|
Imbellis
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Robert
Country: United States
State: Tennessee
Metro: Knoxville
Gender: Male
Interests: Chemistry... I know but I can get 100% pure ethanol. Mathematics... theres no excuse other than I can find a parallel line in the 5th demintion effortlessly. Philosophy; currently attempting to create a worldview which connects the reality of faith with the reality of science and mathematics. All sports except basketball. I play hockey. I love music more than anything else man has created.
Expertise: Chemistry and math obviously. Need help? Just ask. Hockey, bass player and drummer. Expert sit-com watcher. Can write some pretty funny stuff... if you like to read... which i dont...
Occupation: Student
Message: message meEmail: email me
Website: visit my website
AIM:  imbellischaos
Member Since:
1/26/2005
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Wow... I haven't updated in a while... guess it is time... Stupid summer...
This post will be on how as a scientist one should look at physical laws and their relation to the physical reality.
Most everyone can spout forth a physical law: E = mc^2, pV = nRT; from the most simple in form, F = m a, to the most complicated, N[i]/N = g[i] exp (-E[i]/kT) / Sum (g exp (-E/kT)). All of these laws have some particular similarities that are often lost in translation and or taken for granted. There is a fine elegance to the formation of a scientific law and with the elegance comes some principle axioms which one takes on faith, if not for granite. One such axiom is the thought that observations can be represented in mathematical terms and logic.
This principle is one of the most neglected as when students are hastily burning their pencil rubber, and using what to them seems to be an unfathomable amount of equations, they never stop and think, "why does this work? How is it that I can multiply a pressure and a volume together and get the thermal energy of a gaseous system?" They simply just regurgitate the data and methods shown them in order to make the A. Yet, when these questions are asked a state of bewilderment usually soon follows. The reason for this confusion is rooted in the ingrained idea that mathematical logic is definite, which of course in a very real sense, it is. If an idea is presented in a mathematical formula and it passes all mathematical scrutiny then to the average observer it has to be true. The problem arises when a physical phenomena is presented in a mathematical form.
Going back to the chemist's favorite equation, the ideal gas law, pV = nRT, we see an elegant and simple equation which is packed with so many ideas, theories, and assumptions that books have been written on this very equation. Only when one begins to assign meaning to the mathematics presented, one finds the true meaning of the ideas presented there in, and the vast errors in its presentation in mathematics.
Having pV on the same side signifies that the two quantities (pressure and volume) are inversely proportional, meaning that when one increases the other decreases. Having p and V opposing T and n signifies that p and V are directly proportional to T and n, meaning that when p and/or V increases either T and/or n have to increase. This is basic idea of the ideal gas law. There is a problem though, upon the inputting of 0 K for the temperature what happens? The right side of the equation goes to 0 as well. This means that either p or V have to equal 0 as well, which leads to the idea that when matter is at 0 K it takes up no space whatsoever. This is obviously wrong, so what else does this equation tell?
The idea gas law predicts the disappearance of all matter at 0 K it seems, yet there are counter measures to this built into the law. The law assumes absolutely no interactions of any sort between the matter and that at 0 K there is absolutely no energy in the system. These two assumptions couldn't be more wrong in the realm of the actual physical world. The reason why the equation is used is because it works well for a certain temperature range. At other temperature ranges other equations apply (i.e. other laws overpower the ideal gas law) and they are used but no gas law is as simple as the ideal gas law.
So the question is when does a 'law' cease to rule or when does something forbidden actual occurs? The answer is all the time. The reason why forbidden transitions exists in quantum chemistry is simply because they can. While according to the math forbidden transitions will never occur, they do... and they do quite readily. This leads to the point that physical laws are made up by the observer in order to rationalize the phenomena. They in no way are there to control the phenomena.
| | |
| X-Men: The Last Stand ReviewJust got back from the midnight showing of the new X-Men movie. Apparently there was one of those hidden clips at the end of the credits... I didn't see it... nor did anyone else in the theater. When the movie ended, everyone looked at each other, shrugged got up and began to walk out. There were a number of explitives said.
