freshenthusiastwhispers-blog

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

Cereal companies don’t use ziplock on cereal bags so it will go stale faster and force you to buy more cereal.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

First off, I also enjoy reading about paradoxes because of how it tests the human logic to explain simple things that seems irrational. Also, I like how you’re relating the passage to your chemistry class. The concept of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be hard to grasp from time to time. It’s usually broken down into the three factors of velocity, time, and position. Since time is a one way function and it is usually always known, we can say that the position and velocity of an object can never be measured at the same time even in theory. Measuring one would disturb and change the other property of the particle. I do like how you explain how interactions become illogical when it is down to the quantum level. For example, the typical force of gravity we experience everyday is just one of the four fundamental forces that any particle goes through. 

"In Search of Schrödinger's Cat"

I enjoy paradoxes since they are a way to play with your mind and there’s never a wrong answer in my opinion. There is always an explanation to them but the answer is not limited to it. The passage about electrons reminded me of my chemistry class. One of our lessons was about quantum mechanics. We can’t know the position of of an electron at an exact time, and we can’t know the time when an electron is somewhere. That really made me think because we are able to know position and time of things in our realm, but at a subatomic level we’re not. What’s the difference? We were able to calculate the speed of light; the fastest thing known to men. Do electrons move faster than light? Why is it that we can’t know both the position and time at once? I was really confused when my teacher talked about it during class. I thought science was advanced enough to solve this problem, but we haven’t reached that point quite yet. I did some research but it’s a really technical and complicated topic. After some time, I decided to accept the fact that we don’t have an answer to that yet. Before reading the passage, I never thought that was a paradox. Now that I read it, I can see it be a type of paradox, not entirely, but it definitely has the traits of one. Since we don’t have a concrete answer yet, all we have are theories. There’s an explanation behind them, but we can’t really say if it’s right or wrong.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

On this week’s material, we read through an excerpt from “In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat” by John Gribbin, which focused on the paradoxes and possibilities of quantum physics. The reading overall provides a good explanation of quantum physics through discussing the history and past experiments of quantum theories. Unlike the other reading materials, this one delves into specifically quantum physics and thoroughly explains it through the organized sections of thought experiments. The experiments followed chronological order of time and gradually became more and more abstract. Personally the time space graph was the point where it seemed most abstract and hard to comprehend. Following the graph of electron/positron movement through time and space, the simpler and the most iconic experiment to quantum physics, Schrodinger's cat, was finally explained. What I found most interesting about quantum physics is the unique property of being difficult to explain with our language. It's follows a paradigm that seems completely unique from the common logic of everyday scientists, almost seemingly irrational. It's a completely new field that we know so little about. A while ago I was on a bus ride while chatting to a few colleagues about the idea of quantum physics and how engineers are looking at ways to manipulate its property for our advantages. It came to me that the different fields all have their unique perspective to a new paradigm such as quantum physics. As the last reading had shown, quantum theory could have a philosophical relation as well as possible applications to technology as how an engineer would approach the field. Overall this reading was more information than the past readings in my opinion. It was well written although I was unable to comprehend it completely until a classmate of mine pointed out the relation from an electron to a positron.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

Presentation Style/ Techniques

In my opinion, confidence is one of the most important trait in being a good presenter, and it’s noticeable when you see one presenting with confidence in their tone compared to someone being unprepared. Another key point to presentation that I noticed from attending the WiscAMP Poster session is that some of their presentations are focused on very specialized topics, and in that case visual aid that help breaks the complex idea down becomes very helpful to us. One of my colleague did bring up a good point in terms of applying this to our project, stating that with our hand project, the materials are common and the concept of a hand shouldn’t appear unfamiliar to normal visitors. In our case, the visual aid’s main focus might not be breaking down complex ideas but rather provide details to how the hand was constructed. One weakness I noticed was that a lot of the technical jargon could be hard for some audience, so it is very important to provide different explanation based on your audience. 

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

Fish can see water.

