themostsarcasticperson-blog

[themostsarcasticperson-blog]

I really like how you started off your reflection. “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 surrounding, 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.”  All of this shows what you were really thinking at the time that you were reading Schrodinger’s Cat.  

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.

[themostsarcasticperson-blog]

The following quote reflects on John Gribbin’s writing style. “Physicists often use a simple device to represent the movement of particles through space and time on a piece of paper or on the blackboard. The idea is simply to represent the flow of time by the direction up the page, from bottom to top, and motion in space across the page. This squeezes three space dimensions into one, but produces patterns that are immediately familiar to anyone who has dealt with graphs, with time corresponding to the ‘y’ axis and space to the ‘x’ axis. These space time diagrams first appeared as an invaluable tool of modern physics in relativity theory, where they can be used to represent many of the peculiarities of Einstein’s equations in geometrical terms that are sometimes easier to manipulate and often easier to understand. They were taken over into particle physics by Richard Feynman in the 1940s, and in that context the are usually called ‘Feynman diagrams’, in the quantum world of particles, the space and time representation can also be replaced by a description in term of momentum and energy, which is more relevant when dealing with collisions between particles, but I’ll stick with a simple space-time description here. The track of an electron is represented on a Feynman diagram by a line. An electron that sits in one place and never moves produces a line that moves straight up the page, corresponding to motion in the time direction only; an electron that slowly changes its position, as well as being carried along by the flow of time, is represented by a line at a slight angle to the line straight up the page, and a fast-moving electron makes a bigger angle with the “world line” of a stationary particle. The motion in space can be in either direction, to left or right, and the line may zigzag if the electron is deflected by collisions with other particles. But in the everyday world, or the world of simple space-time diagrams in relativity theory, we would not expect the world would correspond to movement backward in time.”

[themostsarcasticperson-blog]

I like how you compared classical physics and quantum mechanics. “Classical physics and quantum mechanics have contradicted each other since the beginning of their existence. Under the theory of Classical Physics, if one is able to know the position and velocity of an object, then through an algorithm or an equation, one is able to find out the position and velocity at a future date or from the past. On the other hand, using quantum mechanics, it is not possible to have the exact position or velocity of said object.” This really shows the difference between these two main parts of physics.

The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene

While reading the essay by Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, on the topic of the reality of space and time, I have recently learned of said topic. Classical physics and quantum mechanics have contradicted each other since the beginning of their existence. Under the theory of Classical Physics, if one is able to know the position and velocity of an object, then through an algorithm or an equation, one is able to find out the position and velocity at a future date or from the past. On the other hand, using quantum mechanics, it is not possible to have the exact position or velocity of said object. The result is not exact because quantum mechanics only predicts the best probability of the position and velocity because “ even if you make the most perfect measurements possible of how things are today, the best you can ever hope to do is predict the probability that things will be one way or another at some chosen time in the future, or that things were one way or another at some chosen time in the past.” Before reading this essay of the relativity of space and time, I did not know the difference between classical physics and quantum mechanics.  But after knowing the differences between the two’s limits, I have expanded my knowledge relating to the topic of the cosmos.

Sir Isaac Newton came up with an explanation of classical physics which “ ‘according to (him), space and time supplied an invisible scaffolding that gave the universe shape and structure.” In other words, space and time cannot change because it is the framework of the universe. Again, Newton and Einstein buts heads again because Einstein proved the other person wrong. Einstein proved, through the theory of relativity, space and time are changeable and can become flexible.

[themostsarcasticperson-blog]

The Fabric of The Cosmos

The Fabric of the Cosmos showed me that some breakthroughs in physics reevaluate our ideas of science.  “The classical Newtonian worldview was pleasing. Not only did it describe natural phenomena with striking accuracy, but the details of the description - the mathematics - aligned tightly with experience. If you push something, it speeds up. The harder you throw a ball, the more impact it has when it smacks into a wall. The more massive something is, the stronger its gravitational pull. These are among the most basic properties of the natural world, and when you learn newton’s framework, you see them represented in this equations clear as day.  Unlike a crystal ball’s inscrutable hocus-pocus, the workings of Newton’s laws were on display for all with minimal mathematical training to take in fully. Classical physics provided a rigorous grounding for human intuition.” What this quote is saying Newton’s laws were simply and easy to understand, just the basic principles.  Science also shows us that our experiences are a misleading guide to reality. “These developments are anything but details. Breakthroughs in physics have forced, and continue to force, dramatic revisions to our conception of the cosmos. I remain as convinced now as I did decades ago that Camus rightly chose life’s value as the ultimate question, but the insights of modern physics have persuaded me that assessing life through the lens of everyday experience is like gazing at a van Gogh through an empty Coke bottle.” I like this quote because it explains how our experiences are misleading.  It also shows that our concepts of everything including cosmos is constantly changing. Developments in physics have also shown space and time to be the most important and incomprehensible features of reality, no matter if they are misleading or if the concepts are constantly changing.

