ASU student presents research at Texas Capitol
According to the university, 'Undergraduate Research Day is hosted by the Independent Colleges and Universities of Texas (ICUT) organization and the Council of Public University Presidents and Chancellors (CPUPC) to showcase exciting research from talented undergraduate students at public and private universities across the state.'
The event is only hosted in odd-numbered years during which the Texas Legislature is in session. Texan institutions of higher education may select one student each to present a research poster.
Choi presented research on her project, titled 'Capturing Cellular Dynamics: A Force Center Model Inspired by the Game of Life.' ASU stated that the project was 'which she completed under the mentorship of Dr. Michael C. Holcomb, assistant professor of physics.'
Holcomb was also invited to take part in the event through a panel presentation on 'The Inside Scoop on Academic Research.'
'I have had the pleasure of working with YooJin Choi throughout her undergraduate career, and I am so very proud that she was selected to represent Angelo State at this event,' Holcomb said. 'I have witnessed firsthand her relentless dedication to her academic and research pursuits, and I can confidently say that her accomplishments accurately reflect the immense amount of hard work she puts in to all that she does.'
ASU shared that Choi has received several other accolades. She has received two ASU Faculty Mentored Research Grants for various projects, has worked as a tutor in the Math Lab and served as a physics tutor in ASU's Supplemental Instruction peer-tutoring program. She has also held leadership positions in the Society of Physics Students, Women in Physics and STEM Nexus student organizations.
As part of the service missions of those organizations, she has participated in numerous community outreach activities, including STEM Nights at local elementary schools, Girl Scouts STEMfest and the annual Physics Road Show around West Texas. She has also been active as a percussionist in the ASU Ram Band, Drumline and Symphonic Band.
Additionally, Choi has made the ASU Dean's List every semester and has been inducted into the prestigious Alpha Chi national collegiate honor society and Sigma Pi Sigma national physics honor society.
Choi is scheduled to graduate with her Bachelor of Science degree in May. She has been offered a Distinguished Graduate Student Assistantship at Texas Tech University and will head to Texas Tech this fall to pursue her doctoral degree in physics.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a day ago
- New York Times
Mary K. Gaillard, Physicist Who Probed the Subatomic Universe, Dies at 86
Mary K. Gaillard was 16 and still known as Mary Ralph when a boy in her neighborhood asked her what she wanted to do with her life. She told him that she wanted to be a physicist. 'A singularly unfeminine profession,' he replied. Decades later, that remark would inspire the title of Dr. Gaillard's memoir, 'A Singularly Unfeminine Profession: One Woman's Journey in Physics' (2015), in which she recounted a career spanning a golden age of particle physics, when the outlines of how nature behaves at subatomic scales were just beginning to emerge. Dr. Gaillard contributed key insights to what is now known as the Standard Model — scientists' best theory about the properties and interactions of elementary particles — while overcoming discrimination as one of the few women in her field and inspiring other female physicists to do the same. Physics was 'her life,' her son Bruno said. 'She was consumed by it.' Known to many as Mary K, sans period, Dr. Gaillard, who died on May 23 at 86, was the first woman hired by the physics department at the University of California, Berkeley, and later became a senior scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. But much of her groundbreaking work occurred earlier, during a long stint as an unpaid visiting scientist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, a laboratory on the Franco-Swiss border. She was 'brilliant at doing calculations,' said John Ellis, a physicist at King's College London, who collaborated with Dr. Gaillard at CERN. 'If she calculated something, you could be sure that it was correct.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Physicists still divided about quantum world, 100 years on
