《GRE阅读遇到不懂的专业术语怎么办.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《GRE阅读遇到不懂的专业术语怎么办.doc（20页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、GRE阅读遇到不懂的专业术语怎么办 GRE阅读遇到不懂的专业术语怎么办,我们来看看吧，下面就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。GRE阅读遇到不懂的专业术语怎么办通过上下文找解释如果GRE阅读*中出现深奥的学术名词，总会在上下文中给予或多或少的浅显解释，而这些解释可以帮助考生大概理解 名词的含义。比如，很 多人认为插入语是GRE阅读*中无关紧要的东西，因此可以忽略，但插入语中往往包含了对复杂名词的解释，其作用本质上说就是通过增加冗余度来降低*的 理解难度，因此不可随意忽略。又如为了说清楚某个术语的含义，*作者会用类比的手法，将复杂的概念用读者更易理解的事物做比，因此类比的手段往往也是考生需要关注的内容。
2、通过定位攻克细节题根据GRE阅读*的命题规律，考到复杂学术名词的题目一般为细节题型，而攻克细节题型的关键就是定位。因此为了实现解题时的快速定位，阅读*本身的时候要对这些学术专有名词做有效的标记。标记法的定义是：针对文中出现的一些很有可能考到却不容易记忆的细节内容，考生用自己能看得懂的最简单的符号在试卷的恰当位置进行标记。具体的标记方法有很多，如用首字母提炼法，将该术语名词的首字母标记到该行的行首;当一篇*中出现许多首字母相同 的不同名词时，可能需要提炼 多个字母，直到该标记能够唯一标识某个名词术语为止。根据以往的经验，解题时只要能够迅速定位，那么这种复杂术语词汇就不会有太大杀伤力。找到复杂术语
3、间的体系关联有时候*里面出现的一系列术语名词会构成一个体系，在这个体系中不同的术语概念之间具有某种形式的关联，考生在读*的过程中如果能够看出这一点，那么可以对术语名词进行跟深层次的理解和标记。比如有篇*分析了动物体内存在的厌氧型糖酵解代谢方式，里面提到了一系列名词术语，如酵解、肌糖元、乳酸、三磷酸腺苷、葡萄糖等，可以将它们统统标记在一个分解或合成反应方程式中;又如有篇GRE阅读*分析某种热泵的原理，里面提到了压缩机、冷凝机、气化机、高温高压态、低温高压态、低温低压 态等术语名词，如果单个进 行标记的话还是一团浆糊，应该根据*地论述将这些术语标记在一个由简单的方框和箭头构成的系统图中，这样不但是
4、解决了术语词汇的问题，同时也对*的内 容进行了梳理，答起题来可说是游刃有余了。GRE阅读题目之经典物理理论介绍Quantum theory is known largely for being unknown known, in other words, for how it departs from the world of common experience, how it cannot be explained or grasped, how it defies reason and intuition, and how it toys with the laws of classica
5、l physics. It is a science of head-scratching. Matter appears in two places at once. Light acts as a wave and a particle (both, and neither). Multiple possibilities superimpose on the same moment. Particles separated by miles seem directly connected. Electrons seem to act differently when they are w
6、atched up close.For most of us, these bewilderments must be taken nearly as an article of faith, bolstered by the men and women of science who explain the phenomena with broad strokes and clever thought experiments. To refine these illustrations into the actual theory is to point down a path out of
7、the cave, up the mountain, down the rabbit hole; take your pick that few can follow. As a consequence, the fact that the universe is so mysterious has been more influential in popular culture than any of the particular mysteries that scientists have described. What has been really compelling is the
8、credibility quantum physics lends to the bizarre. Nearly any pseudo-scientific craziness can seem to fall under the fields umbrella by virtue of the gap separating it from common sense.Each new generation of students grows up immersed in the world of classical physics, with its mostly intuitive, bil
9、liard-ball causality; that is the everyday vantage from which we approach the alien world of quantum physics, which has for this reason never lost its air of radicalism. But there was a time when little of todays credibility attended that edginess, and when talk of the field, whether vague or precis
10、e, was the stuff of rumor and outrage, even among the minds who understood it best. “Princeton is a madhouse,” J. Robert Oppenheimer wrote his brother in 1935, “its solipsistic luminaries shining in separate helpless desolation. Einstein is completely cuckoo.”Quantum Leaps, by the physicist and scie
11、nce writer Jeremy Bernstein, looks at the daring progress of this subject since its fitful beginnings in chalk-dusted gossip. Quantum theory has always been, at best, a twilit field, and Bernstein chronicles those who found the darkness irresistible. Bernstein hasnt set out to guide readers through
12、this tiny dimension of oddities so much as to show the circles of thinkers in which that dimension was discovered, and out of which it radiated into public consciousness. His chapters do not offer linear stories; they wander through personalities, moments, and experiments of importance, chatting in
13、a wistful, memoiristic tone. Scientific explanations inQuantum Leaps mostly serve to aid this grander story to sketch a background for the disputes and discoveries that excited the books cast of geniuses.Where did it all begin? Circa 1900, Max Planck theorized that energy was made up of discrete uni
14、ts, or “quanta.” This was an idea Einstein later applied to light, arguing that it travels in what we now call photons the smallest units into which light divides. (Hence the latest James Bond film, Quantum of Solace, uses the still-hip term to describe the tiniest portion of solace possible though
15、solace in the form of champagne, fast cars, and fetching European women would in fact involve many quanta. What other new words from the early 1900s can you think of that still sound Bond-worthily modish today?)The word “quantum” derives from the Latin for “how much,” an etymology that suggests the
16、very challenge quantum physics directs toward classical physics at what size does it hold true? One paradox of quantum physics is that our exploration of ever-smaller particles has made our world seem not larger but somehow smaller, since its laws or our perception of them are confined to a human sc
