tailored-to-perfection-blog

[tailored-to-perfection-blog]

I agree in the sense that the author’s choice of examples made it fairly easy to understand. He provided real life examples that someone who may not know a whole lot about science could easily understand. However, I feel like the author’s word choice was an issue throughout the piece. It felt like, even though his examples suggested otherwise, he was writing to a more scientific community rather than the general public. At times I didn’t feel engaged in the writing because I had no idea what the writer was trying to express. It seemed rather dull in my opinion. The topic that he was writing on is such an amazing topic that I am fully interested in, and yet somehow the author managed to make it somewhat boring.

Motion in space can proceed in any direction and back again. Motion in time only proceeds in one direction in the everyday world, whatever seems to be going on at the particular level. It’s hard to visualize the four dimensions of space time, each at right angles to the other, but we can leave one dimension and imagine what this strict rule would mean if it applied to one of the three dimensions we are used to” (page 193)

This reading to me was one that was slightly difficult to comprehend. Although I didn’t not understand most of the things expressed throughout the reading the quote above was definitely intriguing and helped me understand the point being made by the author. Giving examples like “If we made this central rule in a children’s game, and then told a child to find a way of reaching a prize off to the right - hand side (backwards in time ) it would not take too long for the child to find a way out of the trap. “ This example helped the author describe how motion in space can proceed in any direction and back again and how motion in time only proceeds in one direction.

The author used several different writing styles and he transitioned between the two effortlessly. This made some of the author’s writing very easy to read and some of the writing quite difficult. Some of the words were in languid terms but some were extremely difficult to understand because the words were not on the terms of normal writing. So while reading this I understood most parts by by the end of the reading it was difficult and most things were unclear.

[tailored-to-perfection-blog]

Schrodinger’s Cat Response

Quite often, I take the time to ponder, what really is time? Is it a figment of our imagination. Is it our brains that interpret our surroundings, causing time? If so, can my sense of time be faster or slower than another person’s sense of time? Can time truly be measured by the movement of our planet? Why do we feel time. Time is such an abstract concept that I feel no one truly understands. Sure, when we were young we were taught how long a minute, hour, day, etcetera was, but what does time really mean? The flow of life. Oddly enough, the reading Schrodinger’s cat by John Gribbin only seems to add to the confusion. It talks about how, in reality, we should have no sense of time. Feynman diagrams demonstrate how, photons traveling through space and time can create an electron and a positron pair. When the positron meets another electron, it disappears. However, mathematically, this idea is the same backwards in time. An electron moving through time and space meets a photon, and absorbs it, putting it back in time until it “emits an energetic photon and recoils in such a way it moves forward in time again” (187). These electrons seemingly dance through time and space forwards and back. This fact alone represents that time travel is completely and utterly real, even if it is not completely what people would expect. It more or less a single electron than massive machinery with a human inside. However, a man by the name of Tipler came up with an idea for an actual time machine, as crazy as it is. His idea is to take a massive cylinder and pack it full of matter, as much matter as there is in our sun. This cylinder, however, only has a volume of 10,000 π km3. This is as dense as the nucleus of an atom. With this cylinder, one would have to rotate it twice every millisecond. This would drag the fabric of space and time, tearing it apart. While actual time travel may not ever happen, all our known laws of physics currently prove it true. There is always hope.

[tailored-to-perfection-blog]

Personally, I think there were quite a few strengths and weaknesses of the posters that were presented to us on Tuesday of this past week. One of the strengths that I saw was the overarching knowledge of the subject they were talking on. There was no question they left unanswered, even if the question seemed somewhat odd. As to how that applies to our presentation, I feel like our group should be ready to present any and all questions, from the history of prosthetic to how much each individual component costs. Secondly, there was no information on their board that they did not explain or talk about in their short speeches. They explained their topic, even if it took a few minutes. They did their best not to waste unnecessary space. They were knowledgeable on their topic, but they often used the board to reference what they were talking about. One thing they could have done better, in my opinion, is keeping the listener active in the conversation. Many of the facts I feel like went over my head, and I got bored of a few presentations after a minute or two and wanted to move on. Somehow making our presentation interactive for the listener would not only benefit our group, but also the person viewing our presentation.

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. 

