Untitled

[anonymous421124-blog]

Schrodinger’s cat

[jrochaesp-deactivated20180116]

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. 

[anonymous421124-blog]

[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.

[anonymous421124-blog]

[anonymous421124-blog]

The Fabric of The Cosmos

[esplegendm-blog]

Wu Li Physics Response

        To begin, the first paragraph of The Dancing Wu Li Masters intrigued me. The paragraph ends with the fact that many people believe that physics is only about inorganic materials. In actuality, physics applies to organic matter as well. This made me feel guilty because I actually had the same mentality. When one thinks of the term “ physics “, one would presumably think about pendulums, pulleys, and falling matter. Reading about how broad the term physics is amazed me. This also made me think about how single-minded many of us humans are. I feel like humans are brainwashed into believing what society wants them to. Hearing that physics applies to living things made me feel uneducated because I hadn’t even considered it. Something that also intrigued me was the statement that the difference between living and nonliving things is not always easy to make. Another portion of the reading that caught my attention was the fact that Planck, Bohr, and Einstein all made huge breakthroughs in the field of science within the same decade or so. I couldn’t imagine living in an era filled with brilliant scientists who were making huge breakthroughs. Finally, the portion of the reading that interests me was the fact that we can determine the speed of a runner by using his stride length and how many strides taken per second. Before seeing a simple action like this would not make me consider such factors, I’d just simply see a man running. I’m sure that there are people out there who actually can do these calculations in their head. Just like the TV show Bones, brilliant people out there have this curious mindset. Everyday objects and actions spark nerves in their brains that cause them to view simple things with much complexity. This kind of readings seem to spark an interest in my mind, theoretically thinking just gets my gears going.

Markese Malone

Physics

Matt Ambrosio

7/7/2017

[anonymous421124-blog]

[anonymous421124-blog]

The Dancing Wu Li Masters

The most interesting topic came from the first few pages of “The Dancing Wu-Li Masters”. The author, Zukav, brought forth the idea of organic energy, which essentially means “living”. The first few pages of the book allowed me to reflect on everything. It made me ask questions such as ‘are we truly alive? What if I was the only person that really existed and everyone else is just part of my imagination?’  I tried to answer these questions, but couldn’t. I realized that Zukav was right about living and nonliving things. When it comes to them, it is almost impossible to differentiate between the two. We think that we have a say in what we do or don’t do because we have a mind of our own, unlike objects. However, the reading gives an alternative to those thoughts. What if our responses were preprogrammed by some unknown force and we were convincing ourselves to think that we have more freedom action than stones do? What if rocks or mountain ranges were to be moving, but their reaction time is so slow to the point that we could not see it? Wit gives an example to support his statement. He suggests the possibility that plants have a reaction time. It could be that they react slowly to the point that they appear to not be moving, even though they actually are. He proposes a few reasons as to why we think the way we do. It is possible that maybe accepting rocks as livings things could disprove our belief that we are the living things. By proving that rocks are living things, it could suggest that humans might not really be alive and instead be convincing ourselves that they are.

Other than debating about living and nonliving things, the reading also talked about scientists along with their theories and discoveries. For example, Plankton, a scientist discussed in the reading, made a theory about black bodies that I thought to be quite interesting. He believed that if you were to look at a black body, the only way to see light is through energy. For example, if you were to get a metal box, drill a small hole through it, and look inside the box, you would not see anything because it would be dark. If you were to heat the box and look through the hole again, you would now see red. You would be able to see because heating the box would have created energy.

[anonymous421124-blog]

