Things I learned in physics class

POSTED BY: BadgersHat
UPDATED: Friday, August 12, 2005 15:00
VIEWED: 25158
PAGE 9 of 11

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

GROUNDED

Friday, July 22, 2005 8:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by QBeam:
How old were you the first time the wave/particle duality was explained to you?

17 if I remember correctly. I was damn excited too, although I suspect I didn't quite grasp it at the time.

QBEAM

Friday, July 22, 2005 8:50 PM

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by QBeam:
How old were you the first time the wave/particle duality was explained to you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17 if I remember correctly. I was damn excited too, although I suspect I didn't quite grasp it at the time.

Really? That old? I think I first learned it in 4th grade. It's such an important part of what drove our 20th Century history, I thought they taught it to everyone around then, any more. Well, maybe my thesis is flawed...

FOURSKYS

Friday, July 22, 2005 8:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by QBeam:

So there it is: funding decisions being made on purely unscientific guesswork.

Ok, so here's my counter-example to your counter-example (using things which I am much more familiar with):

LIGO, the American gravitational wave detector. This is an experiment that has cost millions (billions? I'm not sure of the numbers) of dollars, and took funding away from quite a few other research programs (which many people were unhappy about). Now, the only reason something like this could get funded is if there is very very solid evidence that something can be detected AND that it provides a significant advancement to the scientific community. If gravitational waves were not such an important facet to new fronteirs of physics, if there were already EXTREMELY strong indirect evidence for their existence ( http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1993/presentation-speech.html), it never would have gotten funding.

Second, space-based telescopes. In order to get funding to build things like the Chandra X-Ray telescope, you can't just "expect" to see something. There were decades of high-altitude ballon born tests to try to detect X-ray from space. The early missions were based mostly on hunches, but there was also reasonably scientific guesses behind them. It's not just an "I wonder if...", it's a "well, my calculations show the temperatures to be high enough, could that mean...?" And then, after decades of studies and proof that something might be seen, there is another decade of planning and plotting (possibly scheming) that goes into making sure the thing will be able to see what is expected. The budget's are small at first, a few peple with budgets to plan and determine the plausibility of the experiment, and then start to grow if it proves worthwhile. There really is no place for nonscientific guesswork.

As to your example, if there was well documented, tested proof that this could work, I can't see there not being funding for it. Sometimes you just don't get lucky and there's not enough funding to go around. Politics gets in the way, funding troubles get in the way. If that's what you consider "nonscientific", then OK, but by "nonscientific" I generally think more along the lines of astrology or whiney teenagers...

ZOID

Friday, July 22, 2005 10:29 PM

FourSkys and QBeam:

(*zoid, who has been sweeping the hallway outside, hears a debate and pokes his head into the room, clears his throat*)

'Scuse me gents...

From a standpoint of logical debate, FourSkys counter-example is not particularly applicable. QBeam gave examples of funding decisions being made on purely unscientific guesswork. He never said "all funding decisions...", he said "some". Therefore, counter-examples do not disprove his assertion.

Analogy: QBeam has argued that some apples are green. FourSkys then produces a red apple in order to disprove QBeam's assertion. While it was never given that "most apples are red", the use of the term "some" indicates that green apples are a subset of all possible apples, which may in fact include a vast majority of red apples, and doesn't rule out the occasional yellow apple.

So, if he had stated that all scientific funding was based on unscientific guesswork, then FourSkys counter-example would have been a valid disproof. As it stands, the only way to disprove QBeam's assertion is to prove he's lying/misrepresenting about his examples, analogously 'painting a red apple green'.

I, as a taxpayer, would certainly hope that a significant fraction of NSF funding is going to projects that are based on 'good science'.

