Full Molecular Equation vs. Complete Ionic Equation

Title: Full Molecular Equation vs. Complete Ionic Equation
Date: November 17, 2010
Class: Chemistry IB HL
Category: Other Classes

            When exploring the reactions of different chemicals, we were taught of the different types of equations we could form using the same reactions. We could either write a full molecular equation (which illustrates the “big picture” or the overall reaction), or a complete ionic equation (which shows how each compound is broken up into individual ions in a reaction), or a net ionic equation (which only focuses on the solution components that face a change, by creating a new product, or changing its state of matter etc.). For example in a reaction between potassium chromate and barium nitrate, the full molecular equation would be written as: K₂CrO_4(aq) + Ba(NO₃)_{2 (aq)} à 2KNO_{3 (aq)} + BaCrO_{4 (s)}. The complete ionic equation for this same reaction would be written as: 2K+ + CrO₄^-2 + Ba⁺² + 2NO₃ àBaCrO₄(s) + 2K+ +2NO₃^-. As can be seen here, the same reaction is written in different ways to show different aspects of the reaction.

When introduced of this topic, we were told that the full molecular equation is not what really happens in the reaction, and that the complete ionic equation shows what is actually going on. When I heard this, I thought, ‘How does one know whether the complete ionic equation shows what is really going on in the reaction? How do we know that the full molecular equation doesn’t show the real happenings in the reaction?’ Scientists who came up with this idea most likely had had conducted great amounts of experiments to test this out, and had lots of information to support their idea of how these equations should be written. Nevertheless, how does one know whether he/she has enough information to make what they claim, true? If we see the reaction in microscopes containing great detail, and we see that the reaction does follow the complete ionic equation rather than the full molecular equation, how does one know that the microscope is reliable? How does one know that what they perceive is reliable? How do we determine what is reliable? Can we state that it is reliable because it is true most of the times? What is considered to be “most of the times”? If what they perceive is not reliable, and we draw conclusions from our perceptions, doesn’t this mean that our conclusion is then also unreliable? How do we even know that what we perceive is actually the complete ionic equation rather than the full molecular equation? How do we distinguish these different equations in a microscope if they are the same reaction? How do we know which equation is more fitting to the actual reaction? How do we know what the actual reaction is?

Optical/Visual Illusions

Illusions Title: Goblin and the Two Faces, Hermann Grid, Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile, Inverted Faces-Thompson’s “The Thatcher Illusion”, Face in the Beans
Date: Oct. 4, 10
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

           Our mind is capable of fooling us through our perceptions; often referred to as optical or visual illusions. In class, we took a look at some of these optical illusions and tried to find patterns and make conclusions in how our mind processed these images. One optical illusion I looked at, was the Goblin and the Two Faces. The goblin was in black (positive), and to see the face, we had to focus on the white or the negatives of the image. The majority of the class admitted that they saw the goblin before seeing the faces and were not able to see the faces unless pointed out by someone else. However, once someone pointed it out to us, it was impossible to miss again. This could be seen throughout all of the optical illusions. For example, another optical illusion I looked at was the Face in the Beans. The image consisted of many coffee beans in no particular order, all jumbled up together. The description told us that there was a face hidden among these beans. I looked and looked but could not find it. I took a look at the hints the description gave and only then, I was able to see the head peeking through the mixture of coffee beans. However, I realized that when I was explaining this to my friends, I could not miss this man among the coffee beans. I could not go back to the state when I was not able to see the man.

Common optical illusions also included a change in the faces when laid side by side. The ones I could see this happening were Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile and Inverted Faces-Thompson’s “The Thatcher Illusion”. In the optical illusion called Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile, two faces were laid side by side and blur effects were imposed on these two faces to portray a different image. When there was little blur, the left image looked manly and angry while the right image looked happy and calm. However, when the blur effect was added to these images, the right image began to look manly and angry while the right image looked happy and calm. Similarly the illusion called Inverted Faces was very interesting because when laid side by side and upside-down, the faces looked identical. However, when these faces were turned right-side-up, the one on the left looked pretty and happy while the right image looked as if the woman was angry and her face had been distorted.

