My Interviewees as Professional Writers

My two interviewees are both researching Professors in the Department of Physics.  As such the main of their publications take the form of reports on experiments in scientific journals.

Kristian Mølhave How an atomic force microscope works. for the Opensource Handbook of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 3 October 2013 Wikipedia

CC Attribution 2.5

    My first interviewee is Professor Srin Manne.  Dr. Manne's research focuses on condensed matter physics and often uses Atomic-force Microscopy(AfM), an imaging technique that can study a material at a far higher resolution than any optical microscope.  His publications include entries that instruct in the use of AfM.  Dr. Manne is particularly interested in undergraduate research.  Dr. Manne is well published, and writes in a variety of fields.  Condensed matter research can fall under many different fields.

    Electrochemistry on a gold surface observed with the atomic force microscope is a paper by Manne et al. on an experiment they conducted observing the oxidation of a gold surface with an AfM.  The paper is in the standard form that science students are taught in lab reports.  This paper was published in 1991, 9 years after the introduction of the AfM but before many of the advancements in modern AfMs.

    Atomic Force Microscopy of the Nacreous Layer in Mollusc Shells in Proceedings of the Royal Society B is a paper by Manne et al. about an experiment studying Mollusk shells with an AfM.  This paper follows the same experiment report conventions taught in science classes.  The experiment was a cross department and university effort with UC Santa Barbara's Physics, Chemistry, and Biology departments credited, along with the University of Bath's School of Chemistry.

The Company of Biologists Long-range movement of a midbody remnant over the cell surface of HeLa cell. Jan 20, 2015 Youtube

CC Attribution

    My second interviewee is Professor Charles Wolgemuth.  Dr. Wolgemuth's research studies cellular movement.  He studies how individual cells and groups of cells use the laws of physics to propel themselves.  He publishes in both Physics and Biology journals.

    Crawling Cells Can Close Wounds without Purse Strings or Signaling is a piece by Wolgemuth and Pilhwa Lee.  It describes how cuts heal on the cellular level.  Better understanding the mechanics of healing could prove important to learning to better treat wounds.  The text itself follows the standard experimental report conventions.

 

My Interview Subjects

    For Project 2 I will be interviewing Professor Srin Manne and Professor Charles Wolgemuth of the University of Arizona Physics Department.

Jörgen Nixdorf Reel to Reel Tape Recorder 20 June 2004 Wikipedia

CC Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported

    Dr. Manne is an Associate Professor of Physics at the U of A.  He received his Ph.D. in 1994 from UC Santa Barbara.  

    Dr. Manne's research is in Condensed Matter Physics.

    I will be meeting with Professor Manne at 10 am February 29 at his office.

Some of the questions I have prepared for Professor Manne follow;

• I've noticed that you do several different types of work for the department; teaching, research, outreach.  How would you define your job as a whole?
• What types of writing do you do the most?  As a researcher and professor.
• How do the different genres you use affect how you write? (conference v. paper v. lecture)
• Has your background prepared you particularly well or poorly for any specific type of writing?
• Could you show me any examples of these genres, or direct me where to find them? (esp. non-written)
• How do you use social media, Linkedin, reddit, if at all? 
• What place, if any, do you think social media should have in the field.
• How is your writing effected by the different audiences you write for? (student v. colleagues v. general publication)
• Would you say that writing in Physics has changed since you first came into the field?
• How do you like to write?  Where?
• Do you ever struggle with time management?  How do you deal with it?
• How would you describe your writing process from start to finish?
• Is there a specific form of writing that you think I and other students at the same place in their academic careers as me should make sure we learn?
• Would you be open to answering a few follow up questions over E-mail as I put together my project?

    Dr. Wolgemuth is an Associate Professor of Physics and Molecular and Cellular Biology.  He received his Ph.D. in Physics in 2000 from the U of A.

    Dr. Wolgemuth researches Biological Physics.

    I will be meeting with Professor Wolgemuth at 1 pm February 29 at his office.

Some of the questions I have prepared for Professor Wolgemuth follow;

• Your research bridges Physics and Biology.  How would you define your job as a whole?
• What types of writing do you do the most?  As a researcher and professor.
• Would you say there's a significant difference between writing in physics and biology?
• How do the different genres you use affect how you write? (conference v. paper v. lecture)
• Could you show me any examples of these genres, or direct me where to find them? (esp. non-written)
• How has your academic background prepared you for your writing in Biological Physics? (Physics background)
• How do you use social media, Linkedin, reddit, if at all? 
• What place, if any, do you think social media should have in the sciences.
• How is your writing effected by the different audiences you write for? (student v. colleagues v. general publication and biologists v. physicists)
• How would you say writing in biological physics and related fields has developed over the past years?
• How do you like to write?  Where?
• Do you ever struggle with time management?  How do you deal with it?
• How would you describe your writing process from start to finish?
• Is there a specific form of writing that you think students looking to study an interdisciplinary field should make sure they learn?
• Would you be open to answering a few follow up questions over E-mail as I put together my project?

Local Revision: Tense Usage

   My QRG is unbalanced in its usage of tense.  I focus heavily on the present and future.

Past	Present	Future
proposed have generated has contested were had made was responded published	are do Break are is answer is better start is find is repeating has propagates occupies moving looking break oscillates consuming conflicts act points out show demonstrate pointing out disproving disprove disproving have is disproved stands gain found manages create disprove is being prepared attempt create prove could shed	would be would oscillate ’ll would extend would be would be would would be could could survive would be would expend decompose will lose wouldn’t be inconvenienced found work will be will continue will
	Disprove- 5  Found- 2  Create- 2	Would- 10  Could- 3

Nicholas Noyes Past Present Future 17-12-2008 via Flickr

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

   The use of the past and future tenses make the controversy seem more alive while past tense is used to show background.  I feel that the tense changes flow naturally and none of my peer reviewers have commented on them.  I may slightly overuse the future tense, especially the word would.

