Alan Guth's story of how a community of scientists is working a problem so complex as to know what happened at <1 second after the universe appeared is astonishing.
I always thought that it takes a lot of determination, patience and perseverance to tackle big questions and reading this account of how the theory on an inflating universe appeared, only validated my assumptions. The remarkable thing, alongside with the explanation for the universe, was the fact that a community of physicists were so actively involved in disseminating the knowledge, and in trying to think of explanations for how things appeared to be. Only in a community which solves a "puzzle problem"(main characteristic of a puzzle type problem is that a big number of scientists are involved in solving it) could the spreading of ideas be so fast. Another important characteristic is the fact that the culture was ready to accommodate with a new theory for explaining the universe. This, I come to think, after reflecting at big discoveries, is an important factor which contributes to the general public's acceptance of an explanatory theory.
To make the most of what I understood of the inflationary theory, or the new inflationary theory, I'll try to summarize it in a few words: At a point in which matter was in quasiequilibrium state(false vacuum) the energy density was so big and yet the matter acted in a stable form until some nonuniformities appeared, which set the motion of the inflation. An inflaton field was created so quickly near a false vacuum bubble, that once some energy got separated it went on to expand at a rate of unimaginable speed. Due to the nonuniformities, it appears that the universe is expanding but the speed with which it is doing this is mostly constant, but slowing. The data in cosmic radiation support this slowing of the expansion. Of course the numbers are so big, that even to try to imagine the zero's was a huge task, but I understood something about the physics and its laws, and my curiosity grew bigger.
I mean to find out that there are many universes, and that the one in which we live is a pocket of universe, and even our observable universe is a speck in the universe in which we reside, not to say that the Milky Way is just a galaxy amongst other galaxies, not even at the center of the universe (this pocket universe). And to think that our sun is just a medium size star in a galaxy at the outskirts of the Milky Way, and that our planet is inhabited by more than six billion people, it really makes you think about the uniqueness of each other. And coming to speak about humans, which have a tiny amount of time on this planet, and in this solar system, and in this galaxy, and in this universe, it really sets me to think that maybe the only “durable” change, and the most impact I’ll ever have is on my life and the people around me so I have to really make the change count, don’t I?
So in my on small, peculiar “universe life” I’ll try to make good things inflate and dwell on a bigger space, try to accommodate the potential “black holes”(for the purpose of accommodating psychology I’ll call them irrational belief), maybe revert them into “white holes”(rational coping mechanisms), and hope that I will have more “matter”(realistic optimism and confidence in setting goals) than “antimatter”(things to annihilate my optimism).
I still hope to see some new news on the universe and the cosmos, because now, after finishing high school, when I gave a last shoot into understanding physics, I’m ready to understand more about everything, and know that my quest to knowledge will take me further.
joi, 25 noiembrie 2010
vineri, 12 noiembrie 2010
"Marele singuratic"
Marin Preda's style is unique in a way that manages to comprise both the rural world at the beginning of the 20th century and the new modern world- seen in fast developing Romanian cities. The novel, which would mean "The Great Solitarian" is the story of a young man trying to construct a life after he has been rejected from his political activity in the communist party. It tell the story of Niculae Moromete, the son of Ilie Moromete the main character in Morometii. It actually is an account for the years spent by Niculae Moromete from his childhood in Morometii volume 1 and Morometii volume 2. We see Niculae as a grown man, working at the royal castle, taking care of the garden(a gardener on the course of taking his final exams to become an horticulture engineer).
Niculae is portrayed as an egocentric individual which sees his seclusion from the outside world as a form of clarifying his view of the world around him. Of course solitude cannot teach about how you could prescribe a great life for yourself or others, and he is trapped in the course of his life events, falls in love with an painter and finally after she dies he resumes his desire to create a new religion for all men.
