Making Big Waves

I don’t know about other people in the class, but polarization pretty much fascinates me. For some strange reason I find the fact that waves of light oscillate in certain directions to be quite interesting. Perhaps the more interesting part to me is that the light can be filtered out through lenses that are formed to filter polarized light. What interests me most about this is that when turned at different angles the filter either allows more waves to pass or prevents the passing. When looked at from the perspective of someone who does not know much about polarization, one would expect that regardless of the direction the glass is facing it would filter the same amount of light. However, the truth is that the direction or angle the lens is facing will determine the amount of light that is filtered out if the wave oscillations occur in a polarized manner. What is most interesting about this, though, is that the waves generally remain at the same direction of oscillation as they travel. It seems quite likely to me that as the light travels various atmospheric effects would completely alter the oscillation of the wave so that it would not continue to display polarized effects. The reason this probably is important to me is that it is a clear example of a particle or wave effect visible in everyday life. By looking through filtered lenses we are able to visually see the polarized waves being filtered. Other topics that are often discussed in a physics class cannot be directly seen or observed. Granted there are many other phenomena that can be observed and described through their wave or particle function, but polarization is just something that is exciting to me.
During today’s class another revelation came to me as I realized that if light functions as a particle, the photon, the nature of its movements must be very different from the nature of the wave. As a photon, light is not merely fluctuations in energy or movement in particles but a particle itself. This means that light would have to behave in a similar fashion to all other particles that exist. This begs the question of how light is able to travel through transparent and translucent solids. If it is truly a particle, would not the glass of a window or the plastic of Tupperware stop the transmittance of light? The particle would, theoretically, be stopped as soon as it hit the glass or the plastic and would therefore not be able to be seen, as it currently is. This would have even far more implications. I do not believe that sight would be possible if the photon behaved in a matter similar to this. No light photons would be able to pass through the eye and reach the retina. Thus, no image could be carried along the optic nerves to finally reach the brain, which interprets the signal. Light could therefore not function in this manner. The particle must be different from the way that I have described. It would make more sense for it to be a wave, being that a wave could solve all the issues that I have presented, but I have been taught that light is both a wave and has a particle function.
A different physical property that I have been pondering is that of wave interaction. I have been told that wave do not interfere with each other, except sometimes when they pass over each other, as seen when two waves cancel each other out or add together to create an even larger crest. However, despite this, one important basic function eludes me. How is it possible that after either canceling each other out or adding together the waves separate and continue along their intended paths?
Would it not make sense that they would totally alter the original path of the wave? The waves may have momentum that keeps them going in a constant direction, but why does the momentum continue after the waves have collided? If the waves separate, wouldn’t the momentum be different because the waves have affected each other? If we then examine the momentum of the wave through continuous subdivisions, we soon approach a similar obstacle as faced by Zeno. However, Zeno’s paradoxes were solved through other means, so perhaps this question is answered through other means.
All the questions I have pondered in this blog entry are possibly already answered. Unfortunately, I do not have a great physics background, so the answers could all be out there and I just don’t know them. In my constant search for knowledge I will hopefully someday discover the truth.

