sheepandsnowflakes-blog

[sheepandsnowflakes-blog]

As I read your reaction to this week’s reading, I find myself having many of the same feelings and thoughts towards the literature which you expressed. Particularly, I discovered that we both focused our interest on the same experiment, “The Clock in the Box”. One thing which you mentioned that I did not previously consider is how the spring system actually works. I focused more on how the nuts and bolts of the experiment were vital, whereas you are more interested in the outcomes and analysis of the work. This appeals to me because it shows how while 28 students all read the same literature, the analysis from each student is distinctly different and analyzed originally. In this case, we chose the same experiment, yet the responses were still unique, and that really intrigues me. Finally, I also found much of the text rather confusing, as it was either not explained in depth enough or the terminology used was too difficult for me to comprehend. I still feel that the reading was very interesting and that I learned a lot from it, despite the challenges I encountered with unfamiliar terminology. Overall, I enjoyed your reaction to the “Clock in the Box” experiment, and find myself forming a new perspective on the same passage which I previously reflected upon.

Physics reading Schrodinger’s cat

In this week’s reading in search of Schrodinger’s Cat the author tries to explain the basics of quantum mechanics. The author starts off with the anecdote about one of the most famous physicists ever. Albert Einstein, it gives the example of conversations and letters between Einstein and a fellow physicist Bohr. These letters gave birth to many thought experiments that they used as a way to debate the validity of certain theories in the field of physics. One of the examples given in the book was dubbed The Clock in the Box. The premise of the experiment was that a clock in box with some radioactive materials would be used to shoot or to not shoot a single radioactive particle out of the box. From my understanding of the reading, this would then be used to determine what the weight of the box is.One thing that I wish that the text had gone more in depth about was how that answer supported or dismissed the theory. While the text did explain it I wish there had been a more simplified writing to help me understand the implications of the device weighing different amounts. Later on, the text begins to explore more complicated and interesting things about quantum physics. One of the things that was mentioned that I also had trouble understanding was the implications of particles moving backward in time. The text did a decent job of explaining the beginning portions particularly about how particles that travel at the speed of light don’t experience time like me and you do. Photons travel any distance instantaneous without regards for time instantaneously traveling to the location that it wants to be in. I would prefer if the text gave a more detailed description of the way that particles interacted with each other in order to form new particles. The sections with the graphs explaining the movement of particles was also a little confusing and could have used a more detailed explanation.

[sheepandsnowflakes-blog]

Physics: Schrodinger’s Cat

From John Gribbin’s In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat, I have found many thought-provoking concepts and experiments which perplex me. However, the portion which most stands out to me is the “Clock in the Box” experiment. While the experiment itself is fascinating, I would like to concentrate more on its description. In his concept, Einstein discusses a box with a shutter and spring. He uses familiar objects in order to make the process easier to comprehend, but Bohr seems to find fault with the descriptions. Gribbin writes, “The dilemma of quantum uncertainty arises because we try to express quantum ideas in everyday language, and that is why Bohr stressed the nuts and bolts of the experiments” (180-181). There are two main reasons for why I am so compelled to this line. The first is this notion of “everyday language”. I am caused to stop and ponder after this term, as I feel that its meaning is purely situational. To me, everyday language may be completely different from perhaps a European, Asian, or a Texas resident. Everyday language varies upon slang, dialect, and context. In the case of Einstein’s experiment, everyday language is clearly English, but the concepts themselves seem to be far more complex than everyday terms. To that end, despite the overall complexity of the concept and description, I feel that Einstein has done his best to relate perplexing principles to normal objects which readers will be familiar with, causing the ideas to be conveyed more effectively than if a less familiar situation or object was exemplified. The second aspect of this passage of which I would like to take note of is Bohr’s emphasis on the “nuts and bolts of experiments”. While I have heard this phrase uttered countless times in my life, I never truly grasped this reasoning behind it. When the phrase initially arose, Bohr was referring to actual nuts and bolts crucial to the outcome of Einstein’s experiment. Today, this phrase is commonly used to reference the basics or key pieces of a task. I find this very interesting, for it just goes to show how so many phrases which are commonplace today were once remarks based upon situations. This leads me to wonder about how many other sayings I have heard or uttered which hold a similar unnoticed meaning. Overall, I am drawn to Gribbin’s literature, in particular his “Clock in the Box” example, as it leads me to question the terminology and significance of every situation.

