I was diagnosed with dyslexia and Irlen syndrome, at a relatively late stage of life. I was in my late twenties and had already left school and started a career. It wasn't until I made an attempt to take some further education courses with the Open University, that I realised that my life long problem of being unable to read text for more than a few minutes, without discomfort, was something that needed further investigation.
My particular problems, had always been the same; blurred vision and an extreme sensitivity to light, bouncing off a white page. I also had an inability to retain what I had read and I seem to have no sense of dates or times. All of these issues, made studying, and especially distance learning, something that I wouldn't have dreamed of doing. All those hours of reading in isolation, all of those deadlines to remember and notes to write. It was as near to dyslexic hell, as I could have imagined.
Once I decided to study as an adult, I realised that I had bitten off more than I could deal with. I started the prep materials that they sent me, and it took me 6hrs to just read through 20 pages and sort out my study calendar. I suffered for several years more, until I decided to check out the source of my difficulties.
At about this time, one evening, I was driving my usual 1hr commute to work, when I heard a news article on Radio 4. It was about people with Irlen syndrome. As I listened to the programme, it was as if they were describing my symptoms exactly!
I arrived at work and then spent the next 3hrs, researching Irlen syndrome and the associated condition, dyslexia, on the internet. I found an on-line questionnaire and completed it and found that I scored extremely highly, in the 'At Risk' Irlen syndrome part. There and then, I booked a session to see an educational psychologist and also an Irlen syndrome specialist.
After a total of 6hrs of tests, I was given a prescription for some pink coloured lens, glasses! The glasses took 4 weeks to arrive and once they did, I remember putting them on for the first time.
It was as if someone had flipped a switch inside my head. I picked up a copy of the newspaper and read through it in about 15 minutes. I couldn't believe it, I could read!
I then went through, what could only be described as, a mad 2 days. I spent approximately £100 on books and started to read as much as I could. I read history, art history, Jane Austen, James Joyce and even started to learn French and German.
So, after 6yrs of then taking some university distance learning courses that interested me and which I had always wanted to do since leaving school; I finally decided to start the experiment, that inspired the writing of this blog.
Being written off as an underachiever at school, had always sat uncomfortably with me. I knew I was capable of doing any career, but I also knew that I had problems studying for any extended period of time. It was this life long struggle and a yearning to make a difference and make a real contribution to life that inspired my decision, to try and become a Theoretical Physicist!
Mad? probably.
Impossible? maybe.
Will I cope? who knows.
But, there is one thing that is certain. I won't ever give up, now I have removed the blockages that were holding me back for years.
Monday, 28 February 2011
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Dark Matter Theory Challenged
There has been an interesting development in the world of Cosmology. The theory of Dark Matter, was originally created, to account for the apparent lack of explanation, for the rotation speeds of Galaxies.
So the theory goes, galaxies rotate at a uniformed speed from centre to outer edges, which should only be possible, by our current understanding of gravity, if there were a lot more matter present in those galaxies, than is currently seen in stars, gas, planets etc.
However, the theory, is just that, a theory. This is because, there has never been any detection of this dark matter (hence its name). So until dark matter is observed, we are just surmising that it exists, based on observable effects, that could be caused by it.
However, there has been an alternative theory put forward in 1983, which is known as the Modified Newtonian Dynamics Theory (Mond).
This theory, has gained some interesting scientific backing, in that it better explains certain aspects of galaxy rotation. But Dark Matter, still appears to be more complete, on all scales above and below that of the galaxy.
The BBC News, have published a news story covering the Mond issue.
This is about a paper that has been published discussing, the Mond - principle (that gravity effects will change, depending on how much matter is present and particularly in areas where its pull is very low.)
This is a huge departure from the universal theory, that forces such as gravity, strong, weak interactions etc, are constant in all parts of the universe.
I think I like Hawking's view of the universe. He just accepts each new theory, not as a complete and final theory, but more as a useful tool, in the here and now, to explain observable phenomenon. He terms himself as a positivist; being pragmatic and just working with the 'laws' that are available, rather than worrying, if they demonstrate the true nature of the universe.
So the theory goes, galaxies rotate at a uniformed speed from centre to outer edges, which should only be possible, by our current understanding of gravity, if there were a lot more matter present in those galaxies, than is currently seen in stars, gas, planets etc.
However, the theory, is just that, a theory. This is because, there has never been any detection of this dark matter (hence its name). So until dark matter is observed, we are just surmising that it exists, based on observable effects, that could be caused by it.
However, there has been an alternative theory put forward in 1983, which is known as the Modified Newtonian Dynamics Theory (Mond).
This theory, has gained some interesting scientific backing, in that it better explains certain aspects of galaxy rotation. But Dark Matter, still appears to be more complete, on all scales above and below that of the galaxy.
The BBC News, have published a news story covering the Mond issue.
This is about a paper that has been published discussing, the Mond - principle (that gravity effects will change, depending on how much matter is present and particularly in areas where its pull is very low.)
This is a huge departure from the universal theory, that forces such as gravity, strong, weak interactions etc, are constant in all parts of the universe.
I think I like Hawking's view of the universe. He just accepts each new theory, not as a complete and final theory, but more as a useful tool, in the here and now, to explain observable phenomenon. He terms himself as a positivist; being pragmatic and just working with the 'laws' that are available, rather than worrying, if they demonstrate the true nature of the universe.
Thursday, 24 February 2011
Physics and Maths, Studied this Week.
Okay, Another week done and it's been tough on account of me having to work 60hrs and I still can't shake this rotten cold / virus. Anyway, I have still managed some decent studying and I have started to delve into the murky world of complex / imaginary numbers. To be honest, I am not sure what all the fuss is about. I know that imaginary numbers are difficult to visualise, but I do find that they are surprisingly easy to manipulate algebraically.
e.g.
where i = √-1
(2i)^2 = 2i x 2i
or,
2i x 2i = 4i^2
and,
4i^2 = -4
Once you get used to them, you can really start doing some cool stuff with them, such as finding the complex roots of quadratics or solving simultaneous complex equations using the rule:
a+bi = c+di (if, and only if) a = c and b = d
Anyway, my weeks's study has looked something like this:
Open University MST121
Calculations with triangles
Parametric equations of lines
Parametric equations of circles (studied at 4am, so I may need to revisit this!)