Time Dilation

When one begins to examine the physics described by Einstein, the universe truly becomes a complex and intriguing place, far more complex than I believe Newton or any other early physicists could have imagined it to be. Honestly, I don’t know if Newton could have imagined anything as complicated as Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. To think that something as abstract as time dilation could exist is very difficult to comprehend.
Since class on Wednesday, during which time we discussed relativity, I have spent much time thinking about time dilation as well as length contraction and what it all really means. It is clear that time dilation and length contraction have large consequences for human behavior. If it is real it may have severe consequences for mankind in the future if we ever achieve near light speed travel. By traveling near light speed, will we face a situation in which time passes differently for different people? If people are living on different planets, does this mean that time will pass differently for them as they travel to different planets at these high speeds? Of course, by the time we established this speed of near light travel, we may have established alternative methods of travel that resemble those of science fiction novels and movies. In many of these movies and books faster than light travel is accomplished through means such as wormholes or what some have termed “slipspace”. Through these alternative methods, time dilation problems during travel can be avoided; however, these methods are highly theoretical, perhaps only truly existing in science fiction. Therefore, the question must be asked, how can such a problem be avoided?
It is also entirely possible that I am simply misunderstanding Einstein’s theories. Perhaps Einstein’s theory of relativity would not apply in these instances. Despite this, I cannot help but to think that time dilation may merely be an illusion. Perhaps it is merely a result of the fact that light cannot travel fast enough to make the clock appear that it moves at what would be termed “normal” speed at no relative motion. The image of the clock ticking cannot reach the receiver’s eyes fast enough so that it appears that it is moving. The clock is actually ticking; it just doesn’t appear that it is. Nevertheless, if it were true, I suppose it would result in merely an instance of time appearing to slow down proceeded by the resumption of visible time at the speed people are accustomed to. Despite this, if all visible objects were within the capsule moving at this high speed, one would not notice a change. Because everything is speeding up at the same speed, there would be no relative difference of velocity between the person and everything within the capsule. If one were to look outside the capsule, however, the changes would be present. Thus, when the capsule returns to relative rest, time would speed up momentarily to adjust to what it appears it to be for the relative still person. Time dilatation is therefore nothing more than an illusion merely resulting from our senses. However, I do believe that there are probably certain mathematical aspects that I am missing that would probably nullify the made statement.
The same principle would apply to length contraction. Length contraction could merely be an illusion brought about by a fault in our visual sense. Time dilation and length contraction may be able to be viewed in a similar way as the Doppler effect. While it has been much time since I last took a physics course, I do recognize that the Doppler effect deals with motion and sound, therefore, perhaps it is somewhat of an equivalent to time dilation or length contraction.
Relativity is clearly a quite complex topic that takes much time and study to completely understand. It is at a point such as this that we come very close to crossing the line between philosophy and science. Philosophy, which covers topics science cannot now answer or may not be able to answer, often comes very close to explaining the universe in similar terms to Einstein, simply without the math. It is in the future that answers to the questions man has asked for as long as he could think rationally will hopefully be answered.

What does it mean for us?

When learning about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it becomes clear that it revolutionizes the way we think of the universe. Our knowledge of universalities is no longer true and must be reexamined. For the majority of people, however, such a realization has little or no impact. Most likely, this is true because the majority of people have no conception of modern science nor do they care to learn of such theories as quantum. In essence, what I argue is that quantum theory can be perceived as having had very little impact on the real world.
Real world measurements and predictions are still conducted in the same way they were before quantum theory was developed. An architect will not use quantum mechanics to design his building; rather, he will continue to use Newtonian physics. Just because quantum theory states that measurements are not completely accurate does not mean that the world has changed the way it views everything. If one knows of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, he believes it to only apply to extremely small circumstances. Most scientists, at least in the realm of biology, continue to use reducibility as a basis for research. The biologist is taught to continue to reduce a phenomenon until it can be explained in the simplest way. Every function, occurrence, or construction of biology, it is believed by the vast majority of biologists, can be explained through reducibility. Quantum physics has not significantly changed the way that most biologists examine constructs such as the brain. At this time, Newton can still be used to give the world the answers it needs, so it will continue to be used until it cannot answer every question. A day will probably come when the world recognizes the importance of quantum theory, but at this time, Newtonian physics continues to be used by the general public.
Another important discussion raised by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is what makes the measurements uncertain. Are the measured variables uncertain because every time we attempt to measure one the other is changed? Such a belief would essentially nullify the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If the uncertainty were simply due to the measurement, a time would come when the measurement could be taken accurately without affecting the other variable. Thus, at that time the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would be dead. Despite the lack of cause and effect presented by Heisenberg, to accept this reasoning for uncertainty is to simply reject the entire principle.
Although quantum physics has presented many interesting discussions, Newtonian physics also brought about a debate on another issue, one of determinism. If the universe is ruled by Newton’s laws of motion, then everything can be predicted. If that is true, then it is logical to conclude that human behavior can also be predicted in accordance to the laws of motion. Because everything is predictable and “determined” every person must also be following a pre-determined, and predictable path, if he is to follow the laws of motion as presented by Newton. The idea of free will, however, was still justified according to Newtonian physicists by explaining that the mind occurs internally and was not part of physics. It was detached from the physical world and thus did not follow determinism. Quantum theory, however, believes that there is a connection between the physical world and the mind, and it views this issue in a very different way. The idea of determinism for people, nevertheless, seems rather senseless to me. If all our actions were predetermined, it would not matter whether we knew it or not. For example, I could have been predetermined to write this blog entry, but regardless of what happens, I will always believe that I have done it out of free will. The choices we make and the thoughts we think could all be a part of determinism, but it would never be known. In a sense, everything is destined or determined to happen because it does happen. All choices lead to a consequence regardless of what the choice and consequence are.

