Filtering by
- Creators: School of Life Sciences
This paper analyzes the history and impact of the double-slit experiment on the world of physics. The experiment was initially created by Thomas Young in the early nineteenth century to prove that light behaved as a wave, and the experiment’s findings ended up being foundational to the classical wave theory of light. Decades later, the experiment was replicated once more with electrons instead of light and shockingly demonstrated that electrons possessed a dual nature of behavior in that they acted in some instances as particles and in others as waves. Despite numerous modifications and replications, the dual behavior of electrons has never been definitively explained. Numerous interpretations of quantum mechanics all offer their own explanations of the double-slit experiment’s results. Notably, the Copenhagen Interpretation states that an observer measuring a quantum system, such as the double-slit experiment, causes the electrons to behave classically (i.e. as a particle.) The Many Worlds Interpretation offers that multiple branching worlds come into existence to represent the physical occurrence of all probable outcomes of the double-slit experiment. In these and other interpretations, explanations of the double-slit experiment are key to proving their respective dogmas. The double-slit experiment has historically been very important to the worlds of both classical and quantum physics and is still being modified and replicated to this day. It is clear that it will continue to remain relevant even in the future of physics.
The climate conversation is growing more important and necessary than ever. The media has a way of promoting a "doom and gloom" sentiment over conservation efforts and what the public has the power to do in terms of making a change. Now due to the effects of COVID-19 on the population's attention spans and memories, there is a need for a way to communicate climate science effectively and to encourage those who feel discouraged by climate change to find their inner power. The answer lies in photography. Making science accessible and intriguing through the art of photography is what can get people more interested and empowered to fight against climate change and alter their attitudes towards environmentalism. This thesis explains psychological research and the reasons why people feel helpless in terms of our global future. In then dives into human subjects research conducted on ASU's campus and how the survey results argue in favor of the paper's hypothesis. Additionally, ways to get involved and reasons why we need to remain hopeful are discussed.
The relationship between science and religion in the modern day is complex to the point that the lines between them are often blurred. We have a need to distinguish the two from each-other for a variety of practical reasons. Various philosophies, theories, and tests have been suggested on the interaction between the two and how they are subdivided. One of the sets of criteria which has been shown to work was originally introduced in the opinion of Judge Overton in the case of McLean v Arkansas. McLean v Arkansas is a pivotal case in that it gave us a useful definition of what science is and isn’t in the context of the law. It used the already established Lemon test to show what counts as the establishment of religion. Given the distinction by Judge Overton, there are questions as to whether or not there is even overlap or tension between science and religion, such as in the theory of Stephen Jay Gould’s Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA). What we find in this thesis is that the NOMA principle is doubtful at best. Through the discussion of McLean v. Arkansas, NOMA, and the commentaries of Professors Larry Laudan and Michael Ruse, this thesis develops a contextualization principle that can be used as a guide to develop further theories, particularly regarding the divisions between science and religion.