Function notation
Graphs of functions
Graphs of quadratics
Trigonometric functions
TMA01, part 1 result: 94% (hurray!)
The Teaching Company Calculus Lectures
The Product rule
The Quotient rule
The Teaching Company Cosmology Lectures
Cosmic Geometry
Cosmic Expansion - keeping track of energy
Open University S197 How the Universe Works
The Expanding Universe
The Cooling Universe
Electric and Magnetic Forces
The Fine Structure Constant
Quantum Electrodynamics
Open University S196 Planets
Mercury
Supplementary Study materials
Complex numbers (4hrs of practice in manipulation and rules)
Why Does E = mc^2 (book by , Cox, Forshaw) - Chapter - The origin of mass
Stanford University Physics Letures: Prof. Susskind
Lecture 1 Classical Mechanics
Lecture 2 Classical Mechanics
I have now, also started my assessed coursework for S197 and S196, my Open University 1st year introduction courses to Cosmology and Planetary Physics. I have completed 10 questions from a total of approximately 40, so it is all coming along nicely.
Interestingly, now that I have read some more or Roger Penrose's book, I am slowly coming to the conclusion, that I should be thinking about planing in some more 3rd year maths modules, as part of my degree. I think that this will really help at post graduate level, in 3yrs time.
I'll post later on the options. By actually completing some further maths, it may even shorten my Undergraduate studies by approximately 6 - 12 months.
Well, back to work tomorrow for another 60hr week, but I am hopeful, that I will make some headway with more work on Hubble's law, The Calculus chain rule and move onto some matrices work with the OU.
e.g.
where i = √-1
(2i)^2 = 2i x 2i
or,
2i x 2i = 4i^2
and,
4i^2 = -4
Once you get used to them, you can really start doing some cool stuff with them, such as finding the complex roots of quadratics or solving simultaneous complex equations using the rule:
a+bi = c+di (if, and only if) a = c and b = d
Anyway, my weeks's study has looked something like this:
Open University MST121
Calculations with triangles
Parametric equations of lines
Parametric equations of circles (studied at 4am, so I may need to revisit this!)
Function notation
Graphs of functions
Graphs of quadratics
Trigonometric functions
TMA01, part 1 result: 94% (hurray!)
The Teaching Company Calculus Lectures
The Product rule
The Quotient rule
The Teaching Company Cosmology Lectures
Cosmic Geometry
Cosmic Expansion - keeping track of energy
Open University S197 How the Universe Works
The Expanding Universe
The Cooling Universe
Electric and Magnetic Forces
The Fine Structure Constant
Quantum Electrodynamics
Open University S196 Planets
Mercury
Supplementary Study materials
Complex numbers (4hrs of practice in manipulation and rules)
Why Does E = mc^2 (book by , Cox, Forshaw) - Chapter - The origin of mass
Stanford University Physics Letures: Prof. Susskind
Lecture 1 Classical Mechanics
Lecture 2 Classical Mechanics
I have now, also started my assessed coursework for S197 and S196, my Open University 1st year introduction courses to Cosmology and Planetary Physics. I have completed 10 questions from a total of approximately 40, so it is all coming along nicely.
Interestingly, now that I have read some more or Roger Penrose's book, I am slowly coming to the conclusion, that I should be thinking about planing in some more 3rd year maths modules, as part of my degree. I think that this will really help at post graduate level, in 3yrs time.
I'll post later on the options. By actually completing some further maths, it may even shorten my Undergraduate studies by approximately 6 - 12 months.
Well, back to work tomorrow for another 60hr week, but I am hopeful, that I will make some headway with more work on Hubble's law, The Calculus chain rule and move onto some matrices work with the OU.
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Quantum Mechanics, Space-Time and coffee tables!
As part of my 'Zulu' reading strategy of all things in maths and physics, I have started to read several books, already mentioned, that are often called 'coffee table' books, i.e. easy to understand, maths free, science books; usually involving conceptually difficult subjects such as quantum mechanics, relativity etc...
However, I have discovered, that many of these 'coffee table' books are actually very difficult to get to grips with. Having started to study physics at an undergraduate level, I have already accumulated sufficient maths skills, to understand the basics of subjects such as quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, cosmology etc...
However, when I approach some of these complex subject areas, within a 'coffee table book'; I am often left confused or lacking some fundamental appreciation of the key concepts.
For example, in Brian Cox's E =mc^2 or Hawking's, The Universe in a Nutshell; despite several attempts at reading the chapters that cover warped space-time; I am left feeling rather dissatisfied with the explanation or in some doubt about how these physicists have made the leap, from one concept, to another.
On reflection, I actually think that the problem lies in the fact that these subjects need some maths,(arguably the language of physics), for the reader to intuitively follow the subject matter, with full understanding. Perhaps the 'dumbing down' or removal of maths, from these books, is actually causing them to be more difficult to grasp?
It may be, that some of the concepts, ranging from time-dilation to particle annihilation; are so far outside our concious understanding of the world, that our brain's actually need hard proof, rather than just a scientist's 'say-so', to overcome our instincts on these matters.
By understanding the 'laws of mathematics', through personal use of equations and numbers, real or otherwise; and then using these laws to explain and understand physics concepts; I have found it easier to accept or understand, the more unusual or counter-intuitive phenomenon, such as those found in quantum theory.
I am not sure that 'coffee table' quantum theory / relativity books, will ever be able to achieve anything other than providing an incomplete and unsatisfying introduction to these subjects.
These books are very popular, but I wonder how many a budding scientist, have picked one up, been utterly confused, and left feeling that they will probably never understand the subject?
However, I have discovered, that many of these 'coffee table' books are actually very difficult to get to grips with. Having started to study physics at an undergraduate level, I have already accumulated sufficient maths skills, to understand the basics of subjects such as quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, cosmology etc...
However, when I approach some of these complex subject areas, within a 'coffee table book'; I am often left confused or lacking some fundamental appreciation of the key concepts.
For example, in Brian Cox's E =mc^2 or Hawking's, The Universe in a Nutshell; despite several attempts at reading the chapters that cover warped space-time; I am left feeling rather dissatisfied with the explanation or in some doubt about how these physicists have made the leap, from one concept, to another.