The Fabric Of Cosmos

“Surely reality is what we think it is, reality is what is revealed to us by our experiences. To one extent or another, this view of reality is one many of us hold, if only implicitly. [But] modern science tells a very different story. The overarching lesson that has emerged from scientific inquiry over the last century is that human experience is often a misleading guide to the true nature of reality.”  This is one of my favorite quotes from the reading because it shows that what we think reality is actually misleading. What we as human think is reality is just what we experience as individuals. Each person has differents perception about what is reality.

At the beginning, the author using an anecdote to begin the passage. He talked about how he started reading his dad’s book and how he started to like science. It is a very interesting way to introduce the article to readers. I like how he introduces the passage because it makes me more intrigued in the story. The article shows that the development of physics change over time. Brian Greene mentioned about Newton’s development or also known as classical physics; describe space and time as unchangeable and a structure for the universe. I am realizing how everything can be question, for example, are rocks living thing or even a question like can fish see water.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

i really like the analogy that the the study of the universe is just one big puzzle and our job as scientists is to discover the next clue. By studying the universe, perhaps we could truly answer the question Greene brings up in the beginning about the value of life and whether it is truly worth living. “We put in effort to study the outside world to better understand ourselves within.”, I really liked to way you put the idea into words. This reading was a rather unique one just because it gave me a sense that I was reading something that was rather philosophical yet still maintained the purpose of being scientifically informational. 

Fabric of the Cosmos

Brian Greene starts his commentary on the nature of the physical world and the laws that govern it with a philosophical statement. That is, he asserts that the whole reason he embarks on such a mission to understand the structure of the cosmos is that they may lead to a conclusion of whether life is worth living or not in the end. While unconventional, drawing the reader back to a grand meaning behind every human practice helps solidify its’ legitimacy. We often see STEM as some conglomeration of rigorous fields that are meant for a certain type of people. Yet we are reminded of this very fond idea that Science is meant to be the study of the outside world to further know ourselves better as a result.

An aspect of how theories are formed in general suggests that new ideas must be derived from preconditions postulated by passed theories. Such is the case for most of Classical Physics; the assumed position of a particle through space and time assumes that space and constant are constant and unchanging in their nature. However, our perceptions as humans as well as the feasibility of certain situations we would like to experiment limits our understanding of the way a particle can move. We learn that through Einstein’s theory of relativity, that space and time interact, warp, and change. Of course this takes place on a scale and realm foreign to our experience, where Newtonian Mechanics still hold a strong grasp on the nature of things. As seen, a distinction lies between the approximations that only explore phenomena in our experience, and those that encompass all of the universe. There is something profound about thinking in the abstract. In a sense, we can live beyond ourselves in our isolated experiences. We can connect the dots and define systems of which we are only an insignificant speck of matter.

Quantum Mechanics is a theory I am still struggling to comprehend, and it certainly has challenged the notion of definitive outcomes in scientific study. The fact that objects can have solely probability to exist in a space at another point back or forth in time suggest laws very contrary to the way that we perceive the world. Things get increasingly complicated when another universal theory, general relativity, clashes with Quantum Mechanics. Two different theories which can to be embedded in every realm, create invalid results once mathematically combined. The complications are manifested in the absence of any mathematical structures capable of grasping their nature. This conflict represents a massive barrier in the field of physics, but also massive promise. The fact that some emerging trait can solve a great question in the function of the universe also suggests greater implications. Perhaps this new perception may change our paradigms, and revolutionize the way we know and understand each other. By discovering the next clue in this complex puzzle piece, we also gain a small bit of understanding for the purpose and importance of our experience.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

It seems that you really enjoyed the reading, and I definitely have to agree with you on that. The way he started off the writing was a very unique approach in my opinion, showing that philosophy and physics and other STEM fields are ultimately related one way or another. 

