Search using this query type:

Search only these record types:


Advanced Search (Items only)

Queens College Nucleus V II, N1, 1973



Queens College Nucleus V II, N1, 1973


The journal of undergraduate scientific research at Queens College


College student newspapers and periodicals
Queens College (New York, NY.)


Queens College (New York, NY.)




Queens College Department of Special Collections and Archives (New York, N.Y.)




Rights: This material may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (title 17. U.S.C.) We welcome you to make fair use of the content accessible on this website as defined by copyright law. Please note that you are responsible for determining whether your use is fair and for responding to any claims that may arise from your use.








Queens College (New York, NY.)



Elaine Pulchasky- Managing Editor
Jay Reich: Business manager
Susan Boiko- Art Editor
Larry Schneer- Copy Editor
Russell Katz- Editor-In-Chief
Faculty Advisor- Professor Martin L. Kaplan
The Editor is supremely grateful to the above people for the appearance of this magazine. In addition to the contributors of articles, they alone are responsible for whatever is of quality between the covers. Of course, the editor accepts the blame for any mistakes. Also the staff would like to apologize for the misspelling of Lonnie Jacobson's name in an article in last year's Nucleus.

SCIENCE, being not only what it can be, but what it is, is almost certainly always either obtuse or acute, depending upon what angle we approach it from. We cannot always say that one thing is another, or that two things are the same, or even that the two same fingers are together. How do we know? How can we know? Indeed, why should we know?

These are the questions that touch us now. The poets of yesteryear, nay, yestercentury felt the same things we feel today, only now we have penicillin. But no matter. We are beyond what we know now; we are into the domain of the metaphysician. In fact, I never metaphysician I didn't like. Or that didn't take my money.

We must look to the past to see what is behind us; we must look to the future to see what is ahead of us, and we must look both ways before we cross the street of life, for if we don't, what will we know? And if not now, why? And if we are not for ourselves, then how come? It is all so simple, yet so complex that no mere
mortal can grasp it. It is infinitesimal, yet infinitely large. It is weak and puny, yet the most powerful thing we possess.

How might we be as one with it? How can we know it in all its glory? Maybe we can, maybe we can't. I don't know; what am I, a philosopher?

Yet, perhaps philosophy is the answer. Certainly it is if the question is what does p-h-i-1-o-s-o-p-h-y spell. But we need to see further than our collective noses. We have been dealing in generalities, which, while better than dealing in drugs, is almost as dangerous. Let us dig deeper into specifics for our answers. Leave us turn to science.

Science. Even the word itself is boring. But let us not concern ourselves with that now. We must see what it can do for us, for only by knowing what it can do for us will we know what it has done for us, or, for that matter, what we have done for it. In essence, we must ask ourselves not only what we are, or why we are, or who we are, but more importantly, should we be; and if the answer is yes, the
consequences are clear.

I think, (and therefore, according to Einstein and Descartes, I might have been) that we are all as one. After all, as the hymn says, the Lord is one. Are you one?

Yet, can we completely ignore what has come before, and must we blindly accept the rules of quantum mechanics, who make more than garage mechanics? Is this what has made America what it is today-one of the greatest countries in the nation? We must never forget what the motivation was for the founding of this
land-the search for a shortcut to India.

While we allow ourselves the luxury of relaxing and reading these soon to be enshrined words, we can feel secure in the fact that somewhere, in darkened rooms all over the country, men and women of science are experimenting together, making
wonderful strides.

But what about after that, when they're back in the labs, working? Then, and only then, can we actually know what we have only theorized about-and that is that science alone, not poetry, not philosophy, not even history was, is and always will be the one field of human endeavor in which it is possible to spend one's
entire life working, day and night, relentlessly, to pay off broken glassware bills.

And, as profound as it seems, a school-child can understand it. After all, wasn't Isaac Newton a school-child once? Obviously. Q.E.D. Yet it is interesting to muse about a world without Newton. Suppose he had never been born. Where would we be today? Our whole universe would be different. The very fabric of our lives
would be altered. We would all be eating Fig Einsteins.

I rest my case.



Queens College (New York, NY.), “Queens College Nucleus V II, N1, 1973,” Queens College Archives and Special Collections, accessed January 17, 2019,