Is It Real?

 My Observations: 

As a biology major with a minor in psychology, I am expected to take many science courses. Courses that range from general biology, to subjects in organic chemistry and psychology. Of course, my stress levels are out the roof, but it makes me think. It amazes me how human intelligence and perception of science had come this far. In a way, it is hard to believe that one can draw a structure of atom interactions, without being able to physically see a single atom. There are points in time, in which I do
not believe some aspects of science because of its complexities. 

How can one know?

Well... I believe that when it comes down to science, no one actually knows. We can come up with measurements and processes that explain life as we know it, but it constantly changes. Because science is able to provide multiplex reasons for certain events, we fall into this idea of agreement rather than defiance. No one really challenges the ideas of science as we know it. How can we be knowledgeable of the world and universe around us, when it is constantly changes. To be knowledgeable of something, is to actually have an understanding of factual evidence. Yes, an individual can be knowledgeable of many things in life, but not everything. 

Believing something vs. Being knowledgeable 

I personally believe that it is important for those in science to "believe," rather than be knowledgeable.

Our everyday lives are literally molded by what science believes to be real. I myself is included in that problem because I am planning on pursuing a career in science. However because science changes, it is appropriate to say that one can believe rather than to be knowledgeable in something. Science gives us meaning to why things exist or occur, but ultimately we are just humans. We have the intellectual capacity to theorize and seek evidence, but to defy our existence with the "knowledge" of science, is an unresolved declaration. 

Prompt: 

How is the second defined? What do standard clocks measure?

In 1967 the standard second is defined as the "duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to a hyperfine transition of caesium-133 in the ground state." Tal explains to readers that this definition of the standard second is used in two different ways. One way being that it describes the duration of the standard second and tells us that there is a particular frequency associated with the caesium atom. This frequency is uniform, in a way that the periods are equal to one another. Tal tells us
that there is no clock that has a stable frequency. Typically, when we think of standard clocks, we think about the way in which our everyday lives are measured. It seeks to take into account the geographical position of different parts of the Earth in relation to the Sun, and its particular day and night cycle. However, Tal explains that over longer periods of time, these standards begin to shift. He states that there is a clock with standard frequency that is idealized and it is defined as the standard seconds, which we previously listed. This clock is measured by coordinated universal time or UTC. These atomic clocks are designed to measure the frequencies associated with specific atomic transitions, including the caesium transition which is considered to be hyperfine in atomic transition frequency.