One aspect that I am amazed about quantum physics is the application of it in the computing world with the integration of quantum computers. It amazes me that there are other humans out there taking advantage of such unusual phenomenon and using it to push the limitation of computing power a chip may have. The qubit’s ambiguous superposition and quantum entanglement just brings up so much possibilities to technological advancements. We are lucky to be born in this time where traditional paradigms and perceptions are still being challenged and new discoveries are still happening. It’s a interesting to know that our colleagues may one day go into the field of quantum physics and computer engineering and revolutionize the computing process to continue the exponential growth of technology. 

Fabric of the Cosmos

Brian Greene starts his commentary on the nature of the physical world and the laws that govern it with a philosophical statement. That is, he asserts that the whole reason he embarks on such a mission to understand the structure of the cosmos is that they may lead to a conclusion of whether life is worth living or not in the end. While unconventional, drawing the reader back to a grand meaning behind every human practice helps solidify its’ legitimacy. We often see STEM as some conglomeration of rigorous fields that are meant for a certain type of people. Yet we are reminded of this very fond idea that Science is meant to be the study of the outside world to further know ourselves better as a result.

An aspect of how theories are formed in general suggests that new ideas must be derived from preconditions postulated by passed theories. Such is the case for most of Classical Physics; the assumed position of a particle through space and time assumes that space and constant are constant and unchanging in their nature. However, our perceptions as humans as well as the feasibility of certain situations we would like to experiment limits our understanding of the way a particle can move. We learn that through Einstein’s theory of relativity, that space and time interact, warp, and change. Of course this takes place on a scale and realm foreign to our experience, where Newtonian Mechanics still hold a strong grasp on the nature of things. As seen, a distinction lies between the approximations that only explore phenomena in our experience, and those that encompass all of the universe. There is something profound about thinking in the abstract. In a sense, we can live beyond ourselves in our isolated experiences. We can connect the dots and define systems of which we are only an insignificant speck of matter.

Quantum Mechanics is a theory I am still struggling to comprehend, and it certainly has challenged the notion of definitive outcomes in scientific study. The fact that objects can have solely probability to exist in a space at another point back or forth in time suggest laws very contrary to the way that we perceive the world. Things get increasingly complicated when another universal theory, general relativity, clashes with Quantum Mechanics. Two different theories which can to be embedded in every realm, create invalid results once mathematically combined. The complications are manifested in the absence of any mathematical structures capable of grasping their nature. This conflict represents a massive barrier in the field of physics, but also massive promise. The fact that some emerging trait can solve a great question in the function of the universe also suggests greater implications. Perhaps this new perception may change our paradigms, and revolutionize the way we know and understand each other. By discovering the next clue in this complex puzzle piece, we also gain a small bit of understanding for the purpose and importance of our experience.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

This week’s reading started off with a strong quote of The Myth of Sisyphus, “There is but one truly philosophical problem, and that is suicide,” this came off as a strong quote because I was not expecting the reading to be about philosophy and our perspective of the world. I read this specific quote when I was on a plane and skimming through the essay, and the quote just kept me thinking until I finished reading the rest today. Personally, I feel that the fear of death is from mostly the fear of changes, moving into the unknown. I really enjoyed this reading simply from the fact that it connected two complete ideas together into one, and with the video Professor Ambrosio recommended that delve into the topic of quantum physics, it really sparked an interest to find out how the world really operates.The reading this week was from The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. He starts off with a short summary of the development of theories of physics organized into “realities”. In the classical realities, he brings mention of how early pioneers of modern science thought of studying as a way to make the universe predictable. Putting the complexity of the universe into simple laws that can be understood by an average adult human still fascinates me greatly. He then continues his description of the contribution of Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, on how they explained almost anything dealing on the macro scale of the world. With the Newtonian forces acting on almost all cases and Einstein explaining the theory of relativity. The next part he goes on explaining the complexity of quantum mechanics and cosmic. Showing examples such as schrodinger’s cat  and she he bucket example. Overall I wished I had more time to read the passage for a second time or third because I find philosophical books to be more interesting as you read them more and more.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

I agree with you on how well explained the chapter was. Although there is a standard biological definition of organic matter, I still agree with the author on how interesting it is that from a quantum physics standpoint there is no clear distinction between organic and inorganic matter. In addition, I also found this book very helpful in understand. I also really enjoyed the way he explained the wave particle duality of light, the way he put the experiment into simple words just makes this reading so much more fun for me personally. I also thought the way he brought the introduction back in the end of the chapter really closed up his informative argument, giving physics a philosophical viewpoint. 

