Science Professor Quotes

[Muse]

Originally Posted by BostonTim

Known far and wide as the most dreaded course in the world. Dropped my Junior year at umass afte the third class. Whew.

Organic 2 was the only class I failed in college.I got a D and that was failing since this was my major, Chemistry. I ended up taking it at a nearby college because after all taking it during the summer for six weeks would make me figure it out way more than a semester of it LOLOL I did but man it was %^**&&.

[Baron Samedi]

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

I've got two of these;

http://www.badideatshirts.com/Hi-I-D...irt-P2901.aspx

As of this weekend, I'm down to one of these shirts.

One got soaked in blood after my experiment with using a hand saw as a fly swatter.

If you've ever been in the north country during bug season, you'll understand. It was totally worth it.

For the scientific record, I established a couple of facts...

1) A hand saw is actually a pretty good flyswatter, but it's also a pretty good saw.

2) When your arm is covered in blood and dripping everywhere, it does not seem to attract any more bugs than normal, nor do they go for the easy pickins, they still bite you in the most annoying places.
It's too bad, because I thought maybe easy fresh blood would stop the bites. Nope. Little bastids.

I'm totally fine. The cut looked worse than it was. I didn't even head back to the cabin for another hour or so.

The one fly for one shirt exchange doesn't work for me, though. I don't have that many shirts.

[Muse]

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

As of this weekend, I'm down to one of these shirts.

One got soaked in blood after my experiment with using a hand saw as a fly swatter.

If you've ever been in the north country during bug season, you'll understand. It was totally worth it.

For the scientific record, I established a couple of facts...

1) A hand saw is actually a pretty good flyswatter, but it's also a pretty good saw.

2) When your arm is covered in blood and dripping everywhere, it does not seem to attract any more bugs than normal, nor do they go for the easy pickins, they still bite you in the most annoying places.
It's too bad, because I thought maybe easy fresh blood would stop the bites. Nope. Little bastids.

I'm totally fine. The cut looked worse than it was. I didn't even head back to the cabin for another hour or so.

The one fly for one shirt exchange doesn't work for me, though. I don't have that many shirts.

Depends what you call the north country. I am from Northern Maine where each summer we are invaded by the damnest flies and mosquitos where the sides of houses are covered, the road crunches as you drive and so forth. It has gotten better over the years since I recall growing up but that is something one just not forget.

And ah damn, glad you are okay shugs.

[Baron Samedi]

Originally Posted by Muse

Depends what you call the north country. I am from Northern Maine where each summer we are invaded by the damnest flies and mosquitos where the sides of houses are covered, the road crunches as you drive and so forth. It has gotten better over the years since I recall growing up but that is something one just not forget.

And ah damn, glad you are okay shugs.

For me, it's the Rangeley area....nowhere near as north as you. You're like an honorary Canadian....but we prolly share the same bug invasions.

This is for you, brother...

[Muse]

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

For me, it's the Rangeley area....nowhere near as north as you. You're like an honorary Canadian....but we prolly share the same bug invasions.

This is for you, brother...

Yeah I am 10-12 miles from the border and have relatives on both sides of the border. #Sisterhere

Sadly not a fun thing to share.

That video states it well. LOL

[O_P_T]

Originally Posted by Muse

Thermodynamics a blast from the past. I remember waiting outside in the hall sitting on the floor as my boyfriend, now husband, took this class. I had four takeaways from this.

1- The class sounded amazing!
2- The teacher was no joke
3- I am glad I did not have to take this class. LOL
4- I felt horrible for the students.

My physics instructor sounds like your teacher. He would come in with shirt half tucked, come in with a comb in his hair, he would come in late, some days he never came in, other days come in with food to eat as he taught. Snaggle tooth Ragland is what students called him. LOL Oh my gosh you invoked that memory. Haha

My third year of college is when I decided to change my major to Chemistry. I was told that would mean an extra year of school. And like I wrote earlier that to me was not an option. I was not going to take on that financial added burden. So I took 20-22 credit hours for six straight semesters two of which were during the summer and did this while working a job plus work study.