Whow, whow, wait a second! Was it... could it have been... say it isn't so... was it... bad?
No, it wasn't bad. Infact the movie rocked.
Then what was with the crowd being upset?
Because those who were fans of the characters and comics felt betrayed. Yes, I reconise that the first two films weren't the closest of films to the comics, but they were feasible. They never really changed the dynamic of the story (the biggest one was sabertooth and Logan not knowing each other). In this movie every main event changes the dynamic of the comics. I won't go into details and spoil the movie but one that I can talk about is this.
Juggarnaut was Charles' brother. He was not a mutant. His powers came form a magical crystal. In the movie he is a random MUTANT who gets his butt kicked by Kitty Pryde. WTF?!? Come on... I know that you can't go into the whole back story or anything but... he was a useless character in the movie... so why use HIM. Pick someone else... say... the blob... that would have ruled! Second... Pyro being ranked as being just as powerful as Magneto... ... ... ... ... huh... ... ... ... ... hell no! That is the stupidest thing. That line played no part in the movie... yet it was said. Why?!?
In both the spider-man movies the main departure it had form the comics was... MJ being pete's neighbor. That's it! All the little things were done correctly. In X-men none of the little things that fans will pick up on were done. Pyro is suppose to be an auzzie. Just have the kid fake the accent thats all! You may say that those are peddy things but it is those things that fans like. There are main events which make this movie a slap in the face to fans. They just cant be overlooked. One of the big things is that Jean Grey obviously loves Logan more than Scot. That is just wrong!
My final critque: As a movie... kick ass A-, as an X-men movie... Poor, C+.
Good highlights: Dont you know who I am?!? Im the Juggarnaut bitch! Nachoooooooooo Libre! and Ghost Rider trailer... ooooo that is going to kick major ass.
| | |
| Ok here is a question (in which the answer was given in class) that is going to be on the Psyc test monday.
Q: How can a placebo reduce the experience of pain?
A: It can't, because pain is real and placebos have no real effect.
Ok so whom ever wrote this is a moron. Case and point, placebos are by definition not real yet they do actually augment the mental state of a person thereby causeing a real effect. This is known as well... the placebo effect (an effect that did not really happen). The answer is just wrong... the question had nothing to do with weither the placebo effect is real or not, the fact is that the effect is well... felt, a placebo actually does cause pain reduction and this is easily proven by simply with holding the pill. More pain is felt in that instance and with the placebo less pain is felt... even though the mechanism is entirely mental it is initiated by the placebo. So the real answer to this question is that the taking of the placebo causes the mind to disregard some of the pain because it "knows" that it should not feel the pain.
ANOTHER THING! Pain is not real. Pain does not exist in an objective way. It is a totally subjective and mental incarnation of what is taking place to the body. If you put your hand in liq. nitrogen it burns, the same feeling that you get when you light your hand on fire. The burning sensation is a way that your body tells you that something is extremely wrong with the temperature. Also when something bad happens like the loss of a loved one... you feel what... pain. Is that something that has personally happened to you... no. How about phantom pains (pains of a part of the body when that part doesnt exist). There are some things we sense that are real (aka apart from us) as in colour, space and time. These things are real but pain is not, it is felt not observed and it is not a force therefore it is a figment of our imagination.
Just another instance on why psycology majors dont know shit about their own subject. | | |
| Well... I've offically started my senior thesis. There is no title yet but i'd imagine it would be something to the effect of "Investigation of Polyoxovanidates Clusters by Neutron Scattering and Magnetic Techniques."
The funny thing is that im writing this thing without any neutron scattering and little magnetic data. Even if you have no clue as to what that means you could probably gather from the pseudo title that those two things are rather important. Right now I am trying to make deuterated reagents so i can make a fully deuterated polyoxovanidate cluster. Next week i expect to do the deuterated reaction and i will be in a very bad mood because of all the pressure (the one reaction will cost 1000 bucks). After that everything will fall neatly into place.