[themostsarcasticperson-blog]

I am glad that the essay had developed your views on the scientific world. A lot of people don’t have strong views or even knowledge on the scientific world, so it is good that you have developed your views and that they are strong. You are right about science and math being connected because of the dependence they have on each other. It’s funny how that works, science and math working together to solve everyday problems. Weird that you learned about wavelengths in trigonometry, amplitudes are more common to be taught in trig because of the sine, cosine, and tangent graphs.

Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav

While reading the essay, the Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav, my view on the scientific world has devolved even further than it was before reading this essay. I vaguely remember learning about waves and its properties from middle school because throughout my high school classes, the science classes I have taken only dealt with a mathematical standpoint rather than the scientific viewpoint. Science and math go hand in hand because they deal with similar situations in the real world. Also, in order to do one subject, the other is needed because they depend on each other. In order to determine what a certain topic is truly about, one needs to be able to use both categories to find the result. By using calculations based on a scientist’s findings, the scientist is able to approve or disprove a theory. I have learned about wavelengths and amplitudes of a wave during the duration of my trigonometry class. I have learned that a wave’s velocity is calculable by multiplying the wave’s wavelength by the frequency. However, there is a constant number in which is the velocity of a light. The velocity of light is equal to one hundred eighty-six thousand miles per second, and it is constant because the number never changes. I do, in fact, know this number because I have heard of it before. “Light travels at a speed of one hundred eighty-six thousand miles per second.” This phrase is how I remember how fast light travels because it is a fact in which that almost all people can know and recite. Photons of a given a color are assigned a group (based on color) in which describe the quantity of a certain particle’s, or photon’s energy. The concept of the color affecting the photon’s energy is new to me. The higher the frequency is, the higher the energy of the photons contain, and the opposite is also true. The lower the frequency is, the lower energy the photons contain. For example, a darker color, such as violet, is a high-frequency light because the violet photons contain higher energy. To the opposite effect, red is a low-frequency light because red photons contain lower energy. In other words, the frequency is proportional to the energy of the photons. This theory was proven by Einstein’s use of the photoelectric effect.

[themostsarcasticperson-blog]

Physics Reflection

The definition of organic is relating to or derived from living matter. Despite what some may think organic energy is apart of physics. Humans are apart of physics. In physics we don’t just calculate the velocity and acceleration of inanimate objects, we do that for living things also. “Even if some of them are the human kind, they all accelerate at the same rate in a vacuum. So physics does apply to living things. But that is an unfair example, we say. Rocks have no choice in the matter of falling. If we drop them, they fall. If we don’t drop them, they don’t fall. Humans, on the other hand, exercise choice. Accidents excluded, humans ordinarily are not found in the act of falling. Why? Because they know that falling may hurt them and they have no desire to be hurt. In other words, humans process information (they know that they may be hurt) and they respond to it (by not falling). Rocks can do neither.” What this quote is saying is that living and nonliving things/objects accelerate at the same rate despite what they are.

“That is the way things appear,’ says de Wit, ‘but it may not be the way they actually are. For example, by watching time-lapse photography we know that plants often respond to stimulate with human-like reactions. They retreat from pain, advance toward pleasure, and even languish in the absence of affection. The only difference is that they do it at a much slower rate than we do. So much slower, in fact, that it appears to the ordinary perception that they do not react at all.”  What this quote is saying is that just because our perspective on things/objects are that they don’t move or aren’t human-like doesn’t mean that they don’t have human-like characteristics.

[themostsarcasticperson-blog]

Technical Communications

Designs that come from designers and engineers include their personal values because they have learned through personal experience what would be helpful, what they need, and what they can’t live without.

