Monday, October 29, 2012

Journey to the Center of an Atom


Journey to the Center of an Atom
Large Hadron Collider
            Professor Chowdhury had an amazing presentation set up for learning about the microscopic, yet extraordinary atom.  He spoke of the prediction (I believe by Albert Einstein) that atoms would never be able to be separated.  That is clearly false, however, since we have been doing that for years.  The Large Hadron Collider, located in Geneva, is the biggest atom separator on the planet, which I found very interesting.  Just to get a little off-topic, I remember years ago there was a very large population of people that were terrified of this machine.  They claimed that it was so powerful that it could in fact cause a black hole and suck the Earth into it.  It sounds ridiculous, but I remember hearing a lot about it, so it must’ve been a pretty big concern.
            Something I was also intrigued with was when Professor Chowdhury explained that we as humans are learning to manipulate atoms into doing specific things.  This is particularly interesting because that is basically chemistry meeting engineering.  Imagine what could happen if we could control atoms to do anything we needed?  The amount of potential energy in an atom is unreal.  We could do so much with that.  It could be an alternate source of power, or anything else.  So many doors would be open to humanity; but this is just me rambling.
            The next topic covered was actually about the movie The Hulk, having to do with photons being shot into the main character.  In reality, that machine measures the photons leaving a nucleus, however in that movie the photons were being shot from the machine.  I thought it was pretty funny that they would do the complete opposite of physics just for a movie to look “cool.”  Not to mention, the beams that were shot into him cannot actually be seen with the eyes, so that was not accurate either.  It did get the point across, though, in an amusing way.
            Two of my favorite parts of the presentation were the demos.  One was two eggs, one hard boiled and one raw.  He spun the first and stopped it suddenly, then took his hand away; the audience observed that it stopped dead.  He did the same with the second egg, the raw egg, however it kept spinning after because the liquid inside was still spinning.  Apparently, this is what happens with an atom too, which was a unique way of thinking about it.
            The second demo was my personal favorite.  He had a fairly large ring tied to the end of a string, and began moving the string in a circle, causing the ring to also spin.  Eventually, the ring was no longer dangling but was flat, almost like it was resting on a table, yet it was spinning in the air.  His explanation for this was (roughly) as follows: “the ring uses energy to rise up, and the ring changes its course of spinning.  The gravitational system can recognize better or worse scenarios o its own.  Nature likes to minimize things.”  I think that gravity realizing that one path could use less energy than another in fascinating.  How can something without a mind, without any way of thinking, control something like that?  How could it choose the best way of completing something?  Nature is a ridiculously complex being which I personally don’t believe we will ever completely understand.
            I thoroughly enjoyed Professor Chowdhury’s presentation on the atom.  It approached the subject from a lot of different angles which kept things very interesting and made it easier to understand what exactly he was talking about.  I have never been particularly interested in chemistry and atoms and things like that, but it definitely gave me a new appreciation for it.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Presentation

My presentation on an authentic Cambodian restaurant in Lowell was completed on 10/17/2012.

Textile History Museum


Required Excursion #3

American Textile History Museum


            Visiting the American Textile History Museum was a very interesting experience for me.  Not only did it have great exhibits, but it also had underlying themes that I am not sure were apparent to everyone;  they may not have been intentional at all, but they were obvious to me.
            First and foremost, I would like to discuss the “Homefront & Battlefield” section of the museum.  The underlying theme I experienced from this exhibit is that war (the civil war, more specifically) are not about fighting, but fighting for something.  It is not solely about winning a fight or conquering a territory, but it is more about the soldiers that are doing it, and the reason behind it.  Furthermore, perhaps a more obvious message was that textiles played an enormous role in the outcome of the Civil War.  Learning about the Civil War, I never thought about that aspect of it.  I had always paid attention to the winner and the loser, not the politics and economy behind it.  I was fascinated with some of the things I discovered.  I was so interested in fact, that after attending this excursion, I did some research on my own (from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/arts/design/homefront-battlefield-at-american-textile-history-museum.html?_r=0).  I will describe the information that I found at the museum and online.  Textiles were a crucial part of the American Civil War.  As I now know, participants in this war went after cotton fields, burning them and ruining the crops in an attempt to surpass the other half of the country from a material stand point.  Cotton was used for crucial items in the war: soldiers’ uniforms, blankets, and an abundance of other items.  Often times, textile workers were even kidnapped to prevent textile manufacturing.  How could something that goes so unnoticed now be so incredibly valuable 150 years ago?  How could we kidnap our own women simply because they assist in creating something that helps the country?  It seemed absurd to me.
            Contrary to the actual violence part of it, the quilts and pictures and diaries were very moving.  Often wars are thought of as soldiers fighting, but the families are rarely mentioned.  Seeing a quilt made from a soldier’s mother, or a diary entry from a wife, or a picture of a soldier’s family hit my heart hard.  I imagined being in their shoes, losing a loved one, losing a family member or someone close to me.  That must be something so difficult to go through.  However, it seemed ironic that the quilts were so colorful; I almost thought it could be subconsciously symbolizing hope that things will get better.  Then again, it could have just been random colors used; I just like to think there was an underlying meaning behind them.
            The next section was about the “Textile Revolution.”  This was a timeline, if you will, of the steps taken in the textile industry.  Of course, it began with the long process of created fabrics by hand, and all of the complicated parts involved.  Next, was the common story of Samuel Slater, and how he miraculously snuck the secrets for America’s first spinning mill from England.  I mistakenly did not jot down the rest of the journey in my notes, but I believe the next section was about the design of clothes, how the colors and designs have changed, and so on.  I also recall the topic of firefighter uniforms and hings like that being displayed.  This was interesting to me to think that some of the same materials I wear, are also worn by people saving lives.  I think that it is miraculous that such a commonly found material nowadays can save lives in some circumstances, if it is put together properly.
            All in all, I had a great time at the American Textile History Museum.  I am definitely glad I went, and I learned a lot of valuable information about the history of America’s textiles.  Since Lowell was a “powerhouse” in that department, I’d say we’ve had quite a significant impact on the country.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Jack Kerouac Literary Festival