[sheepandsnowflakes-blog]

From the poster presentations I observed, I found a handful of elements which could be incorporated into my team’s poster, as well as a few aspects which I felt could have been improved upon. One way which in which some of the posters stood out to me is by the use of bullet points. As I viewed posters with bullet points, opposed to lengthy paragraphs found on others, I found myself more engaged in the presentation and the information was easier for me to comprehend, so I think that my team should go the bullet point route as well.  Another strength which I found in the posters is the use of pictures.  Many of the presenters included pictures in order to highlight their information and give a further explanation of their topic, which I quite enjoyed and plan to include in our poster as well. While there were many strong aspects of the posters, I also spotted a few weaknesses. One part which I feel could be improved upon is the wording and terms used by some of the presenters. Oftentimes, I became confused about what the speaker was talking about, as I had no knowledge of the scientific nomenclature or acronyms of which they utilized. Perhaps if the terminology was further simplified or I had prior knowledge of the subject, the presentations would have been more enjoyable, but I often missed much of the content as I had to try to piece together their explanations in my head to make sense of the discussion, taking away from the enjoyability of the work.  Overall, I think that the posters were well done, and aside from some of the weaknesses, I think that the presenters set a good example for my team and I to strive for and build on. 

Poster Presentation Assignment:

This is a simple one. DUE Friday.

You will identify and briefly discuss 3 things about the presentations that you found interesting. 

2 will be strengths: something a presentation did well that you would like to copy. Example, something that made the presentation more enjoyable, easier to understand. 

1 thing you think could be improved on. Example, something you as an audience member would have liked to seen but wasn’t there in one or all of the presentations. 

This won’t take a whole paragraph. Just a few sentences for each strength and weakness. 

[sheepandsnowflakes-blog]

I quite enjoy your take on the reading and how you chose to focus on the questionability of reality and the world.  While my interpretation primarily focused on the ambiguity of time and order, you took it one step further and decide that nothing is definite.  I am compelled to this response, because I did not previously consider the bigger picture and how nothing which is seemingly “fact” can be trusted.  I also appreciate the author’s method of beginning his writing, it too interested me that his entire life’s passion in science was sparked by a dusty book on his father’s shelves.  It goes to show that life is unpredictable, and everything, one’s values, plans, and morals, can change in an instant.  Finally, I too paused when I read about rocks as living things, for while it seems silly to be considering them as living, Greene brings up interesting points in order to make me actually believe that they may not be the inanimate objects that everyone thinks they are.  Overall, I completely agree with your takeaways from the reading, and find myself questioning the same concepts about reality and the world as you are. 

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.

[sheepandsnowflakes-blog]