Essay Part A

Solène Sossah

Professor Rocha

Technical Communications

July 5, 2017

The Evolution of Useful Things: Part A

Human made objects are used to express the designer’s opinion as they reveal his true intentions based on the object’s function or performance. In the article “Anti- homeless spikes; ‘Sleeping rough opened my eyes to the city’s barbed cruelty’”, the author addresses the fact that London is seen as a rich and clean area because there aren’t any homeless people. The hidden truth behind this is that engineers in the city design and build objects that would push them away, instead of welcoming them. The author gives an example of how engineers design certain things to say something about their personal beliefs and values. For example, spikes are added to window ledges, water sprinklers, and even bus shelter seats. From this, the homeless people and everyone paying attention to these details can tell that the designer of the spikes is against homeless people. The author uses personal examples such as London’s Underground Circle Line to support his point. He explains that he used to love London’s Underground Circle Line and used to stay there as it was like a “safe, dry, warm container.. Then, one morning, it was gone. In its place stood a convex metal perch, with three solid armrests.” From there, it is safe to say that engineers in London create and innovate objects like the convex metal perch to push homeless people away. In doing so, they make it clear that they are against homeless people; therefore, the benches say a lot about the engineers and their true intentions. Near the end of the article, the author uses Athens, Greece, as an example to compare to London. He explains that when the government removed the barricade that was there  it “was almost magical, as if an entire city breathed a sigh of relief”.The government’s removal of the barricade symbolized the government welcoming everyone, rather than pushing people away. The reader can infer that when the barricade was created, it said a lot about the designer behind it as it told the people that they were not welcomed.

Moreover, I would like to bring up an argument from my own experience. While in Tunisia, I noticed that men were clearly seen as superior to women. Women were treated differently as they were not expected to succeed in life when pursuing any kind of education . It was expected for women to not only stay at home to cook and clean but to also take care of the children. For example, the commercials shown on television in Tunisia were clearly targeting certain groups of people based on how the designer or creator behind it perceived those groups of people. For example, a lot of the commercials that targeted women specifically had to do with either hair or cleaning products. This is to show how objects or propaganda created or designed by humans show the designer’s true intention. The commercials told the audience a lot about the people creating the commercials. It was clear that they saw women as inferior and created specific products to attract them.

[anonymous421124-blog]

The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions

The author first talks about paradigm shifts which directly addresses the first part of his title, the nature of scientific revolutions. From the reading, it is understood that old paradigms are being replaced by new ones, and this change is known as a revolution. The reading creates a link between the scientific and political communities and discusses their similarities when it comes to paradigm shifts and revolutions. At first, I was unsure about why the author would compare science to politics, but after reading, I finally saw the relationship between the two. The author explains that in both communities, the malfunction in old paradigms led to a revolution. For the scientific community, the malfunction was mostly related to the idea that the old paradigms failed to explore the aspects of nature. This lead to a revolution for change, to look at science from a different perspective.

The author then talks about who the paradigms affects. It is understood that scientific revolutions are only revolutionary to those whose paradigms are affected by them. The author uses astronomers as an example. He explains that astronomers accepted X-rays as they saw it as an addition to their knowledge and not a threat.  For others like Crooks and Kelvin, however, the discovery of X-rays affected their paradigm (their research was related to the radiation theory), which would therefore be seen as a revolution to them.

As I was reading, I was wondering about how political revolutions came about. I learned that first, it is important to understand that political revolutions take place to change political institutions in ways that those institutions prohibit. It all starts with crisis, which weakens the role of political institutions. As crisis increases, more individuals are affected and feel like they are alienated from political life. At this point, people demand for change in the institution and based on each individual’s opinion, they split into different parties. Some defend the institution’s old ways of operating while others look to institute a new way of going about things. It then becomes all about mass persuasion, getting as many people on one’s side as possible. When arguing, everyone uses their own paradigm to argue in that paradigm’s defense.

Another part of the reading that I found interesting has to do with how theories are developed. From what I understood, there are three types of phenomena about which a theory would be developed. The first has phenomena that are already explained using paradigms and therefore there is nothing left to prove for that theory. The second is proved by existing paradigms but in order to really understand what it is saying, more research must be done. The last one occurs when none of the existing paradigms are appropriate and that is when a new theory has to be created.

[anonymous421124-blog]

I had the same feeling as Faviola did when reading the essays. I thought that it was too long and that made me start off with the wrong mindset. However, despite the length of the essays, I learned a few things from the reading. I knew from the beginning what paradigms meant but my definition of it did not seem to be the right one. Once I found the right definition, I was able to better understand the text, and it helped me focus on the ideas brought up in the reading. Like Favi, I was mostly interested in the area when the reading talked about how Einstein and Newton were contradicting each other, but despite that fact, people still continued to accept their theories and ideas, and still are today.

[anonymous421124-blog]

The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions

The author first talks about paradigm shifts which directly addresses the first part of his title, the nature of scientific revolutions. From the reading, it is understood that old paradigms are being replaced by new ones, and this change is known as a revolution. The reading creates a link between the scientific and political communities and discusses their similarities when it comes to paradigm shifts and revolutions. At first, I was unsure about why the author would compare science to politics, but after reading, I finally saw the relationship between the two. The author explains that in both communities, the malfunction in old paradigms led to a revolution. For the scientific community, the malfunction was mostly related to the idea that the old paradigms failed to explore the aspects of nature. This lead to a revolution for change, to look at science from a different perspective.

