I am looking for feedback. I have a children's story that tries to get the concept of atoms and ultimately quarks across to children. I see kids in the age range of 4-8 or so as the target group.
If you have kids and want to read it, or if you have any comments of your own as to what you think about it, please let me know! If you have any experience with children's books, also let me know as I have a number of questions for you. I can see some interesting illustrations that could be produced for the story. Thanks.
Here goes:
Little Sue and the Rock
By Mark Vondracek, Ph.D.
It was after school, and Little Sue was walking down the street,
when she noticed a pretty little rock down by her feet.
She picked it up, looked at it, and wondered what was inside,
when all of a sudden she was going on an amazing ride.
Little Sue began to shrink,
and she did not know what to think.
Was she really getting smaller,
or was the rock just getting taller?
Whatever the case, she quickly began to see,
sparkling crystals appear, like when the sun shines on the sea.
And while these crystals were simply amazing,
little Sue knew this was only the surface of the rock she was grazing.
Ever smaller did little Sue grow,
before she was in a world she did not know.
Those beautiful crystals disappeared,
into a number of balls forming patterns, that much was clear.
The balls were bound together, which to little Sue was very cool,
when she realized she was seeing objects her teacher called molecules.
But she also wondered what was with those once little balls,
which seemed to be getting bigger as her size continued to get small.
Even though little Sue’s height was still decreasing,
she could not help but think this new world was pretty pleasing.
She kept approaching those balls, and it was becoming a little cloudy,
and the balls seemed to be shaking, and even seemed a little rowdy.
“Those balls must be atoms!” exclaimed little Sue to herself,
she knew this because she had read that science book on her shelf.
As she shrunk into one of the clouds it seemed a little fuzzy,
and as she struggled to see, smaller specks flew by and sounded a little buzzy.
Little Sue was checking out the electrons flying by,
moving very fast, so fast she could not even say “Hi.”
And before long little Sue shrunk into a place,
where the electrons were now gone and all she saw was empty space.
It seemed like forever that little Sue kept on shrinking,
seeing nothing around caused her to start thinking.
“Is there nothing else around here that will stop my fall?”
when suddenly in the distance she could see another little ball.
Atoms have a second part, little Sue seemed to remember,
with electrons whizzing and circling the outside, and a nucleus in the center.
Little Sue kept shrinking and suddenly was able to see,
a bunch of smaller balls in the nucleus, glued together so perfectly .
“Wow, these little balls are protons and neutrons! This is really cool!”
as little Sue was remembering that science lesson from school.
She was now seeing the smallest pieces of that rock she had been holding,
at least this is what she thought before she got a little scolding.
Little Sue heard voices complaining as she shrank a little more,
falling inside one of those protons that were at the atom’s core.
Even smaller balls were inside and finally had a chance to make their mark,
by introducing themselves to little Sue, saying, “Hello, we are the quarks!”
For little Sue this was unexpected and really quite the surprise,
as she began to look around and rub her wide-open eyes.
“Quarks,” she said, “were not mentioned in my science book.”
and she closed her eyes for a moment, then opened them for a second look.
The quarks explained to little Sue they aren’t very well known,
but they do exist and are real, with identities all their own.
“Our names are Up and Down,” they said to little Sue,
“but the protons and neutrons are more popular, so what can we do?”
Just then little Sue realized she was no longer shrinking,
for now she had reached the smallest piece of the rock, and she was left thinking –
I have seen the smallest piece of the rock….or have I not?
could there be something smaller than the quarks, as small as a dot?
For now, little Sue will need to wonder about that question,
but as she grows back up in size I leave her this suggestion.
For little Sue, as well as all her little school friends,
if you don’t know the answer to your questions do not leave that as the end.
Keep asking your questions, and don’t leave any of them to silence;
look around, try to find an answer – and before you know it, you will be doing science.
It doesn’t matter what it is, from the smallest atom to outer space,
because you will find questions that still need answers all over the place.
Showing posts with label applied science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label applied science. Show all posts
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
A Second Wind...Applied vs Pure Science
This is a post I had back in August of 2006. It is the post that has had the most hits over the last 1+ years, so I thought I would re-post it. This goes along with the fact that this blog is now dedicated to my students and classes I teach, as we can extend on discussions from class or start discussions that we do not have time for in class. Feedback is needed, and this will provide yet another means for students to be involved in the world of science and all that comes with it. Let's get going!