Right now i have about 15 papers on metal clusters that i need to read as well as 3 books on metal-carbonyl cluster, 3 on solid state chemistry, 2 on neutron scattering, 2 on ligand theory. So as you may tell.... i really hate chemistry at this moment in time!
Good things is the the thesis only has to be 20ish pages. Bad things is that to satisfy myself and my research prof i have to get around 40ish (sometimes i hate having work ethics, damn protestents!). Ive gotten 5 pages worth of crap all written (meaning no graphs, pics, formulas or tables) which shoudl transcribe to about 8 pages total. Not bad... I'm wanting my introduction to be around 20-25 pages which shouldnt be too bad since im talking about metal clusters, TMPCs, PSC theory, termal neutron scattering, and magnetochemistry. The latter 2 will require a lot of formulas and pics (nice page use). I also should have around 40 references and as of now i have about 25 which isnt too bad.
anyways... i need to sleep sometime... and right now is as good of time as any... | | |
| One Stone: The relative origin of the theory of relativity
Through the course of Albert Einstein’s life he was influenced by many great minds. Bohr, Planck, Schrödinger, and Born are among the men whom Einstein made his acquaintances. While one would say that this list is impressive, the men had less influence on Einstein’s life than two special women, his wives. His first wife had the most influence on his scientific career for it was within his years of being married to her where he was about to publish his most ingenious works.
Mileva Maric was a perfect match for the young Einstein. She was the sole physics major at the Swiss Polytechnic school in Zurich where Einstein attended during his undergraduate years. Both he and Mileva became an item during their second semester and their relationship developed further into romance which lead to marriage. His mother was not pleased with his choice of a bride and disapproved of the marriage.
Einstein and Mileva had a beautiful correspondence which in its beginning centered innocently on Mileva’s physic courses but soon they turned into affectionate love letters. Through his letters one can gather the intellectual inspiration that Mileva gave to Einstein. In his letters he speaks, among other things, about the idea of relativity. Throughout their years at Zurich they shared the same course work, yet for one semester she studied under the Noble lacerate Phillipe Lenard who discovered the photoelectric effect, which fitting enough, Einstein explained.
It is said that Mileva was more than just Einstein’s wife, she was his partner. In her biography written by Trbuhovic-Gjuric, it was documented that upon being asked why she did not try to acquire more credit for her work in helping her husband she simply replied, "We are one stone; Ein stein." Dr. Evan Harris Walker has lead the way in the insight that Mileva may be the formulator of the Special Theory of Relativity as well as a number of other ideas which are commonly attributed to Einstein. While that may be too strong of a statement, it is undeniable that she collaborated with Einstein.
In 1919 Einstein admitted to committing adultery (with one of his cousins) and divorced Mileva. He promised her that if he won the Nobel Prize she would receive all the prize money, and in 1922 when he receive the prize money he gave it all to her. This action has lead some to believe in Walkers assessment on the origination of Einstein’s ideas.
As one could probably gather Einstein’s marriage ended in a very unpleasant fashion. As Einstein focused on his work Mileva became depressed. For a short while after their second child, Eduard, was born their situation improved but she was becoming jealous of the women in which Einstein flirted with. Eventually Einstein excepted a position at the University of Berlin where his cousin, Elsa lived near. Mileva did not approve of Einstein spending time with Elsa, and rightfully so.
The woman he one professed his great love for, he heartlessly treated her and even referred to her as being “uncommonly ugly.” It sadly got worse for Einstein himself never, as anyone has yet to report, mentioned a single word about having a daughter with Mileva. It seemed the only thing which kept Mileva from a total mental breakdown was the caring for her son Eduard, who was extremely gifted, but mentally unstable. In 1948 she died after suffering from a stroke which left her paralyzed one side of her body the year before.
| | |
|