[tailored-to-perfection-blog]

I also found it extremely interesting how much of the writers examples were written in order to help the reader gain a greater understanding of the topic at hand. Much like our last reading, this one tries to take extremely complex terms and phrase then in a way that we can understand. I also liked how the reading basically gave a history on what we know of physics of the universe today in about 35 pages. It went from Newtons ideas, to Einsteins revised ideas, and to what he wanted to find out, which is where we find ourselves today. We are always making leaps and bounds in discovery, and this essay just helps further prove that.

The Fabric Of The Cosmos

One thing that I enjoyed about reading “The Fabric of the Cosmos” is that Brian Greene began the book by telling a story and introducing personal details about his childhood into the story. By doing this, he really caught my attention as a reader.    With his terms not being incomprehensible, but in basic terms it allowed me to understand the points he was attempting to make in his writing much easier. Tying the book back to his personal life to prove points was a great choice because it allowed the reader to make connections to his personal life.  

“To open our eyes to the true nature of the universe has always been one of physics’ primary purposes” This quote gave me as a reader more comprehension and thought about what physics is truly used for. The author explains how difficult it would be if physics had not been studied or learned over the last century. He does this by using everyday examples that normal people use when he says, “We take for granted that there is a direction to the way thongs unfold in time. 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.” By using these examples, the writer allowed me to better understand the reasoning behind physics and how science shows us that our experiences are a misleading guide to reality.

One other thing that was interesting about this reading was that the reader touched on how Einstein proved Newton wrong with the theory of theory of relativity by showing that space and time are “flexible and dynamic” This was interesting because both were extremely intelligent and to hear how one theory disproved by the other is interesting. If in the event that they had been studying these topics in the same era it would have been interesting to see how everything played out.

[tailored-to-perfection-blog]

Fabric of the Cosmos - “Welcome to my reality”

In this initial quote by the character Symmetra from the video game of the year, Overwatch, Symmetra makes a statement welcoming the enemy player into her reality. What makes her reality different from others? What is the interpretation of reality? The reading makes the suggestion that, commonly known, reality is a concept developed by an individual based on personal experiences. However, the author’s opinion is contradictory to the common thought. He believes a person’s interpretation of reality is different than true reality. Reality has many layers that one cannot see just by looking upon the outside world. One can observe dirt, but cannot distinguish the individual atomic makeup based on its appearance. Newton developed the theory that all space and time was concrete. It could not be altered, nor changed. However, Einstein proved that theory wrong. He discovered that time and space can be warped. They are “flexible and dynamic” (10). However, what we perceive time to be is a one way street. We can go forward, but we perceive no backward. Space seems to be set. Once you have an area, that area cannot be changed unless acted upon by an outward force. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, proves otherwise. In the subatomic realm, one object is able to interact and communicate with another object from extreme distances instantaneously. In order for this to be possible, either space or time must be manipulated, because nothing, not even information, can be transferred instantaneously. Along with this research, Einstein wanted to find a single theory that could describe how the universe functioned. There are many theories that attempt to explain this, such as the atomic theory, but it leaves many questions, like the idea of quantum mechanics. This is when the superstring theory was developed. The superstring theory states that all particles are composed of tiny filaments, billions of times smaller than an atom nucleus. As the string vibrates, different properties of the particle. This theory, however, predicts 11 spacetime dimensions, and currently we only have 4. With this theory, scientist may be able to crack more information about our universe and its inner workings. We could potentially find more dimensions, as well as scientific advancements that could lead to bigger and better technology.

[tailored-to-perfection-blog]

I totally agree with you, in the sense that before any sort of physics classes, I had no real idea of what physics was. Even during my physics unit of my general sciences class, all I really thought of physics was force. However, as you stated, physics has a much deeper meaning. There are more complex ideas and theories, and phenomenon that we don't even understand like the reading showed. I also liked the writing style, as you suggested in your response. His vocabulary stooped down to my level, one with minimal understanding of physics. It portrayed the complex ideas of nature in a way that I could comprehend.

reflection 3

My junior year was my first year attending a physics class. Before I walked into class, I always believed that physics was all about the pendulums and the movement of nonliving things. However, I later learned that this was not the case. As I read The Dancing WuLiMasters by Gary Zukav, this proved everything my teacher told me. The beginning of the book introduced the fact that physics is organic. Zukav stated, “Most people think that physics is about billiard balls. This is a common point of view, even among physicist, but it is not as evident as it may seem”(45). This means that what I once believed about physics it not true. During my high school physics class, my teacher taught me that physics is all about the movement of humans. This goes from finding the momentum of a skier going downhill to a person dragging a box up a slope. The argument made in this book was about how rocks do not have minds to control their movement. The book states, “Rocks have no choice in the matter of falling.” Even though this may true, it does not prove that physics is just for nonliving things. The reason that physics is organic because humans can process the information and then respond. The author, later on, gives the thought that plants go through this process. I enjoyed reading this reason because I sometimes think physics is this complicated science. That I will never understand the full meaning of physics because of all these hard concepts. However, by including the physics of plants, I can somewhat understand how physics is organic.