He finds out, in the course of the book that sometimes people are unpredictable and can do unexpected things just out of sheer fear of not wanting something bad to happen to them(the case of the murder done by Pecingine Ioan). The author tries to put a mini crime story in a Dostoievskian style, but to me it seems to much polished, like he has put to much effort in it, and by doing that he lost some expression of the facts, only to gain some small clarification on the mobile of the crime.
The novel is a complex one, combining different narrative styles, the one in which the characters present their thought and the one in which the author is only the observer in presenting the facts. Its a different novel, and maybe the others will manage to achieve a greater deepness in one perspective. I think that this might be what I seemed to miss from the book: a complete deepness of the facts.
But, because this comment is posted after two days have passed since I finished it, I can realize now that maybe this is the new style in which the author wanted to present the facts. In a manner which might resemble most to an extensive reportage on the brief sequence of two years in the lifetime of a person. If my hunch is correct that these technique might be fruitful, but nonetheless it seems to leave me with a sense of wonder, like something is missing from the book, like the author created something at a time and then decided not to speak about it for the rest of the book. Maybe it's just me..
Anyway, it's an interesting account of how one can lose sight of the important things which gave him/her a purpose to grow/create, and then after some unfortunate events he/she can return to a new state of considering things. After all, in the end Niculae did went back to be a political activist, but now he had his diploma as an engineer in horticulture.
Niculae is portrayed as an egocentric individual which sees his seclusion from the outside world as a form of clarifying his view of the world around him. Of course solitude cannot teach about how you could prescribe a great life for yourself or others, and he is trapped in the course of his life events, falls in love with an painter and finally after she dies he resumes his desire to create a new religion for all men.
He finds out, in the course of the book that sometimes people are unpredictable and can do unexpected things just out of sheer fear of not wanting something bad to happen to them(the case of the murder done by Pecingine Ioan). The author tries to put a mini crime story in a Dostoievskian style, but to me it seems to much polished, like he has put to much effort in it, and by doing that he lost some expression of the facts, only to gain some small clarification on the mobile of the crime.
The novel is a complex one, combining different narrative styles, the one in which the characters present their thought and the one in which the author is only the observer in presenting the facts. Its a different novel, and maybe the others will manage to achieve a greater deepness in one perspective. I think that this might be what I seemed to miss from the book: a complete deepness of the facts.
But, because this comment is posted after two days have passed since I finished it, I can realize now that maybe this is the new style in which the author wanted to present the facts. In a manner which might resemble most to an extensive reportage on the brief sequence of two years in the lifetime of a person. If my hunch is correct that these technique might be fruitful, but nonetheless it seems to leave me with a sense of wonder, like something is missing from the book, like the author created something at a time and then decided not to speak about it for the rest of the book. Maybe it's just me..
Anyway, it's an interesting account of how one can lose sight of the important things which gave him/her a purpose to grow/create, and then after some unfortunate events he/she can return to a new state of considering things. After all, in the end Niculae did went back to be a political activist, but now he had his diploma as an engineer in horticulture.
vineri, 5 noiembrie 2010
Mara
Re-reading a book?! A thought that never have crossed my mind until I thought that I can remember well the story of the book I really like. So, then, the normal course of action was to read it again.
And what a delight!
Ioan Slavici has managed to surprised me again. What I could make of the book almost 11 years ago when I first read it, was now nicely transformed, it was like my mind was now ready to fully encompass all that the author wanted to potray. A powerful heroine, a widow which goes through life with the thought and determination to create a better future for her children: Persida and Trica(Petrica).
Because of the new light that my now grown-up perspective cand shed, I can see the true value and hardships that she has gone true. And I was surprised in a good way to see that an author wanted to describe a powerful romanian woman in the XIX-th century.
The way in which tha life of Persida unfolds is like the life that the young Mara never had a chence to live, or the author didn't feel like reiterate it. It's almost like Mara's character is the "attractor" for all the events which unfold. And hergreat love for her children keeps her going strong and makes her optimistic of the future that awaits them.