The readings were talking about how knifes, fork, and chopsticks have evolved over the years because of the experiences of the users and the designers.  They also talked about how when engineers and designs make a product, that the product itself is not racist but the designer themselves. Concluding that human beings and objects are separate things.

Designers add personal values and touches into their designs. For example: “In time, prehistoric people must have come to be adept at finding, making, and using flint knives, and they would naturally also have discovered and developed other ingenious devices.” Prehistoric people would have to use anything and everything they had to come invent items, initially adding their personal touch. For example: “The knife is thought to have had its origins in shaped pieces of flint and obsidian, very hard stone and rock whose fractured edges can be extremely sharp and thus suitable to scrape, pierce, and cut such things as vegetable and animal flesh.” Inventions are also used for different social statuses such as higher classes using two knives instead of one. For example: “Eating a meal with two knives might seem to have been doubly crude and dangerous, but in its time it was thought of as the height of refinement.” Also, “Eating with two knives represented a distinct advance in table manners, and the adept diner must have manipulated a pair of knives as readily as we do a knife and fork today.”  All of this shows how new innovations have personal values, touches, and are steered toward certain social classes.

[themostsarcasticperson-blog]

I agree with you when you stated “Society is constantly changing; always evolving.” That is a very true statement because society is always changing, from technology to views on people. You are also right when you stated that “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.” This is true because society looks at down at the people who want to go outside of the box and do something completely different from what people think is right. But it is thanks to those people who go outside of the box and find things or ideas that are now accepted as the norm, but was once frowned upon.

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.

[themostsarcasticperson-blog]

Scientific Revolution

“But it is hard to make nature fit a paradigm. That is why the puzzles of normal science are so challenging and also why measurements undertaken without a paradigm so seldom lead to any conclusions at all. Chemists could not, therefore, simply accept Dalton’s theory on the evidence, for much of that was still negative. Instead, even after accepting the theory, they had still to beat nature into line, a process which, in the event, took almost another generation. When it was done, even the percentage composition of well-known compounds was different. The data themselves had changed. That is the last of the senses in which we may want to say that after a revolution scientists work in a different world.”  (pg. 135)

           What this quote is saying, is that when chemists prove or accept a theory they have to “beat nature into line” which simply means they have to force nature into proving the theory. One generation can’t simply accept a theory and force nature into line; the next generation is needed for that process. What the last sentence is trying to say is that scientists work in a different area, from where they started, after a scientific revolution. Once a scientific revolution happens it changes almost everything for chemists and other scientists. By disproving and proving different theories in the scientific field.

The definition of the scientific revolution is a concept used by historians to describe the emergence of modern science during the early modern period, when developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology and chemistry transformed the views of society about nature. Societal views about nature have changed drastically over the years because of all of the different theories being proved and disproved in different ways. The scientific revolution goes back to the first sentence on proving that it is hard to make nature fit in to a paradigm.  

[themostsarcasticperson-blog]

Experiment Based Knowledge

According to the reading, it states “the test of all knowledge is experiment” which is true in many different instances.  The definition of experiment is a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact. Every day that we are alive we are putting the knowledge that we have gained to the test by experimenting. For example: all of the college graduates put their knowledge to the test through their jobs, they basically do experiments based off of their knowledge until they get it right. This is for every job not just fields in STEM. Through experimenting we find what works and what doesn’t work, which is crucial in every field.

In the reading it also stated that no experiment is wrong, there is just inaccurate knowledge within that experiment. Which is also very true, look at all of the “failed” science experiments that are done in high school and college; they are not failed some knowledge within them was inaccurate. Some labs fail on purpose because the teacher or professor may take out a part of the experiment, giving you inaccurate information for doing the lab. Now think back to all of the “failed” labs, was there a piece of the information missing from what you were given?

Everyone has to fail or get something wrong at some point in time to succeed later in life. If the laws of nature weren’t constantly being experimented on we wouldn’t of figured out that the initial laws that we had were wrong or had some type of inaccurate data within them. Just imagine what life would be like if we all still thought that the mass of an object never seemed to change, if it is spinning or completely still. Life would be rough that is for sure.

[themostsarcasticperson-blog]

Tech Communication

When papers, in general, are written they should be clear. Clear meaning that the reader can understand and grasp what the writer is trying to say.  The clarity in papers shouldn’t be just for the community in that field, it should be for the general public.  Allowing everyone to understand what the writer is talking about.