(*zoid changes the liner in the wastebasket and then pushes his cart out the door*)

v/r,
-zed

P.S.
LIGO's price tag, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO is $365M. I read at a subsidiary link (I think it was BBC) that the team is requesting another $150M. More amazingly, they expect to be able to measure a GW-induced distortion equal to 1000th of the size of a proton... (If they can keep passing semis from jiggling the apparatus.)
___________________________________________

"The only real valuable thing is intuition." -Albert Einstein

GROUNDED

Friday, July 22, 2005 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by QBeam:

Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by QBeam:
How old were you the first time the wave/particle duality was explained to you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 if I remember correctly. I was damn excited too, although I suspect I didn't quite grasp it at the time.

Really? That old? I think I first learned it in 4th grade. It's such an important part of what drove our 20th Century history, I thought they taught it to everyone around then, any more. Well, maybe my thesis is flawed...

Well I don't know what 4th grade equates to (I'm in Scotland) but our physics program (I had physics right through school for 6 years) advanced steadily through 'conventional' topics until the final two years when we started looking at duality and more interesting stuff. Personally I would have loved to have had that stuff earlier on, but the fact is that it's relevant only to the tiny number of students who will go on to study in more detail.

ZOID

Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:37 AM

Grounded wrote:

Quote:
...Well I don't know what 4th grade equates to (I'm in Scotland) but our physics program (I had physics right through school for 6 years) advanced steadily through 'conventional' topics until the final two years when we started looking at duality and more interesting stuff. Personally I would have loved to have had that stuff earlier on, but the fact is that it's relevant only to the tiny number of students who will go on to study in more detail.

Born in the Summer of 1958, I was in the 4th grade at the age of nine. They were still using balloons and fruit to illustrate math problems. Then, in the following year, we learned the long division. If they'd tried to teach us wave/particle duality at that point, I'd've sh*t myself...

QBeam's school must've been one of those in which they gather the cream of the scholastic crop and accelerate their learning. Kinda like The Academy, in Firefly.

Can't stop the signal...

v/r,
-zed

_________________________________________________

"Also? I can kill you with my brain." - ~~QBeam~~ River Tam

GROUNDED

Saturday, July 23, 2005 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:

Born in the Summer of 1958, I was in the 4th grade at the age of nine. They were still using balloons and fruit to illustrate math problems. Then, in the following year, we learned the long division. If they'd tried to teach us wave/particle duality at that point, I'd've sh*t myself...

QBeam's school must've been one of those in which they gather the cream of the scholastic crop and accelerate their learning. Kinda like The Academy, in Firefly.

Can't stop the signal...

v/r,
-zed

Nine? QBeam...you have to be kidding.

THATWEIRDGIRL

Saturday, July 23, 2005 6:31 PM

4th grade sounds about right. We were taught the basic concept, we may not have understood it. Keep in mind that it's just an introduction. Kids that age don't fully grasp the concept yet, they're still trying to make it fit into their world of physics. Children's physics is based on their concrete observations. A ten-year-old is in the concrete operational stage of cognitive development. They are not typically able to think in the abstract. In addition, they haven't yet formed a solid basis in math and science to build a deeper understanding of wave/particle light.

Just wanted you all to know I am still reading and learning from this thread. Please continue. If I can formulate a question, I will, but right now I'm barely keeping my head above water.

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
"...turn right at the corner then skip two blocks...no, SKIP, the hopping-like thing kids do...Why? Why not?"

GROUNDED

Saturday, July 23, 2005 8:25 PM

I'm still astounded that anyone would be taught this sort of stuff at age nine. In primary school (7 years of school before high school - I guess this would equate to junior high?) we did almost no physics that I can recall. I don't see how you can even touch on wpd without already having a solid basis in the subject.

BATMARLOWE

Sunday, July 24, 2005 1:16 AM

I've just finished reading this thread from top to bottom; and never having had Physics at any level (unless they snuck some in when I wasn't looking) the only thing I am qualified to say is Zoid, Anne Francis played "Honey West", not "Kitty West".

In spite of the fact that it hurts my brain, this thread has been fascinating. Keep it up.

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE