What is the purpose of Earth Day? To me, Earth Day is a day where everyone can hop onto the "going green" bandwagon, and for at least 1 day out of our calendar's 365, we can all say that we have done the Earth some good. Ultimately people go back to their everyday lives, as living as we do on Earth Day simply isn't realistic every single day of the year. But if Earth Day does nothing else to affect us over the course of the year, it does do one thing: it reminds us that the Earth needs to be cared for. Without Earth Day, we would all too easily forget about our impact on our planet. It's similar to the "Earth Hour" in which everybody turns off all their electronics for an hour, in an effort to save energy. Realistically, the energy that we save in one hour will have little effect compared to the rest of the hours in a year that we are not saving that energy, however it is important as a reminder.
So even though Earth Day completely skipped my mind, and I had no recollection of it until the assignment for this blog post was posted, the important thing is that we remember, so that we may make decisions between now and the next Earth Day that will have a more positive impact on our planet.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Motivation
What motivates me to learn the chemistry that we are learning this year?
There are a lot of things that interest me, for which there is no immediate outside cause for my motivation. I believe, personally, that I am naturally curious with the how, not so much as the why, for all sorts of things. Even if something does not have a clear application in the real world, it may still interest me in knowing how it works.
I believe this is the cause for my interests in different subjects at school, my motivation to do well in them, and as a result my grades in these subjects. A curiosity for explanations of how things work lends itself well to subjects like science or mathematics, which aim to explain how things work. Subjects like English or History are not as concerned with the explanation of how things became the way that they are, and do not lend themselves well to such explanations. As a result, I am not as naturally interesting in these subjects, and do not do as well in them. But things like math and science naturally interest me, so I need no outside source of motivation to learn them well. This, I believe, is my source of motivation to learn the Chemistry that we learn.
There are a lot of things that interest me, for which there is no immediate outside cause for my motivation. I believe, personally, that I am naturally curious with the how, not so much as the why, for all sorts of things. Even if something does not have a clear application in the real world, it may still interest me in knowing how it works.
I believe this is the cause for my interests in different subjects at school, my motivation to do well in them, and as a result my grades in these subjects. A curiosity for explanations of how things work lends itself well to subjects like science or mathematics, which aim to explain how things work. Subjects like English or History are not as concerned with the explanation of how things became the way that they are, and do not lend themselves well to such explanations. As a result, I am not as naturally interesting in these subjects, and do not do as well in them. But things like math and science naturally interest me, so I need no outside source of motivation to learn them well. This, I believe, is my source of motivation to learn the Chemistry that we learn.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Science and Politics, and You
The Freemasons censor scientific progress in order to keep their idealistic political control.
Only joking...
So what do Science and Politics have to do with each other? And what does that have to do with you?
Science (or as some like to call it, Magic) is at its prime. As a species which thrives on tools, science naturally lends itself well to our interest and practical neceseties. Scientific advances lead to improvements in such tools, which end up affecting each and every one of us almost constantly during our everyday lives. If you looked at the difference in technology between now and 30 years ago, you may find many of the same objects, but you will find many differences between those products. Cars, for one thing, certainly have made major advances since the 70's.
But how much of our research haven't we heard about...? How much of it has been barred from the collective public's ear?
As it turns out, if you are a scientist, it's not quite as simple as making a breakthrough discovery one day, and then having it become commonplace use the very next. There are many intermediate steps between discovering and utilizing, as far as technology goes - and this is where the politics play a role.
Charles Darwin (Happy Birthday, Chuck 'n Abe) is one well known example. After he first began to theorize his ideas about evolution, he spent years making sure that his observations were scientifically sound, but also spent time carefully planning how to best present this to the public. Creationism was a widely accepted public belief, so a theory about evolution such as Darwin's would be rejected and critisized if it were thrown out willy-nilly, as other researchers working on similar ideas at the time could have done. That's not to say that Darwin's theory of evolution was widely accepted, or ever even widely accepted. Even now, there are many people who oppose his theory. Luckily Darwin remained physically unharmed after proposing such a theological travesty, unlike poor Galileo...
The main point that I guess I am trying to convey (I forgot where I was going with that...) is that science and politics do not mix. While science is concerned with the absolute truth of things, politics is concerned with whichever truth is best for the general public. Especially when it comes to controversial topics, these truths do not always overlap. What does this mean for you? Nothing, if you don't consider it. That's the beauty of censorship.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Nuclear Power
Nuclear power is a bad idea. It's a bad idea for the same reason procrastination is a bad idea. Don't get me wrong, I love to procrastinate. I consider myself a chronic procrastinator (I have put off writing this blog post for two weeks).