For us Chemistry and Physics were one department and that is why we knew who was who. I did graduate on time and in fact graduated the top of my department. However if I had to take Thermo I am not sure I would be able to make that claim. I guess since I did not have to take it my fascination for it was not squashed.

The Physics department was small and like you small classes for the major classes. But where we were different in this and that when it came to math that common bond was there.

The last year my classes normally had a half dozen since Organic Chem, a bitch of a class, the Calculus, and Analytical Chem would weed out some of my classmates. And that came in handy for lab work we could do it at the assigned time or come when we were able to come.

Again, loved your post shugs.from my geek to another. Plus will have to pass on what you said about Therrmo to hubby. LOL. The little bit of Thermo I had to take was very interesting.

I accept that I'm not "normal"

In fact, for years I had a key chain that said "Why be normal".

That being said, I don't understand the "fear" associated with Thermodynamics.

I also don't understand why many people have such a challenge with geography trivia questions, but I digress.

As a Physics major, I was required to be in the pool for tutors.

At first I was horrible at it. For me some of the concepts was 1+1 =2, and I had no idea how someone couldn't grasp that.

One of my professors, paraphrased a quote variously attributed to Einstein or Feynman.

"if you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

Regardless who said it, there's a good deal of wisdom in that statement.

Analogy is the essence of explanation, and if one can't find an effective analogy for one's audience, then one doesn't really grasp the topic.

Once I accepted that, I was a much better tutor.

Hell, I even got a jock to understand Special Relativity and the Lorentz Transformations.

All that required was that he know the Pythagorean Theorem.

If you're really nice, I just might explain it to you.

[Muse]

Originally Posted by O_P_T

I accept that I'm not "normal"

In fact, for years I had a key chain that said "Why be normal".

That being said, I don't understand the "fear" associated with Thermodynamics.

I also don't understand why many people have such a challenge with geography trivia questions, but I digress.

As a Physics major, I was required to be in the pool for tutors.

At first I was horrible at it. For me some of the concepts was 1+1 =2, and I had no idea how someone couldn't grasp that.

One of my professors, paraphrased a quote variously attributed to Einstein or Feynman.

"if you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

Regardless who said it, there's a good deal of wisdom in that statement.

Analogy is the essence of explanation, and if one can't find an effective analogy for one's audience, then one doesn't really grasp the topic.

Once I accepted that, I was a much better tutor.

Hell, I even got a jock to understand Special Relativity and the Lorentz Transformations.

All that required was that he know the Pythagorean Theorem.

If you're really nice, I just might explain it to you.

If you want to explain it to me go for it. I will listen.


IMHO not everyone can or should be a teacher. Some people are at such a level that what they know and how to explain it does not trickle down in a classroom. They just can not make that adjustment. Add in the ego factor for some professors and that makes it worse.

These are the classes, at least in my experience with other college students, why they have a " fear" of certain classes. Especially when that is the only instructor teaching that class.

If we are in a field we love and do well in it might make no sense why others don't just get it. But not everyone will get Physics,Chemistry, Math and a host of other degrees. But that is why we are in the fields we are in, we simply get the material and enjoy it.

[bideau]

Originally Posted by Muse

If you want to explain it to me go for it. I will listen.


IMHO not everyone can or should be a teacher. Some people are at such a level that what they know and how to explain it does not trickle down in a classroom. They just can not make that adjustment. Add in the ego factor for some professors and that makes it worse.

These are the classes, at least in my experience with other college students, why they have a " fear" of certain classes. Especially when that is the only instructor teaching that class.

If we are in a field we love and do well in it might make no sense why others don't just get it. But not everyone will get Physics,Chemistry, Math and a host of other degrees. But that is why we are in the fields we are in, we simply get the material and enjoy it.

The equivalent saying in sports is that the greatest athletes rarely make good coaches.

[Muse]

Originally Posted by bideau

The equivalent saying in sports is that the greatest athletes rarely make good coaches.