Life is really something that we can have once and it is trully wonderful, but wonderful in a way that encompass the good, the bads, happiness and sorrow.
And what a delight!
Ioan Slavici has managed to surprised me again. What I could make of the book almost 11 years ago when I first read it, was now nicely transformed, it was like my mind was now ready to fully encompass all that the author wanted to potray. A powerful heroine, a widow which goes through life with the thought and determination to create a better future for her children: Persida and Trica(Petrica).
Because of the new light that my now grown-up perspective cand shed, I can see the true value and hardships that she has gone true. And I was surprised in a good way to see that an author wanted to describe a powerful romanian woman in the XIX-th century.
The way in which tha life of Persida unfolds is like the life that the young Mara never had a chence to live, or the author didn't feel like reiterate it. It's almost like Mara's character is the "attractor" for all the events which unfold. And hergreat love for her children keeps her going strong and makes her optimistic of the future that awaits them.
Life is really something that we can have once and it is trully wonderful, but wonderful in a way that encompass the good, the bads, happiness and sorrow.
marți, 2 noiembrie 2010
The Anomalies
A novel about some characters which seek to conquer acceptance from the world that rejects them for being original. Although the characters are trying to stick to their true nature it seems that in the end society manages to make them fall into some stereotypes.
The black philosopher, Luster seems to be the one that suffers the most, as he is the victim of a racist stereotype and because his brothers had a bad reputation as drug dealers. The other characters seem to find their calm way in society, being in one way or another trapped in their own shel of human thought and desires.
I liked the connection between the five characters: Luster, Opal, Ember, Aurora and Ray. They seem to have a synergy together and once that is broken none can be the same as they were before. They have lost the piece of the puzzle that made them unique in their time and period of existence.
It seems that you don't have to be black, Iraqi-an, a pyromanic child, a nymphomaniac old woman or an teenager blessed with good looks to feel out of place in society. As a matter of fact you can be that just by wanting to express yourself freely. You are put to you place if you try to much to make others accept you just the way you are. in the end, or at lest in Joey Goebel's book end, everyone is nicely put in their stereotype and it seems that none of them will ever get a chance to express the way they did when they sang on stage.
The black philosopher, Luster seems to be the one that suffers the most, as he is the victim of a racist stereotype and because his brothers had a bad reputation as drug dealers. The other characters seem to find their calm way in society, being in one way or another trapped in their own shel of human thought and desires.
I liked the connection between the five characters: Luster, Opal, Ember, Aurora and Ray. They seem to have a synergy together and once that is broken none can be the same as they were before. They have lost the piece of the puzzle that made them unique in their time and period of existence.
It seems that you don't have to be black, Iraqi-an, a pyromanic child, a nymphomaniac old woman or an teenager blessed with good looks to feel out of place in society. As a matter of fact you can be that just by wanting to express yourself freely. You are put to you place if you try to much to make others accept you just the way you are. in the end, or at lest in Joey Goebel's book end, everyone is nicely put in their stereotype and it seems that none of them will ever get a chance to express the way they did when they sang on stage.
vineri, 29 octombrie 2010
Astonishing Splashes of Colour
It's almost unreal when you feel you can understand and relate to the main character in a book. Although we don't seem to share the same characteristics or to have gone through the same experiences, I feel as if Kitty is someone I deeply understand. Of course, it might be just because it is written in a way which seems to pierce through the important things, details, evidence of sanity and insanity. All the great ingredients which seem to blend perfectly in a Dostoievskian way but seen through modern lenses. I like that about the book: that it's so intense, it grips you until you want to know everything, understand how all of those events happened and the causes which led to them.