This reading was much easier to understand than the past ones. Zukav’s writing style was easy to comprehend because he really explained his concepts. I enjoyed this book and it helped me gain a greater appreciation that physics is organic.

[tailored-to-perfection-blog]

Wu Li Masters

When it comes to the unknown, I have always been extremely curious. For as long as I can remember, I have wanted to know how everything and anything works. I have always had a love for the sciences, and I believe that will follow me throughout the rest of my life. For example, in my sophomore year of highschool, I watched a show about a video game technology that uses brain interfacing as controls and visuals for the game. After that week or two of binging, I felt like a completely different person. While the technology in the show wasn’t real, I desperately wanted it to be. It made me realize how much we really do not know about ourselves, especially the human brain. I went on to study papers and websites on neuroscience for hours, wanting to find out exactly how the brain works. At this point in my life, I am considering double majoring in electrical engineering and neurobiology. I can’t stand not knowing how something works. I want to know, for whatever reason. I feel as if I have to know how the world works.

However, when it came to the science of light, before reading “The Dancing Wu Li Masters” I thought I knew the basics of light and how it worked. Light is a photon that travels in waves. The waves determine what color it is, and light is reflected off objects of the same color. That is how we see. After reading this, I was opened to a whole new world of the unknown. Everything I thought I knew about light and photons was thrown out the window. The idea of photon’s “thinking” is incredibly insane, in my opinion. I always thought we knew all we could about light, and that was that. The reading started by explaining why metal turns red when it heats up, a fact I never really thought about. It’s a fact I’ve always known, but never really questioned. Similar to the fact that living beings need water to survive. We all know it as a fact, but why? As it explained further, the text grew more complex, as did the ideas. Light is made up of levels, when a photon hits an electron it becomes excited, etc (all information I learned in chemistry). However, when it spoke of photons communicating and having unpredictable movement patterns. This was completely new information to me. The idea that photons themselves may be able to process information and use it accordingly is astonishing. Not only that, but they communicate instantly. This information could be extremely important to new technologies, and I have never heard it before. Something as amazing and mysterious, and yet as common as light should be taught alongside with the basics of light, not left out of curriculum because not everything is known about it. This is how new discoveries are made, through communication. This reading really opened my eyes to how many mysterious there are in the world, even if I thought I knew quite a bit about it already.

[tailored-to-perfection-blog]

Tech Com Prompt A

Thesis: When an engineer is designing a product, they take their own core values and beliefs into account because of their own perspective of the world as well as their personal culture.

The few readings we had from our textbook depicted the same core idea: engineers have different perspectives on the world, often leading to different creations. As supported by the readings, many of these differences come from a different perspective of the outside world. For example, in the reading “8 Times Technology proved to be racist,” it spoke on the fact that the Apple Watch could not read through darker skin tones when using the heart monitor. This was because of the creators lack of a different perspective. It was highly probable that they were not purposefully eliminating a whole group of people from using their device, they just never considered the darker toned community when creating the device. It was created most likely by mostly caucasian men. Similarly, the culture of a person can also affect the design process. For instance, the reading “The Evolution of Useful Things” gave the example of forks being developed in western culture, while chopsticks were developed in eastern culture. These two things served similar purposes, but they are vastly different. People of the eastern culture developed chopsticks because they cooked much of their food in pots. They needed something that could be “an extension of their fingers” in order to grab hot things without touching it. However, in the western part of the world, forks were developed for the use of being able to cut meat without it spinning or having to touch it. Both created unique ways of eating without having to touch food, but each was created according to the cultural needs of the people. Be that as it may, perspective and culture are unique and different for each and every individual. Many times, culture affects perspective, and perspective, culture. When a person tackles a problem, many times it is done taking learned knowledge and experience and applying it to the situation. It is the same when it comes to engineering. A person sees a problem, and they relate it to their experience. If a group of culturally and politically diverse people were all given the same task, say to create a new and improved wallet (much as we did our first week of ESP) each individual would come out with a unique design. Why? Because each individual has a background unique to them. A middle class woman would most likely want somewhere to store her phone and makeup, while an inner city lower class citizen may want some form of safety mechanism. Engineering is all about perspective and culture. It makes each and every man made object unique, and drives innovation forward.