The last optical illusion I saw was called Hermann Grid. It was an image of black blocks with thick white lines in between them creating intersections which looked like street lines. When I stared at the intersections, I would also see black dots forming in all the other intersections except for the intersection I was staring at. How did this happen? It was no magical intersection that this applied to. Any intersection I stared at, I would see black dots in the other intersections.

Through the study of optical illusions, I was taught that humans often tend to see humans or a face in another object even though it may not be there. Is this because we want to make connections to ourselves physically? I also realized that if we know something has to be there in the image, we unintentionally focus harder and we are more open to new ideas. We may choose to look at the bigger picture or narrow down into details. I found this true in my case as I was looking for the face in the Face in the Beans illusion. We also tended to look at the positives or the dark images rather than the whites. This is why when I saw the Goblin and the Two Faces illusion, the goblin stood out to me more.

But why does our brain make these decisions to interpret images in these manners? Is this a technique related to survival skills? Is it because in real life, many living organisms are not white, but closer to having a color, or being black? And so the brain thinks that if we interpret these positive images, we are more likely to survive? If we were in a forest, and we saw a dark figure moving, we interpret as a threat or possible danger and so we would dodge or try to escape from the situation because we want to live; this is our instinct. Is this why the brain sees the black more than the white? How do we know that the brain does not also process the white, but we just choose to ignore it unintentionally? What are some justifications that can help convince that our brain really does see and focus on darker images more than the white images?

Being fooled by our visual perception through optical illusions, how can we trust that what we are seeing is really there and not another optical illusion? What if our whole world was an illusion? Something we are fooled into thinking is present when it really isn’t there? Some people such as Kelly Clarkson in her new song “Naked Eye” states that “Seeing is believing.” With these optical illusions, can we justify that this statement is false? If we justify this as being false, if seeing is not believing, then what do we believe? What then, becomes the determinant of what we believe?

Try some yourself:



nobeliefs.com



michaelbach.de/ot/lum_herGrid/index.html















For More Check Out: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/

Taking Account the Possible Errors

Title: Taking Account the Possible Errors
Class: Chemistry IB HL
Category: Other Classes



gmasononline.com



            When writing a lab for science class, we must always think about the sources of errors. When calculating the result of something, we must always determine the absolute error or percentage error of the calculation. We do this so the numbers or the data we present can be as accurate as possible. However, how do we know if our calculations or data is accurate even with the error calculations? Is it possible to take into account all of the errors? How do we know if we have made these errors? If we didn’t make these errors, isn’t it more accurate when we don’t include the error calculations? Is it safe to assume that we have made these errors? Or that our calculations and data are reliable with the errors calculated? Will information ever be reliable? How does one determine whether a source is reliable? With math class, it’s easy to figure out whether our answer is correct or not through the answers in the textbook. However, in reality, there is no answer book. So how do we verify our answers, our decisions, our thoughts? Would it benefit us if we were able to make the correct decisions all the time? How would we know if we are making the correct decisions in the first place?

Lord of the Flies

Title: Lord of the Flies
Author: William Golding
Date: August 31, 2010
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

fantasticfiction.co.uk

            In the novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding, a beast is mentioned. No one knows whether this beast is real or not, but the children claim that they have seen it at night when they were sleeping. However, the leader Jack does not believe them and claims that there is no beast on the island. The children are scared of being on the island without any adults and this fear causes them to think that there is a beast. Because of this strong emotion of fear, they believe that it is there and so they claim that it is true and that they have actually seen it although in reality, they did not. This is an example where a strong emotion (such as fear) causes us to imagine something as being true, in this case being the beast.

            If strong emotions can control our mind to perceive things that are not really there, does it mean that our mind is not able to think clearly when we are having strong emotions? Is our perception unreliable once we start having strong feelings? Are emotions stronger than our strength to control our minds? How capable are we of controlling our own minds? 

Naked Eye by Kelly Clarkson

Title: Naked Eye
Singer: Kelly Clarkson
Category: Song/ Outside of Class

somanymp3s.com

            The song “Naked Eye” by Kelly Clarkson has a few interesting points to make. The song is about a girl realizing and trying to convince her boyfriend that there is no more connection between herself and her boyfriend. She uses the phrase “seeing is believing” and states that she saw the connection and emotions disappearing with her naked eyes.