A summer science research course I used to teach always had many good discussions about analysis techniques, the scientific method, and specific areas of research. A topic that always made an appearance was the debate over what type of research is more valuable, pure or applied. In particular, the class debate peaked when we traveled out to Fermilab to visit some of the facilities and labs. Prior to that visit, classes are normally close to split over which is more vital to the progress of science and the U.S. lead world research.
Pure science research is that work which is done in the pursuit of new knowledge. Scientists working in this type of research don’t necessarily have any ideas in mind about applications of their work. They may be testing an existing theory, they may have a new experimental technique they want to try, or they may literally stumble accidentally into a new area of discovery (many of the great discoveries in history occurred by accident, such as X-rays and penicillin). Encompassed in this realm is a good deal of theoretical research, such as those who are working on quantum mechanics, superstrings, theoretical cosmology, and many others.
Applied science research is that which is geared towards applications of knowledge and concrete results that are useful for specific purposes. Engineering is certainly an application of knowledge for finding practical solutions to specific problems. Research into instrumentation, new inventions, and new processes that may improve productivity in industry, as well as medical research geared towards the production of new drugs, are obvious examples of this type of research.
Fermilab, for example, houses a mammoth device that is used almost entirely for pure research in particle physics. Scientists look for new forms of matter, study fundamental forces between particles, test theories such as the Standard Model, and test new types of instrumentation. As an ideal example of ‘big’ science, students are wide-eyed when told the power bill is something like $10,000 per hour and that operating budgets, paid for by taxpayer dollars, run in the hundreds of millions (not to mention the billions of dollars that have been spent over the years to build the facility and the main experiments). My question for them is: Is it worth it?
On the surface, most people can think of better uses of billions of dollars. I’ve been asked countless times how scientists can justify the costs of facilities like Fermilab or the price-tag associated with sending another space probe to Mars. What about cures for cancer? New energy sources? Better sources of food that can be grown and used by the third-world? Are these not more important areas of study, especially when the answer to the question, “What good is a top quark?” is “I cannot think of a single application!” Certainly politicians are faced with such questions, and rightly so. We absolutely need to ask these questions and find priorities for limited resources and funding.
Politicians, of course, prefer applied science research. They would love to be able to go to their constituents with news of a new invention or discovery that will make life better, and, gee, since I supported the funding of the research I deserve to be re-elected. While applied science almost always wins out in a class vote of which is more important, as I argue in my last posting that thinking in terms of absolutes can limit progress, my conclusion is BOTH are absolutely essential for the progress of science as well as maintaining our status as a superpower. Pure science keeps new ideas and discoveries flowing. Progress in almost any field, be it industry, business, or medicine, depends on the amount of knowledge one has access to.
Continuing with Fermilab as our working example, it is true that a discovery such as a top quark almost certainly cannot yield a direct, beneficial application for mankind. But, in order to make that discovery, and what is not obvious to the general public, requires new technologies and breakthroughs that can often lead to spin-offs that revolutionize everyday life. The world of fast computation, massive data storage, and fast electronics has been built on the work that needed to be done to build Fermilab and discover the top quark. Applications of superconductivity took this phenomenon from a fascinating quantum state we can produce in the lab to the world of high-strength magnets necessary for steering particles at the speed of light. Little did anyone originally know that eventually someone would figure out that these same superconducting magnets can be used to create internal images of the body, now called MRI technology. This blog site is possible because of the pioneering computer network (both hardware and software) created by high energy physicists, who found it necessary to share data between experiments in the U.S. and Europe. And most people are unaware of the Cancer Treatment Center at Fermilab, that uses neutron beams created by the main accelerators. There are only four such centers in the U.S., and thousands of patients have been treated over the years.
The point is that pure science is absolutely essential. This type of science ensures that we keep pushing the envelope and continue our quest of deciphering Nature’s puzzles. It leads to the fringe and cutting edge science in all disciplines. While primary work may or may not be useful for the general public in the form of a physical device or process, history shows convincingly that whatever investment is made will usually be paid back (often many times over) in the form of spin-offs. I, for one, have no complaints of some of my tax money going towards a national lab such as Fermilab, or any other facility that promotes pure science research.
