Discover the world's scientific knowledge
With 135+ million publication pages, 20+ million researchers and 1+ million questions, this is where everyone can access science
You can use AND, OR, NOT, "" and () to specify your search.
I have an agitated vessel that contains uniformly dispersed nano-scale particles with zeta potential. I want these particles to agglomerate and form bigger particles. It would be helpful in knowing the important parameters to do the same.
Can you help me in knowing the methods that can be used to help agglomerate charged particles and important variables? I would like to know your experience or some review of these methods.
I would like to know if there is someone working in quantum physics in something similar to the following:
If there are hidden variables somehow accessible with the currently known particles/fields is may be possible that different preparations of the same state may lead slightly to different values of the hidden variables. That would mean, at least, slightly different provability distributions (these variables does not seem to be hard to control). As far as I know, there has not been detected any clear systematic difference between the same measurements done in the same state produced in different ways.
However this does not eliminate the possibility that the hidden variables could be affected with current technology. To the degree of my knowledge, most of this experiment rely on a state prepared in a very close way (ej repetition of the initial part of the experimental settings), a state that has been stabilized or a certain time (ej atoms in traps), lasers or systems that are in thermal equilibrium .
In all this cases, if the hidden variables evolve fast enough and/ or require low energy to change, the hidden variable may arrive to something similar to local thermal equilibrium before the experiment or the measurement takes place (even if the ). leading to te mase provability distribution of predicted by quantum mechanics. However if the measurement could be done before this “equilibrium” is reached . some exaples ma be :
-analysis of the transition between states of quantum states generated in different ways
- Experimental out of equilibrium quantum statistical mechanics: transitions between states produced by a state generated in different ways
Both the theory and the experiment seem to be difficult: different kinds of hidden variables many possible transient states, very fast measurements, difficulty to get the same state with different enough methods.
Am I right?
Is there working in this kind of far for equilibrium quantum physic with the same state obtained in different ways?
Since climate change has become more common day by day, how it affects different communities differently.
What and how community-led intersectional adaption should be?
How can local traditional knowledge and practice be considered a scientific solution in our (academic researcher) climate change research?
We modify a metaheuristic in different ways in order to improve its performance. Sometimes, we incorporate a local search strategy in it to refine the solutions. Sometimes, the performance of the metaheuristic improves by the modification and sometimes it deteriorates. What can be the possible reasons if the performance of the metaheuristic deteriorates after incorporating local search strategy?
The need to find a unifying principle for all knowledge, an original synthesis meant as an ‘a priori’ representation of all a man knows and as such precedes the consciousness itself of multiplicity, leads Kant to elaborate the doctrine of '' I think ', which is one of the most debated and significant point of his whole philosophy.
The different representations of my intellect are unified in the horizon of what I thought, because they are accompanied by the awareness that I think about them. The ‘ I think’ is therefore the supreme principle of all synthesis, i.e. the horizon which the synthesis made by the categories connect in a unified manner, and as well the principle of every knowledge whereby the mind is conscious of the created unification. The principle makes it possible a real unitary knowledge of reality and at the same time it takes root in the awareness of the constitutive human finitude: it is worth noting that, in this sense, the ‘ I think’ is an organizing principle, a transcendental structure that "must accompany" the representations of the subject, and not the principle from which the whole reality depends, as it will be understood later by idealist thinkers .
Fichte, for example, in a letter of 1793, would say of Kant, "this unique thinker becomes to me increasingly marvelous: I think he has a genius that shows him the truth, but without revealing the fundamentals." However, on his part, Kant is much careful to point out how the ‘I think’ is the structure of thinking of each empirical subject, and then as it does not coincide nor - in the wake of Descartes - with an ‘individual I’ object of immediate self-consciousness, nor - as suggested by Spinoza and taken by idealists - with the ‘absolute I’ that is the foundation of all finite consciousness.
Specifically, the problem that Kant sought to resolve, which he addressed in the transcendental deduction of the Critique of Pure Reason, was as follows: why nature seems to follow necessary laws by conforming to those of our intellect? By what right do the latter can say to know scientifically the nature, "establishing" the laws in one way rather than another?
According to Kant, such a right is justified because the foundation of our knowledge is not in the nature but in the activity itself of the subject.
Social media platforms and search engines have brought the world community so close as if they are all in your neighborhood, which leads to an informal interaction in the light of realistic facts and thereby bargain on bouncing self-interest. Contrary to the interaction that used to happen a few decades earlier, where the knowledge and information were not that authentically available, there was room to bargain to satisfy the deal favoring one party due to the ignorance of other parties. Now all such delusion and illusion are eradicated and deals or done based on the fact-based data. But then that leads to pressure tactics incorporating different other bargain triggers that are not directly related to subjective negotiations. hence this is not healthy, on the other hand, the global society is well informed and has avenues available to accept or strike down the deal.