The Smallest Unit in the Universe

When one considers whether everything can be measured into continuously smaller units, it is difficult to determine whether it is actually possible or not. In order to answer that question, one would have to know the true nature of the universe and all its particles. Is there such a thing as the smallest unit in the universe or will that perceived smallest unit be able to be divided further into even smaller units? In my Philosophy of Science class we are currently examining the world of ancient Greek science. We just finished learning of Democritus and the Atomists. They believed the smallest unit to be the atom, which, according to its namesake, could not be divided further. We actually had a similar discussion in this class in which we asked whether it was possible to find the smallest unit. Ironically, we also examined the paradoxes of Zeno that we also discussed in this class. Some people decided it was possible to find a smallest unit, while others decided that it was not. Those who did believe in a smallest unit subscribed to a theory similar to that of the atomists.
Atom itself meant indivisible, which, if you ask any witness to the atomic attacks on Japan, is certainly not true. The atom is not the smallest unit of the universe; rather, it is made up of even smaller parts. I may not be a physicist or a chemist, but to my knowledge the current smallest unit uncovered is the quark. However, I believe that we will someday uncover even smaller units.
In the past, people had always believed that they had found the truth, the answer to everything that would not be able to be changed in the future because it was absolute. The actuality is that most theories change over time. What previous generations had believed to be true was often disproved, as with atomic theory. Different models have been presented throughout the years that were subsequently changed. The Bohr’s Model was found to be inaccurate and replaced by the present model of the atom, the quantum mechanics model.
Continuing this theme of changing theories, string theory goes even further when it comes to making smaller measurements. I do not know very much about string theory, but I do know it states that everything is made up of small strings that vibrate at certain frequencies to create everything. Could these strings be the smallest unit of measurement? Of course, if they are strings, they could then be measured even further. There would have to be units of measurement with which the length of the strings could be calculated, if that is even possible. String theory, however, probably changes the whole way we look at the universe, so measurement of string length may not be a possibility or an accurate way to describe the string. Only in the future will the questions we continue to ask be answered, and according to Professor Maleki, Heisenberg attempts to answer these questions.
We have finally begun to learn some of the basics of quantum theory, such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Unfortunately, I do not quite understand the intricacies of the theory. That certain related variables affect each other such as position and speed as well as energy and time is quite confusing to me. I don’t quite see a connection between all those variables that would lead one’s accuracy to be affected by the other. However, I suppose that we can never know the true value of any variable. Unless the variable is eliminated, which I do not believe to be possible, the other variable cannot achieve perfect accuracy. There will always be the smallest amount of uncertainty present because even in its smallest proportion, the other variable still exists. As we read further into the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and especially with this weekend’s readings, I am certain I will come to understand it far more.

Moving Art

This is going to sound strange, but I was browsing the internet, on the New York Times website, and found this image (Bank of the Seine). It really moved me. Sometimes an image is just so captivating that it almost makes you want to cry. Monet, along with William Turner (Burning of the Houses of Parliament shown below) are two of my favorite artists.

Statistical Logic

The most recent readings have helped me to understand certain parts of statistical analysis that I had previously not understood. For example, I did not clearly know the difference between accuracy and precision. In addition, I have often mistaken error for being something other than the scientific definition of deviation from the true value.
One topic I did not quite entirely comprehend was how computers generate “pseudo-random” numbers. I quite understand that they generate the numbers in accordance to an algorithm; however, how can a computer select a random number? Computers can only select a number based on what formula is given to them. Thus, if a computer selects a number, there must be some sort of reasoning behind it. The same could be said of the ability of people to select random numbers. A person cannot make a random decision because he must think to make that random decision. If I were to make a list of random numbers, those numbers would not have been random because I had to make up the list and think about it.
Additionally, the normal distribution curve, or Gaussian distribution, makes sense to me in some instances but not in others. Most likely because I studied Gaussian distribution last year in biology class, I can see how it would apply to the biological world. Evolution generally favors those who do not exhibit extreme forms. Thus, there would be a lower presence of the extreme form and a higher presence of the moderate forms. My class exemplified this last year in a lab we did in which we “excavated” trilobites and measured their length. We then discovered that most were found at medium lengths while very few were found at extreme lengths, either short or long. This makes sense when examined logically. Trilobites that were too small were unable to retrieve food, while predators targeted trilobites that were too large. Although it makes sense to me in the biological world to have a Gaussian distribution, there are other instances in which I cannot understand how a Gaussian distribution is logical. A possible example would be the size of stars. Why would stars form to a medium sized state naturally? Why is there not an equal number on the extremes? However, if one examines the problem from a different perspective in which the scale would shows the extremes to be less populated than the middle, the solution is clear. It would therefore be a problem of placing the center of the scale relative to the others. There would be fewer stars that are smaller or larger and more stars near the size of the medium.
Making one more connection to the readings, I remember an article in Scientific American maybe about two years ago in which it discussed Einstein’s theory of relativity. Touching on the physics behind GPS systems, it described that without Einstein, GPS systems would not have been possible. Thus, this recent reading has helped me to understand what that meant.