A summer science research course I used to teach always had many good discussions about analysis techniques, the scientific method, and specific areas of research. A topic that always made an appearance was the debate over what type of research is more valuable, pure or applied. In particular, the class debate peaked when we traveled out to Fermilab to visit some of the facilities and labs. Prior to that visit, classes are normally close to split over which is more vital to the progress of science and the U.S. lead world research.
Pure science research is that work which is done in the pursuit of new knowledge. Scientists working in this type of research don’t necessarily have any ideas in mind about applications of their work. They may be testing an existing theory, they may have a new experimental technique they want to try, or they may literally stumble accidentally into a new area of discovery (many of the great discoveries in history occurred by accident, such as X-rays and penicillin). Encompassed in this realm is a good deal of theoretical research, such as those who are working on quantum mechanics, superstrings, theoretical cosmology, and many others.
Applied science research is that which is geared towards applications of knowledge and concrete results that are useful for specific purposes. Engineering is certainly an application of knowledge for finding practical solutions to specific problems. Research into instrumentation, new inventions, and new processes that may improve productivity in industry, as well as medical research geared towards the production of new drugs, are obvious examples of this type of research.
Fermilab, for example, houses a mammoth device that is used almost entirely for pure research in particle physics. Scientists look for new forms of matter, study fundamental forces between particles, test theories such as the Standard Model, and test new types of instrumentation. As an ideal example of ‘big’ science, students are wide-eyed when told the power bill is something like $10,000 per hour and that operating budgets, paid for by taxpayer dollars, run in the hundreds of millions (not to mention the billions of dollars that have been spent over the years to build the facility and the main experiments). My question for them is: Is it worth it?
On the surface, most people can think of better uses of billions of dollars. I’ve been asked countless times how scientists can justify the costs of facilities like Fermilab or the price-tag associated with sending another space probe to Mars. What about cures for cancer? New energy sources? Better sources of food that can be grown and used by the third-world? Are these not more important areas of study, especially when the answer to the question, “What good is a top quark?” is “I cannot think of a single application!” Certainly politicians are faced with such questions, and rightly so. We absolutely need to ask these questions and find priorities for limited resources and funding.
Politicians, of course, prefer applied science research. They would love to be able to go to their constituents with news of a new invention or discovery that will make life better, and, gee, since I supported the funding of the research I deserve to be re-elected. While applied science almost always wins out in a class vote of which is more important, as I argue in my last posting that thinking in terms of absolutes can limit progress, my conclusion is BOTH are absolutely essential for the progress of science as well as maintaining our status as a superpower. Pure science keeps new ideas and discoveries flowing. Progress in almost any field, be it industry, business, or medicine, depends on the amount of knowledge one has access to.
Continuing with Fermilab as our working example, it is true that a discovery such as a top quark almost certainly cannot yield a direct, beneficial application for mankind. But, in order to make that discovery, and what is not obvious to the general public, requires new technologies and breakthroughs that can often lead to spin-offs that revolutionize everyday life. The world of fast computation, massive data storage, and fast electronics has been built on the work that needed to be done to build Fermilab and discover the top quark. Applications of superconductivity took this phenomenon from a fascinating quantum state we can produce in the lab to the world of high-strength magnets necessary for steering particles at the speed of light. Little did anyone originally know that eventually someone would figure out that these same superconducting magnets can be used to create internal images of the body, now called MRI technology. This blog site is possible because of the pioneering computer network (both hardware and software) created by high energy physicists, who found it necessary to share data between experiments in the U.S. and Europe. And most people are unaware of the Cancer Treatment Center at Fermilab, that uses neutron beams created by the main accelerators. There are only four such centers in the U.S., and thousands of patients have been treated over the years.
The point is that pure science is absolutely essential. This type of science ensures that we keep pushing the envelope and continue our quest of deciphering Nature’s puzzles. It leads to the fringe and cutting edge science in all disciplines. While primary work may or may not be useful for the general public in the form of a physical device or process, history shows convincingly that whatever investment is made will usually be paid back (often many times over) in the form of spin-offs. I, for one, have no complaints of some of my tax money going towards a national lab such as Fermilab, or any other facility that promotes pure science research.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)