At first glance, nuclear power seems like a great idea. You take some matter and turn it into clean, abundant energy. Problem solved. Oh, except that as a biproduct, we are left with extremely dangerous radioactive material that would stay radioactive for tens of thousands of years. What's more, we have no way to get rid of this stuff safely, except to bury it in the ground and hope that eventually we will figure out what to do with it before it causes any harm.
This reminded me of a funny quote about procrastination: Hard work pays off later, procrastination pays off now.
To be honest, this is not all that different from the type of mindset that I'm picking up from this nuclear power idea. Basically, the payoff of cheap energy is immediate, and the consequences are put off until later.
In addition, the argument is made that nuclear energy does not contribute to global warming, which makes it a good thing. On the one hand, if the decision came down only between facing a global warming apocolypse in the near future, or a mass nuclear waste spillage cenario tens of thousands of years in the future, I would choose the latter. The reality of it is, however, that it is not a black-and-white choice between two sources of energy. There are many shades of gray, as we are discovering with our "go green" fad and our frantic search for an alternative energy source. Hydrogen fuel is a good idea, except that as abundant as water is, it is still not a renewable resource. The best option in my opinion would be solar energy. It may as well be renewable; once the sun is burned out, though most likely billions of years after humans have seen the last of this planet, life here would be screwed anyways.
Got a little off topic there. In short, nuclear power is like procrastination. Though we would not have to deal with it in our lifetime, eventually somebody would. That is what we are counting on by supporting nuclear power, that eventually, somebody would come up with a way of dealing with this. But what if nobody did? Are we really willing to play dice with the fate of our race?
Well that was pretty unorganized, as usual. Got to stop writing these so late at night...
At first glance, nuclear power seems like a great idea. You take some matter and turn it into clean, abundant energy. Problem solved. Oh, except that as a biproduct, we are left with extremely dangerous radioactive material that would stay radioactive for tens of thousands of years. What's more, we have no way to get rid of this stuff safely, except to bury it in the ground and hope that eventually we will figure out what to do with it before it causes any harm.
This reminded me of a funny quote about procrastination: Hard work pays off later, procrastination pays off now.
To be honest, this is not all that different from the type of mindset that I'm picking up from this nuclear power idea. Basically, the payoff of cheap energy is immediate, and the consequences are put off until later.
In addition, the argument is made that nuclear energy does not contribute to global warming, which makes it a good thing. On the one hand, if the decision came down only between facing a global warming apocolypse in the near future, or a mass nuclear waste spillage cenario tens of thousands of years in the future, I would choose the latter. The reality of it is, however, that it is not a black-and-white choice between two sources of energy. There are many shades of gray, as we are discovering with our "go green" fad and our frantic search for an alternative energy source. Hydrogen fuel is a good idea, except that as abundant as water is, it is still not a renewable resource. The best option in my opinion would be solar energy. It may as well be renewable; once the sun is burned out, though most likely billions of years after humans have seen the last of this planet, life here would be screwed anyways.
Got a little off topic there. In short, nuclear power is like procrastination. Though we would not have to deal with it in our lifetime, eventually somebody would. That is what we are counting on by supporting nuclear power, that eventually, somebody would come up with a way of dealing with this. But what if nobody did? Are we really willing to play dice with the fate of our race?
Well that was pretty unorganized, as usual. Got to stop writing these so late at night...
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Quantum Mechanics
So last Chemistry class we were given our first doses of Quantum Mechanics... headaches ensued. One reason for this is that there were many new, radical ideas presented to us, and there wasn't much explanation.
This was one of the videos we watched. This video really makes the reality of it seem weirder than it is, because it is over simplified. It reality, the electrons don't change from being a wave to a particle simply because they know they are being watched... observing a particle requires interaction between the particle and the detector, essentially changing the detector in some way (triggering a 'detection') and also changing the particle itself. Changing the particle could have any number of effects, most of which would likely interrupt the wave-like behavior. Normally on our macroscopic scale, we think that observing something doesn't have to change the object being observed in any way, and that's because truthfully it doesn't noticeably. But I would imagine that one photon of light (what is hitting your eye, the detector) bouncing off of an object(what you are looking at) would somehow alter what ever the photon is actually hitting on the subatomic scale.