Kittty, a young wife without the prospect of being a mother again(-a result of a miscarriage) tries to fin her new identity and live through her loss. The support that her family gives her is great and you can see the different characters building up into unique and powerful persons. The father who took care of his family, the faithful husband which take care of her and tries to make her acknowledge a new perspective for their married life, and the other brothers with their interests and their family. Kitty does seem to make an awfully large amount of mistakes, but they do seem to be explained by her condition: the denial of loosing a son, the hard truth that she can never have children, and the depression which seems to take such a hold on her that she's not capable of thinking strait. That's the course of her condition.
It all seems to make sense that an accident(a fire) causes the loss of a brother and a glimpse of new start for Kitty and her husband. It's as if someone has to sacrifice himself/herself to make room for others to try and seize a chance at being happy. This is the price the author sets for a glimpse of normality/or happiness for the main character.
A great novel, perhaps a bit too edgy at times, but it is worth reading.
Kittty, a young wife without the prospect of being a mother again(-a result of a miscarriage) tries to fin her new identity and live through her loss. The support that her family gives her is great and you can see the different characters building up into unique and powerful persons. The father who took care of his family, the faithful husband which take care of her and tries to make her acknowledge a new perspective for their married life, and the other brothers with their interests and their family. Kitty does seem to make an awfully large amount of mistakes, but they do seem to be explained by her condition: the denial of loosing a son, the hard truth that she can never have children, and the depression which seems to take such a hold on her that she's not capable of thinking strait. That's the course of her condition.
It all seems to make sense that an accident(a fire) causes the loss of a brother and a glimpse of new start for Kitty and her husband. It's as if someone has to sacrifice himself/herself to make room for others to try and seize a chance at being happy. This is the price the author sets for a glimpse of normality/or happiness for the main character.
A great novel, perhaps a bit too edgy at times, but it is worth reading.
vineri, 22 octombrie 2010
Wild Minds- What animals really think
The fascination with different intelligent beings is something that grasps the imagination and attention of scientists all over. but who are we to say how intelligent beings must look or behave like?
Marc Hauser's book is an intriguing way of asserting this question. First it surprised me that we have such an anthropomorphic way in which to explain animal behavior. Apart from saying that animals can be jolly or sad I haven't attributed them with many emotions, but apparently other scientist have tried to explain animal behavior using terminology and concepts applicable only to humans. Like the author says, maybe some of the modalities by which we think we test animal intelligence aren't fit for what pressures nature has put on the evolution of those animals. For instance chimpanzees and orangutans seem to recognize themselves in the mirror, but gorillas seem not to care. We tend to take this as an sign of self-awareness, but maybe the animals don't obtain an advantage by recognizing themselves in the mirror, in the arms race of evolution. So then, it seems that our methods are the ones that aren't measuring the right concepts, the ones that would appear in our mind eye as signs of intelligent thought, or processing.
The author provides an array of examples when experimental work has shed light on processing or feelings we tend to see as landmarks of the human race. For example, problem solving and the capacity to inhibit an initial impulse in order to get to the right solution seem to be present in humans, rhesus macaques and in some chimpanzees. It is interesting to see the experimental conditions and the research questions addressed in order to test some hypothesis. It i in a way a limitation of our human way of reasoning, or so it seemed to me. For instance we put the question of altruism to the test, but we must exclude the potentianlity that the anmswer given by the tested animals represented an response to something totally different.
Marc Hauser carefully brings the attention to all of these details and addresses new questions for those which search understanding in the way animals process information or react to the environment and the question natural selection puts on them.
I Enjoyed having a glimpse into the field of comparative psychology, animal ethology and bioethics, the main fields which seem to draw knowledge from experimental work done on animals.
I can't wait to have a pet to try to entail some experiments on it...
Marc Hauser's book is an intriguing way of asserting this question. First it surprised me that we have such an anthropomorphic way in which to explain animal behavior. Apart from saying that animals can be jolly or sad I haven't attributed them with many emotions, but apparently other scientist have tried to explain animal behavior using terminology and concepts applicable only to humans. Like the author says, maybe some of the modalities by which we think we test animal intelligence aren't fit for what pressures nature has put on the evolution of those animals. For instance chimpanzees and orangutans seem to recognize themselves in the mirror, but gorillas seem not to care. We tend to take this as an sign of self-awareness, but maybe the animals don't obtain an advantage by recognizing themselves in the mirror, in the arms race of evolution. So then, it seems that our methods are the ones that aren't measuring the right concepts, the ones that would appear in our mind eye as signs of intelligent thought, or processing.