[Baron Samedi]

Originally Posted by Muse

IMHO not everyone can or should be a teacher. Some people are at such a level that what they know and how to explain it does not trickle down in a classroom. They just can not make that adjustment. Add in the ego factor for some professors and that makes it worse.

Nowhere, in my experience, was this more apparent than in the brutal, inaccurate, very poor analogies that quantum geeks used to try to explain the Higgs Boson. They really tried, but the poor dorks would just copy each others' really piss poor analogies over and over. The more they tried to explain it, the less average folks "got it".

The problem was, primarily, that for whatever reason, they avoid explaining things in terms of quantum fields, and try to explain everything in a "particular" way, as in particles....which is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Years and years of hearing the same terrible explanations, it's frustrating as hell.

Here's how I would have done it....

"If you are sitting in a magnetic field, and you have a fork in each hand, one plastic, and one stainless steel...one of those forks, the steel one, will interact with the magnetic field, you may see sparks or feel a pull on the fork in some direction. The plastic fork won't interact at all...no sparks, no magnetic pull. Understand?

The Higgs Field is like a magnetic field, but for particles. It's everywhere in the universe, and particles that interact with it feel drag, like swimming through water...this drag will make them move slower than light speed and impart them with mass, just like the steel fork in the magnetic field getting electrified. The particles that don't interact with the Higgs Field will just happily keep zipping along at light speed, because they have no drag on them, and no mass. Like the palstic fork."

I know, it's a long post that isn't even on topic...but I've seen so many stupid explanations like "You and the president go to a party, and everyone gathers around the president and not you, and that's what the Higgs does"
...crap like that. It's almost like they don't want people to grasp it.

[Muse]

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

Nowhere, in my experience, was this more apparent than in the brutal, inaccurate, very poor analogies that quantum geeks used to try to explain the Higgs Boson. They really tried, but the poor dorks would just copy each others' really piss poor analogies over and over. The more they tried to explain it, the less average folks "got it".

The problem was, primarily, that for whatever reason, they avoid explaining things in terms of quantum fields, and try to explain everything in a "particular" way, as in particles....which is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Years and years of hearing the same terrible explanations, it's frustrating as hell.

Here's how I would have done it....

"If you are sitting in a magnetic field, and you have a fork in each hand, one plastic, and one stainless steel...one of those forks, the steel one, will interact with the magnetic field, you may see sparks or feel a pull on the fork in some direction. The plastic fork won't interact at all...no sparks, no magnetic pull. Understand?

The Higgs Field is like a magnetic field, but for particles. It's everywhere in the universe, and particles that interact with it feel drag, like swimming through water...this drag will make them move slower than light speed and impart them with mass, just like the steel fork in the magnetic field getting electrified. The particles that don't interact with the Higgs Field will just happily keep zipping along at light speed, because they have no drag on them, and no mass. Like the palstic fork."

I know, it's a long post that isn't even on topic...but I've seen so many stupid explanations like "You and the president go to a party, and everyone gathers around the president and not you, and that's what the Higgs does"
...crap like that. It's almost like they don't want people to grasp it.

Well done.

I enjoyed it regardless of length.

There have been times I been able to explain things vs when I have not been able to. Different factors played out for both on why it happened or didn't happen.

I have thought of something you posted.I have been around people who would do this on purpose 1/ they didn't want people to get it 2/ show off how much they knew 3/ perhaps elevate themselves

Stop being a dick. If you need to do this to elevate yourself what does that say about you?

[chevss454]

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

Nowhere, in my experience, was this more apparent than in the brutal, inaccurate, very poor analogies that quantum geeks used to try to explain the Higgs Boson. They really tried, but the poor dorks would just copy each others' really piss poor analogies over and over. The more they tried to explain it, the less average folks "got it".

The problem was, primarily, that for whatever reason, they avoid explaining things in terms of quantum fields, and try to explain everything in a "particular" way, as in particles....which is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Years and years of hearing the same terrible explanations, it's frustrating as hell.