The idea that a particle - sorry, particle-wave - like an electron can have all its states in superposition at the same time is an interesting concept. It is like nothing we observe on our macroscopic scale. It almost reminds me of my confusion starting Algebra. I had a little bit of trouble understanding how one variable could represent more than one thing at the same time, especially when you can only evaluate it as one thing at a time. Accepting the concept was no problem at all, but understanding it was. There is definitely a difference between accepting a fact to be true, and actually understanding that fact. Unfortunately, most of quantum mechanics is something we as chemistry students will have to simply accept to be true, no matter how little sense it makes.
Quantum Mechanics is based off another new idea that is unobservable in our macroscopic scale - that the electron energy levels are 'quantifiable' and that there is no 'in between' electron energy levels. This sort of concept, however, is not so hard for me to understand. Relating to stored computer values, there are many types for which there are no 'in betweens'. For instance, certain things can be only true or false. There is no in between true and false, its either one or the other. More commonly, if you thought of letters of the alphabet as values, then there is no letter in between 'a' and 'b', so letters of the alphabet are also similar to quantifiable values. But the fact that the position of the electron physically is quantifiable - that there is no in between electron energy levels - is something not so easily related. There is nothing in the macroscopic scale that works in the same way. To get from a to b, you must go through the space in between a and b (unless a was infinitely close to b). So for an electron to go from a to b, and skip the in between, does not make much sense.
I mentioned in the above paragraph that the behavior of wave-particles is nothing like anything we have on the macroscopic scale, which is yet another thing that fascinates me and at the same time perplexes me further. It's as if the atomic scale is bound by completely different rules than our scale. Like it's a whole extra world. And why? Why should laws which hold true for anything on this scale not apply for the atomic scale? Where is the line drawn?
Finally, I am very reluctant to accept that probability rules over the quantum world. In my mind, probability and 'randomness' are abstract and illogical ideas, that don't truly exist. If you knew enough about a given situation, you could predict it's outcome. The problem with the quantum scale is that it is impossible to know about the given situation in the same way it is on the macroscopic scale. Where as on the macroscopic scale we are limited in predicting the outcome of a coin flip by impracticality, on the quantum world we are limited by the very laws of physics. It is my personal opinion regardless that there is a difference between unpredictability and true randomness.
Despite all the uncertainty, I must say that all the confusion over waves and particles has really helped clear up what exactly was meant by light being a wave. I wasn't quite sure how to interpret or visualize it before, but it is perfectly clear now.
Seriously, if you are reading every word of all these, I'm really sorry and I wish I could make it up to you somehow.
This was one of the videos we watched. This video really makes the reality of it seem weirder than it is, because it is over simplified. It reality, the electrons don't change from being a wave to a particle simply because they know they are being watched... observing a particle requires interaction between the particle and the detector, essentially changing the detector in some way (triggering a 'detection') and also changing the particle itself. Changing the particle could have any number of effects, most of which would likely interrupt the wave-like behavior. Normally on our macroscopic scale, we think that observing something doesn't have to change the object being observed in any way, and that's because truthfully it doesn't noticeably. But I would imagine that one photon of light (what is hitting your eye, the detector) bouncing off of an object(what you are looking at) would somehow alter what ever the photon is actually hitting on the subatomic scale.
The idea that a particle - sorry, particle-wave - like an electron can have all its states in superposition at the same time is an interesting concept. It is like nothing we observe on our macroscopic scale. It almost reminds me of my confusion starting Algebra. I had a little bit of trouble understanding how one variable could represent more than one thing at the same time, especially when you can only evaluate it as one thing at a time. Accepting the concept was no problem at all, but understanding it was. There is definitely a difference between accepting a fact to be true, and actually understanding that fact. Unfortunately, most of quantum mechanics is something we as chemistry students will have to simply accept to be true, no matter how little sense it makes.
Quantum Mechanics is based off another new idea that is unobservable in our macroscopic scale - that the electron energy levels are 'quantifiable' and that there is no 'in between' electron energy levels. This sort of concept, however, is not so hard for me to understand. Relating to stored computer values, there are many types for which there are no 'in betweens'. For instance, certain things can be only true or false. There is no in between true and false, its either one or the other. More commonly, if you thought of letters of the alphabet as values, then there is no letter in between 'a' and 'b', so letters of the alphabet are also similar to quantifiable values. But the fact that the position of the electron physically is quantifiable - that there is no in between electron energy levels - is something not so easily related. There is nothing in the macroscopic scale that works in the same way. To get from a to b, you must go through the space in between a and b (unless a was infinitely close to b). So for an electron to go from a to b, and skip the in between, does not make much sense.