Physics Reflection 4

The portion of Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos which stands out to me the most is when Greene discusses the direction and nature of time.  Greene states, “Eggs break, but they don’t unbreak; candles melt, but they don’t unmelt; memories are of the past, never of the future; people age, but they don’t unage.  These asymmetries govern our lives; the distinction between forward and backward in time exhibited the same symmetry we witness between left and right, or back and forth, the world would be unrecognizable (13).  This thought interests me because I feel like it is a concept and principle which goes unnoticed.  We are all just used to events occurring this way, our minds cannot wrap around reverse occurrences, apart from the photography technology and time-warped imaging which can be created today, our natural outlook on the world is future-based.  The parts of this idea which really compel me are Greene’s examples of memories and aging.  By their very nature, memories are created when information is stored and retained in the mind for future recollection.  They are mainly associated with past events, but why memories do not give insight to the future is a mystery.  Instances such as deja vu are inexplicable, but perhaps they are in fact memories of the future, this process would completely usurp the system of retainment which we have created for ourselves.  The notion of which memories do not have to be of the past intrigues me and causes me to wonder if our human conceived principles are merely ambiguous and theories of the past, present, and future are only relative.  The second half of this illustration of which I am drawn to is when the author discusses aging and “unaging”.  It is true that if aging were nonexistent or the reverse of what it is now, the world and everyone in it would be unrecognizable.  Aging backwards is a concept which can only be found in fairy tales and movies, even then, the concept is simply guessed at and its effects are construed with no real basis or fact.  While these thoughts about memories and age are accepted and known as true and factual, after reading this literature, I can not help but wonder how the world would be if things were different and time was not future-based.  Although the essay focuses on time having a natural direction and rhythm, I tend to focus more on the “what-ifs” then the concrete, as science and exploration is all about questioning one’s surroundings, not accepting someone else’s ideas without giving a second thought to the unknown.

[sheepandsnowflakes-blog]

I quite agree with your reaction to the reading. While the reading led me to question the validity of physics and science itself, I found the line between living and nonliving things being blurred as well. I also struggle with having that same preconceived notion about physics simply being about forces and movements, but this reading opened my eyes to the many deeper levels of physics as well. Sometimes it can be hard to look beyond the equations and variables involved in physics to see the real-world effects and scenarios, but I do think that this reading helped me to try to see the bigger picture and give the formulas applications. Overall, I am intrigued by your thoughts on the reading and find myself in the same thought process as well.

The Dancing Wu Li Masters

In “The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics”, by Gary Zukav, there was many aspects of how different nonliving things/living things can be considered to be existing within the physics world. This is one of things that amazed me from reading the text and understanding the ideas that were spoken about. When I think about physics, I mostly think about things/person(s) in motion or doing a specific movement that has an exerted force. Things that closely relate to the idea are examples of someone skiing down a hill, a ball being thrown, moving a desk/furniture, etc. This can be seen when you’re responding to different physics equation, and when it comes to objects that have a single movement they have a very simple and easy answer to them, and don’t really need that much thought put into them. But in the text, it helped the audience, including myself, to understand a deeper and truthful side of the ideas that live between physics and non-living objects. When I was reading the text I was able to change my perspective on how I look at non-living objects have a different purpose/actions in the aspect of life and physics. I learned that are many new things from this text and that there’s different ways that you can think of.

[sheepandsnowflakes-blog]

Physics Reflection 3

From Gary Zukav’s The Dancing ‘Wu Li Masters, I have been led to question the validity of theories construed by scientists and physicists. While there have been thoughts that are considered laws and unable to be disproved, if there are some areas that seem concrete but are able to still be contradicted, who is to say that any thoughts are absolute and undisprovable?  As Zukav begins explaining the quantum theory and movement of light, he states that light is made of particles, but shortly after makes a contradiction.  Zukav states, “The only problem was that one hundred and two years earlier an Englishman named Thomas Young had shown that light is made of waves, and no one, including Einstein, was able to disprove him” (54). This presents a problem, as no two clashing theories can both be correct.  This leads me to wonder if any thought can be truly credible, as it seems that there is always someone who can craft an opposing notion.  If all theories are subjected to this level of questionability, then is science itself so easily disproved? How are new theories to be constructed based on the principles of previous theories if the former ideas are only transitory?  The answer seems to be simple, science is not to be trusted, there are no laws which can be actually considered fact, as so many theories are rejected easily, even though they were previously considered uncontradictable. This is a worrisome thought to me, as we then know nothing about science, we simply accept a batch of “facts” and continue to research and study these principles.  If a theory is disproved, then scientists and researchers who spent their entire lives dedicated to the theories wasted their time.  Overall, this reading led me to not trust scientific principles at all, and I now do not know if any concept that we have created can be considered a “fact”.

