michael nolan research paper annotated bibliography

8/3/2019 Michael Nolan Research Paper Annotated Bibliography

1/8

Michael Nolan

Professor Erin Dietel-McLaughlin

W&R 13300-02

3 November 2011

Research Essay Annotated Bibliography

! In this essay, I will examine the most recent, major discoveries in cosmology andparticle physics, and I will comment on the media used to publish the stories. Ive

always been very interested in particle physics and space, and Im even considering

adding a second major in physics with a concentration in particle physics. Besides this

interest, I believe that we are currently in a golden age of scientific discoveries, for the

recent breakthroughs are groundbreaking. I wish to use this paper to promote an

appreciation for these incredible discoveries, while also mentioning our class themes of

digital identity and community to examine how the digital publications of these findings

have influenced the general populations appreciation for science. I will first discuss the

most recent findings to establish the fact that we are in an accelerated era of discovery.

Then, I will examine various medias portrayals of these discoveries and compare them

to traditional publications. Finally, I will research articles from scientific journals that talk

about the medias effect on modern science. My intended audience is the scientific

community, for I will be commenting on whether the digital, instant publication of these

discoveries increases appreciation for science or hurts the professional authority of

science.

Hawking, Stephen, and Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand Design.New York: Bantam! Books, 2010. Print.


2/8

! In this novel by theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking, he explains his views onphysics based on the most recent theories available. He takes these theories and then

discusses our place in the universe that these theories describe, connecting to the

audience and promoting the common mans appreciation for science. This book does

not have the language of a professional journal article, so Hawkings intended audience

would include average people who are not a part of the scientific community that

Hawking resides in. Hawking first discusses scientific discoveries and theories since

7000 B.C. (15-34), which more easily lets him describe the current theories based on

how they were developed. Through discussions on reality (39-59), the multiverse theory,

and other common topics in the scientific community, Hawking has taught his readers

enough so that he may conclude with M-Theory, the Theory of Everything (87-144).

This is the most modern theory of cosmology and particle physics, so I will use his

explanations as reference points to aid in my descriptions of the most recent

discoveries. I will approach all of my research and writing by using the information Ive

gotten from this book to guide my own and my readers understandings of the details I

present.

Liebscher, Dierck-Ekkehard. Cosmology. The Netherlands: Springer-Verlag Berlin

! Heidelberg, 2005. Print.! This book is structured similarly to an encyclopedia, so it will be a great referencesource if I find it necessary to delve deeper into one subtopic of cosmology. This book,

however, is explicitly intended to supplement a graduate education of cosmology, so the

terms and descriptions are very technical and difficult to understand without a previous

knowledge of cosmology. There is no argumentative or big-picture aspect present in this


3/8

book, unlike in The Grand Design; it is an objective presentation of the topics, theories,

and calculations of our modern understanding of cosmology. While many of the topics

are too technical for me to include in my essay, I may reference some of the major

topics I will discuss, such as the cosmological models (247-251), time (278-279), and

the anthropic aspects (287-291) of cosmology. I will also use this professional,

encyclopedia-type book in comparison with popular publications in magazines,

newspapers, blogs, and even twitter, so that I may analyze the different intended

reactions by the different audiences and comment on what that disparity does to our

appreciation for science.

Lowe, S. "Investigating media stories."Astronomy & Geophysics, 49 (2008):4.35. Web.! 25 October 2011.! Stuart Lowe is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Manchester, andwhile he normally writes articles on astronomical research, this article describes his

experience of attending a workshop about the interaction between the media and

science (4.35). Because this article was published in the Astronomy & Geophysics

scientific journal, the audience would be the scientific community, and I can tell that

Lowe intends this group to be his audience based on the language he uses. The

workshop explained how misrepresentation of scientific data through the media is not as

bad or prevalent as it seems, how different media direct their publications to different

groups, and what researchers can do to to accurately communicate scientific results

through the media. The workshop explained the process of the publication of stories,

including how a variety of people contribute to the publication of the story besides just

the journalist who took the facts directly from the researchers. This explained why some


4/8

facts get over-exaggerated or misrepresented; they get lost in translation. While the

scientific findings may initially be presented to someone who fully understands the

terms and the concepts of the data, most media publications, even scientific ones such

as Chemistry World, construct their publications for reading ages between 9 and 12

(4.35). I can use this article to guide my research of the popular publications of scientific

discoveries in astronomy cosmology, and I will use it to support the argument that

dumbed-down publications of scientific findings in popular media does not negatively

affect the credibility or authority of the findings.