17、ale. We are creatures of the macro universe, and as we sharpened our view of the atomic scale, we dizzied our sense of time, space, and reason.Einsteins theory of special relativity drastically changed our understanding of physics, too, but at least this change left us with reason intact, offering a
18、 new and better account of the universes architecture. Things remained predictable and consistent. Quantum physics has been more unsettling. Its revelations show just how little we can predict, and how few of our intuitions make sense when we consider how quanta behave.One well-known example of this
19、 counterintuitiveness is the uncertainty principle developed by Werner Heisenberg in the 1920s, which tells us that we cant know a particles momentum and position at the same time. The more certain we can be about one part, the less certain we can be about the other. Heisenbergs principle rose out o
20、f the discovery that particles, in some cases, act like waves. As a particles wavelength gets shorter, we can be more sure of where the particle is but less sure about its momentum. With longer wavelengths, its the other way around. Something is always uncertain.Scientists spend their careers trying
21、 to become certain about things, so its understandable that some would be dissatisfied with all this subatomic caprice. In 1935, Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen derived a paradox (the EPR paradox) from quantum theory to suggest something was wrong, or at least missing, from its view of th
22、ings. The paradox starts with the discovery that if a pair of particles, an electron and a positron, splits up, they will spin in opposite directions (one “up,” the other “down”), even if they get miles apart. This is called “entanglement.” If we know that one particle is spinning up, we can be sure
23、 that the other particle, wherever it might be, is spinning down. Somehow they are connected, as though the distance of space were arbitrary perhaps illusory. Whats jaw-dropping is that the math, followed to its conclusions, tells us that each particle spins both up and down until it is observed. In
24、 other words, until someone checks, two different possibilities exist at the same time.Erwin Schr?dinger famously enlivened this paradox by making it a life-or-death scenario (really, a life-and-death scenario): He imagined a radioactive solution that had an even chance of decaying or breaking down
25、and releasing energy within an hour. Then he imagined a machine that would release poison if it detected the decay. What if we put a cat in a box with the machine and the solution, Schr?dinger asked, and waited an hour? The cats life would depend on whether the solution decayed, since any decay woul
26、d trigger the poison. Quantum mechanics, said Schr?dinger, tells us that the solution has both decayed and not decayed until we check, which means that the poor cat is both dead and alive until we look in the box. (Bernstein tells us he once had tea with Schr?dinger; one thing he learned during thei
27、r visit is that Schr?dinger was not fond of cats.)The EPR paradox was meant to show that quantum theory contradicts itself: that it suggests freakish ideas no reasonable person would accept. Its legacy as an illustration of quantum theory, rather than as a refutation of it, reflects a major transiti
28、on: reason buckled, not the theory.The strangest illustration of paradox in quantum physics may be the double-slit experiment, which is rooted in Thomas Youngs work with light in around 1801. In 1974, scientists carried out a version of the experiment with electrons, and that is the version we think
29、 of today. For a hopelessly simple sketch akin to explaining that cubism involves cubes imagine that two walls are facing each other, and that the first wall has a couple slits. When scientists fired electrons at those slits, the ones that got through struck the second wall. The patterns on the seco
30、nd wall looked like waves had rippled through the slits and collided with each other in a wave interference pattern, like water would. Scientists figured that shooting one electron at a time would make it impossible for any of the waves to interfere with each other. A wave wont make an interference
31、pattern if there are no other waves around to interfere with it. But over time, the electrons landed, one by one, as though they were bumping into other waves. They left the same interference pattern. But why?The quantum mechanical explanation is that as an electron travels, all different possibilit
32、ies exist at once it passes through the right slit and the left slit and it misses both slits, and so on. With all those possibilities happening at once, the electron wave bumps into another version of itself. Then the different possibilities collapse back into just the one electron, now traveling a
33、s though another electron had interfered with it. Yet this is garden-variety strangeness compared to the next discovery: When people used instruments to check which slit each electron passed through, the electrons stopped making a wave pattern. They just landed in roughly two clumps, one for each sl