[sheepandsnowflakes-blog]

Argumentative Essay- Prompt A

Human-made objects are connotative of their designers’ personal values because of their target audiences and dedicated functions.

In The Evolution of Useful Things, many examples of innovations and their intent are discussed, one such model of this development is the fork.  Originally, humans used knives to tear apart their food, which led to the use of two knives, one for securing the food, mainly meat, while the other cut it.  This eventually progressed into a fork with tines used to spear food and bring it to the mouth without causing such a mess.  In Defensive Architecture,  various designers constructed architectural displays in order to deter homeless persons from utilizing public devices.  The article proceeds to give various examples of alterations to the city’s structure in order to disclude those who have come to use it as their home.

Designers incorporate their personal viewpoints and values into everything that they create.  One such situation in which this interweaving of values and designs is showcased can be found in Henry Petroski’s The Evolution of Useful Things. The inventor of the new and improved eating utensil known as the fork stated, “that they were only used for eating mulberries and foods likely to stain the fingers.”  While this may seem like a practical and unassuming dedication for the device, it holds an underlying message about the creator’s lifestyle and beliefs.  Perhaps everyone did not have access to mulberries or other foods which require such use of a fork to prevent staining, this reveals the inventor’s accustom to such fruits.  Additionally, those who work in fields all day long or do not have access to clean water were most likely not bothered by the staining of such berries, implying that the inventor has been brought up without this work ethic and intense labor.  For these reasons, it can be deduced that the designer’s personal upbringing and lifestyle has shown through in his design.  Andreou remarks, “It is a sort of unkindness that is considered, designed, approved, funded and made real with the explicit motive to exclude and harass”.  In this instance,  the values of the designers are conveyed precisely.  By creating designs with the intent to exclude a certain group from their use,  the designer clearly has no care or concern for the effects of their architecture, in fact, they are discouraging the use of their designs for any purpose other than their original design intent. In both the case of the fork and defensive architecture, designers are revealing their personal values through their target audiences and dedicated functions of their designs.

[sheepandsnowflakes-blog]

I quite like your interpretation and explanation about revolutions and the reasons why they are necessary for society and humanity as a whole. History has proven over and over again that we need this change in paradigms in order to advance technology and advance our society. I completely agree that revolutions have been a key component of our history, but I would like to take it one step further and say that history would not be possible without revolutions, there is no history without a change of paradigms. If there were no changing paradigms, history would not be made, and life would continue on the same forever. Changing paradigms are crucial because they are the reason for history itself, as we could not look back on anything if we were still living life the exact same way today. I also agree that revolutions come about from dissatisfaction and the need for change. If we created a perfect society, there would be no change, and thus, imperfection is the reason for change and innovation. Engineers can never create something which will have no flaws, but they can create the next step towards a better future.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

By Thomas S. Kuhn

A scientific revolution is a non cumulative developmental episode in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one (92). Society is constantly changing; always evolving. As human beings we are regularly looking for ways to make ourselves better so it’s no surprise to see many revolutions being created throughout the history of humanity. In our search for perfection we have come together, either in small or large groups, and decided on where we wanted to go. Currently, we are free to make our own decisions but back then it didn’t work that way. Even now if whatever it is we want to change is dramatically different from the norm it’s deemed as taboo, or even a revolution.

Revolutions have been a key component of our history. Without them the world as we know it now would not be the same whatsoever. Military and political revolutions have shaped societies for ages, but it’s the scientific revolutions that have really made an impact on every single one of us. The changes in the ways we think themselves have been revolutionary. Back to the day when people stopped believing whatever the church told them and started to inquire about their surroundings. That was a turning point. People started to study and invest time and effort into science. Most of our knowledge nowadays is based off of the studies completed during the scientific revolution of the 16th century.