The theory of quantum mechanics has transformed daily life since being proposed a century ago, yet how it works remains a mystery -- and physicists are deeply divided about what is actually going on, a survey in the journal Nature said Wednesday. "Shut up and calculate!" is a famous quote in quantum physics that illustrates the frustration of scientists struggling to unravel one of the world's great paradoxes. For the last century, equations based on quantum mechanics have consistently and accurately described the behaviour of extremely small objects. However, no one knows what is happening in the physical reality behind the mathematics. The problem started at the turn of the 20th century, when scientists realised that the classical principles of physics did not apply to things on the level on atoms. Bafflingly, photons and electrons appear to behave like both particles and waves. They can also be in different positions simultaneously -- and have different speeds or levels of energy. In 1925, Austrian physicist Erwin Schroedinger and Germany's Werner Heisenberg developed a set of complex mathematical tools that describe quantum mechanics using probabilities. This "wave function" made it possible to predict the results of measurements of a particle. These equations led to the development of a huge amount of modern technology, including lasers, LED lights, MRI scanners and the transistors used in computers and phones. But the question remained: what exactly is happening in the world beyond the maths? - A confusing cat - To mark the 100th year of quantum mechanics, many of the world's leading physicists gathered last month on the German island of Heligoland, where Heisenberg wrote his famous equation. More than 1,100 of them responded to a survey conducted by the leading scientific journal Nature. The results showed there is a "striking lack of consensus among physicists about what quantum theory says about reality", Nature said in a statement. More than a third -- 36 percent -- of the respondents favoured the mostly widely accepted theory, known as the Copenhagen interpretation. In the classical world, everything has defined properties -- such as position or speed -- whether we observe them or not. But this is not the case in the quantum realm, according to the Copenhagen interpretation developed by Heisenberg and Danish physicist Niels Bohr in the 1920s. It is only when an observer measures a quantum object that it settles on a specific state from the possible options, goes the theory. This is described as its wave function "collapsing" into a single possibility. The most famous depiction of this idea is Schroedinger's cat, which remains simultaneously alive and dead in a box -- until someone peeks inside. The Copenhagen interpretation "is the simplest we have", Brazilian physics philosopher Decio Krause told Nature after responding to the survey. Despite the theory's problems -- such as not explaining why measurement has this effect -- the alternatives "present other problems which, to me, are worse," he said. - Enter the multiverse - But the majority of the physicists supported other ideas. Fifteen percent of the respondents opted for the "many worlds" interpretation, one of several theories in physics that propose we live in a multiverse. It asserts that the wave function does not collapse, but instead branches off into as many universes as there are possible outcomes. So when an observer measures a particle, they get the position for their world -- but it is in all other possible positions across many parallel universes. "It requires a dramatic readjustment of our intuitions about the world, but to me that's just what we should expect from a fundamental theory of reality," US theoretical physicist Sean Carroll said in the survey. The quantum experts were split on other big questions facing the field. Is there some kind of boundary between the quantum and classical worlds, where the laws of physics suddenly change? Forty-five percent of the physicists responded yes to this question -- and the exact same percentage responded no. Just 24 percent said they were confident the quantum interpretation they chose was correct. And three quarters believed that it will be replaced by a more comprehensive theory one day. ber/dl/jj Solve the daily Crossword
Gizmodo
2 days ago
- Gizmodo
After 100 Years of Quantum Mechanics, Physicists Still Can't Agree on Anything
In July 1925—exactly a century ago—famed physicist Werner Heisenberg wrote a letter to his equally famous colleague, Wolfgang Pauli. In it, Heisenberg confesses that his 'views on mechanics have become more radical with each passing day,' requesting Pauli's prompt feedback on an attached manuscript he's considering whether to 'complete…or to burn.' That was the Umdeutung (reinterpretation) paper, which set the foundation for a more empirically verifiable version of quantum mechanics. For that reason, scientists consider Umdeutung's publication date as quantum mechanics's official birthday. To commemorate this 100th anniversary, Nature asked 1,101 physicists for their take on the field's most fiercely debated questions, revealing that, as in the past, the field of quantum physics remains a hot mess. Published today, the survey shows that physicists rarely converge on their interpretations of quantum mechanics and are often unsure about their answers. They tend to see eye-to-eye on two points: that a more intuitive, physical interpretation of math in quantum mechanics is valuable (86%), and