I mentioned in the above paragraph that the behavior of wave-particles is nothing like anything we have on the macroscopic scale, which is yet another thing that fascinates me and at the same time perplexes me further. It's as if the atomic scale is bound by completely different rules than our scale. Like it's a whole extra world. And why? Why should laws which hold true for anything on this scale not apply for the atomic scale? Where is the line drawn?
Finally, I am very reluctant to accept that probability rules over the quantum world. In my mind, probability and 'randomness' are abstract and illogical ideas, that don't truly exist. If you knew enough about a given situation, you could predict it's outcome. The problem with the quantum scale is that it is impossible to know about the given situation in the same way it is on the macroscopic scale. Where as on the macroscopic scale we are limited in predicting the outcome of a coin flip by impracticality, on the quantum world we are limited by the very laws of physics. It is my personal opinion regardless that there is a difference between unpredictability and true randomness.
Despite all the uncertainty, I must say that all the confusion over waves and particles has really helped clear up what exactly was meant by light being a wave. I wasn't quite sure how to interpret or visualize it before, but it is perfectly clear now.
Seriously, if you are reading every word of all these, I'm really sorry and I wish I could make it up to you somehow.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
--- Two Months Later ---
*Dusts off blog*
Did you know?
(Just FYI)
This video tells me a few things. The majority of these things are numbers, phrased as facts. But the main ideas it gets across is not all that surprising (if not already known), least ways not as much as the formentioned numbers.
China is becoming a big world player, soon bigger than the U.S. will be. In case you didn't already know. It seems to be commonplace knowledge right now (Southpark has already parodied it), so the real stiff bit delivered from this video are the facts backing it up. Where as previously, being the arrogant Americans that we are: not paying much mind to the world as a whole and what's going on in it, we had to be told about what China is becoming as a nation, and we had to talk other peoples' words for it. The holding of the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing was the first stroke of awareness for most people, but China has been in the position it is now for far longer than most were aware of it.
Irregardless, it is now commonplace knowledge that China is becoming a big world player. And in case you had any doubts, or in case you needed to see for yourself just how China is sizing up, this video presented the appropriate numbers.
In addition, numbers were presented relating to an increasingly sporadic job market. This failed to surprise me as well as a new idea - I hear all the time about layoffs. And when one considers how our "Mexican Problem" comes into play, along with outsourcing, it's no wonder that our job market sucks. Given our economic status, it's not getting much better any time soon. But again, a sharp reality of the situation is well delivered in this video using numbers.
"We are living in exponential times" was another message supported by numbers in this video. As biologists will tell you, populations increase exponentially unless limited by some limiting factor, which we humans have yet to encounter. In the video, a lot of numbers are presented showing how things have increased exponentially, or are increasing exponentially. Well given that over time, our world population has increased exponentially from 1 billion in 1804 to our current standing of 6.7 billion, in a short 200 odd years. We have doubled our population in only 38 years! And the amount of time for a doubling to occur will shorten as time goes on; exponential curves are like that. It stands to reason that our technological milestones, being directly related to us humans, should increase exponentially as well, among other things. To me, this video is simply listing off our accomplishments, and predicting some that I can only look forward to.
Finally, the video closes by telling you how many babies have spawned since you started watching the video: in the U.S., in China, and in India. They then tell you how many songs have been illegally downloaded. This struck me as odd, as far as an ending note goes. It sums up the point about our exponentially increasing technology, similarly to how the note about the babies wraps up the points about China and India, but it does so by introducing a different concept of how our technology is being used - as a posed to the milestones that were presented earlier, showing how technology is being used to better ourselves and accomplish more. It presents the darker reality of technology: our increase will affect the negatives just as much as the positives.
Well isn't that just a wall of text... you deserve a prize for reading it all.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Welcome!
If you have stumbled upon this page looking for Jack W's chemistry blog, then you're in the right place! If you didn't, odds are you aren't in the right place at all... but who knows.
At any rate, welcome to my Solid! Chemistry blog!
At any rate, welcome to my Solid! Chemistry blog!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
