"I am a high school student who just recieved this book for the year. The teacher claims that it is a college level text book, and after a few nights of reading, i agree with him."
Hehe...
Looks like a standard fare pre-reconstruction history text.
An idea for science types (books involved...)
I just got to the Mulder and Scully thing.. right after she's talking about her hair color. After my first pass through, it seems to be suggesting that it's possible to manipulate contingency with the proper technology, but any attempt to stray from the set of pre-determined actions will upset the balance.
I read it while walking home, so the book was bouncing around, but I think I got the gist.
I read it while walking home, so the book was bouncing around, but I think I got the gist.
Have you got to the second experiment yet? The one with three doors to choose from on the boxes? Once you understand it - and read the following section on the actual experiments - you will find it to be one of the best explanations of how experimental data proved the notion of a particle/photon already having a value for a certain property (spin, etc.) wrong.
I'm still kinda muddling through.. Got too much other crap atm. The conceptual x-files examples are ok, but I think the experimental data is easier to understand.
Do you think teaching classical physics as we know it today should be rethought and people should start teaching it with a quantum spin? Or develop a new "advanced" curriculum in addition to the classical course? Naturally you can't leave classics behind, but do it up as a sort of abstract, non-math intensive history of scientific evolution (not human evolution
) that shows how the study has continually questioned and reinvented itself and how people have solved fundamental problems. In my experience entry level physics is taught as a bunch of equations and numbers and very little ever goes on behind the scenes. Maybe that's the historian in me, but...
Do you think teaching classical physics as we know it today should be rethought and people should start teaching it with a quantum spin? Or develop a new "advanced" curriculum in addition to the classical course? Naturally you can't leave classics behind, but do it up as a sort of abstract, non-math intensive history of scientific evolution (not human evolution
) that shows how the study has continually questioned and reinvented itself and how people have solved fundamental problems. In my experience entry level physics is taught as a bunch of equations and numbers and very little ever goes on behind the scenes. Maybe that's the historian in me, but...That's kind of a tough one. Pretty much every high-school or college basic physics course uses a bunch of Newtonian mechanics to teach very idealized concepts regarding force and motion. I didn't touch relativity until my 3rd semester of college physics (semesters 1 and 2 - the whole first year - were newtonian stuff, electromagnetism, etc..)
Teaching things like quantum spin early in physics is probably not a great idea. I kind of think people need to build up to quantum mechanics. However, I do think quantum should be included in a year-long curriculum, probably at the end.
I kind of see it going --> Newtownian stuff (motion, forces, gravity), Electromagnetic field stuff, then special and general relativity, then quantum mechanics, then an overview of where we stand now.
That's too much shit for 1 year of entry level or college - especially if you are going to give any 1 topic its due.
So, I don't know that I'd depart too much from the traditional physics model except to incorporate more quantum mechanics into the later portions of it.
But I am all for a class that covers the evolution of scientific thought up to the present time, discussing all of the major breakthroughts that shifted paradigms and called for new ways of explaining the universe. Something I notice in both high school and college students that I've worked with is that many lack a true appreciation for what science really is all about, as well as any sort of historical perspective - for example understanding how science and society have impacted each other over the years. The history of science should be taught just like American history or world history. This is especially relevant for students of science. They are given a quick rundown of some historic experiments and whatnot, but never really stop to look at how these experiments changed the world. I've worked with college seniors preparing for a molecular biology final who didn't know who Edward Jenner was, didn't know what Barbara McClintock's major finding was (one that really shook some foundations), etc..(if you aren't a biology person those names might not mean anything...) but ANYONE who considers themself a biologist or student of the life sciences should know that stuff.
I'm rambling a bit here, but I hope that makes sense...
Teaching things like quantum spin early in physics is probably not a great idea. I kind of think people need to build up to quantum mechanics. However, I do think quantum should be included in a year-long curriculum, probably at the end.
I kind of see it going --> Newtownian stuff (motion, forces, gravity), Electromagnetic field stuff, then special and general relativity, then quantum mechanics, then an overview of where we stand now.
That's too much shit for 1 year of entry level or college - especially if you are going to give any 1 topic its due.
So, I don't know that I'd depart too much from the traditional physics model except to incorporate more quantum mechanics into the later portions of it.
But I am all for a class that covers the evolution of scientific thought up to the present time, discussing all of the major breakthroughts that shifted paradigms and called for new ways of explaining the universe. Something I notice in both high school and college students that I've worked with is that many lack a true appreciation for what science really is all about, as well as any sort of historical perspective - for example understanding how science and society have impacted each other over the years. The history of science should be taught just like American history or world history. This is especially relevant for students of science. They are given a quick rundown of some historic experiments and whatnot, but never really stop to look at how these experiments changed the world. I've worked with college seniors preparing for a molecular biology final who didn't know who Edward Jenner was, didn't know what Barbara McClintock's major finding was (one that really shook some foundations), etc..(if you aren't a biology person those names might not mean anything...) but ANYONE who considers themself a biologist or student of the life sciences should know that stuff.
I'm rambling a bit here, but I hope that makes sense...
I think you've got it right. My freshman chemistry course was one semester of general chem, and one semester of quantum mechanics. I think that it was too much to try to fit into one year, especially since we skimmed over a lot of basic stuff that other students spent much more time on. That gave me a disadvantage in the following classes (e.g. organic 
) and for most of us in the class (pre-med types), the extra quantum we learned didn't really help. I think a small introduction to it would be good, but I don't know that it's a good idea to try to force it into the curriculum as it is.
And I agree with the bit about learning the evolution of scientific theory/knowledge. Memorizing who invented the microscope is all well and good, but there were other significant advances that changed the way science is approached that don't get mentioned after the first chapter in the textbook.
) and for most of us in the class (pre-med types), the extra quantum we learned didn't really help. I think a small introduction to it would be good, but I don't know that it's a good idea to try to force it into the curriculum as it is.And I agree with the bit about learning the evolution of scientific theory/knowledge. Memorizing who invented the microscope is all well and good, but there were other significant advances that changed the way science is approached that don't get mentioned after the first chapter in the textbook.
I don't mean teach 'quantum spin' i mean teach the class 'with a quantum spin' (aka no spin zone heh..). The author seems intent on pointing out at every opportunity that the experiments don't match up with what people are taught to believe, and the subject matter really isn't all that hard to grasp the way Greene presents it: No math, just ideas. It might be kind of fun for people who are interested in exploring what's beyond and how we got there without learning all the esoteric math and such Einstein, et al. used to get there.
You could teach a history of science course like this, but I wouldnt want any of my history profs doing it. It might belong to history, but it doesn't belong to your average Joe history prof. Only someone who really understands the material can effectively teach a class like I'm suggesting.
You could teach a history of science course like this, but I wouldnt want any of my history profs doing it. It might belong to history, but it doesn't belong to your average Joe history prof. Only someone who really understands the material can effectively teach a class like I'm suggesting.
It could potentially be a tricky course to develop, but I've never once seen a class like that where someone can learn about Einstein, for example.
The closest I've seen here at the UI is a history of medicine course taught by a prof who works in the college of medicine.
https://isis2.uiowa.edu/isis/courses/detail/016:136:001
The closest I've seen here at the UI is a history of medicine course taught by a prof who works in the college of medicine.
https://isis2.uiowa.edu/isis/courses/detail/016:136:001