Jack Kerouac Festival
Mandatory Excursion



                Attending the Jack Kerouac Festival was probably my favorite excursion so far.  I attended the Rick Moody and Tanya Donelly session on October 10, 2012.  The majority of the event consisted of these two incredibly talented musicians, and author in Rick Moody’s case, discussing their personal achievements, ideals, thoughts, and opinions on certain topics.
                I have recently been taking more of an interest in how music is created, what goes into it, different methods of playing it, and playing instruments such as bass and electric guitar.  After having said that, I found this event enticing.  One woman in the audience asked which came first, the lyrics or the music.  To my astonishment, the mutual agreement between Rick and Tanya was neither.  Tanya said that the words and the music need to come together at the same time, otherwise the process is extremely “laborsome.”   I had never heard this before, the answers I had heard before were either the words come first, or the music need to come first.  I had never thought that the process would call for both to be imagined at the same time.  I say imagined because Moody’s response was to not even pick up an instrument when writing a song or one will be forced into using common chords or melodies.
                Also something that was previously a mystery to me was where professional song writers write their music.  Moody said he writes on anything available, like napkins, paper, the notepad app for the iphone, or anything else.  Tanya had a more definitive answer of a notebook.  She said she always writes her songs down with a pencil in a notebook.  I suppose it is all based on personal preference, but I found the opinions and strategies interesting.
                They were asked how their music has been inspired by books.  Tanya, struggling to find words for an answer, came up with the book “Tinkers” that inspired a song she had somewhat recently written.  Often time I have heard of bands related songs to books, whether it be for inspirational purposes or for humor.  Moody on the other hand stated that to him music and books were the same genre.  They are a common piece of work.  “Literature is musical,” he said.  “To say one inspired the other would be to say that they are different, and I have trouble believing that they are.”  That stuck with me throughout the session.  Can music and literature be the same?  Are they the same?  It is a very clever thought that makes sense.  What is music, but literature with a tune?
After being asked if music has “plots,” Tanya stated that they absolutely do.  They tell stories and have characters and scenes.  Moody, however, had an answer that shocked me.  It made so much sense yet took an incredible amount of thought.  He said that books have a beginning, middle, and end.  He said that when writing a song, “music can’t have a beginning, middle, and end or you become a slave to the system.”  He said that songwriters can’t be editorial or have strict thoughts about a song prior to writing it.  Otherwise, he explained, song writing is nearly impossible; You are just going back and forth trying to find words that fit in a melody, or a melody fitting in with words.  This concept sort of goes back to the idea that lyrics and music should flow at the same time, rather than forcing one upon the other.
                Surprisingly enough, Jack Kerouac was almost never mentioned throughout the entire event.  I heard his name a few times vaguely referenced, but otherwise nothing.  I was a little disappointed about that because this was supposed to be the topic of the excursion.  However, I still found this to be my favorite trip yet.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Optional Excursion #1 - Senate Debate


Optional Excursion #1
Debate
                To begin, I would like to say that I have never really been interested in politics.  I did not know much about it, and I just never seemed to take an interest.  When I heard of the political debate between Senator Brown and (Professor) Warren, I was surprisingly excited.  I was lucky to get a last minute ticket and decided to attend.
Extremely Large Crowd at Senate Debate (sorry it's sideways)
                When I first arrived there were a massive number of people.  There were so many in fact that almost every seat was filled.  I began wondering why I was never interested in these kinds of things if so many others found them to be enjoyable enough to go to.  I was wondering how many of these people were “Republicans” and how many were “Democrats”, two terms I knew very little about.
                The debate was extremely different than I was expecting.  Not only was there very little of what I considered “politics” to be, but it was essentially just two people trying to make the other one look bad.  To begin the debate, Warren was asked about her Native American heritage.  Who cares?  She is running for senator of Massachusetts.  Who cares whether or not she is Native American?  I can understand that there was hype about her misleading people for a few weeks, but why discuss whether or not she is actually Native American?  I would think that people would be more concerned that she lied, before even getting the position.
                It seems that they could have used their time more effectively.  They were so set on dragging down the other competitor, that I still honestly have no clue what they will each do if elected.  I have a perfectly clear understanding of all of the bad things in their past, but I have almost no idea what their plans are for the future.  The only times they really said anything towards the fact is when students from the University asked them.  Why not say what needs to get done, and what they are planning to do about problems?  There were brief discussions about it, yes, but it was more like watching an old married couple bicker than it was a political debate.
                Although not being as informative or productive as I had planned on it being, this debate was very entertaining.  Hearing how rude they were to each other, how they were deliberately insulting one another on national television for personal gain was so shocking that it really held my attention.  They went back and forth about how Warren should stick to her teaching job, and how Brown’s beliefs and actions are all completely incorrect.  The most entertaining part, in my opinion, was when Senator Brown told Elizabeth Warren that he “wasn’t a student in her classroom,” so she needed to let him speak.  I thought that was so incredibly rude, that it was funny.
Overall I really enjoyed the debate.  Even though I still know almost nothing to do with politics, it was fun to watch them go back and forth with each other.  I found Senator Brown to be very confident and relaxed, while Elizabeth Warren could not seem to find times to speak and got riled up when she was speaking.  I would have to say I more or less agreed with most of what Brown was saying, but there were a few disagreements as well that I would have sided with Warren on.  It was an interesting experience and I am very glad that I attended.