-TMD

[tailored-to-perfection-blog]

I completely agree with your previous thoughts. When it comes to scientific revolutions, much of the time the revolutions were created after questioning some already known fact of science. However, when it comes to expanding our knowledge through connecting facts, such as the discovery of atoms, that is truly great. Society can only advance with these new revolutions that expand our understanding. Take atoms for example. Without the knowledge of their existence, we would have never been able to develop things like nuclear power, or any sort of chemistry. Today their discovery is extremely important, and it all came from a scientific discovery. On the other hand, gestalt discoveries are just as important. Without a complete understanding of the truth, we could, scientifically speaking, be lead down a wrong path. As important as it is to find new things, it's just as important to perfect the old.

The History of Scientific Revolutions

The first thing that caught my eye about this piece is that it talked exactly about what you would expect it to. Although it was a topic I had never personally considered, I agree that there are 2 different types of paradigms: the kind that start revolutions and the ones that don’t. The more valuable of the two, the revolutions, do usually occur by accident, simply because they are not of popular perspective. The irony is that the circumstances that usually discover revolutions are completely contradictory to the actual hypothesis trying to be proved. As a result, these discoveries tend to overwrite previous beliefs and cause some major controversy. This is because in order for someone to see the logic behind a new theory, they must already be doubtful of the legitimacy of their own beliefs. Truly open-minded people do not exist. If someone is set to believe in something there isn’t a thing in the world that could convince them otherwise.

In my opinion, the act of replacing old theories with new ones is oddly judicial. Only the perspectives that can be disproven will be replaced with an “upgraded” version. However unlike true justice, the scientific community goes beyond “yes” and “no” responses, it also allows ideas to fit into previous ones. Meaning a new theory can be discovered which will simply connect two already existing ones, without the difficulties of replacing any. Of all the kinds of discoveries, I believe these are the most useful. They serve to help us better understand concepts that we are familiar with and further prove the truth. Of course, like every other kind of theory, they are extremely hard to prove without using some part of the equation itself. Like stated in the writing one must be open to being “inside the circle” in order to truly embrace the concept. For this reason, regardless of how useful, any perspective is difficult to prove in the scientific world.

[tailored-to-perfection-blog]

Structure of Scientific Revolution Response

In “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” by Thomas S. Kuhn, I was opened to a new way of thinking, one that really hadn’t presented itself to me before, but now after reading this, makes me think more about the reality of science in the world around us. This reading explained basically what a scientific revolution was, and what caused a scientific revolution, as in what are the requirements that have to be met in order for a new finding to be called a scientific revolution. This reading opened my eyes to the fact that not everything we learn in school is proven fact.

Many theories and concepts that we learn could in fact be false, or just not completely correct. For example, take the idea of gravity. Everyone who went through elementary school knows that there is a responsible force for keeping us on the ground, which is called gravity. It keeps us from floating around as if we were in space. When going into higher levels of education, you learn that gravity pulls at an acceleration of nine point eight meters per second per second, and that it is the relative mass of the planet (earth) that keeps each person grounded. But when you take a step back, what really is gravity? A force? Then what is a force? What causes forces? Why are there forces? If someone were to solve these questions, it would be called a gestalt switch. In a gestalt switch, ideas aren’t completely proven false, but more or less renovated. On the flip side, if a scientist came out with an idea of gravity being a nonexistent idea, and forces are just a theory created to explain unnatural phenomenon (of course backed up by sound reasoning and evidence) this could be considered a scientific revolution. The idea of gravity and everything in relation to it would have to be reimagined. The view of the world as we know it today would completely change.

With that, I came to realize that there are those innovators in science and technology who come to redefine the world as we know it. They are the ones who, quite literally, shape our world. Through different theories, methods, and standards, scientists have spent years arguing over the truths of our world. Look at the arguments between evolution and creation. To every revolution there will be two sides, and with every revolution there is a completely different perspective on our world. Each scientist him or herself should not be afraid to contest the ideas of the scientist before him or herself, there is always the possibility that they are incorrect. From this reading, I learned that I should not be afraid to question the science I have always known. Questions are where revolutions begin.