On reflection, I actually think that the problem lies in the fact that these subjects need some maths,(arguably the language of physics), for the reader to intuitively follow the subject matter, with full understanding. Perhaps the 'dumbing down' or removal of maths, from these books, is actually causing them to be more difficult to grasp?
It may be, that some of the concepts, ranging from time-dilation to particle annihilation; are so far outside our concious understanding of the world, that our brain's actually need hard proof, rather than just a scientist's 'say-so', to overcome our instincts on these matters.
By understanding the 'laws of mathematics', through personal use of equations and numbers, real or otherwise; and then using these laws to explain and understand physics concepts; I have found it easier to accept or understand, the more unusual or counter-intuitive phenomenon, such as those found in quantum theory.
I am not sure that 'coffee table' quantum theory / relativity books, will ever be able to achieve anything other than providing an incomplete and unsatisfying introduction to these subjects.
These books are very popular, but I wonder how many a budding scientist, have picked one up, been utterly confused, and left feeling that they will probably never understand the subject?
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Calculus Made Easy
I want to post what I consider to be one of the easiest explanations of simple differentiation, that I have found so far. It's from the book 'Calculus Made Easy' Thompson, Gardner and it is very straight forward but beautiful at the same time. Just to clarify, I am using ^2 to mean 'squared'
Here goes:
Starting with a very straight forward expression for a curve
y=x^2
We have the simple task of working out the growth ratio between Y and X squared. At a glance, I know that as y increases, x will increase, but I need to know by how much for each value of y.
So if the growth of y is represented as dy and the growth of x is dx, the growth ratio is
dy/dx
If x grows by a little bit, it can be expressed as x+dx, which is x plus a little bit of x.
If y grows, it can be shown as y+dy, which is y plus a little bit of y.
With me so far?
Therefore, the ratio of that growth is found by simply substituting these expressions of growth, into y=x^2.
We do this by replacing y by the quantity y +dy and the quantity x, by x +dx.
As follows...
y=x^2, now becomes:
y+dy = (x+dx)^2
Doing the squaring to get rid of the brackets, we get:
y+dy = x^2 + 2x(dx) +(dx)^2
Looking at this, because dx was a very, very small bit of x; by definition, dx squared, is now an extremely small bit of x. It is so small, in fact, that we can throw it away, and it won't affect our equation too much.
So that leaves,
y+dy = x^2 + 2x(dx)
Now, we know y = x^2, so we can subtract this from both sides, to simplify the equation,
dy = 2x(dx)
We want to know the ratio of dy/dx, so we rearrange the above equation, to give us dy/dx:
dy/dx = 2x
And that, is it!
Here goes:
Starting with a very straight forward expression for a curve
y=x^2
We have the simple task of working out the growth ratio between Y and X squared. At a glance, I know that as y increases, x will increase, but I need to know by how much for each value of y.
So if the growth of y is represented as dy and the growth of x is dx, the growth ratio is
dy/dx
If x grows by a little bit, it can be expressed as x+dx, which is x plus a little bit of x.
If y grows, it can be shown as y+dy, which is y plus a little bit of y.
With me so far?
Therefore, the ratio of that growth is found by simply substituting these expressions of growth, into y=x^2.
We do this by replacing y by the quantity y +dy and the quantity x, by x +dx.
As follows...
y=x^2, now becomes:
y+dy = (x+dx)^2
Doing the squaring to get rid of the brackets, we get:
y+dy = x^2 + 2x(dx) +(dx)^2
Looking at this, because dx was a very, very small bit of x; by definition, dx squared, is now an extremely small bit of x. It is so small, in fact, that we can throw it away, and it won't affect our equation too much.
So that leaves,
y+dy = x^2 + 2x(dx)
Now, we know y = x^2, so we can subtract this from both sides, to simplify the equation,
dy = 2x(dx)
We want to know the ratio of dy/dx, so we rearrange the above equation, to give us dy/dx:
dy/dx = 2x
And that, is it!
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Physics and Maths, Studied this Week.
I have decided to start logging, each week, an update on what elements of physics and maths, that I have studied and also the sources of that study material. I hope to be able to offer myself and others, a means of following subjects, sources and details of the study, that were used to move from GCSE to Ph.D.
So, For the week ending Friday 18th February 2011:
Open University MST121
Completed part 1, TMA01
Equations of lines
Circles and their equations
Completing the square
Intersections of circles and lines
Sine and Cosine recap
The Teaching Company Calculus lectures
The Chain Rule in differentiation and its applications
The Teaching Company Cosmology Lectures
Cosmic expansion and age
Distances, appearances and horizons
Dark matter and dark energy
Supplementary physics reading (Orzel)
Particle-Wave duality
The Heisenberg uncertainty
The Copenhagen interpretation
The quantum zeno effect
Quantum tunnelling
Quantum Entanglement
Wow, that is a fair bit of study and it has taken me approximately 16hrs of study time in 7 days. Not bad, considering I have a bit of a virus, that I just can't shift.
I have now obtained a book that I have been looking for, for a while now. I am desperate to read it, but it is over 2000 pages long and is technical in nature (first 13 chapters teach the maths that is needed to interprete the rest of the book)!
The title is:
The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose
Penrose is a giant amongst physicists and famously worked with Steven Hawking at Cambridge University in the 1960's, where they hatched their theories about space-time being curved back in on itself (pearshaped!) at the time of the 'hot big bang'.
Penrose took 8yrs to write his 'Complete Guide to the Universe' and, romantically I admit, one could imagine it as a highly technical version of 'The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy'; but obviously without Slartibartfast, Magrathea or any hyper intelligent pan-dimensional beings (white mice).
So, For the week ending Friday 18th February 2011:
Open University MST121
Completed part 1, TMA01
Equations of lines
Circles and their equations
Completing the square
Intersections of circles and lines
Sine and Cosine recap
The Teaching Company Calculus lectures
The Chain Rule in differentiation and its applications
The Teaching Company Cosmology Lectures
Cosmic expansion and age
Distances, appearances and horizons
Dark matter and dark energy
Supplementary physics reading (Orzel)
Particle-Wave duality
The Heisenberg uncertainty
The Copenhagen interpretation
The quantum zeno effect
Quantum tunnelling
Quantum Entanglement
Wow, that is a fair bit of study and it has taken me approximately 16hrs of study time in 7 days. Not bad, considering I have a bit of a virus, that I just can't shift.