Here's how I would have done it....

"If you are sitting in a magnetic field, and you have a fork in each hand, one plastic, and one stainless steel...one of those forks, the steel one, will interact with the magnetic field, you may see sparks or feel a pull on the fork in some direction. The plastic fork won't interact at all...no sparks, no magnetic pull. Understand?

The Higgs Field is like a magnetic field, but for particles. It's everywhere in the universe, and particles that interact with it feel drag, like swimming through water...this drag will make them move slower than light speed and impart them with mass, just like the steel fork in the magnetic field getting electrified. The particles that don't interact with the Higgs Field will just happily keep zipping along at light speed, because they have no drag on them, and no mass. Like the palstic fork."

I know, it's a long post that isn't even on topic...but I've seen so many stupid explanations like "You and the president go to a party, and everyone gathers around the president and not you, and that's what the Higgs does"
...crap like that. It's almost like they don't want people to grasp it.

Excellent description in an easy to understand way. Thank you, Baron.


Now could you explain dark matter, which I find fascinating, and its relationship to matter, gravity and radiation please?

[O_P_T]

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

I know, it's a long post that isn't even on topic...but I've seen so many stupid explanations like "You and the president go to a party, and everyone gathers around the president and not you, and that's what the Higgs does"
...crap like that. It's almost like they don't want people to grasp it.

Good analogy.

That's what my Professor was referring to. If you understand a subject, you can come up with multiple analogies to explain it. Hopefully one of them will work.

People who stick with one analogy, typically don't fully grasp the subject, so they have to keep repeating the one they heard.

One I hear all the time that makes me grimace, is when someone tries to explain the thermodynamic concept of Entropy by saying "it's like a refrigerator".



That's a partial explanation at best.

Entropy the measure of "disorder" in a thermodynamic system and imposes some limits on being able to perform useful "work".

If you had a system at a constant uniform temperature, that would be the maximum amount of "disorder". You also would not be able to do any "work".

If you have different parts at different temperatures, that is "structure" in a thermodynamic sense. If you have different parts at different temperatures, you can use the movement of heat from hot to cold areas to do "work"

Think of a car's engine, the heat of the burning gas, is used to do "work" i.e., move the car.

The Laws of Thermodynamics say that Entropy in a system can never decrease, only remain the same or increase.

That's why the refrigerator analogy is incomplete.

A refrigerator represents "structure". You have taken heat from inside the refrigerator and expelled it to outside the refrigerator.

Locally you have decreased Entropy, since you have made "structure".

So for that to happen, Entropy must have increased elsewhere in the "system".

We can consider the "system" to be the Earth.

And the increase in Entropy occurred in making the refrigerator and making the electricity to run the refrigerator.

None of the processes are 100% efficient, so energy was expended without doing "work", generating the electricity more so than the manufacturing.

It also implies that in any given system the Entropy will eventually increase to a maximum value and no more "work" can be performed.

That's why I instead made the statement.

"Eventually everything ends up on the floor"

The idea of everything being on the floor implies a room is a mess which is the conventional idea of disorder.

More importantly, if everything is on the floor, nothing is elevated and so it can't "fall".

Gravitational potential energy is a source of energy to do "work", and is what is harnessed by a hydroelectric dam.

If you don't have that, you can't extract any more energy and so do more "work".

[O_P_T]

Originally Posted by chevss454

Excellent description in an easy to understand way. Thank you, Baron.


Now could you explain dark matter, which I find fascinating, and its relationship to matter, gravity and radiation please?

Regarding Dark Matter, it has to do with Astronomical observations.

I'm going from memory here, so forgive me if I frack up a detail or two.

There are various observations that suggest that 90+% of the matter/energy in the Universe isn't directly observed. That is we don't "see" it.

All we observe are the stars and gas clouds that radiate in various parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. i.e., light, infrared, x-ray, ultraviolet, etc.

There are two basic observations that suggest there is something "else".

The first is the rotational velocity of galaxy's.

They rotate much the same way a phonograph does. i.e., the same rpm.