Fears of Uncertainty

This past Friday, we had our first lecture day. We conducted an experiment in which we examined Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics appeals to me far more than Quantum physics. While it is intriguing that there are so many uncertainties, I prefer to live in a universe in which everything can be known. It is frightening to me to think that there are no certainties. If everything can be examined through mathematical equations and the outcomes can be known, as with the pendulum swinging experiment, the universe is more orderly and more comfort is given to the observer, or at least to me. Once that certainly is taken away, as with quantum physics, the world is no longer orderly and predictable. I’d prefer a world in which scientists are coming closer to being gods than a world in which science can only give probabilities and not exact answers. I would prefer to examine the world as Einstein did when he said, “God does not play dice”.
With regards to what we studied on Wednesday, I find the idea of an “Aryan science” versus a “Jewish science” to be completely ridiculous. The Nazis allowed their racism to get in the way of their scientific thought. Science should not be subjected to such social issues as racism. Granted, we can allow society’s values to determine what scientific research should be done, but we cannot allow prejudices to determine the results or the scientific process. For example, if society deems it to be unethical to experiment on human embryos, it would not be wrong to cease experimentation using embryos. However, if scientists were blinded by racism and decide that they should not include any research done by African Americans in their results, it would be ethically wrong.
Zeno’s paradox is quite strange for me to completely understand, although I suppose that’s why it’s called a paradox. While I understand that if a distance is divided continuously, it is impossible for one to reach the finish, or even to start, the perceived truth is that it does occur. People do start races and finish them. It seems contradictory to me; thus it is a paradox. I have often thought on my own the nature of such reality. When I think about how motion pictures are constructed, I sometimes consider whether reality occur in a sort of “frames per second” existence. This is difficult to comprehend because one must then consider how a person moves from each frame. Since motion would therefore be not continuous, it is difficult to come up with a way in which motion occurs between frames. How would it be possible for motion to jump between frames of reality? I believe it’s far more likely that reality occurs in continuous motion.

As this next week begins, I would greatly like to learn more about what scientists believe of quantum theory. So far, the class has consisted of students answering questions. For example, when asked what is time, we all gave our opinions on it. However, I really am excited to learn what real scientists truly think time is. I want to know what quantum physicists think time is, what Newton thought time is, and what Einstein thought time is. I am hopeful that as the class continues we will begin to learn more what scientists think and spend less time listening to our fellow students come up with their own theories, which are based on very little scientific knowledge. It’s not bad to hear what my fellow students think, but I’d really like to know what scientists now believe and what they have believed, as well as the controversies going on in the scientific community.