   

My Verbs- an exhaustive list of

    This is a list of every verb in my QRG.  

are do Break are proposed would be would oscillate have generated is answer is better start is ’ll find is repeating has propagates occupies would extend moving would be would be looking would break oscillates consuming conflicts would be could act could survive has contested points out would be were show had made demonstrate was would expend decompose responded pointing out disproving disprove published disproving have will lose is disproved stands gain wouldn’t be inconvenienced found work found will be manages create disprove will continue is being prepared attempt create will prove could shed

Would- 10

Are, is, be- 16

Oscillate- 2

Have- 2

Could- 3

Disprove- 5

Found- 2

Create- 2

    I can only assume that this will make sense in the context of later posts.

Local Revision: Wordiness

    One of the first Local Revisions my QRG needs to undergo is being edited down for wordiness.  A QRG needs to be direct, to the point, and quick to read.

    I've selected the first paragraph from my draft an edited it for wordiness.

Asahiko generic-highlight-red-marker-round 8-7-2012 via WikimediaPublic Domain

Before the edit:


"Time crystals are a theoretical atomic structure of matter first proposed by Nobel laureate and MIT physics professor, Frank Wilczek.  At the simplest level, the structure would be a crystal that has a regular structure across both space and time.  Such a structure could possibly oscillate continuously without external input.  This idea and it’s troubling implications have generated quite a bit of interest."



After the edit:

"Time crystals are a theoretical structure of matter first proposed by Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek.  The structure would be a crystal with a regular structure across both space and time.  Such a structure would oscillate continuously without external input.  This idea and it’s implications have generated quite a bit of interest."


    This edit streamlines the paragraph and removes information that only serves to distract in the first paragraph.  Dr. Wilczek's position can be clarified later.  In the final sentence I removed the "troubling" because implications are almost always troubling.

    I'm not as certain that the edit helps the two middle sentences.  "At the simplest level," is likely unnecessary, but it does establish that the structure is not easily conceptualized. Changing "could possibly" to would speeds up the sentence, but implies more certainty than I am entirely comfortable with.

I think the edit improves the paragraph, but it is possibly excessive.

Peer Review 2

    I recently reviewed  Alec Eulano's Podcast on Tyler the Creator.  Alec's Podcast reminded me of how I need to make my own project more engaging.

    Currently my project suffers from a lack of a narrative through-line, an insufficient explanation of the time crystal itself, and a lack of any reference points in time.

Peer Review 1

    I reviewed Ben Barnett's QRG on the Fukushima nuclear disaster.  I chose Ben's project because his controversy presents many of the same challenges as mine.  Both are fairly technical and thus require significant explanation of complex topics to appeal to a wide audience.
    Reading Ben's QRG reminded me of how I need to better explain the technical concepts behind the Time Crystal.  It's easy to miss some critical piece of background that most readers won't already know.  Specifically, I noticed several statistics in Ben's text that I had no prior understanding of.
    Ben's QRG quickly and gracefully outlined the impact of his controversy and laid out the stakes.  I need to work on this within my own QRG; as it stands, I don't effectively illustrate the the impact of the topic.  Ben also gives the entire pieces a subtle narrative flow that helps pull the reader through.

Draft of project 1

What in the World are Time Crystals and do They Break Physics?

“I was thinking about the classification of crystals, and then it just occurred to me that it’s natural to think about space and time together, so if you think about crystals in space, it’s very natural also to think about the classification of crystalline behavior in time.”

-Frank Wilczek

Time crystals are a theoretical atomic structure of matter first proposed by Nobel laureate and MIT physics professor, Frank Wilczek.  At the simplest level, the structure would be a crystal that has a regular structure across both space and time.  Such a structure could possibly oscillate continuously without external input.  This idea and it’s troubling implications have generated quite a bit of interest.

Cateb, Mauro Lapidated Quartz Obelisk 3, 2011 via Wikimedia

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

What is a Time Crystal?

To answer this it is better to start with a simpler question.  What is a crystal?  One phrase you’ll find in most answers to that question is “regularly repeating structure”.  A crystal has a repeating structure that propagates across the space it occupies.  A time crystal would theoretically extend this property over time as well.

From our point of view, moving along time normally, the structure would be a submicroscopic oscillating crystal.  The effect would be similar to looking at consecutive slices of a normal crystal as a slideshow.

How would this break physics?

The existence of an object that continuously oscillates without consuming energy conflicts with the principles of thermodynamics.  Simply put, a time crystal would be a perpetual motion machine.  The crystal could even conceivably act as a clock that could survive the heat death of the universe.

The problems with the theory.

A theoretical physicist by the name of Patrick Bruno has contested the theory of time crystals.  He points out that such structures would only be significant if they were the lowest energy or ground state of the system.  

Bruno went on to show that a model Wilczek had made to demonstrate the concept was not in fact in a ground state and would therefore expend energy and decompose.  Wilczek and his supporters responded by pointing out that disproving the specific model didn’t disprove the basis for the idea.

Ultimately the final test for this concept will be experimentation.  Until a laboratory manages to create or disprove the crystal, the debate will continue.

The Future.

An experiment is being prepared to attempt to create a time crystal at UC Berkeley.  This experiment will likely prove extremely difficult at the very least.  If successful it could shed light on the strange possibility of the time crystal.

For Peer Reviewers:

The Document

    Any comments about what if anything you find interesting about this story would be appreciated.  I don't know what part of this I should focus on.