Monday, August 13, 2012

Observable vs. Measurable Part 1 of 2

During E2, the teachers are talking about a cup (or something) sitting on the table, and whether there are transfers of energy occurring between the cup and the table.  

Episode 1 (see below, with transcript too) is really interesting because the teachers are trying to define what the difference between observable and measurable energy changes are when they are talking about a net transfer of energy. Jennifer starts by thinking about how you know if there is a net gain or loss of energy from one object to another, there should be a change that you can observe/find/identify/measure/see has been modified. Then Christine asks about how we would measure the change (and I think she is thinking of microscopic changes here).  Jennifer gives her an answer using macroscopic changes (height) as an example and then says, 

 "I would go with this idea that when there's a net gain or loss of any energy from the object there's a detectable change, a measurable change."

This seems significant to me because I see this as an argument against a belief in imperceptible energy. Jennifer seems to think that all changes are perceptible but then later she says, 

"Not everything can be observed by a human but you know, most everything that we know of can be, you can come up with ways of measuring how it changes."

The rest of the first episode is Christine trying to nail down whether observable and measurable are the same thing.  Tomme and Jennifer seem to agree that they are the same, but Christine thinks that you can observe something (microscopically?), but not measure it. I would have liked to have heard what Christine was really thinking, but she was cut off both times she tried to explain herself. 

In Episode 2, the conversation continues after a slight digression (that I cut out) and Chris and Todd are back in the conversation....It gets juicy! Stay tuned for the conclusion tomorrow!

Episode 1: E2 120809 1003 Mic3-1.Observable.1 


Episode 1 Transcript: 

[00:00:00.00] Jennifer: If there's a net gain or loss of energy, gain from one object, loss from another object, of energy, then that object then that object will change position, or change state, or whatever. It will somehow be modified, but if there's no-
Tomme: A net will produce an observable change.
Jennifer: A measurable change, yah. 'Cause sometimes, yah. 
Todd: (inaudible) measurable change. 

[00:00:24.29] Christine: Well, how would we measure it? 
Jennifer: You would measure it by its change in position. You know, losing GPE, right? 
You know, when an object falls and it loses its gravitational potential energy that's converted to kinetic energy, you can measure that change. You could measure the change um, in temperature when heat is transferred. You can, I would argue, I would go with this idea that when there's a net gain or loss of any energy from the object there's a detectable change, a measurable change. 

[00:00:57.18] Christine: I wonder if that would apply to the macro level, but at the micro level it would be like what Tomme was saying, with the observable change. Because when you-
Chris: The macro level observable change-

[00:01:08.08] Tomme: Technically observable and measurable are the same thing. Measurable is you're using tools to make observations.
Christine: Well what I'm thinking of- But observable says to me that's not requiring that you are taking scientific measurements. Because I can observe something changing, I can observe that-
Tomme: I think you're making an assumption on the vocabulary here. That's you're, yah.
Jennifer: Cause you can always observe, you can't actually even always measure heat transfer (when) phase change is occurring. I guess you could observe it, you know whatever, like, I, I, I like the concept that observable and measurable are essentially the same, because not every-
Christine: Maybe we should define that.... 
Jennifer: -thing can be observed by a human but you know, most everything that we know of can be, you can come up with ways of measuring how it changes.
Christine: Well let's define that since we're working at the micro-level is what we seem to be focused on, let's define what you mean by that. 

4 comments:

  1. Abby, this is really interesting!

    I want to know more about what you mean by "an argument against a belief in imperceptible energy." What does it mean to believe in imperceptible energy?

    I'm asking because I think of the work you've done on thermal energy as imperceptible is _consistent_ with what Jessica says ("I would go with the idea..."), whereas I get the sense from what you've written that you think what she says is _inconsistent._ Have I misinterpreted what you've written?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amy, thank you for helping me to articulate what I see here. Let me see if I can better explain my thinking about this!

    I think that to believe in imperceptible energy means to accept the idea that there is energy you cannot detect as a human.

    In the second quote, I see Jennifer as describing observable and measurable differently.
    Observable = "what humans can detect w/o the help from devices" and
    Measurable = "what something (a device, a human, ??) can detect".
    It seems that measurable might not be something that humans can sense, but observable implies an observer (a human) to sense/perceive it.

    I think that the second quote above describes how she views measurable changes, and it is in alignment with imperceptible energy being something that is measurable. Without that explanation, it seems that one could argue that she doesn't "believe" in energy that you can't measure. This just shows how important it is to look at the whole conversation, instead of just a single sentence! I think that had I read that quote by itself, I would have thought she needed to observe something herself to know it was there, but then as she goes on, she explains that measuring something (without observing the change with human senses) is still okay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abby, this is really helpful (and cool!). Thank you.

      What I'm still unsure about is something you said offline, which is that you think this video might somehow 'debunk' or 'throw off' the other results you're seeing related to imperceptible thermal energy. Whereas I see it as consistent with those results. Do you see it as consistent or inconsistent, or did I completely misunderstand your offline comment?

      Delete
  3. No, that was about the prior post I made, not this sequence. :)

    ReplyDelete