Should modern physics be taught in high school?

On 11/22/12 7:15 AM, Alen wrote:
Oh no!! It is bad enough to be teaching Einstein's
science fiction, 'counterintuitive', 'far out ideas'
to physics students at university already, without
corrupting the minds of high school students as
well

Alen

My, my, you never learn physics reality based on observation and
experiment. What physics courses did you fail?

On Nov 20, 11:19*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the need
to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the physics
from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we deal with
in everyday life. However, when modern physics is introduced in
university, a lot of students are surprised by how different physics is
at these extreme levels. Many are unable to grasp it and end up becoming
deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and especially Relativity.

With modern computer graphics equipment, it should be easier than ever
to visualize modern physics without going into explicit details about
its complex equations. Maybe it's about time that modern physics is
introduced into high schools, at a basic level, mainly to get them used
to the far out ideas that are beyond our everyday experiences, and
prevent more from becoming deniers? Relativity could be introduced into
the end of physics (mechanics) courses, while Quantum Mechanics could be
introduced into the end of chemistry courses? It shouldn't be a full
curriculum on these subjects, with experiments, etc., just a documentary
just to introduce them to the ideas that are modern physics.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/ph...ouble-standard

xxein: I can agree with all that. But I wonder what physics will be
like 400 years from now.

I'm very sure the physic will not change, but our understanding of it
will.

What next? Pondering over whether to teach Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics to a two year-old 400 years from now?

On Nov 20, 8:19*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the need
to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the physics
from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we deal with
in everyday life. However, when modern physics is introduced in
university, a lot of students are surprised by how different physics is
at these extreme levels. Many are unable to grasp it and end up becoming
deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and especially Relativity.

With modern computer graphics equipment, it should be easier than ever
to visualize modern physics without going into explicit details about
its complex equations. Maybe it's about time that modern physics is
introduced into high schools, at a basic level, mainly to get them used
to the far out ideas that are beyond our everyday experiences, and
prevent more from becoming deniers? Relativity could be introduced into
the end of physics (mechanics) courses, while Quantum Mechanics could be
introduced into the end of chemistry courses? It shouldn't be a full
curriculum on these subjects, with experiments, etc., just a documentary
just to introduce them to the ideas that are modern physics.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/ph...ouble-standard

The mainstream status-quo doesn't want K12s capable of thinking
anything through for themselves.

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.astro.]
On 2012-11-20, Yousuf Khan wrote:

[ a lot of stuff ]

We did work on special relativity in high school. This was 46
years ago. I have no idea what they do nowadays. You can't do much
more than wave hands with General Relativity because of the math.
Non-linear differential equations aren't high school. Same thing with
quantum mechanics. The math prevents more than a descriptive approach,
but you can introduce concepts.

Bud

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:19:24 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

My, my, you never learn physics reality based on observation and
experiment. What physics courses did you fail?

Sam, as you have pointed out here many times, observation and experiment
has nothing to do with science. It's all about a democratic majority vote
and a "consensus". If enough national science foundations and agaencies
and science trade organizations agree on something (example AGW) then
clearly it is automatically true.

What physics courses did you take?

"William Hamblen" wrote in message
m...

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.astro.]
On 2012-11-20, Yousuf Khan wrote:

[ a lot of stuff ]

We did work on special relativity in high school. This was 46
years ago. I have no idea what they do nowadays. You can't do much
more than wave hands with General Relativity because of the math.
Non-linear differential equations aren't high school. Same thing with
quantum mechanics. The math prevents more than a descriptive approach,
but you can introduce concepts.

Bud
================================================== ============
Modern physics should be taught in church, it takes a lot of blind faith and
ignorance of mathematics to believe "we establish by definition that the
“time� required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time� it requires
to travel from B to A" and tau(rAB/(c-v)) = tau(rAB/(c+v)), the virgin birth
of special relativity.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Nov 23, 8:19*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/22/12 7:15 AM, Alen wrote:

Oh no!! It is bad enough to be teaching Einstein's
science fiction, 'counterintuitive', 'far out ideas'
to physics students at university already, without
corrupting the minds of high school students as
well

Alen

* *My, my, you never learn physics reality based on observation and
* *experiment. What physics courses did you fail?

Ha! You imply that Einstein's science fiction, 'counterintuitive',
'far out ideas' are equivalent to 'observation and experiment'
They are not - they are false interpretations of observation
and experiment, which have possible theoretical interpretations
different from Einstein's science fiction spacetime.

Alen

On 20/11/12 16:55, Martin Brown wrote:
On 20/11/2012 16:19, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the need
to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the physics
from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we deal with
in everyday life. However, when modern physics is introduced in

Which makes it a great foundation on which to build further knowledge
and it is still relevant to the rest of the population in daily life.

People still drive too close and fast like they do not believe in basic
Newtonian physics such as momentum and kinetic energy.

university, a lot of students are surprised by how different physics is
at these extreme levels. Many are unable to grasp it and end up becoming
deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and especially Relativity.

Not sure that the physics and chemistry graduates are the problem here.

Most of the deniers study soft subjects or electrical engineering where
relativity must be lamentably taught based on the number of nutters who
still write in to Wireless World (it was much worse in the 1970's).

I don't know how anyone can "still write to Wireless World" as no
magazine of that title has existed since 1984.

I do recall the excellent series of articles in that magazine by the
distinguished physicist Dr Scott Murray called "A heretics guide to
physics" where he demonstrates how physics has slid into the realm of
mysticism.