Scott, Douglas. "The standard cosmological model."Canadian Journal of! Physics84.6/7 (2006): 419-435.Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 25! October 2011.! This technical article, written by Douglas Scott, researcher of physics andastronomy at the University of British Columbia, describes the two modernly accepted

standard models of physics and cosmology: the Standard Model of Particle Physics

(SMPP) and the Standard Model of Cosmology (SMC). This report is fairly technical, but

it does a very thorough job of defining and describing the technical terms used so that a

variety of people not a part of the scientific community may understand it. The intended

audience, however, is the scientific community, for this report is meant to educate

researches on the modern views and aspects of the SMPP and SMC. Like the

encyclopedia-type book, Cosmology, I will use this report as a reference when I

describe the modern views and findings on cosmological theories. This report also

touches on the extent of our understanding of the SMPP and the SMC, so I may

incorporate Scotts position on the scientifics understanding of these topics when I


5/8

discuss how the medias publications affect the general populations understanding of

the topics.

Smith, Pamela H. "Science on the Move: Recent Trends in the History of Early Modern

! Science." Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Summer 2009), pp. 345-375.! Web. 25 October 2011.! This is a scholarly article was written by Pamela Smith, a professor of modernEuropean history and the history of science. Thus, the article does not take on a

scientific tone and is not intended to have the scientific community as an audience, but

rather the community of historians. In this article, Smith traces the major scientific

publications from the 1700s to the early 2000s, focusing mainly on the past 60 years.

While explaining the path general science has evolved in by chronologically listing the

major publications from scientific writers known to the scientific community, Smith also

comments on how societys changes have influenced the development of science and

vice-versa, and this will be especially useful in my paper. I plan on using some of the

points she makes about societys effect on science to describe my opinion on the

relationship between the two, and I will explain how one is necessary for the other. With

this explanation, I hope to prove that it is necessary for scientific breakthroughs to be

easily accessible to the public through popular publication.

Jtotheizzoe [Joe Hanson]. DEEP BREATH. In. Out. Be calm. Its Okay to Be Smart.

! Tumblr, 23 September 2011. Web. 31 October 2011.! This blog post, by Joe Hanson, who is a biology Ph.D. student and sciencecommunicator, is a reaction to the recent discovery at the CERN and OPERA particle

accelerators. CERN and OPERA performed an experiment where neutrinos (subatomic


6/8

particles with small mass and no charge) were created at CERN, Geneva, and then

sent to OPERA, Italy, where they apparently arrived at OPERA quicker than light should

have. The reason there is such a brouhaha about this finding is that it contradicts

Einsteins theory of relativity (E=mc2). While Hanson agrees that this is a

groundbreaking discovery, he is rationally skeptical, stating, when it comes to

extraordinary claims, you have to provide extraordinary proof (Hanson). While this is a

blog post, making it accessible to the public, especially other Tumblr bloggers, Hansons

blog is very credible and recognized as an accurate, communicative publication of

science news. His blog posts dominate when one searches for #science hashtags on

Tumblr, so this blog is one of the most-viewed science blogs on the network. I will use

this specific blog to compare to the following source, the actual report from CERN

regarding this discovery, and comment on the differences between the informality and

ease of understanding of this blog post and the technicality of the CERN report.

T. Adam, N. Agafonova, A. Aleksandrov, O. Altinok, P. Alvarez Sanchez, S. Aoki, A.

Ariga, T. Ariga, D. Autiero, A. Badertscher, A. Ben Dhahbi, A. Bertolin, C. Bozza, T.

Brugire, F. Brunet, G. Brunetti, S. Buontempo, F. Cavanna, A. Cazes, L. Chaussard, M.