The Dancing Wu Li Masters

The Dancing ‘Wu Li Masters was extremely interesting and a great reading. This reading was the easiest to understand and it put most of the words into languid terms. The writing style in this article was fairly easy to read and allowed to reader to grasp information. Even though the reading does use punctuation that is considered correct it is still understandable.

This article taught me a very informational and valuable lesson as it states that chemistry is not only about non-living things. This article puts emphasis on how things respond to stimulae differently but also with Human like reactions. For example when the article states that “ Plants often respond to stimulae with humanlike reactions. They retreat with from pain, advance toward pleasure, and even languish in the absence of affection” This was surprisingly interesting because flowers are such unique living objects and the fact that they respond to different feelings similar to the way we as humans do is outstanding. I also agree with the author that the distinction between living and nonliving things is extremely hard to make. One thing in would like to know is if we were to be able to measure if rocks were to respond to stimulation And they did would they be considered living? Or if living things are required to go breath, eat, or go through photosynthesis.

One other thing that is interesting is the part of the reading that references Black-body radiation. According to the reading “Black body radiation is the radiation that comes from a non/ reflecting, perfectly absorbing flat black body.” The article explains that since black bodies have no color then have no color unless they are heated then if a black body is glowing a certain color then we as individuals know that energy has been added to it. I have never head of Black body radiation and this was extremely interesting to read about.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

This week’s excerpt included a section of The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav. The reading starts off with a strong thought, questioning the definition of organic matter. It made me question things I’ve never questioned before. What does it even mean to be alive? Zukav then dives into how everything can just be just as organic as everything else. The chapter proved itself to be informative yet interesting. It described physics like a story and relates events with the past. The fact that energy can be explosive and not always continuous also relates to last week’s reading. The reading of reading of scientific revolution and paradigm change being followed up by the story of how Planck created the quantum paradigm and changed the world of physics forever. Going through the story, the reader could pick up the basic history and wave particle duality theory of light.  Zukav did a great job breaking a complicated theory into common words and experiment procedures for his readers to understand. The only part I was confused was his analogy towards the title of the book. He chose the chinese characters “物理” which was pronounced wu li to be the title, in which he explains that it is supposed to mean the patterns of organic energy. Although the exotic title might seem appealing to English readers who would find the title appealing, the direct and common translation of Wu Li would actually be physics, thus making the title literally being “The Dancing Physics Masters”. Although confusing, I still found the way he comprehended the word interesting, by breaking apart the first character into two side, you can take the sides literally into organic and matter. In the conclusion, he goes back into the beginning of the excerpt, showing that how complex science and the classification of organic matter can be. He turned quantum physics into something understandable for everyone.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

Human-made objects convey and express the engineer/designer’s personal values and belief through their creation and intended purpose. One noticeable example of the relations between the creator’s intention and the object is the modern defensive architecture located in London. Defensive architecture such as the spikes targeted at the homeless population had come to show that the engineer believed that aggressive structures is the best solution to deal with the problem of homeless people sleeping near. A spike by itself has no meaning, but when they're aligned in an array by an engineer with an discriminatory intention, they can end up expressing the designer’s personal value towards solving a problem. “Defensive architecture is revealing on a number of levels, because it is not the product of accident or thoughtlessness, but a thought process. It is a sort of unkindness that is considered, designed, approved, funded and made real with the explicit motive to exclude and harass.” The intentions of the designer was executed through little details such as the alignment of spikes down the streets of London, these little details such as the placement of ground structures can collectively express the natures and value of modern day London citizens. The fact that the designer decided that defensive architecture was the most effective solution to dealing with homeless population around the area reflects the modern value towards the segregation of social economic classes.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

I like the fact that you mentioned how the passage can relate to the past, present, and the future, which i find to be very true. The fact that we have little revolutionary ideas in the present era just makes all the future revolutions much more important and impactful. I find his comparisons hard to to comprehend at first, but your explanation makes the concept easier to grasp.  