I am interested in knowing about the lifetime of a chemical species in the atmosphere. What are the techniques that can be applied in order to estimate the lifetime of a certain chemical species in the atmosphere based on the physical and chemical properties at different length and time scales? Is there any analytical or computational technique that can be used to estimate within limits of permissible errors? or can it be analysed from Earth Observation data?
As mentioned in my previous posting, I don't subscribe to a dialectical approach to addressing contradictions between human and artificial intelligence.
Human & Artificial Intelligence as Balancing The Yin-Yang of Pricing (Costs) and Valuing
To begin with it, it has become virtually impossible, much less desirable to overturn what essentially boils down to a very human notion: pricing and valuing. So it is never, at the core, an issue of human beings versus machines. It is about our desires and appetites, therefore conversely, fears and wastes/ excesses (as either scarcity or abundance). The key here is balance, rather than dialectics, specifically how to balance price (costs - to whom?) and valuing (for and by whom?).
- The main problem in terms of Learning Designs and Evaluations should be read as: What, how and why we value things and actions being executed/ facilitated by artificial intelligence?
- How calculable are these values?
- How desirable should these values be calculated and in what ways?
Beyond Pricing and Valuing Human Intelligence in Utilitarian & Developmental Values
As Noam Chomsky has reminded us, intellectual property is the monopoly of pricing. The notion of intelligence as a monetary expression, subjected to and situated within the supplies and demands of brain power markets, has utilitarian and developmental values.
From here, I am going to superimpose the prevailing discourses in Education and Engineering. It may not even be up to date, but one has to start somewhere, and that somewhere is 2012, in the Game Studio of UTS' (University of Technology, Sydney), Faculty of Engineering and IT.
Social Engineering Rhetorics, Aesthetics, Poetics & Epistemologies
Among Artificial Intelligence (AI) engineers' choice of readings and citations are the works of Ian Bogost. Wikipedia describes him as a Philosopher and video game Designer. This sounds like a reasonable description, though worth also highlighting is his background in the Comparative Literature. Bogost's seminal work is Procedural Rhetoric.
For the engineers, this reading of games and their meanings, especially in relation to the player and game mechanics was compelling. Bogost also covers lots of ground in terms of the games' aesthetics, epistemologies and therefore rhetorics. His interpretations of video games are dense, and with NOT a statistic in sight. Instead it would help immensely if one had solid Humanities training to follow Bogost, especially Derrida. And yet his following are composed of arguably mostly gamers and game engineers. Where I personally had left Bogost was the debate he was having with Sicart.
- Essentially, one might boil down the problem of what is the autonomy between the player and the game mechanics?
Curiously, that engineers are concerned with player autonomy and expression is something missing in Education's discussion of game-based learning. Sure there's always James Gee, everyone's favourite baby boomer, who could tell us: What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy?
For now, I will skip Gee because I have already written a paper about him and David Williamson Shaffer. What I would like to talk abit about is the notion of epistemic games and their assessment engines. This is necessarily sketchy and my purpose is raise my concern as agenda.
There's no doubt that epistemic games, still in their early days I would say in Education, have much to contribute to learning. Their applications could also be as deep as the ocean.
The Misreading of Episteme: Implications & Delusions
But what keeps glaring in my gaze is: why haven't we acknowledge also the Foucault "episteme" and "techne" in their oppressive light?
Even Shaffer alludes to Foucault, but the oppressive nature of the "episteme" is totally lost on him, to quote him (Shaffer, 2006: p.232):
Epistemic frames thus include, but are a broader concept than, epistemic understanding, epistemic forms, and epistemic games. An epistemic frame is more akin to Foucaults (1972) well-known concept of episteme. The episteme of an era, for Foucault, is the relationship between discursive
practices (patterns of discourse or forms of interaction) and structures of knowledge (which for Foucault are always intertwined with the organization of power).
Episteme exists at the level of the culture, across domains of knowledge and forms of practice. Epistemic frames may represent a similarly tight linkage between practices and ways of knowing, but at the level of the local cultures developed by individual communities of practice.
The data here are clearly illustrative rather than conclusive. Nonetheless, they do suggest that islands of expertise and epistemic frames may be useful ways to think about the potentially broad effects of experiences in well-designed educational role-playing games and other immersive environments.
The ability of students to incorporate epistemic frames into their identities (or portfolio of potential identities) suggests a mechanism through which sufficiently rich experiences in technology-supported simulations of real-world practices (such as the games described above) may help students deal more effectively with situations in the real-world and in school subjects beyond the scope of the interactive environment itself.
Epistemological Imprisonment & Physical Incarceration
What this interpretation of Foucault reveals is that Shaffer has not just misunderstood the coercive and dangerous nature of the "episteme", especially when embodied through the "techne" (his equivalent, I would say, of the epistemic frame), it means the epistemic games or learning is also based on questionable understanding of the "episteme".