I have now obtained a book that I have been looking for, for a while now. I am desperate to read it, but it is over 2000 pages long and is technical in nature (first 13 chapters teach the maths that is needed to interprete the rest of the book)!
The title is:
The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose
Penrose is a giant amongst physicists and famously worked with Steven Hawking at Cambridge University in the 1960's, where they hatched their theories about space-time being curved back in on itself (pearshaped!) at the time of the 'hot big bang'.
Penrose took 8yrs to write his 'Complete Guide to the Universe' and, romantically I admit, one could imagine it as a highly technical version of 'The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy'; but obviously without Slartibartfast, Magrathea or any hyper intelligent pan-dimensional beings (white mice).
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Stanford University On-line Physics Lectures
I will be building up further supplementary learning material, in my quest to go from GCSE Maths, to Ph.D in Theoretical Physics.
I have reviewed some of the You Tube videos that are available; and I have found an excellent selection of basic 1st year Undergraduate video lectures by Prof Leonard Susskind, Stanford University.
There are approximately 60hrs of physics lectures and also maths lectures, that are available. I will start on the Classical Mechanics lectures which are all between 47 mins to 120 mins long and are progressive in nature. There are 9 of these available and I plan to start by watching one of these a month, until November 2011.
Prof Susskind is an interesting character to watch and he takes his time explaining each concept, without covering himself in too much chalk dust!
I have reviewed some of the You Tube videos that are available; and I have found an excellent selection of basic 1st year Undergraduate video lectures by Prof Leonard Susskind, Stanford University.
There are approximately 60hrs of physics lectures and also maths lectures, that are available. I will start on the Classical Mechanics lectures which are all between 47 mins to 120 mins long and are progressive in nature. There are 9 of these available and I plan to start by watching one of these a month, until November 2011.
Prof Susskind is an interesting character to watch and he takes his time explaining each concept, without covering himself in too much chalk dust!
Quantum physics quote of the month
I saw this quote in a physics book today and absolutely loved it. It just about sums up the attitude that I believe you 'absolutely must adopt', to cope with the oddities of Quantum mechanics:
'Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing'.
'The Strange World of Quantum Mechanics'. D. Styer
Some of the quantum realities are so far removed from common sense or the classical physics model; that to try and bolt them onto your existing notions of reality, will probably lead to confusion. It was even alleged, that difficulties in accepting the results of quantum mechanics, eventually led Einstein to quit the subject of Quantum mechanics, with him describing it as an 'incomplete' theory. It's that odd!
'Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing'.
'The Strange World of Quantum Mechanics'. D. Styer
Some of the quantum realities are so far removed from common sense or the classical physics model; that to try and bolt them onto your existing notions of reality, will probably lead to confusion. It was even alleged, that difficulties in accepting the results of quantum mechanics, eventually led Einstein to quit the subject of Quantum mechanics, with him describing it as an 'incomplete' theory. It's that odd!
TMA01 to Quantum Tunnelling!
I have just completed part 1 of the test paper (TMA 01), for my University maths course MST121, with the Open University. The paper consisted of approximately 40 available marks, for answering questions based on the main topics of Linear equations, using a Maths algebra package (Mathcad), and some detailed work on linear recurrence systems in geometric, arithmetic and mixed forms.
I have to say, that I find the linear recurrence sequence work to be particularly dull, as I always associate this type of work with biology or geography sciences; picturing someone using this type of maths, sitting in a cold hut, counting populations of beetles or birds!
Certainly not my cup of tea, which probably isn't helped by the fact that I have had my eyes opened, this week, by some of the Quantum mechanics books that I am reading as supplementary material.
As well as my book of the month, mentioned in a previous post; I have also picked up some other books to browse when the mood takes me.
They are:
Why does E=MC^2? by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw
The Strange World of Quantum Mechanics by Daniel Styer
Having read some Stephen Hawking books in the past, such as 'Brief History et al.'; I am familiar with the warping of Space-Time and the weird effects it can bring. However, it still doesn't helpto make it all easier to accept as true!
Such effects as, time moving slower for someone that is travelling faster, relative to another person. Or the fact that gravity can warp Space-time causing time to stop inside a black hole; or even, that time actually may not have existed before the 'Big Bang'. All of this tends to cause a certain amount of uneasiness, inside.
Because we experience a day-to-day reality that appears to be governed by classical physics as extolled by Newton, and because most of us will probably never be able to experience near to the speed of light travel, for example. We can never actually experience these effects, for ourselves.
This lack of 'first-hand' experience, makes all these things remain almost in the realms of science-fiction, for the layperson.
Interestingly, in my book of the month, 'How to Teach your Dog Quantum Mechanics', there is a photograph, of a layer of individual, copper atoms, as imaged by a tunnelling electron microscope. The microscope uses a phenomenon where there is a probability that a quantum particle, such as an electron, can approach a barrier like a thin sheet of metal; and then simply appear on the other side, without going through the metal atoms, themselves! It's as if it just appears on the other side, with no loss of energy, no loss of mass and no tiny hole, that it has gone through, to get there.
It's this property of electrons, that has allowed this photo of copper atoms, to be taken. If you get a chance, do look at the photo, it's amazing (p.163). If you look at the middle of the image, you will see some wave-like ripples, in the area around the atoms. These wave-fronts are actually the electrons, as they pass the atoms. The electrons are thus being seen in their 'wave' form, rather than as individual particles. Weird!!!
I have to say, that I find the linear recurrence sequence work to be particularly dull, as I always associate this type of work with biology or geography sciences; picturing someone using this type of maths, sitting in a cold hut, counting populations of beetles or birds!
Certainly not my cup of tea, which probably isn't helped by the fact that I have had my eyes opened, this week, by some of the Quantum mechanics books that I am reading as supplementary material.
As well as my book of the month, mentioned in a previous post; I have also picked up some other books to browse when the mood takes me.
They are:
Why does E=MC^2? by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw
The Strange World of Quantum Mechanics by Daniel Styer
Having read some Stephen Hawking books in the past, such as 'Brief History et al.'; I am familiar with the warping of Space-Time and the weird effects it can bring. However, it still doesn't helpto make it all easier to accept as true!
Such effects as, time moving slower for someone that is travelling faster, relative to another person. Or the fact that gravity can warp Space-time causing time to stop inside a black hole; or even, that time actually may not have existed before the 'Big Bang'. All of this tends to cause a certain amount of uneasiness, inside.