At their core, revolutions, regardless of their nature, are very similar to one another. They all go out of the norm and set a trend for future events. What is interesting about revolutions is that they begin as people become aware of what’s not working in their system, whether it’s right or wrong.

[sheepandsnowflakes-blog]

Physics Reflection 2

   From reading Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, I find myself drawn to the gestalt experiments in which the ease of psychological shifts and perceptions are revealed.  In particular, my favorite demonstration of this effect is when Kuhn presents his first examples of this theory:

Looking at a contour map, the student sees lines on paper, the cartographer a picture of a terrain.  Looking at a bubble-chamber photograph, the student sees confused and broken lines, the physicist a record of familiar subnuclear events. (111).

I am compelled to this portion of the literature because it illustrates the variations of perception based on experience quite nicely.  The first circumstance addressed is the where the student and the cartographer are both viewing a terrain diagram.  This scenario interests me as it highlights the way in which one’s experience creates a new viewpoint which is trained to recognize the marks and symbols which are mere scribbles to the untrained eye.  I find this fascinating because it shows just how much our minds can be shaped and learn to recognize new information.  This also leads me to ponder that the student’s situation is similar to that of a young child.  In the same way that a child is lost amongst the syllables of its parents,  a developing student places no significance upon the diagrams of the cartographer.  The second exemplification of this concept embedded in the passage is where a second student attempts to understand the physicist’s photograph.  While the physicist easily interprets the lines and spaces of the image as vital subnuclear information, the amateur can only look at the seemingly randomized dashes and be perplexed.  This variance in perceptions is closely related to that of the previous example, but the latter is still distinct from the former.  In this instance, the aspects of the topic being analyzed, subnuclear events, seems to have more at stake for one’s lack of understanding then if a terrain map is misread.  This begs the question, “Does the importance, or lack thereof, of the information being misinterpreted affect the obligation of the interpreter to decipher the material?”.  I would  like to say not, but in reality, far too often there is a difference in the emphasis placed upon information as simple as the color wheel versus the geometry involved in architecture.  While both are necessary components to vastly different professions, the work of the architect is often more appreciated than the work of the artist.  This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the professions themselves, but rather it lies with the opinions that society has placed on the work of both.  While both are valuable skills, we have been trained to hold one profession above the other.  Although this train of thought is by no means the original intent of the cited passage, it is a thought which I have derived from the examples which it provides.  In the end, while I am intrigued with the different skill sets and perceptions which the mind can formulate, this question of how skills are ranked in order of significance from the public’s point of view must also be evaluated in order to fully comprehend the tiers of knowledge of which one can aspire to.

[sheepandsnowflakes-blog]

I am drawn to this interpretation of the assigned reading as this opinion of the differing ways that science should and could be taught intrigues me.  I quite like the fact that in this response, you give two examples of the way in which science can be shared and taught, there appears to be a broad and perceptional way, and a condensed, more simplified way of quickly absorbing material.  While I am not completely in favor of one method or another, I had never previously considered that instruction could be separated into these two categories, but now that I see this idea presented, I most definitely agree with the concept that there can be a more strict and concise method of learning, and a more drawn-out, exploratory one. I have most definitely experienced both form of instruction, and this definite separation really opens my eyes to the extent in which science can be taught and explored.  I thoroughly enjoy your reaction and interpretation of the text and am in agreement with many of the thoughts and analyzations of which you purposed.