For me personally, his writing opened my eyes to how a scientific revolution occurs and how similar it is to a political revolution. I find it interesting that both starts with some sort of problem (eg. results not matching previous paradigm or ideology of the leader(s) contradicting its citizens). Most research results and data are usually cumulative to the current paradigm, but one unexpected phenomenon can just throw everything off that easily. 

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

The reading, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” offers a different way to think about how revolutions come about. In this case, the author poses the question, “why should a change of paradigm be called a revolution? (pg. 92).” To answer this question the author made use of an analogy in order to compare scientific revolutions to political revolutions, which I thought was interesting. For example, Kuhn argues that political institutions are structured to avoid change and block problems from being solved within that environment. This ultimately leads to a reconstruction period, in which “competing camps or parties” are formed. Then Kuhn discusses the scientific revolution in order to prove that paradigms are debated in small scientific groups. These groups unite to discuss existing paradigms that are not functioning in a way that science can be explored. If science cannot be explored, then that paradigm needs to be replaced with a new one.

By learning about the similarities between science and politics in this reading, it has made me more aware of the institutions around me. In today’s society, revolution is seen as an elusive idea. In school, we learn about the French Revolution and Scientific Revolution; however, the revolutions were never described in much detail. The reading opened my eyes to how a revolution starts based on a shift in paradigms and addition of new knowledge. A recurring question I thought Kuhn answered was in the reading was whether or not new ideas reject an already existing paradigm. Walking away from the reading, I know that a newly discovered idea may add to or refute other ideas, while possibly changing an already existing paradigm or making it more evident. Therefore, this can make a paradigm easier to understand. For example, when details of an already existing paradigm are vague, then more research is conducted.

Overall, I felt this reading was relevant to the past, present, and future. It is important to understand how paradigms affect scientific revolution or revolution in general. I believe the author wanted the reader to walk away with understanding this aspect of science and politics, while also understanding that nature will not always necessarily fit a paradigm.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

In an excerpt from The Structure of Science Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn, Kuhn brings comparison to scientific revolutions with political revolutions. From what he pointed out, it makes a lot of sense of how both revolutions are very similar. Seeing that both usually occurs between two parties, one sticking to the traditional view and one that seeks the new institution. He pointed out that the discovery of new information can be cumulative or revolutionary. Although there are scientific laws such as Newtonian motions and thermodynamics that are almost impossible to challenge or disprove, most research results are still able to be challenged. Practical and applicable research usually produces cumulative information and furthers the current paradigm while impractical and inapplicable researches are more likely to create revolutionary results that contradicts the current paradigm. As pointed by a colleague with an affinity with rubber duckies, many of Albert Einstein’s research was not very common during his period of science research, but he ended up producing revolutionary results and theories such as the theory of relativity and theory of gravitational waves. Impractical researches/ revolutionists are important in the developing of society by replacing old paradigm.

Newly established scientific institutions allow people to see a completely different view of the world as political revolution theoretically creates a better system of order to benefit everyone. As time goes on, however, the author points out that argumentation and presentation of information has became more influential than the actual content sometimes when it comes to political and scientific issues. In my opinion, society would be much more productive if both field were more fact based and informative rather than argument and story based. On informal information exchange platforms such as Facebook, attention seekers often overstate or report false news to gain attention and create false information being shared around.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

I agree with you on the fact that science is ever changing (at least at this moment in history it is), but I believe almost all field of science are just as powerful as another since they're all related in one way or another. Just as how everything in existence has its importance in relation to another. At the same time, I agree with you and the author that science should be taught in a specific in order to make the process simpler and more comprehensible. I also agree with you on his comments and how it makes the excerpt much more interesting to read. I personally find his examples very easy to relate and understand. Lastly, I enjoyed reading your response and liked the way you put the conclusion from the excerpt into a much boarder perspective which I had never thought of in that way. 