Because we experience a day-to-day reality that appears to be governed by classical physics as extolled by Newton, and because most of us will probably never be able to experience near to the speed of light travel, for example. We can never actually experience these effects, for ourselves.
This lack of 'first-hand' experience, makes all these things remain almost in the realms of science-fiction, for the layperson.
Interestingly, in my book of the month, 'How to Teach your Dog Quantum Mechanics', there is a photograph, of a layer of individual, copper atoms, as imaged by a tunnelling electron microscope. The microscope uses a phenomenon where there is a probability that a quantum particle, such as an electron, can approach a barrier like a thin sheet of metal; and then simply appear on the other side, without going through the metal atoms, themselves! It's as if it just appears on the other side, with no loss of energy, no loss of mass and no tiny hole, that it has gone through, to get there.
It's this property of electrons, that has allowed this photo of copper atoms, to be taken. If you get a chance, do look at the photo, it's amazing (p.163). If you look at the middle of the image, you will see some wave-like ripples, in the area around the atoms. These wave-fronts are actually the electrons, as they pass the atoms. The electrons are thus being seen in their 'wave' form, rather than as individual particles. Weird!!!
Monday, 14 February 2011
Post Graduate Physics and Maths
As part of my grand plan to get from GCSE maths to Theoretical physicist; I have, of course, been surfing the internet looking for information about possible post graduate qualifications that are out there, for distance learners.
I very quickly realised that there are some inherent problems with the availability of post grad distance learning courses:
- They are very expensive (ranging from approx £1000 - £9000, per year).
- Post grad Physics courses for distance learners are very thin on the ground.
- Most post grad sites explain that, doing a PhD part-time, by distance learning, is extremely difficult because the length of the studying can be 4 – 8yrs; and maintaining self motivation for this period of time, takes dedication.
However, bearing all of these points in mind, I still believe that it is achievable – particularly as I have made a deal with myself to keep going unless any of the following happen:
- I repeatedly fail a course because of a lack of intellectual capability.
- I can’t afford the cost of studying with a University.
Interestingly, point 2 shouldn’t be affected too much, by the recent changes in University funding. As it currently stands, many University’s are able to maintain a certain amount of U.K Government subsidy for Physics courses, because it is a protected subject (I guess they are short of physicists / physics teachers).
Also, with the Government committing to a long term 30yr + plan for the construction of a larger Nuclear power Industry and the need for more renewable power sources, as the price of oil and gas increase; I can see that physicists are going to be a prized commodity, over the next few years, in support of these projects. Perhaps this will have a positive effect on the amount of distance learning subjects in physics, available to post graduate learners?
In the near future, I will be providing a critical analysis of some of the post-graduate courses that I have researched, in recent months. I will also be looking at doing a running log on a separate blog page, which will hold details of all the courses, dates, work done etc, which I have completed to date. This page will be kept updated and a comparison will be provided against the grand plan, as I put together, the finer details.
Sunday, 13 February 2011
Calculus made Easy
I have just found an excellent Calculus book, that seems to supplement nicely, the Teaching Company videos and my MST121 course materials.
It introduces the basics, in plain language and it isn't 1000+ pages of ultra-complicated examples. Because of this simple and unsullied treatment of the subject; it somehow seems less scary; and I feel that I may just have a chance of mastering the subject one day, if I can keep finding study resources such as this type of book.
It also has a chapter of 'just for fun' applied calculus problems in the back of the book, that are real mind benders!
The book is:
Calculus Made Easy by Silvanus P.Thompson and Martin Gardner.
Again, I don't make money from links, so take a look.
It introduces the basics, in plain language and it isn't 1000+ pages of ultra-complicated examples. Because of this simple and unsullied treatment of the subject; it somehow seems less scary; and I feel that I may just have a chance of mastering the subject one day, if I can keep finding study resources such as this type of book.
It also has a chapter of 'just for fun' applied calculus problems in the back of the book, that are real mind benders!
The book is:
Calculus Made Easy by Silvanus P.Thompson and Martin Gardner.
Again, I don't make money from links, so take a look.
Friday, 11 February 2011
Calculus
Newton and Leibniz have a lot to answer for!
I understand that a very sound facility in the application of calculus, is essential for higher maths; so I have been reading around the subject as much as possible, over the last 3 months, to soften the blow when I officially meet it in May 2011, as part of MST121.
To that end, I found a company online that do DVD collections of lectures on all sorts of academic subjects. The company is called 'The Teaching Company'.
PS: I don't make money if you click through and buy from them :-)
Their sales patter mentions that the lectures use 'the best of the best' lecturers, from all over the world, as chosen by past students.
These DVD's range from £19 to over £100 and can be up to 40+hrs in total content. I spent weeks pondering which one to buy, as part of my 'Zulu' approach to maths and physics. They are such a big cost commitment and time commitment, to own and watch; that I needed to be sure I would get the use out of them, rather than them just gathering dust on my shelf.
In the end, I decided to get :
Understanding Calculus: Problems, Solutions and Tips
The professor is Bruce Edwards, a bloke from Florida who likes to talk with his hands which I thought would get on my nerves; but he is actually very watch-able.
Each lecture is 30mins long and is very easy to follow and it has given me loads of confidence in being able to cope with the subject. Being American, he uses some slightly unfamiliar notation or just different letters for constants etc., such as D instead of C. It's a minor thing, but it can cause you to loose track for a moment or two, when things get tricky.
I have got to lecture 9, which is 4.5hrs of lectures (wow, I'll be a maths king at this rate)!
To give you a flavour of the subjects covered. The titles of the lectures so far, are:
A preview of calculus
Graphs, models and functions
Functions and trigonometry
Finding limits
An introduction to continuity
Infinite limits and limits at infinity
The derivative and the Tangent line problem
Basic differentiation rules
Product and quotient rules
When I look at that list, it all sounds gobbledygook, but going through the lectures in sequence, was surprisingly straight forward.
Overall, I'd recommend it, especially if you are a type of person that gets stuck just referring to a text book.
I've now bought the Cosmology lectures as well, and I'll post about those soon.
