves—that is, with this animal and that plant; this river system and that mountain chain; this glacier and that valley. Like all concrete objects in nature, they are subject to change with the passage of time, especially when it is measured in years, centuries, eons. The characteristics by which we recognize them —indeed, their very existence—are dependent on their position at this point in the stream of time. This we may call time-bound kntowledge. The so-called descriptive sciences are all bound to the past of which the objects of their study are the product and through which alone their present properties call be understood. They are historical sciences. This obvious fact is easily overlooked, which leads to serious misunderstanding, as we shall see later. Dynamic Geology With this broad picture in mind, let us now examine the nature of geological inquiry, defining, for the purposes of this discussion, geology as the science of rocks. Air is not a rock; water is. Meteorology and climatology are, correspondingly, gen-

Jan 1, 1946

By Walter H. Bucher

This symposium is designed to lay the basis for a general discussion of the place of geophysics in the training of geologists. As there is danger that in the ensuing debate individual interests may be given emphasis out of proportion to their place, we shall do well to view the whole field of geological inquiry in order to see the problem in true perspective. The Nature of Geological Inquiry "Basic" and "Complex" Sciences It is convenient to divide all science into two major divisions, the basic and the complex sciences. The basic sciences separate out from reality such entities as "substances" and "movements," describe their behavior in terms of arbitrary units of measurement and derive from them by progressive abstractions concepts and patterns of behavior that exist between them, so-called general "laws" and "properties" of nature. The complex sciences, on the other hand, deal, with little or no abstraction, with those objects of reality that are accessible to man in the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere. Their work comprises two types of inquiry. One is concerned with abstractions to the extent of dealing with types rather than individuals—that is, with such things as plants, animals, protoplasm; clouds, streams, gla- ciers; volcanoes and mountain ranges. It comprises the search for general properties and patterns of behavior or "laws" that characterize the objects and their reactions to each other. These properties and laws apply always, everywhere. They are independent of the stream of time. We may call the results of this sort of inquiry timeless knowledge. The other type of inquiry is concerned with the objects themselves—that is, with this animal and that plant; this river system and that mountain chain; this glacier and that valley. Like all concrete objects in nature, they are subject to change with the passage of time, especially when it is measured in years, centuries, eons. The characteristics by which we recognize them —indeed, their very existence—are dependent on their position at this point in the stream of time. This we may call time-bound kntowledge. The so-called descriptive sciences are all bound to the past of which the objects of their study are the product and through which alone their present properties call be understood. They are historical sciences. This obvious fact is easily overlooked, which leads to serious misunderstanding, as we shall see later. Dynamic Geology With this broad picture in mind, let us now examine the nature of geological inquiry, defining, for the purposes of this discussion, geology as the science of rocks. Air is not a rock; water is. Meteorology and climatology are, correspondingly, gen-

Jan 1, 1946

By Benjamin L. Miller

The essential differences expressed by the different speakers participating in this symposium concern merely the relative emphasis placed on the subjects that are commonly included under the term "geophysics" and the branches of science that form the basis for investigations in this field. In order to appreciate the present situation it may be profitable to briefly refer to a few historical matters. One can find almost countless descriptions of geological phenomena long antedating the introduction of the title of "geology," which has been credited to Richard de Bury in the fourteenth century. Interpretations, when they were offered, were generally pure speculation. Only toward the close of the eighteenth century do we find theories developed as the result of observations and tested by additional observations. It is difficult to select and give proper credit to the individual who was particularly responsible for turning geology into a distinctly observational science. william Smith, who has been called the "Father of English Geology," certainly represents the period when observation was the only method used. As he traveled through the British Isles, "sometimes 10,000 miles in a year," he was continually making notes of his observations. Geikie says: "His plain, solid, matter of fact intellect never branched into theory or speculation, but occupied itself wholly in the observation of facts." William Smith, with others of his time, definitely laid firmly the foundations on which modern geology has been built. Field and laboratory observations can no longer be said to constitute the sole basis for geologic contributions but we have not laid aside the methods of Smith and his followers. It is folly to underestimate the fundamental value of the observational part of geology in the present. The objection to purely observational geology is that it is mainly qualitative and not quantitative, general and not specific. No one can deny this charge and probably there are few who do not welcome every method or process whereby we can put aside generalities for definite established values. Physics is the science that has particularly come to the aid of the geologist in this respect. Contributions of PhYsics It is not the intent of the writer to enumerate or to evaluate all of the contributions to geologic advance in the field of. physics. A few only are used for the purpose of illustration, When Clarence King, Director of the United States Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel, invited Ferdinand Zirkel to study 2500 thin sections of rocks collected from the western United States, the use of the microscope came into general use. Zirkel's report was published in 1876. He was not the first to use transmitted light for microscopic rock determination, some work having been done by Henry Clifton Sorby and others some years earlier, but he was the first to put into general use this method. We may well daim that this