Veritas

When I signed up for this class, I was under the impression that it would be based entirely on scientific thought, not religious and metaphysical philosophies. I was astonished and greatly angered today as I sat in class and listened to my fellow students spew their religious indoctrination at me and other students. This is a science class not a religious or philosophy class!
As people talked of a higher spirit or metaphysical approach to understanding the mind and its emotions, I could not help but to fear for the future of this country. When there are students who believe religious texts to be scientific in an honors class there is most certainly a great problem. Science does not take into account what your priest may have told you the other night in his sermon. Science is based on research, observations, experimentation, and…yes…numbers!
Everything can be reduced to both simple and elegant scientific understandings. While some in my class may have believed that emotions such as love are too complex to be reduced to a scientific explanation, whether numerically or otherwise, the truth is that according to science, a subject around which I believe this class does focus, everything can be explained through scientific terms, not through some higher spirituality. That is the beauty of science; mythology is not used to describe nature, rather, the scientist will continue to attempt to explain it until he is able to do so through scientific means.
Once we accept mythological explanations such as God being the cause of an event… once we give up the search for veritas, the truth, we give up all that prevents us from becomes a civilization based on myth, suspicion, and superstition. A society based on religious and metaphysical beliefs is a society built on fear and uncertainty. By accepting ideas of spirit rather than science we accept that we cannot look further than our present situation. Imagine what would have happened if Newton had simply given up on his theories of physics and accepted the easier version presented to him. What would the world be like today if Jonas Salk had decided that creating a vaccine for polio was beyond him and can only understood by God? We cannot allow ourselves to fall into such a position where we simply accept the supernatural as an explanation for natural events because they may seem, at the time, just too hard for us to understand.

Through my arguments I seek not to offend or hurt anyone who may believe in religious doctrine. In fact, I am also a very spiritual person. I, however, am able to separate my religious and spiritual beliefs from science. A very good explanation of this can be found here in an issue of the Economist that I read last year. The following is an except from the article that helps to explain my reasoning:

To illustrate the difference between scientific and religious “levels of understanding”, Mr. Haught asked a simple question. What causes a kettle to boil? One could answer, he said, that it is the rapid vibration of water molecules. Or that it is because one has asked one's spouse to switch on the stove. Or that it is “because I want a cup of tea.” None of these explanations conflicts with the others. In the same way, belief in evolution is compatible with religious faith: an omnipotent God could have created a universe in which life subsequently evolved.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4488706
Those words spoke to me because they allowed me to understand the concept of different levels of understanding. Religious beliefs and scientific beliefs are compatible with one another; one simply needs to keep them at different levels of understanding.
I hope that with this post I have clarified my argument and have helped to sway the minds of several people who may have been considering joining sides with those who believe that science is not the final truth. Ultimately, science will never be able to prove or disprove a divine force; thus, divinity should not be placed with science but rather viewed from religious or philosophical origins. If we are to create the best and most productive society that is possible, we must universally accept science and keep our religious beliefs in a separate domain.

An Introduction to Quantum Measurement

It is with this post that I begin my journey of learning about the world around me from a quantum physics perspective. Previously, I had learned to view the world around me through the eyes of a literary critic, a biologist, a linguist, an artist, and even an architect, but to view the world through the eyes of a quantum physicist is an entirely different ordeal. Assigned a reading from Professor Maleki’s website, I immediately completed it when I got back to my dorm. However, soon after, I decided to once again go through it and reread it, so that I would have a better understanding. The opening paragraph discusses the importance of quantitative measurement and how it relates to physics. While it states that most scientific research, specifically physics, is represented quantitatively, it is the quantitative part that is hardest for me to grasp. I am not a mathematics person; thus, I would have much difficulty understand the quantitative representation of quantum physics that we will be studying. I enjoy learning the theories behind the science, but when it comes to learning the math, I would probably be lost. Quite fortunately, this course focuses not on the math, but the theories.
The following paragraph discussed the creation of two separate branches of physics, the theoretical and the experimental. I find the theoretical branch to be far more interesting because I would rather interpret the results of an experiment and come up with a theory than actually perform the experiment.
While learning of the necessary repeatability of the experiment, as well as all other necessary parts of the experiment, I was reminded of a lesson taught to me last year in biology. Because current events dictated its importance, my biology AP teacher spent a week with us examining the controversy surrounding intelligent design. It was during this time that I first learned what truly constitutes science. Science must be able to be proven or disproved through experiments and such an experiment must have repeatability. The results of one test do not prove a scientific theory; rather, only through repeated experimentation can the hypothesis gain acceptance. Intelligent design is not science because it cannot be tested experimentally. There is no experiment that could be designed in order to test it; therefore, the experiment cannot be repeated.
While I may not be able to understand the complex mathematical equations that surround the theories to be discussed in this class, I would still like to learn how they relate to the theories. For example, I have difficulty in understanding how math can be used to explain theories such as string theory. How can math explain the world around us? How can numbers be applied to matter, other than describing it? I have heard that the universe is ruled by numbers and that numbers can explain everything, yet I cannot understand how that is possible. Although I know that we will be keeping away from mathematical equations for most of this class, I would very much like to at least learn some connections between the equations and the theories.