that, perhaps ironically, quantum theory itself will eventually be replaced by a more complete theory (75%). A total of 15,582 physicists were contacted, of which 1,101 responded, giving the survey a 7% response rate. Of the 1,101, more than 100 respondents sent additional written answers with their takes on the survey's questions. Participants were asked to name their favored interpretation of the measurement problem, a long-standing conundrum in quantum theory regarding the uncertainty of quantum states in superposition. No clear majority emerged from the options given. The frontrunner, with 36%, was the Copenhagen interpretation, in which (very simply) quantum worlds are distinct from classical ones, and particles in quantum states only gain properties when they're measured by an observer in the classical realm. It's worth noting that detractors of the Copenhagen interpretation scathingly refer to it as the 'shut up and calculate' approach. That's because it often glosses over weedy details for more practical pursuits, which, to be fair, is really powerful for things like quantum computing. However, more than half of physicists who chose the Copenhagen interpretation admitted they weren't too confident in their answers, evading follow-up questions asking them to elaborate. Still, more than half of the respondents, 64%, demonstrated a 'healthy following' of several other, more radical viewpoints. These included information-based approaches (17%), many worlds (15%), and the Bohm-de Broglie pilot wave theory (7%). Meanwhile, 16% of respondents submitted written answers that either rejected all options, claimed we don't need any interpretations, or offered their personal takes on the best interpretation of quantum mechanics. So, much like many other endeavors in quantum mechanics, we'll just have to see what sticks (or more likely, what doesn't). Physicists who discussed the results with Nature had mixed feelings about whether the lack of consensus is concerning. Elise Crull at the City University of New York, for instance, told Nature that the ambiguity suggests 'people are taking the question of interpretations seriously.' Experts at the cross-section of philosophy and physics were more critical. Tim Maudlin, a philosopher of physics at New York University, told Gizmodo that the survey's categorization of certain concepts is misleading and conducive to contradictory answers—a discrepancy that the respondents don't seem to have realized, he said. 'I think the main takeaway from this is that physicists do not think clearly—and have not formed strongly held views—about foundational issues in quantum theory,' commented Maudlin, my professor in graduate school. In an email to Gizmodo, Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at Johns Hopkins who responded to the survey, expressed similar concerns. Several factors may be behind this lack of consensus, he said, but there's a prevalent view that it 'doesn't matter as long as we can calculate experimental predictions,' which he said is 'obviously wrong.' 'It would be reasonable if we thought we otherwise knew the final theory of physics and had no outstanding puzzles,' added Carroll, who was part of an expert group consulted for the survey. 'But nobody thinks that.' 'It's just embarrassing that we don't have a story to tell people about what reality is,' admitted Carlton Caves, a theoretical physicist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque who participated in the survey, in Nature's report. However, the survey's results do seem to hint at a general belief in the importance of a solid theoretical groundwork, with almost half of the participants agreeing that physics departments don't give sufficient attention to quantum foundations. On the other hand, 58% of participants answered that experimental results will help inform which theory ends up being 'the one.' For better or worse, the survey represents the lively, fast-developing field of quantum science—which, if you've been following our coverage, can get really, really weird. A lack of explanation or consensus isn't necessarily bad science—it's just future science. After all, quantum mechanics, for all its complexity, remains one of the most experimentally verified theories in the history of science. It's fascinating to see how these experts can disagree so wildly about quantum mechanics, yet still offer solid evidence to support their views. Sometimes, there's no right or bad answer—just different ones. For you fellow quantum enthusiasts, I highly recommend that you check out the full report for the entire account of how and where physicists were split. You can also find the original survey, the methodology, and an anonymized version of all the answers at the end of the report. And if you do take the survey, or at least part of it, feel free to share your answers. Oh, and let me know whether you believe Heisenberg should have burned Umdeutung after all.