Jan 1, 1946

By Benjamin L. Miller

The essential differences expressed by the different speakers participating in this symposium concern merely the relative emphasis placed on the subjects that are commonly included under the term "geophysics" and the branches of science that form the basis for investigations in this field. In order to appreciate the present situation it may be profitable to briefly refer to a few historical matters. One can find almost countless descriptions of geological phenomena long antedating the introduction of the title of "geology," which has been credited to Richard de Bury in the fourteenth century. Interpretations, when they were offered, were generally pure speculation. Only toward the close of the eighteenth century do we find theories developed as the result of observations and tested by additional observations. It is difficult to select and give proper credit to the individual who was particularly responsible for turning geology into a distinctly observational science. william Smith, who has been called the "Father of English Geology," certainly represents the period when observation was the only method used. As he traveled through the British Isles, "sometimes 10,000 miles in a year," he was continually making notes of his observations. Geikie says: "His plain, solid, matter of fact intellect never branched into theory or speculation, but occupied itself wholly in the observation of facts." William Smith, with others of his time, definitely laid firmly the foundations on which modern geology has been built. Field and laboratory observations can no longer be said to constitute the sole basis for geologic contributions but we have not laid aside the methods of Smith and his followers. It is folly to underestimate the fundamental value of the observational part of geology in the present. The objection to purely observational geology is that it is mainly qualitative and not quantitative, general and not specific. No one can deny this charge and probably there are few who do not welcome every method or process whereby we can put aside generalities for definite established values. Physics is the science that has particularly come to the aid of the geologist in this respect. Contributions of PhYsics It is not the intent of the writer to enumerate or to evaluate all of the contributions to geologic advance in the field of. physics. A few only are used for the purpose of illustration, When Clarence King, Director of the United States Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel, invited Ferdinand Zirkel to study 2500 thin sections of rocks collected from the western United States, the use of the microscope came into general use. Zirkel's report was published in 1876. He was not the first to use transmitted light for microscopic rock determination, some work having been done by Henry Clifton Sorby and others some years earlier, but he was the first to put into general use this method. We may well daim that this

Jan 1, 1946

The Geophysics Education Committee has devoted several years to a consideration of the problem of training geophysi-cists. Past reports have dealt largely with fact finding and with the discussion of particular aspects of geophysical education. In the present report it is proposed to review the subject more comprehensively. This involves the question of what educational qualifications the geophysicist of the highest professional standards should possess, and the related question of what changes must be effected in existing educational institutions in order that prospective professional geophysicists may obtain instruction of the desired quality. The type of geophysicist here contemplated is one familiar with what is known already in the several branches of earth physics, and capable not only of following contemporary progress in any of these branches, but of contributing to that progress in a research capacity. Geophysics in its broadest sense, as has been emphasized repeatedly by this Committee, is the study of the physics of the earth and of terrestrial processes. This includes both the static and the dynamic characteristics of the gaseous, the liquid, and the solid portions of the earth, as well as its gravitational, thermal, and magnetic and electrical manifestations. Some branches of earth physics have been cultivated but slightly; others have reached an advanced state of development. Those branches whose development is sufficient to warrant explicit recognition in the form of organized Sections of the American Geophysical Union are: geodesy, seismology, tectonophysics, and volcanology, dealing with the rock constituents of the earth; oceanography and hydrology with the aqueous constituents; meteorology with the atmospheric constituents; and terrestrial electricity and magnetism with the electromagnetic manifestations. At present, instruction on the professional level in any of these branches of earth physics can be obtained in but few universities in North America. In most institutions where such instruction is undertaken different subjects are given in different and independent departments. Geodesy and hydrology are taught, if at all, as a part of civil engineering. The nearest approach to volcanology and tectonophysics ordinarily is represented by petrology and structural geology given

