Today was also Nathalie's last day in town before leaving back for CEMEF. We had another meeting which more or less went over everything that we've discussed the last few days. This included again the current data that we have, the data that we plan on obtaining over the next two and half weeks, what we are trying to answer during this time, and how we plan to analyze all this. Overall this has been extremely motivating for me in realizing that I am doing something relatively much larger. That we are tackling a very interesting problem behind annealing twin formation, and we potentially do have solutions. At the same time, it's also provided a strong insight into how I should consider structuring my Research Performance Evaluation (RPE), which is more or less the equivalent to qualification exams.
The last couple of months, I felt extremely obsessed with attempting to come up with a mechanism for how twins form in the microstructure as my advisors had asked me to do. However, over the last few days, I've had the opportunity to look at the bigger picture again and understand that perhaps there isn't one defining mechanism. There is a possibility that multiple mechanisms may play a role to the formation, as is the case to many things we find in the field of science. This realization has allowed me to approach my topic with a more general hypothesis, which is more easily testable.
A good hypothesis should of course investigate something that we don't know, but can be tested and verified. Amusingly, the most previous form of my hypothesis has already been proven wrong by my recent results, so time for a better one.On another note, November:
No comments:
Post a Comment