My plans
Having now started in earnest, my undergraduate studies in Maths and physics; I will just provide an overview of my plans to complete this part of my studies. I want to try and obtain sufficient maths , to be able to cope with higher level physics work. But, at the same time, I want a good grounding at undergraduate level, in some physics specialist areas, so that I can expand on these in a Masters degree, in the near future.
I already have 100 points at 1st year level, 60 points at second year level and 30 points at third year level. This is all from my first attempts at studying with the OU.
These points were made up from about 4yrs worth of Humanities courses with a 3rd year business course, thrown in. I can use these, to count towards a B.Sc (Hons) Open degree (kind of like a mix and match majors, option), which needs 360 points, with at least 120 from year two courses and 120 points from year 3 courses.
So I already have a mixed profile of 190 points, leaving me the following science courses to get: 20 points at first year level - 60 points at second year level - 90 points at third year level. This is a total of 170 points, to get!
My plan to achieve this, is as follows:
-----------------------------------------
Jan 2011
MST121 Using Mathematics (30 points, level 1) - Core Maths
S196 Planets: An introduction (10 points, level 1) - Basic Physics / Astronomy
S197 How the Universe Works (10 points, level 1) - Basic Physics
Modern Cosmology and the Distant Universe (12 points, level 1) - Basic Cosmology
Interim qualifications gained:
Professional certificate of development, Astronomy (Liverpool John Moores)
Certificate Higher Education (OU)
--------------------------------------
Jan 2012
MST209 Mathematical Methods and Models (60 points, level 2) - Mathematical Physics
Interim qualification gained:
Diploma Higher Education (OU)
--------------------------------------
Oct 2012
S207 Exploring the Physical World (60 points, level 2) - Core Physics
--------------------------------------
Feb 2013
SM358 The Quantum World (30 points, level 3) - Specialist Physics
S383 The Relativistic Universe (30 points, level 3) - Specialist Physics
Interim qualification gained: B.Sc Open (OU)
--------------------------------------
May 2013
SMXR358 Quantum Mechanics: Experiments, applications, simulations (10 points, level 3) - Residential course
--------------------------------------
Feb 2014
SXP390 Science Project: Radiation and Matter (30 points, level 3) - Physics research methods
Final qualification gained:
B.Sc (Hons) Open (OU)
-------------------------------------
All of this should give me a degree with a good mix of maths and physics at level 2 and 3, from which to then springboard into a post graduate degree. I'll later post my post-grad options, which are many.
I already have 100 points at 1st year level, 60 points at second year level and 30 points at third year level. This is all from my first attempts at studying with the OU.
These points were made up from about 4yrs worth of Humanities courses with a 3rd year business course, thrown in. I can use these, to count towards a B.Sc (Hons) Open degree (kind of like a mix and match majors, option), which needs 360 points, with at least 120 from year two courses and 120 points from year 3 courses.
So I already have a mixed profile of 190 points, leaving me the following science courses to get: 20 points at first year level - 60 points at second year level - 90 points at third year level. This is a total of 170 points, to get!
My plan to achieve this, is as follows:
-----------------------------------------
Jan 2011
MST121 Using Mathematics (30 points, level 1) - Core Maths
S196 Planets: An introduction (10 points, level 1) - Basic Physics / Astronomy
S197 How the Universe Works (10 points, level 1) - Basic Physics
Modern Cosmology and the Distant Universe (12 points, level 1) - Basic Cosmology
Interim qualifications gained:
Professional certificate of development, Astronomy (Liverpool John Moores)
Certificate Higher Education (OU)
--------------------------------------
Jan 2012
MST209 Mathematical Methods and Models (60 points, level 2) - Mathematical Physics
Interim qualification gained:
Diploma Higher Education (OU)
--------------------------------------
Oct 2012
S207 Exploring the Physical World (60 points, level 2) - Core Physics
--------------------------------------
Feb 2013
SM358 The Quantum World (30 points, level 3) - Specialist Physics
S383 The Relativistic Universe (30 points, level 3) - Specialist Physics
Interim qualification gained: B.Sc Open (OU)
--------------------------------------
May 2013
SMXR358 Quantum Mechanics: Experiments, applications, simulations (10 points, level 3) - Residential course
--------------------------------------
Feb 2014
SXP390 Science Project: Radiation and Matter (30 points, level 3) - Physics research methods
Final qualification gained:
B.Sc (Hons) Open (OU)
-------------------------------------
All of this should give me a degree with a good mix of maths and physics at level 2 and 3, from which to then springboard into a post graduate degree. I'll later post my post-grad options, which are many.
Cosmology
I have decided to take another science short course, as well as my OU courses. The course that I have chosen is, Modern Cosomology... with John Moores University in Liverpool. This is a distance learning course at first year level, and it counts for 12 points, or about 1/5 of a year of full time study.
This course adds nicely to my 'zulu' background reading strategy, for physics et al. In 2007, I did an OU short course, 'An introduction to Astronomy', a first year 10 pointer, which I absolutely loved. I had bought myself a 4" Newtonian reflector telescope, and started star gazing. So this Cosmology course, will carry on that stream of interest.
So, in total, for 2011, I am now studying:
S196 Planets (10 points)
S197 How the Universe Works (10 points)
MST121 Using Mathematics (30 points)
Modern Cosmology (12 points)
This is a total of 62 points at level 1. Having already started studying on S196, S197 and MST121, I am coping with the workload, no problems at all, so far. Modern Cosmology starts in May 2011 and runs for 4 months. This should be okay, as S196 / S197, both run until the assignment is due in April 2011. This means I should have no overlap of the short courses, with MST121 running in the background from Jan 2011 until Oct 2011.
We shall see if this lasts...
This course adds nicely to my 'zulu' background reading strategy, for physics et al. In 2007, I did an OU short course, 'An introduction to Astronomy', a first year 10 pointer, which I absolutely loved. I had bought myself a 4" Newtonian reflector telescope, and started star gazing. So this Cosmology course, will carry on that stream of interest.
So, in total, for 2011, I am now studying:
S196 Planets (10 points)
S197 How the Universe Works (10 points)
MST121 Using Mathematics (30 points)
Modern Cosmology (12 points)
This is a total of 62 points at level 1. Having already started studying on S196, S197 and MST121, I am coping with the workload, no problems at all, so far. Modern Cosmology starts in May 2011 and runs for 4 months. This should be okay, as S196 / S197, both run until the assignment is due in April 2011. This means I should have no overlap of the short courses, with MST121 running in the background from Jan 2011 until Oct 2011.