The author provides an array of examples when experimental work has shed light on processing or feelings we tend to see as landmarks of the human race. For example, problem solving and the capacity to inhibit an initial impulse in order to get to the right solution seem to be present in humans, rhesus macaques and in some chimpanzees. It is interesting to see the experimental conditions and the research questions addressed in order to test some hypothesis. It i in a way a limitation of our human way of reasoning, or so it seemed to me. For instance we put the question of altruism to the test, but we must exclude the potentianlity that the anmswer given by the tested animals represented an response to something totally different.
Marc Hauser carefully brings the attention to all of these details and addresses new questions for those which search understanding in the way animals process information or react to the environment and the question natural selection puts on them.
I Enjoyed having a glimpse into the field of comparative psychology, animal ethology and bioethics, the main fields which seem to draw knowledge from experimental work done on animals.
I can't wait to have a pet to try to entail some experiments on it...
marți, 12 octombrie 2010
Faust
I've been curious about this play for so long and now I can finally be glad that I've read it.
What is to say about Goethe's masterpiece? That it represents the human nature and the endeavors which can impede a soul in it's quest for knowledge and the purpose in life.
All the distractions are metaphorically embedded in Mefistofel(the devil) which devises a plan to conquer Faust's soul for all eternity. In the course of sealing the deal, the Devil offer his services to Faust and says that he can make any wish come true.
The path of wanting and having and then wanting anything else consumes the human nature of Faust, and in the end of his life he realizes that by having what he wanted he only managed to want more still and his desires were never making him truly happy. He couldn't have an relationship with a loved one because he managed to seduce them by using the enchantments set by Mefistofel(he wasn't showing his true self and that's the reason why the persons he loved, first Margareta and then Elena, felt that the love brought them great sorrow and chose to end their life).
In a final act of his life he commands a couple of old people, which symbolize the harmony in a married life, to move from their old house into another place, and because they refuse they are murdered and then their house set on fire by soldiers who got the order from Faust. Knowing the result that his command had brought he is sorrowful and realizes that al his life he hasn't gained anything from his companionship with Mefistofel, that he has only impoverished his soul and being of an old age he dies. His soul escapes the grasp of the devil and in the end he regains his place in the heavens alongside the angels and his first love.
What is to say about Goethe's masterpiece? That it represents the human nature and the endeavors which can impede a soul in it's quest for knowledge and the purpose in life.
All the distractions are metaphorically embedded in Mefistofel(the devil) which devises a plan to conquer Faust's soul for all eternity. In the course of sealing the deal, the Devil offer his services to Faust and says that he can make any wish come true.
The path of wanting and having and then wanting anything else consumes the human nature of Faust, and in the end of his life he realizes that by having what he wanted he only managed to want more still and his desires were never making him truly happy. He couldn't have an relationship with a loved one because he managed to seduce them by using the enchantments set by Mefistofel(he wasn't showing his true self and that's the reason why the persons he loved, first Margareta and then Elena, felt that the love brought them great sorrow and chose to end their life).
In a final act of his life he commands a couple of old people, which symbolize the harmony in a married life, to move from their old house into another place, and because they refuse they are murdered and then their house set on fire by soldiers who got the order from Faust. Knowing the result that his command had brought he is sorrowful and realizes that al his life he hasn't gained anything from his companionship with Mefistofel, that he has only impoverished his soul and being of an old age he dies. His soul escapes the grasp of the devil and in the end he regains his place in the heavens alongside the angels and his first love.
Abonați-vă la:
Postări (Atom)