With modern computer graphics equipment, it should be easier than ever
to visualize modern physics without going into explicit details about
its complex equations. Maybe it's about time that modern physics is
introduced into high schools, at a basic level, mainly to get them used
to the far out ideas that are beyond our everyday experiences, and
prevent more from becoming deniers? Relativity could be introduced into
the end of physics (mechanics) courses, while Quantum Mechanics could be
introduced into the end of chemistry courses? It shouldn't be a full
curriculum on these subjects, with experiments, etc., just a documentary
just to introduce them to the ideas that are modern physics.

Yousuf Khan

I disagree. Until you have a basic understanding of classical physics
introducing relativity and quantum mechanics without the mathematics
makes it into another just so story and prone to attack by deniers.

The thing that really needs to be communicated is that at relativistic
speeds common sense Galilean dynamics no longer works reliably.

But the speed of light is only about 1ft per nanosecond. Feet and
nanoseconds are both everyday unit in this century. What is missing is
any explanation of why dimensions change other than because the maths
demand it to make the second postulate true.

Beckmann and Mandics pointed out the possibility that Lorentz transforms
could simply be equivalence formula, making up for inaccurate
electrodynamics by suitable deforming space and time to achieve the
correct result. Thus cries of "relativity works" in no way proves that
it is correctly based.

Essen makes the same point a different way:

"Science involves measurement and measurement requires a system of units
which need to be carefully chosen such that do not have duplication.
Consider now the simplest of all measurements, the measurement of
velocity v expressed as the distance d travelled in time t. The result
is expressed as v=d/t. It is possible to define units in any two of the
quantities in this expression. In practice the units of distance and
time are defined and velocity is measured in terms of those units. If
the unit of velocity were defined as well then the value v can be
expressed in two ways in terms of the unit of velocity and in terms of
units of length and time. Conflicting results could be obtained.
Only a unit of measurement can be made constant by definition.
Making the velocity of light have a constant value c even to observers
in relative motion is comparable to making a unit of measurement
duplicating the units already defined. The definition of the unit of
length or that of time must be abandoned. To meet Einstein's two
conditions it is convenient to abandon both.
The contraction of length and the dilation of time can now
be understood as representing the changes that have to be made
to make the results of measurement consistent. There is no
question here of a physical theory but simply of a new system
of units in which c is constant, and length and time do not
have constant units but have units that vary with v^2/c^2. Thus
they are no longer independent, and space and time are
intermixed by definition and not as a result of some peculiar
property of nature.... If the theory of relativity is regarded
simply as a new system of units it can be made consistent but
it serves no useful purpose" Essen

On Nov 20, 9:19*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the need
to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the physics
from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we deal with
in everyday life. However, when modern physics is introduced in
university, a lot of students are surprised by how different physics is
at these extreme levels. Many are unable to grasp it and end up becoming
deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and especially Relativity.

With modern computer graphics equipment, it should be easier than ever
to visualize modern physics without going into explicit details about
its complex equations. Maybe it's about time that modern physics is
introduced into high schools, at a basic level, mainly to get them used
to the far out ideas that are beyond our everyday experiences, and
prevent more from becoming deniers? Relativity could be introduced into
the end of physics (mechanics) courses, while Quantum Mechanics could be
introduced into the end of chemistry courses? It shouldn't be a full
curriculum on these subjects, with experiments, etc., just a documentary
just to introduce them to the ideas that are modern physics.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/ph...ouble-standard

They should also keep a cane with the physics teacher; otherwise there
will be too many questions.
Try it. Assume I am a student. Assume you and me are in relative
motion. According to you your clock ticks at normal rate but my clock
runs slow. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?
So natural question is whose clock is running slow? Or nobody’s?
According to you I am ageing slowly than you but according to me you
are aging slowly.
So natural question would be who is really aging slowly? You or me or
none?

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message

On Nov 20, 9:19 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff
discovered from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I
understand the need to keep things simple for HS students to digest,
and most of the physics from 400 years ago is still basically the
only stuff that we deal with in everyday life. However, when modern
physics is introduced in university, a lot of students are surprised
by how different physics is at these extreme levels. Many are unable
to grasp it and end up becoming deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and
especially Relativity.

With modern computer graphics equipment, it should be easier than
ever to visualize modern physics without going into explicit details
about its complex equations. Maybe it's about time that modern
physics is introduced into high schools, at a basic level, mainly to
get them used to the far out ideas that are beyond our everyday
experiences, and prevent more from becoming deniers? Relativity
could be introduced into the end of physics (mechanics) courses,
while Quantum Mechanics could be introduced into the end of
chemistry courses? It shouldn't be a full curriculum on these
subjects, with experiments, etc., just a documentary just to
introduce them to the ideas that are modern physics.

Yousuf Khan

http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/ph...ouble-standard

They should also keep a cane with the physics teacher; otherwise there
will be too many questions.
Try it. Assume I am a student. Assume you and me are in relative
motion. According to you your clock ticks at normal rate but my clock
runs slow. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?
So natural question is whose clock is running slow? Or nobody’s?
According to you I am ageing slowly than you but according to me you
are aging slowly.
So natural question would be who is really aging slowly? You or me or
none?

Try it. Assume I am a student. Assume you and me are separated by
some distance. According to you your height is normal but I look
smaller. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?
So natural question is who is smaller? Or nobody’s?
According to you I am smaller than you but according to me you
are smaller.
So natural question would be who is really smaller? You or me or
none?

Don't worry, even Dingle failed to understand that. See at the bottom of
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ialFumble.html
You have seen it before. Don't say you haven't, because I know you have.

Dirk Vdm