We shall see if this lasts...
Thursday, 10 February 2011
MST209 Mathematical Methods and Models
Part of my grand plan, is to push myself to destruction, trying to see how much university maths, I can intellectually cope with. To this end, I am looking beyond MST121 and considering my next course. I am pondering which path to take. I am considering either taking MST209 Mathematical Methods and Models, with the OU; or, S207, The Physical World. MST209 looks like a course that teaches you what I call advanced maths for science i.e. all of the maths that you need to cope with most second year university level physics courses.
I am hoping that by doing this, it will make the physics course, easier to navigate.
The only fly in the ointment, is that I really fancy studying S207 next. S207 is a full whistle stop tour of all major areas of university level physics, including quantum theory etc. Having looked at the course description, I suspect I could cope with it, by just studying MST121, but I would probably have to take MST209, afterwards, If I wanted to go onto all the cool subjects at third year level such as Astrophysics or Quantum mechanics.
So, I will continue to ponder and probably make my decision next month. MST209 doesn't start until Jan 2012 and S207 starts in October 2011. Decisions, decisions...
Book of the month
I think i'll start posting which 'other' books I am reading each month. These are part of my plan to try and get my head around some of the framework that modern maths and physics are based. For example, I know that many people say that quantum mechanics is a very difficult subject to comprehend. So, if you have difficulties with the ideas; then I would imagine that trying to apply complex higher maths, to describe problems that you don't really understand to begin with, would be an almost impossible task.
My hope, is that if I apply the 'Zulu Principle' i.e., read deeply about my chosen subject, both popular books and technical texts; then I may just be able to beat the odds and transform myself from layman, to theoretical physicist, in a very short amount of time.
Okay, so my first book this month is called 'How to Teach your Dog Quantum Physics' by Chad Orzel. It is a popular book explaining the weird bits of quantum theory. I'll read it this month and then give a review on it.
PS: I don't plan on making any money off links from my blog. They are just there to allow you to check these things out, for yourself.
My hope, is that if I apply the 'Zulu Principle' i.e., read deeply about my chosen subject, both popular books and technical texts; then I may just be able to beat the odds and transform myself from layman, to theoretical physicist, in a very short amount of time.
Okay, so my first book this month is called 'How to Teach your Dog Quantum Physics' by Chad Orzel. It is a popular book explaining the weird bits of quantum theory. I'll read it this month and then give a review on it.
PS: I don't plan on making any money off links from my blog. They are just there to allow you to check these things out, for yourself.
MST121 Using Mathematics
Okay, In January, I started my first maths course with the Open University (OU). Each OU course has a unique code by which it is known. This one is not the most basic course that the OU does. They do a course that is equivalent to a GCSE in maths, grade A-C.
I already have a GCSE grade C in maths, which I obtained at school in 1992, so I figured that I could cope with going onto their next course MST121.
I would say, that MST121 appears to start a little above where you would leave off from a GCSE in maths. It's more like 1/4 the way into an AS level.
The course starts off with a basic maths skills update and written test or a 'TMA' (Tutor Marked Assignment in Open University speak).
The skills that we recapped on were:
factors and prime numbers
fractions, decimals and percentages
powers and roots
ratio and proportion
Straight forward so far...
Inequalities and formulas
some stats work
basic geometry and trig (I struggle with trig, all those radians and pies, but not the apple kind :-)
Then it starts to move away from GCSE type subjects and we start to get
Algebra
functions
detailed quadratic work
I guess these last two parts could be called pre-calculus and I certainly don't ever remember doing any of this at GCSE; hence, I suspect that this course jumps a level from GCSE and it moves at a good pace, as the course progresses.
You get to work on all of this prep material, before the course starts, proper.
I did this work over Christmas and the course officially started at the end of January.
The first part of the official course, begins with Chapters A0 and A1.
A0 is just some further prep work really, which was good, as I needed to practice using powers, logs etc, as I can never seem to remember the rules for using these maths concepts.
I did two TMA's, at the beginning of January and was pleasently suprised at the scores from those tests.
One was 93% and the other was 76%
The OU have a scoring process whereby, if you obtained an average of 69% or below, for your degree, you would get a 2.2 / 3rd class, depending on how low it was.
70% to 84% would be roughly a 2.1 and 85% or above, a 1st class.
So, a good start, but the maths was basic, so who knows how I'll cope with later parts.
More in my next post.
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
The Open University
Well, it's all very well and good, having some long term plans, hatched whilst mildly toasted on red wine - but for this to work, I need concrete short term plans, so that I can be on track and make this happen. I have primarily decided to use The Open University, as my place of learning.
I have already studied some Humanities courses with them, which has allowed me to accumulate some points, that should let me just study 3yrs worth of Physics and Maths stuff, tot be given a B Sc Hons, Open degree,with sufficient Physics, to make Masters level study, easier.
I am currently studying MST121 - Using Mathematics with the OU (next posts will go into full detail about this course)
I have also started,
S196 - Planets: an introduction
And,
S197 - How the Universe Works
These should give me 50 points at level 1 undergraduate, to use towards my degree. My next post will give my current plan in detail, for the next 3yrs of undergraduate study. Wow, 3yrs sounds like a REALLY long time.
I have already studied some Humanities courses with them, which has allowed me to accumulate some points, that should let me just study 3yrs worth of Physics and Maths stuff, tot be given a B Sc Hons, Open degree,with sufficient Physics, to make Masters level study, easier.
I am currently studying MST121 - Using Mathematics with the OU (next posts will go into full detail about this course)
I have also started,
S196 - Planets: an introduction
And,
S197 - How the Universe Works
These should give me 50 points at level 1 undergraduate, to use towards my degree. My next post will give my current plan in detail, for the next 3yrs of undergraduate study. Wow, 3yrs sounds like a REALLY long time.
My plans
Greetings. This is the first post of what I intend to be many hundreds. I will be spending the next few years, trying to work my way through a BSc Hons degree in physics and maths based subjects. I am then planning to move straight onto a post grad qualification in physics / maths, which will be a masters level degree. I then plan to do a Ph.D., specialising in an area of physics, which will hopefully be, particle physics. I am aiming to have this all done, within 10yrs, studying part-time, whilst continuing to work in a full time job.