Foucault had been concerned with how knowing and knowledge, far from being enlightening, work to limit and constrain its subjects of possibilities, at its worst, would lead to epistemic incarceration. In short, there's nothing inevitably liberating about one's epistemology. The "episteme" is a site/ knowledge matrix, when enacted in the "techne", becomes extensive sources of incarceration, discipline and punishment. Hence whilst one's head is imprisoned by the "episteme", one's body is being violated by the epistemic processes embedded in an institution's "techne".
There's lots to come from this reading of Foucault. One key aspect is that Education people are losing their capacity to read Philosophy and the Humanities. In fact, they risk losing many other literacies, not least the visual ones.
Balancing Learning about Knowing with Knowing about Learning
This is a curious deficiency given if it's one Faculty, literally in that sense, that should be about cultivating deep and broad literacies. Even the ways in which educational products and services are assessed and evaluated (a good example of Foucault's Episteme at work) have fallen sort in their capacities to read issues relating to Ethics, Rhetorics, Poetics, and Aesthetics.
Where the engineers have shown much curiousity towards the relative autonomy and even emotional interiors (Bogost's simulation fever) of the player, educators are looking at epistemic games like accountants (Learning as accounting and calculating is also an Episteme-Techne at work about work).
Evaluating Learning beyond Pragmatic Utilitarianism and Darwinist Development
- One can't but help asking: how can education evaluations (examples of Foucault's "Techne") focusing on utilitarian or developmental modelling ignore issues that seem to only concern game engineers: Ethics, Rhetorics, Poetics, and Aesthetics?
- How can we teach design and yet have no reference to the inherent nature of any design:i.e. its visual expression and meaning?
- Who are allowed to decipher the visual codes?
- How can we teach creativity when the assessments are principally concerned with tracking and matching performances (epistemic or self-regulatory; classic Episteme-Techne dichotomy) based on fixed methodologies and proceduralities?
The Administration of Today's Universities: Sites of Conformity, Incarceration & the Marketing of Rigidity as Flexibility
Modding has become quite a huge area for hardcore gamers. But they will not find any avenue for modding in universities. Along with many ironies from the so-called deregulations in universities, they are more regulated than ever.
- For example, since when did we need compulsory attendance and wellness (the right to illness denied) for adult education?
- How has the university becomes sites of exploitation, double standards, and personal incarceration?
- Should we not be asking the rhetoric of flexibility is double speak that masks the rigidity of universities and their underpinning values and pricing?
- How should one calculate and price costs of knowing and learning? Costs to the institution at what expense to other individuals, groups and domains?
- Are not epistemic games an artefact of such valuing and pricing, namely to value docility and conformity and price them as autonomy, enlightenment and even creativity?
- What has happened to our Renaissance men and women, the ones who shift seamlessly between rule-based and novelty-based knowledge?
- Do they even have a place in a place that purports to be about cultivating creativity but practices rigid regulations and assessments (hidden in engine of course)?
- With the loss of these Renaissance men and women, are we as a society becoming blind, deaf, and mute when it comes to Ethics, Rhetorics, Poetics, and Aesthetics?
- What has become of Education when even the engineers are showing more interest in the Humanities?
- How might we begin to re-embrace Humanities in Education?
- How might we begin to cultivate men and women of the Arts and Sciences?
- How might we make universities a truly voluntary institution again, specifically not in the NeoLiberalist's double speak that requires compulsory attendance and other rigid regulations to keep compliance to regime demands?
- Since when did the university have so many rules about rules of conduct?
- How is this impersonation and extensive enforcements (i.e. policing of rules of conduct) even called Liberalism?
- How might we begin to revitalise valuable Disciplines which may not contribute directly to the next quarter's earnings of the university, but rather be reflected in the true price of education: personal enlightenment?
- Might we then also consider Learning Arts and Sciences (by alphabetical order)?
As you are all aware, research in psychology is often done on predominantly female samples. I’m conducting a study that aims to compare how men and women make sense of media messages about weight and health issues (an online survey).
I’m looking for ways of recruiting men. I would like to recruit around 700 men, aged 18 years and over, living in the UK (so I cannot use MTurk), from different socioeconomic backgrounds. My budget for recruitment is limited.
I’ve tried using the ‘standard’ methods like via my university, Facebook, Twitter, contacting large employers, contacting predominantly male places (e.g. rugby & football clubs), contacting local newspapers, charities (e.g. Prostate Cancer Charity). But still the numbers are low.
I would be very grateful for any suggestions on how to improve my recruitment.
More details about my study can be found here:
All knowledge of any phenomenon is limited by the assumptions of a given sociocultural temporal context. This philosophy assumes all knowledge is relative to or constrained by what is known by the boundaries of the unknown during a given period.