Jansky: When Physics Majors Should Expect It

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter strangerep
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the appropriate timing and context for introducing the unit "Jansky" within a physics degree program. Participants explore whether it should be considered basic knowledge and at what stage students should first encounter it, particularly in relation to radio astronomy and cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that for a general physics degree, it is unreasonable to assume prior knowledge of the Jansky, as it is primarily used in a specific subfield.
  • Others suggest that the Jansky should only be introduced in specialized astronomy courses, indicating that it is not part of the core SI units that students should learn early on.
  • One participant recounts their personal experience of not encountering the Jansky during their entire physics degree, suggesting its introduction should be limited to specific contexts.
  • A later reply shares a personal anecdote about struggling with a cosmology textbook that used Janskys without prior explanation, highlighting the confusion that can arise from such assumptions in educational materials.
  • Another participant recommends a textbook by Weinberg for those interested in modern cosmology, although noting it may not be the most current resource.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on when and how the Jansky should be introduced in physics education, with no consensus reached on a specific point of introduction or its necessity as basic knowledge.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of agreement on the relevance of the Jansky in general physics education, and the discussion reflects varying levels of exposure to the unit among participants. Some mention the dependence on the specific subfield of study, indicating that assumptions about prior knowledge may vary significantly.

strangerep
Science Advisor
Messages
3,766
Reaction score
2,214
At what point during study for a reputable physics degree should one normally encounter the "Jansky"?

I.e., at what point is it reasonable for a lecturer (or textbook writer!) to assume the existence and meaning of "Jansky" as basic prior knowledge?
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Bystander
Astronomy news on Phys.org
For a general physics degree, I would say it is not reasonable to assume any knowledge. It is a unit mostly seeing use in a particular subfield and unless students are specialising in that particular subfield they will most likely not be exposed or have very limited exposure.
 
strangerep said:
At what point during study for a reputable physics degree should one normally encounter the "Jansky"?
One should only encounter SI units as part of a degree. Avoid the non-SI Jansky. The Jansky should be ignored until one makes experimental observations in radio astronomy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Motore
I made it through an entire physics degree without coming across it as far as I recall. So I'd say you introduce it in the first specialist astronomy course.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Thank you all.

In case anyone is wondering, I came across this unit the hard way...

I've decided to try and improve my knowledge of the non-GR aspects of cosmology. So I've started working through Dodelson & Schmidt "Modern Cosmology" 2nd Ed (2021), intending to do every exercise properly. In ch1 (sigh), Ex 1.4, they ask the reader to convert from the CMB black body ##I_\nu## intensity-vs-frequency formula to the units on their graph Fig 1.7. Their vertical axis is labelled MJy/sr, which I thought meant Megajoule-year/sr (and now I don't know whether to sigh or laugh). Being determined to complete this should-be-simple exercise without looking at the solution, I wasted several hours. They only explain in their solution at the end of the book that the vertical axis is in these weird units called "Janskys".

Oh well, I guess I'll just have to re-acclimatize myself to the sloppy way these things are "taught" in physics courses, as opposed to (say) applied maths.

BTW, does anyone have suggestions for alternate very modern cosmology textbooks that force you to work through all the seriously tedious detail?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
As usual, Weinberg is a very good but tedious choice. It's not that "modern" anymore given the quick development of cosmology, but it's reasonably new, I'd say:

S. Weinberg, Cosmology, Oxford University Press (2008)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K