Since the vast majority of the observable mass of a galaxy is located a very thin "disk" region, they should not move like this.

Think about the various planets in our solar system, they move at their own rpm, and that makes sense, because unlike a phonograph, they are not linked together.

So why do these stars not behave like planets as they revolve around the center of the galaxy?

What could make them do that?

The most logical one is the force of gravity since it can work at those ranges.

Electromagnetism works at long ranges as well, but since it can attract or repel depending on the charge or magnetic pole involved, it gets a whole lot more complicated to explain that.

Gravity simply attracts, so it's easier to work out the math.

For gravity to be the cause of the constant rpm, there must be a spherical distribution of mass around the center of the galaxy, and it must be much much more mass than what we do observe.

Since we don't "see" it it's called "dark matter".

The other set of observations have to do with the expansion of the Universe.

From what is now observed, and what it is thought to mean, we can't explain the observed rate of expansion without some form of dark matter/energy.

Again, it is "dark" because we can't directly observe it, except on it's proposed effect on what we do observe.

[O_P_T]

Originally Posted by Muse

If you want to explain it to me go for it. I will listen.

The first part is easy.

The Lorentz Transformations part requires some graphics which I'll have to make to do it properly. I can give you the Monarch Notes text version which may suffice.

First one must understand just what Einstein said in Special Relativity.

He started with two postulates (i.e., assumptions). I'm paraphrasing here.

1. There is no absolute reference frame
2. Within any given media and inertial reference frame, the speed of light is the same.

So what do those postulates mean?

The first is simple.

There's no universal piece of graph paper on which we all exist.

That is, there's no 0,0 point that is universal.

Consider the following.

You're sitting in a train car looking out the window.

Next to you is another train car.

You see it move towards your rear.

Is your train car moving forward or is the other car moving backwards?

As long as you stay in your train car, you can't tell.

If you were in train station, you could tell. The train station would be the absolute reference frame. Einstein assumed it didn't exist, so all you can say is that something is moving relative to you.

The second has a few caveats that often are not mentioned.

The first is the same media. i.e., air, water, space, etc.

The fact that light travels at a different speed in water/glass and air is why refraction occurs and how a microscope and telescope work.

The phrase "inertial reference frame" simply means that there is no acceleration going on, things are moving at a constant speed.

So if we assume these two postulates are correct, let's consider the following experiment.

You have a train car in which Observer A stand. In the car is a light source adjacent to A and 10 meters away is a target with a light detector.

Adjacent to the train tracks stands Observer B.

The train moves at a constant speed towards B, and when A is right next to B, the light source is turned on.

Both Observers measure the time it takes and the distance the light travels to reach the detector.

What do they observe?

Well A see's the light travel 10 meters.

How far does B observe the light to travel?

10 meters, plus the distance the train car traveled before the light hit the detector.

OK, what does this mean?

Well recall the second postulate. Both have to agree on the velocity of light.

Velocity, by definition, is distance/time.

So if the velocity is the same, then A and B must disagree on how much time it took for the light to travel, the distance it traveled, or "when" it reached the detector.

So one, or more, of the following must be true.

A) A and B didn't agree "when" the light hit the detector. In other words, the events were not "simultaneous". The light arrived at the detector, from the observer's perspective, more than once. First for A and later for B.

B) From B's perspective, the length of the train car was reduced by the exact same distance the train traveled during the experiment. A observed no change in the length of the train car.

C) From B's perspective, the flow of time in the train was reduced enough to make the velocity match the longer distance. A observed no change in the flow of time in the car.

If one accepts the postulates, then one of these, or some combination of those three options, must occur. There is no other logical possibility.

Agreed?

If not, let me know your questions/issues.

It is often said that Einstein "proved" the speed of light is a constant. That's not technically true. He "assumed it" and developed Special Relativity based on that assumption.

Now we have good experimental evidence to support the predictions of time dilation made by Special Relativity, so the theory is accepted as being "true".

However, that isn't; the same as "proof".