Six Easy Pieces Response

Teaching physics, and science in general, in modern times is even more difficult than it has been in the past. The laws and theories are constantly changing and evolving, becoming more complex in the process. Therefore, teaching in simple, individual phrases is impossible, as Point B is dependent on the existence of Points A and C, for example. However, there are certain phrases that are more powerful than others. This is not a concept I would have considered to be true prior to this article, as there are many different types of science, all of which stem from different principles. However, using intuition and experimentation, it is indeed possible to discover many of the more tedious processes relating to a variety of sciences from one generic statement.

In order to convey his message, the author’s style was very informative, with humorous gems tucked into the reading throughout. Although well written, I believe it could have been more organized to make it easier for readers to stay attentive to the message being conveyed. In this case it is that science, regardless of what kind, is something that builds off of itself. This is exhibited through the example of a water drop, slowly magnified thousands of times, to reveal the secret structure that would otherwise be invisible to us. The existence of atoms is revealed to be the one thing the reader would pass on to an uneducated race if he had the choice  — a knowledge that would allow the said race to discover the rest on their own. If it had been up to me, I wouldn’t have selected this exact fact, as it would seem to be too simplistic, but after careful consideration, I too agree that this would be the strongest option.

Although the concept of an alien culture unknowing of science was intriguing, the section that truly captured my attention was the conclusion. I believe this was due to the fact that it put the physical world around me into a new kind of focus. It gave me the capacity to see every living creature as “a pile of atoms”. This is a concept that to some might seem to be impersonal, but to me, it is the exact opposite. It makes the world interconnected, we are all the same, regardless of where we come from or how we look. The connection extends even farther! Everything from the leafs of a tree to a full grown complex human being share the same basic structure, making us one with the planet we thrive on.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

To start off, I really enjoy Richard P. Feynman’s writing style and his sarcastic comments in Six Easy Pieces. Within the sarcastic comments there is a sense of realism and gives the book a more interesting point of view compared to the standard textbook. These comments include criticizing the illustrations and descriptions from a typical textbook (such as how inaccurate a two dimensional drawing of atomic structure can be hard to interpret. Feynman mentions of an issue of whether or not a simpler but wrong explanation should be taught in a lower level so the student can easily grasp the concept of a theory/law to the phenomenon. I argue that the right/ current concept should be taught even at the beginning levels because the simplified concept could distract the students from learning the actual theory. The simplified concept should be used as an additional material while teaching to assist the students in understanding the actual theory. From the writing, I also noticed his preference of rewording concepts into simple terms and processes. (eg using apples and earth to compare the magnitude of atoms) This was very helpful to me as it introduced a concept in a relatable way. I also find his style of writing more entertaining compared to traditional high school textbook.

He first brought up a point of how important the study of atomic theory was, and how the things we can't immediately observe. Feynman also uses an everyday example to make the introduction of the atomic theory easier such as the cup of water. He then mathematically scales down to an accurate measurement of the atoms in terms of sizes. He then brings up the concept of heat within a cluster of molecules and how it reacts with different levels of pressure and substances. I find his way of explaining the subject more like a lecture from an interesting professor rather than a monotoned audio. Overall, I definitely enjoyed the excerpt given to us.

[freshenthusiastwhispers-blog]

Personally, I believe there should be layers to the scientific literature being put out with the simple and urgent reports being accessible and written clearly with simple terminology (e.g. The confusion of global warming with the federal agency). Scientists have an obligation to provide information in an easy form for the people to understand situations where they could be potentially affected.