[tailored-to-perfection-blog]

As far as learning difficult concepts from a young as goes, I completely agree with you. The fact of the matter is, children are extremely intelligent and are able to soak up and comprehend information in short periods of time that would take a full grown human years to pick up. Take learning a language for example. A child is able to completely learn and speak a brand new language within the first few years of his or her life. In addition, these kids have no previous experience with any sort of language. Kids are also ready to believe anything you tell them without any sense of disbelief. For these reasons, I also believe that kids who are taught more difficult material from a young age are more likely to understand the information than they are given credit for.

reflection 1

Throughout my high school experience, I learned the general concepts of science such as matter is made up of atoms and the states of matter. However, as I read through Richard P. Feynman’s Six Easy Pieces, I learned many new and different concepts. In the introduction of this excerpt, Feynman asked the question:

Should we teach the correct but unfamiliar law with its strange and difficult conceptual ideas, for example theory of relativity, four –dimensional space-time, and so on? Or should we first teach the simple “constant mass” law, which is only approximate, but does not involve such difficult ideas. (Feynman, 3).

As I read these questions, I believed that as a student, I want a teacher to teach me the correct laws. Even though the concept is unfamiliar, I want to be taught the correct way and fail then understand rather than be taught the “easy way” and not be able to apply it. For example, in my high school physics class, I barely touched the surface about concepts such as Newton’s laws and kinematics. I did not learn anything about the relationship of science. My professor just gave me formulas and told me to copy the formulas and boom, I have an answer. I wish I was not taught this way. I wish I could have learned the correct way, even though it may be difficult to understand. By reading this excerpt, I came to the conclusion that I do not know how in-depth science really is.

In the matter is made of atoms section, Feynman wrote, “The difference between solids and liquids is, then, that in a solid that atoms ae arranged in some kind of array, called a crystalline array…”(9). I found this very interesting because in my classes, I did not learn what a crystalline array. However, this excerpt enabled me to gain a better understanding of this concept and made me want to learn in depth about these arrays. Also, the figures in this excerpt caught my interest because I learned that the figures are drawn simplistically. With the use of figures, the author enabled the audience to gain a greater understanding of his work.

           Even though my background on science was limited, I learned many new concepts from reading this excerpt. This excerpt made me realized that I do not need to be a genus to understand science, I just needed the basic foundation of the subject.

[tailored-to-perfection-blog]

Six Easy Pieces

The selection titled “Atoms in Motion” from the book “Six Easy Pieces” by Richard P. Feynman explains physics in the simplest of manners by going down to the atomic level. What I believe to be the most interesting portion of the text is the selection that reads, “All things are made of atoms - little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence… there is an enormous amount of information about the world if just a little imagination and thinking are applied” (4). I never truly realized the importance of understanding atoms and their contributions to our understanding of science until after reading this section. By understanding the concept of atoms and how they interact with one another, one can learn anything and everything about the world as it is currently known. Why water freezes in the cold, why salt can dissolve, and why roses smell are all examples that the reading gives when speaking of how atoms can affect our understanding of everyday phenomenon.

Similarly, knowing that everything is made up of tiny particles called atoms, the knowledge of physics can be applied to help explain some of these phenomenon, even though these theories in certain situations can be false. For example, one vould conclude, based on physical principles, mass cannot be created or destroyed. Yet, the reading gives the example of an object at higher speeds than one hundred miles per second will have a slightly increased mass than that of one standing still. It also gives the example of pressure being proportional to density. If pressure is increased, the density would also increase, but at high enough pressures this is not always the case. While the model of the atom provides a good basis for which all other sciences and theories can be built on, one must take caution because there are still unanswered questions when it comes to the understanding of atoms.

The idea that small atomic particles make up everything that is known in our world today is unimaginably beautiful and amazing. What I personally find even more amazing is there is so much that can be discovered and created from these ideas. While there is a lot that our world just does naturally with no outside force, so much more could potentially be developed with newer technologies and understanding of the world around us. From this reading, I gathered that with progression forward and continued learning, we can make the world a better place.

 -TMD

[tailored-to-perfection-blog]

Clear as Mud Response

When an author writes, they take into account and focus on many factors. Specifically, one of those factors is clarity. The clarity of a piece does not always necessarily depend on the word choice of the author, but quite commonly on the reader themselves. I believe there is no way to make a piece of literature universally clear, it is just not possible. Yet, an author can tailor his or her work to a specific group, modifying his or her word choice to the reader’s capabilities.