To some people lyrics may not matter so much and that this is just a song. However, when I heard this song I began to wonder, ‘Is seeing really believing?’ Do we believe everything we see? Yes, we perceive by seeing. It is also true that most of us tend to believe everything we see. However, just because we see it and believe it, does it make this true? We could force ourselves to believe in something as in 1984 when Winston is forced into believing that O’Brien is holding up 5 fingers when he actually sees 4. Does this mean that what we believe in depends on what we want to believe in? And if we believe by seeing, does this mean we see what we want to see? Is it fair for the girl in the song, to say that the connection is lost in her relationship with her boyfriend? She could be forcing herself to believe that this connection is no longer there, but is it true? Was the connection even there in the first place, or did they just believe it was there?

Blindness of Change

Title: Blindness of Change
Date: September 24, 2010
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

            I never noticed how oblivious we are to change in our lives. When we think about it, it seems very easy to recognize change; however, experiments show that we usually don’t recognize changes even if they are as drastic as changing the person who you are speaking to. In class, we watched a couple of Youtube videos so we could actually see this as being the case. We watched a video where we saw the color of the cards changing along with many other changes. However, the majority of the class only recognized the color change in the cards when there was a drastic change in the clothes the people were wearing, the table cloth on the table, and the backdrop. Blindness of change occurs when we focus on one particular subject and so we miss the other changes going around us. People normally focus selectively and cannot pay attention to many things at once. This is why most of us could only detect one change in the video, because we were focusing on this one change rather than the whole.

            Why is this true when we are able to perceive in eight different ways (visual perception, olfactory perception, cutaneous perception, gustatory perception, auditory perception, kinesthetic perception, vestibular perception, and organic perception)? Shouldn’t we be able to recognize changes simultaneously as we have so many ways of taking in information about our surroundings? What traits determine what change we are able to recognize? If a person who we are talking to changes, is it the change in the person’s clothes that I notice? Or the change in similar traits I shared with the person being swapped? The person’s gender? The body shape?

 What if our senses actually recognize these various changes but we are just not aware of it because our brain is only capable of processing one data at a time? Does this mean that people who claim that they are able to multitask is fooling themselves? Do they say they are able to multitask as an excuse to do what they do for fun, at the same time as doing work?

What if people notice the change, but they are really just scared of the rest of the world disagreeing with them? And so they decide to remain quiet as if they did not notice the change like the others. If this is the case, are people just fooling themselves into thinking that we are only able to focus on one thing at a time? Perhaps in our previous generations, people were able to multitask, but after we began to believe we were only able to focus selectively, perhaps this became a habit and thus now, we believe we are not able to recognize different changes at the same time. Are we really only able to focus on one subject? Or is this just a belief? Will we ever know?

For related videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pklq0bXUaA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDLLf_WCyZ4

A Talk with My Daddy

Title: A Talk with My Daddy
Date: September 26, 2010
Category: Outside of Class

discoveringdad.net

            While eating noodles for lunch, my dad and I began to talk about the color change in the noodles. I hadn’t noticed that the noodles had changed colors from the last time we ordered it from green to white until he pointed this out to me. He didn’t just state this in a neutral tone. He liked the change to white because he believed that noodles should be white, not green. I disagreed and said it didn’t matter what color the noodles were, as long as they were noodles. Trying to convince me that noodles should be white and that everyone thought so, he explained to me that Coca-Cola had once made their cokes white. He told me that this change in color reduced their sales drastically because people believed that coke was supposed to look dark. I tried arguing that I would buy the white coke even if it was a different color, but sadly he eventually won in the end.  

            Should things always remain constant or be susceptible to change? Do we have an exact idea of how certain things should be? And if altered, does this change our idea or how we view the product? Is this how stereotype began? By having a certain image of how things should be, we tend to think of things different to our image as being unusual, strange, or even wrong. Perhaps this is how discrimination began, due to our lack of open-mindedness and because we had an image of certain things being the way they were. Does this mean that we shouldn’t have any ideas about how things are? Wouldn’t that mean that we would be completely without thought? With these questions arouse another –will discrimination ever end if we keep having a certain idea about how things should be?