Atoms in Motion

       In Atoms in Motion, the author discusses the importance of understanding the relationship between all sciences and their meaning. He explains that science, although complicated, can be condensed into laws to summarize our knowledge. He believes that everything we know is an approximation and that “things must be learned only to be unlearned again” (pg. 2). The author argues that experiments are made to give us hints and our imagination is used to create generalizations from the hints given. Even with this, our experiments tend to be wrong. This is an interesting statement as one would ask: “how can an experiment be wrong if it is shared?” It is a debatable topic as I believe that experiments, once shared, are usually backed up with facts and therefore could not be wrong.  There are also debates about how science should be taught. While some scientists believe that science should be taught the “correct but unfamiliar law with strange and difficult conceptual ideas” (pg. 3)  others think it best to teach the simple but approximate ideas. What is most interesting, however, is that although science is believed to be complicated and difficult to understand, the author somehow argues that it could be summed up to one sentence. He believes that if scientific knowledge were to be destroyed and one idea or sentence was to be passed on, the atomic hypothesis would be the most important idea to share as it contains the fewest words but the most information.

       One of the most interesting subtopics would be related to temperature and how it affects atoms. In Atoms in Motion, the readers learn that the increase in temperature is caused by the increased movement of atoms. The more motion there is, the more kinetic energy created; therefore more heat is generated. In fact, if the heating continues, molecules end up flying apart. Although atoms have a force of attraction with one another that holds them together, too much movement and heat can lead to particles flying apart, which leads to steam. One observation made during the reading was related to the author’s analysis of the diagrams. I noticed that for each diagram shown, the author pointed out the errors in them, to prove that science or our view of science is never accurate and that we are always making mistakes. It is with these mistakes that we lean from them and expand our knowledge.

[sheepandsnowflakes-blog]

Six Easy Pieces-LP

After reading Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics Explained by Its Most Brilliant Teacher, I have learned a variety of new theories and processes of which interest me.  Of the reading, the section which I am most compelled to is near the beginning, page two to be exact, where the author explains that the laws of physics cannot merely be comprehended easily, for it is still being explored today.  I am intrigued by Feynman’s explanation of learning physics as he states, “We can only do it piece by piece” (2).  This statement is particularly interesting to me, as it leads me to construe the notion that the laws of physics, and science in general, are much like the pieces of a puzzle.  This thought appeals to me as it implies that one’s education does not stop after one class or even years of schooling, but rather, such concepts are built upon and explored deeper, expanding and constructing the puzzle, with the common goal of seeing the bigger picture.  This is both motivational and exciting, as one can never learn too much, as new content is always being discovered, yet each seed of knowledge which is mastered adds another piece to their puzzle.  This idea is by far my favorite portion of the reading because it almost places everyone on the same playing field.  By stating that physics and science are still being explored, it shows that no person has complete comprehension of all of the various laws and facts of physics, there is no genius who has learned it all.  This puts everyone in the same boat, as everyone is still learning the principles of physics, everyone is a student to one degree or another.  I find this inspiring because we can strive to increase knowledge and understanding of the subject and cannot reach a maximum intake of content, there is always something new to learn.  Surely there are varying levels of knowledge, as a grade school student and a college graduate have different insights of science and physics, but they are both still learning and expanding their views, neither can reach a level of perfection in their learning and be done, there are always new areas to study.  This is inspiring to me because while there are great minds such as Einstein and Newton, but even they did not complete their studies and reach maximum levels of knowledge, they still had more to learn.  While one person’s puzzle may be more complete than another’s, everyone is still working to complete theirs, and we can only attempt to complete them piece by piece.  For these reasons, I have chosen this section on page two as my favorite part of the literature.

[sheepandsnowflakes-blog]

Clarity-LP

Our in-class conversation regarding the factors which affect clarity, such as perception and experience, revealed to me that there is no such thing as universal clarity.  I learned that clarity is contingent, contextual, and structural, which makes clearness based purely on experience, and does not actually exist.  What may appear completely clear to one person could be confusing to another.  One experience which I have had with personal differences in clarity is in signs or directions.  Multiple times I have opened a package and read the directions paired with diagrams, but still found myself lost with the message of the content.  This is simply one example in which the manufacturer may have intended to be clear and concise, but the user was perplexed.  Overall, our discussion and my past experiences have both revealed that universal clarity does not exist.