Jan 1, 1946

The Geophysics Education Committee has devoted several years to a consideration of the problem of training geophysi-cists. Past reports have dealt largely with fact finding and with the discussion of particular aspects of geophysical education. In the present report it is proposed to review the subject more comprehensively. This involves the question of what educational qualifications the geophysicist of the highest professional standards should possess, and the related question of what changes must be effected in existing educational institutions in order that prospective professional geophysicists may obtain instruction of the desired quality. The type of geophysicist here contemplated is one familiar with what is known already in the several branches of earth physics, and capable not only of following contemporary progress in any of these branches, but of contributing to that progress in a research capacity. Geophysics in its broadest sense, as has been emphasized repeatedly by this Committee, is the study of the physics of the earth and of terrestrial processes. This includes both the static and the dynamic characteristics of the gaseous, the liquid, and the solid portions of the earth, as well as its gravitational, thermal, and magnetic and electrical manifestations. Some branches of earth physics have been cultivated but slightly; others have reached an advanced state of development. Those branches whose development is sufficient to warrant explicit recognition in the form of organized Sections of the American Geophysical Union are: geodesy, seismology, tectonophysics, and volcanology, dealing with the rock constituents of the earth; oceanography and hydrology with the aqueous constituents; meteorology with the atmospheric constituents; and terrestrial electricity and magnetism with the electromagnetic manifestations. At present, instruction on the professional level in any of these branches of earth physics can be obtained in but few universities in North America. In most institutions where such instruction is undertaken different subjects are given in different and independent departments. Geodesy and hydrology are taught, if at all, as a part of civil engineering. The nearest approach to volcanology and tectonophysics ordinarily is represented by petrology and structural geology given

Jan 1, 1946

By Christopher Phillips

In light of recent events in the mining industry, there has been an increasing demand for technology to detect underground voids and abandoned mine workings. This paper summarizes the use of geophysical methods for this application. Geophysical methods have been successfully employed in the detection of underground voids in several disciplines, including foundation analysis, road and infrastructure analysis, and darn analysis, but is not yet being widely employed by the mining industry. The principal reasons are that the combination of the complex geological setting of a mine, mine design, surface conditions, and improper choice of geophysical method often makes the task of locating abandoned mine workings with geophysics a frustrating, time consuming, and often unsuccessful venture. While there are several geophysical methods that have been demonstrated for the successful detection of abandoned mine workings, there is still no 'silver bullet' to solve the problem in every case. The choice of geophysical method to detect abandoned mine workings should be made on a site specific, and sometimes target specific, level. This paper reviews current methods, and introduces recently developed methods, for the detection of underground voids and abandoned mine workings.

Jan 1, 2003

The exploration industry generally has a low opinion of the quality of the service supplied to it by government departments. In particular, the academic research-related emphasis of the Bureau of Mineral Resources (BMR) and the relatively low level of explora- tion assistance offered by several Mines Departments are of concern. In a number of areas of geoscience research, the industry perceives a mixup of priorities and a lack of understanding on the part of governments as to its needs. While government's sights are, and should be, set on the future needs of the community at large, the industry doubts that government budget allocations to the BMR and Mines Departments are either large enough or being cost-effectively spent. This is certainly the case for such areas as exploration assist- ance, provision of basic exploration data, and applied geoscientific research. On balance, the exploration industry's perceptions are misguided in a number of respects because of a lack of communication with government. However, this reinforces the need for changes in the manner in which govern- ment departments communicate with industry and, in particular, the criteria upon which research priorities are based. At a time of contracting oil and mineral exploration expenditure, and near-record levels of geoscientist unemployment, the government's role is critical and should be open to question.

Jan 1, 1986

By F. McIntosh Galbraith

EMPLOYING geophysics to find ore was for a long time considered by the Canadian mining fraternity to be a performance of dubious value: in a category somewhere between the practice of sorcery, and using a divining rod to locate underground water. With increasing knowledge, however, and with constantly improving instruments, a solid speaking acquaintance with this adolescent science is becoming an integral part of the mining geologist's stock in trade. And quite properly so: for, in the established mining districts, the ore deposits which could be easily found, by ordinary prospecting methods, have already been located. There remain; however, in almost all of the principal mining camps, areas which are covered to varying depths by glacial debris; and it is here that the obvious opportunities exist for the successful application of geophysical methods. Geophysical results must always be considered in the closest possible relation to the local geology; and, in reality, the 'doodle-bugs' are simply additional tools for the geologist (in the same category with a plane table or a microscope). The Sudbury Basin is a shining example of precisely this state of affairs. Detailed geological mapping has not significantly altered the position of the outer norite contact as placed on Dr. Coleman's original map of the district. What detailed examination has done, of course, has been to reveal the accuracy with which the contact can be placed in different parts of the district, and to show up, in consequence, areas in which further work might reasonably be expected to disclose hitherto unknown or unsuspected ore. Viewed in this light, the proportion of the norite contact which is covered by substantial quantities of overburden is astonishingly large.

Jan 1, 1939