34、it, the way marbles would (in other words, like electrons traveling as particles). As with Schr?dingers cat, watching electrons seems to make them choose a single possibility.The notion that to see is to influence, that observation changes the world of the observer, can make a few palms sweaty. The
35、eighteenth-century philosopher George Berkeley was one of many to suggest that all truth could be reduced to perceptions, since it was meaningless to talk about a world that existed beyond them we never experience things, he reminded us, only our perceptions of them. Out walking one day, the great c
36、ritic Samuel Johnson famously responded to Berkeleys philosophy by kicking a large stone and shouting, “I refute it thus.” Johnson didnt mean this as a subtle argument. But he did demonstrate that off paper and out of the armchair, these notions are untenable in actual life, regardless of whether th
37、ey are true.One sweaty-palmed thinker was Vladimir Lenin. His Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1908) railed against Ernst Mach, an Austrian whose work in physics Einstein considered a precursor to his own theory of relativity. Machs philosophy of science, meanwhile, was a precursor to the school o
38、f logical positivism, which held that no fact is meaningful unless it can be verified in terms of sense impressions. Mach worried that scientific laws and theories turn reality into a set of abstractions that can never contain reality itself; science describes our perception of an experiment, not th
39、e truths that underlie its outcome. Something like an anti-atomist, Mach liked to say “show me” when scientists insisted that atoms were real. He didnt object to the raw science so much as to the comfort others had that they were drawing meaningful conclusions by way of abstractions.To place truth i
40、n the hands of observation does not play well with the Marxist notion (dialectical materialism) that matter is what matters, and Lenin struck some early blows in the long “ideological struggle for the soul of the quantum theory,” as Bernstein puts it. A 1952 letter from Belgian physicist Lon Rosenfe
41、ld to Frdric Joliot-Curie, the Nobel laureate and husband of Marie Curies daughter, shows how far this “ideological struggle” penetrated the seemingly innocent sphere of equations. In the letter, Rosenfeld complained of his disagreements with a group of brilliant young physicists: “I have taken pain
42、s to do an explicit Marxist analysis. As the only response, French astrophysicist ?vry Schatzman sent me a polemical writing full of incorrect physics and quotations from Stalin.” Around the same time, Bernstein leafed through newly translated Russian texts on quantum physics and found, on every few
43、 pages, some commentary that related the subject matter to dialectical materialism friendly political asides that Bernstein charmingly calls “little commercial messages from the ?sponsor.”As Bernstein points out, the “good clean fun” of Lenin-era dissent evaporated during the Great Purge in the Sovi
44、et Union and the Nazi invasions that soon followed. Not every scientist was so lucky to be caught up in, rather than destroyed by, the times. Matvei Petrovich Bronstein, “a physicist and astrophysicist of great promise,” was one such scholar, added in 1938 to Stalins long execution list and killed s
45、oon after. Occasionally, however, Stalin seems to have thought science ought to progress if only for the sake of nuclear weaponry without too much intervention. When the chief of the Soviet secret police warned Stalin that some of the scientists in the nuclear weapons program werent on message, Stal
46、in is said to have replied, “Leave my physicists alone. We can always shoot them later.”Not surprisingly, the fourteenth (current) Dalai Lama was far more congenial to the notion that observation might affect the universe. In fact, both he and his predecessor grew up with a strong interest in scienc
47、e, and the current Dalai Lamas The Universe in a Single Atom (2005) deals eloquently with its relation to Buddhism. The Dalai Lama was well prepared to write such a book. In 1979 he invited two eminent philosopher-physicists, David Bohm and Carl Friedrich von Weizs?cker, to tutor him about quantum p
48、hysics. Bohm was a star quantum physicist whose doctoral work had been classified for use on the Manhattan Project. Of particular interest, the Dalai Lama wrote, were Bohms thoughts about the incorporation of consciousness into a physics “in which both matter and consciousness manifest according to
49、the same principles.”When the Dalai Lama and a group of Tibetan monks visited a major research laboratory near Geneva in 1983, Bernsteins friend John Bell (he of Bells Theorem, a keystone in quantum theory) gave a talk on quantum physics. Might the Big Bang, Bell asked the Dalai Lama or perhaps a Bang-and-Crunch cycle of collapse and explosion be reconciled with the Buddhist concep
