Teaching vs Doing: The Role of Concepts in Research - Insights from Physics

[Stingray]

Would you do this and if so then why?

Yes, I think I would talk about subjects I wouldn't want to use myself. If I didn't have much time to cover a subject (but was forced to do it anyways), then I might go over certain concepts I didn't like just to get the students' interest, or to introduce something more quickly. It is very time consuming to describe everything with all the disclaimers one might want. It also tends to confuse people when you tell them things are "almost true."

In my limited teaching experience so far (as a TA only), I actually have made more of an effort to comment on the limitations of a particular concept than most do. This is the way I would've liked to have been taught, but I think it is very difficult to do it correctly. I usually just get a lot of blank stares. I suppose it's hard enough to understand one piece of material without being told a bunch of things about when it's really valid to use it.

 

[pmb_phy]

Yes, I think I would talk about subjects I wouldn't want to use myself. If I didn't have much time to cover a subject (but was forced to do it anyways), then I might go over certain concepts I didn't like just to get the students' interest, or to introduce something more quickly.

I think you missed the gist of the question. I'm not talking about a minor thing mentioned by an author. I'm talking about one of the more major themes in the entire text.

Thanks

Pete

 

[Stingray]

I think you missed the gist of the question. I'm not talking about a minor thing mentioned by an author. I'm talking about one of the more major themes in the entire text.

Then no, I wouldn't do that.

 

[pmb_phy]

Then no, I wouldn't do that.

A quick example comes to mind. In Schutz's new text Gravity from the Ground Up he has a section called Special Relativity: general consequences. He states that in that section he lists the most important consequences of the principle of relativity. If Schutz actually believes that all those items are the most important consequences of SR then one shouldn't expect him to ignore anyone of them in his own research.

At least in my opinion. :tongue:

Thanks Stingray

Pete

 

[Stingray]

If Schutz actually believes that all those items are the most important consequences of SR then one shouldn't expect him to ignore anyone of them in his own research.

Yes, you're right. Unless he's talking from a purely historical perspective, which would probably be obvious from the context. Is that part of the book online?

 

[pmb_phy]

Yes, you're right. Unless he's talking from a purely historical perspective, which would probably be obvious from the context. Is that part of the book online?

No. I have the the book.

Pete

 

[pmb_phy]

Then you obviously have no clue what the REST of his theory is saying. The fact that you DO get a relativistic mass is a clear experimental evidence. If you don't believe me, just visit any accelerator facility and see if they don't laugh right in your face when you tell them relativistic mass hasn't been observed experimentally.

Speaking of which

Apparatus to measure relativistic mass increase, John W. Luetzelschwab, Am. J. Phys. 71 (9), September 2003
http://physics.dickinson.edu/~dept_web/activities/papers/relativity.pdf

An apparatus that uses readily available material to measure the relativistic mass increase of beta particles from a radioactive ²⁰⁴Tl source is described. Although the most accurate analysis uses curve fitting or a Kurie plot, students may just use the raw data and a simple calculation to verify the relativistic mass increase.

Pete