Just to put you in the picture, I left school with a grade C in GCSE Maths (high school level, for those who haven't sampled the delightful nuances of the U.K education system). I didn't know my times tables, my confidence in my maths and physics abilities was non-existent, and I was destined to never achieve my lofty goals of becoming a scientist or medical doctor (fleeting childhood dreams).
So, I am married, in a job where I have supervisory level, but will never go much further and I have two amazing children.
Now, back in my school days, I always found it extremely difficult to study, read or concentrate. So, in order to cull some of those demons, I decided to take some humanities courses with the Open University, in the U.K. As part of this re-entry into education, I was later assessed by an educational Psychologist, to try and understand why an apparently bright guy (scored 155 on the Cattell B Verbal IQ test), couldn't concentrate for more than 5 minutes, remember the times-tables, any equation or any formula. I even struggled to remember what I had for breakfast, that morning.
To my surprise, (but with a weird sense of relief), I was diagnosed with Dyslexia, Dyspraxia and Irlen syndrome. I will Blog in later weeks, and give the low-down on these conditions and my experience of them.
I then decided to do something about these issues, so I went on the net and found a professor in London, who specialised in adults with Irlen syndrome ( Irlen syndrome, in my case, causes words to jumble on the page and I can't bear to look at a white page, because my eyes are too sensitive to the reflected light).
£300 later, I was assessed and was issued with a pair of pink lensed glasses, to wear when studying or reading.
To say that the effect was dramatic and immediate, is an understatement. When I put them on, it was like someone had flipped a switch on my head. I found myself able to read for extended periods, concentrate and absorb information more quickly. The words had reduced from moving around on the page, to just occasionally flickering.
I then spent the next 6 months constantly reading, all of those things I hadn't done before, because it was just too difficult. Then, one evening, over 2 bottles of wine, I pondered on what to do with my newly recovered ability to read and concentrate. It was at that point, that I hatched a plan. The plan was simple and had to meet the following criteria:
1. Choose an insanely difficult job that I would love to do, but never had the courage to follow, because of my, now diagnosed and treated, learning difficulties.
2. I had a family now, so I couldn't leave my job, to follow my new path. I needed to be able to study or train, whilst working 40hrs, per week, at my current job.
3. The end result, had to pay sufficiently well, that any expense could be recovered, once I had started working.
4. It had to be in a subject that was widely agreed upon, to be impossible for all but the most gifted or dedicated people. (I wanted to test myself to destruction, so this condition was vital).
So, what I came up with were two possibles:
Astronaut
Theoretical Physicist (like Prof. Brian Cox, who is my hero)
I plumbed for Theoretical physicist. This was because I am too battle damaged from playing rugby, to be an Astronaut. And I also don't like heights (space is really far away).
I liked the fact that Brian Cox failed his A Level maths, yet he still went on to not only have a career as a pop star (keyboard player in D:Ream), but also gained a Ph.D. in particle physics and went on to have a successful career, smashing hadrons into each other, whilst sipping Swiss coffee, in Geneva!
So, to all of my doubters for the last 30yrs, at school, in my home town and inside my own head; I say, stuff it, I'm going to be a Theoretical Physicist.
And so the journey begins.
Just to put you in the picture, I left school with a grade C in GCSE Maths (high school level, for those who haven't sampled the delightful nuances of the U.K education system). I didn't know my times tables, my confidence in my maths and physics abilities was non-existent, and I was destined to never achieve my lofty goals of becoming a scientist or medical doctor (fleeting childhood dreams).
So, I am married, in a job where I have supervisory level, but will never go much further and I have two amazing children.
Now, back in my school days, I always found it extremely difficult to study, read or concentrate. So, in order to cull some of those demons, I decided to take some humanities courses with the Open University, in the U.K. As part of this re-entry into education, I was later assessed by an educational Psychologist, to try and understand why an apparently bright guy (scored 155 on the Cattell B Verbal IQ test), couldn't concentrate for more than 5 minutes, remember the times-tables, any equation or any formula. I even struggled to remember what I had for breakfast, that morning.
To my surprise, (but with a weird sense of relief), I was diagnosed with Dyslexia, Dyspraxia and Irlen syndrome. I will Blog in later weeks, and give the low-down on these conditions and my experience of them.
I then decided to do something about these issues, so I went on the net and found a professor in London, who specialised in adults with Irlen syndrome ( Irlen syndrome, in my case, causes words to jumble on the page and I can't bear to look at a white page, because my eyes are too sensitive to the reflected light).
£300 later, I was assessed and was issued with a pair of pink lensed glasses, to wear when studying or reading.
To say that the effect was dramatic and immediate, is an understatement. When I put them on, it was like someone had flipped a switch on my head. I found myself able to read for extended periods, concentrate and absorb information more quickly. The words had reduced from moving around on the page, to just occasionally flickering.
I then spent the next 6 months constantly reading, all of those things I hadn't done before, because it was just too difficult. Then, one evening, over 2 bottles of wine, I pondered on what to do with my newly recovered ability to read and concentrate. It was at that point, that I hatched a plan. The plan was simple and had to meet the following criteria:
1. Choose an insanely difficult job that I would love to do, but never had the courage to follow, because of my, now diagnosed and treated, learning difficulties.
2. I had a family now, so I couldn't leave my job, to follow my new path. I needed to be able to study or train, whilst working 40hrs, per week, at my current job.
3. The end result, had to pay sufficiently well, that any expense could be recovered, once I had started working.
4. It had to be in a subject that was widely agreed upon, to be impossible for all but the most gifted or dedicated people. (I wanted to test myself to destruction, so this condition was vital).
So, what I came up with were two possibles:
Astronaut
Theoretical Physicist (like Prof. Brian Cox, who is my hero)
I plumbed for Theoretical physicist. This was because I am too battle damaged from playing rugby, to be an Astronaut. And I also don't like heights (space is really far away).
I liked the fact that Brian Cox failed his A Level maths, yet he still went on to not only have a career as a pop star (keyboard player in D:Ream), but also gained a Ph.D. in particle physics and went on to have a successful career, smashing hadrons into each other, whilst sipping Swiss coffee, in Geneva!
So, to all of my doubters for the last 30yrs, at school, in my home town and inside my own head; I say, stuff it, I'm going to be a Theoretical Physicist.
And so the journey begins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)