The author then talks about who the paradigms affects. It is understood that scientific revolutions are only revolutionary to those whose paradigms are affected by them. The author uses astronomers as an example. He explains that astronomers accepted X-rays as they saw it as an addition to their knowledge and not a threat.  For others like Crooks and Kelvin, however, the discovery of X-rays affected their paradigm (their research was related to the radiation theory), which would therefore be seen as a revolution to them.

As I was reading, I was wondering about how political revolutions came about. I learned that first, it is important to understand that political revolutions take place to change political institutions in ways that those institutions prohibit. It all starts with crisis, which weakens the role of political institutions. As crisis increases, more individuals are affected and feel like they are alienated from political life. At this point, people demand for change in the institution and based on each individual’s opinion, they split into different parties. Some defend the institution’s old ways of operating while others look to institute a new way of going about things. It then becomes all about mass persuasion, getting as many people on one’s side as possible. When arguing, everyone uses their own paradigm to argue in that paradigm’s defense.

Another part of the reading that I found interesting has to do with how theories are developed. From what I understood, there are three types of phenomena about which a theory would be developed. The first has phenomena that are already explained using paradigms and therefore there is nothing left to prove for that theory. The second is proved by existing paradigms but in order to really understand what it is saying, more research must be done. The last one occurs when none of the existing paradigms are appropriate and that is when a new theory has to be created.

[tinysandwichdeer-blog]

SIX EASY PIECES

Six easy pieces was an interesting article talking about the physics behind everyday occurrences.  An interesting thing included in the article was that we have not fully learned all the full spectrum of physics. The part where it says things are learned just to have it proven wrong, have it corrected, and relearned. This is because the we do not know the whole truth yet just an approximation of the truth or the close to the truth. We explained the truth through laws and and laws and figured out through experiments and trial and error. Another intriguing part was the interesting that atoms never stop moving around and even at absolute zero Helium can solidify but the molecules will never stop moving about. When water atoms are pressurized, to produce steam, the particles can not stay together and end up flying apart. Also, I found it interesting that chemists can actually figure out the angle that bonds make and the distance from one center of a atom to another. They also use certain chemicals that turn colors, such as blue and red, depending on the color and it allows the chemist to determine the arrangement of a particular a molecule. Now they have come with the method of measuring where different parts of the molecule. The other interesting piece was the way chemists name a substance. They included a diagram with name associated with the substance is extremely complicated to understand and even learn where they got the name for the substance from. The diagram shows how the substance is arranged and what different molecules make it up. The final, and most interesting, point was that everything is made up of atoms. Now everyone knows that everything is made of atoms but it went on to suggest that humans are merely a very very complex arrangement of atoms. This statement is very intriguing because it suggests that we are just globs of atoms that have somehow managed to come together in such a complex way that it allows us to evolve into this advanced species as we are today.

[anonymous421124-blog]

I agree with most of the points, if not all, made by John. As mentioned early on in his reflection, things are learned only to be unlearned and improved. We are never completely right about certain ideas or experiments. We can try to be as precise as possible, but it is really difficult to be accurate. What I mean by this is that if you were to work on an experiment and got to a certain result, the result would most likely be an approximation of the actual answer. It is through more analysis and data that you realize that the reason why you were not accurate was because of a certain error in your work. This is why students are often asked to find their percent error or even repeat an experiment multiple times to be as close as possible to the actual answer or idea. It is through this that we learn and unlearn, and from there, improve our experiments.

[anonymous421124-blog]

Clarity

Clarity is the quality of being clear. As discussed in class, it depends on jargon as well as your experience. It is contingent, contextual, and situational. Contingent, being the idea that clarity depends on the different groups. For example, all of the subgroups in science fields develop their own vocabulary to communicate with one another or even use certain words to represent different concepts. Contextual, meaning that it is all about the situation. For example, if you were to write an article about life in the desert, people who have not been there or have never lived near it might not understand some of the vocabulary used. Finally, clarity is situational, which essentially means that it depends on different circumstances. For example, speaking a different language will affect the way you understand certain writings and how clear it is to you will depend on how fluent you are in that language.

[anonymous421124-blog]

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.