Chernyavskiy, V. Chiarella, A. Chukanov, G. Colosimo, M. Crespi, N. DAmbrosio, Y.

Dclais, P. del Amo Sanchez, G. De Lellis, M. De Serio, F. Di Capua, F. Cavanna, A. Di

Crescenzo, D. Di Ferdinando, N. Di Marco, S. Dmitrievsky, M. Dracos,

D. Duchesneau, S. Dusini, J. Ebert, I. Eftimiopolous, O. Egorov, A. Ereditato, L.S.

Esposito, J. Favier, T. Ferber, R.A. Fini, T. Fukuda, A. Garfagnini, G. Giacomelli, C.

Girerd, M. Giorgini, M. Giovannozzi, J. Goldberg, C. Gllnitz, L. Goncharova, Y.

Gornushkin, G. Grella, F. Grianti, E. Gschewentner, C. Guerin, A.M. Guler, C.


7/8

Gustavino, K. Hamada, T. Hara, M. Hierholzer, A. Hollnagel, M. Ieva, H. Ishida, K.

Ishiguro, K. Jakovcic, C. Jollet, M. Jones, F. Juget, M. Kamiscioglu, J. Kawada, S.H.

Kim, M. Kimura, N. Kitagawa, B. Klicek, J. Knuesel, K. Kodama, M. Komatsu, U. Kose,

I. Kreslo, C. Lazzaro, J. Lenkeit, A. Ljubicic, A. Longhin, A. Malgin, G. Mandrioli, J.

Marteau, T. Matsuo, N. Mauri, A. Mazzoni, E. Medinaceli, F. Meisel, A. Meregaglia, P.

Migliozzi, S. Mikado, D. Missiaen, K. Morishima, U. Moser, M.T. Muciaccia, N.

Naganawa, T. Naka, M. Nakamura, T. Nakano, Y. Nakatsuka, D. Naumov, V. Nikitina, S.

Ogawa, N. Okateva, A. Olchevsky, O. Palamara, A. Paoloni, B.D. Park, I.G. Park, A.

Pastore, L. Patrizii, E. Pennacchio, H. Pessard, C. Pistillo, N. Polukhina, M. Pozzato, K.

Pretzl, F. Pupilli, R. Rescigno, T. Roganova, H. Rokujo, G. Rosa, I. Rostovtseva, A.

Rubbia, A. Russo, O. Sato, Y. Sato, A. Schembri, J. Schuler, L. Scotto Lavina, J.

Serrano, A. Sheshukov, H. Shibuya, G. Shoziyoev, S. Simone, M. Sioli, C. Sirignano, G.

Sirri, J.S. Song, M. Spinetti, N. Starkov, M. Stellacci, M. Stipcevic, T. Strauss, P. Strolin,

S. Takahashi, M. Tenti, F. Terranova, I. Tezuka, V. Tioukov, P. Tolun, T. Tran, S. Tufanli,

P. Vilain, M. Vladimirov, L. Votano, J.-L. Vuilleumier, G. Wilquet, B. Wonsak, J. Wurtz,

C.S. Yoon, J. Yoshida, Y. Zaitsev, S. Zemskova, A. Zghiche. Measurement of the

neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam. 22 September 2011.

Cornell University Library. Web. 1 November 2011.

! This is the scientific report from the OPERA Particle accelerator in Italy,technically outlining the experiment and stating the results. I find it very difficult to

understand myself, but I will use this fact as the evidence in my paper. While the news

of this breakthrough is exciting, nearly all of the excitement gets lost in the technical

jargon of this formal report. The report is definitely intended to be read by another


8/8

scientist in the field of particle physics; the average physics fan would not come across

this report by chance. I will use this report in comparison with the blog post mentioned

earlier to comment on a readers reaction to each publication, referencing logos, ethos,

and pathos as parts of the readers supposed reaction.

Gilroy, William G. Installation of new accelerator underway. ND Newswire. Notre Dame

! News, 7 October 2011. Web. 7 November 2011.

michael nolan research paper annotated bibliography

Documents