FYI, some of the people you are discussing this with are in fact teachers.Sassan said:and also that this elite group feels no need to communicate their knowledge to those at a lower level in a lucid, clear, logical manner.
Maybe this question will clarify my point (which is not about popularizing physics but about teaching it deeply): Regarding the Lorentz factor, do you believe a student learning the Special Theory of Relativity needs to be taught only what the formula for the Lorentz factor is and what role it plays in various phenomena such as time dilation, length contraction, etc., or . . . that student also needs to UNDERSTAND (key word) its mathematical derivation (where the formula came from)? The first is knowing, the second is understanding.Orodruin said:I believe you are misrepresenting some things here. Outreach is an integral part of doing science.
However, yes, for things such as special relativity and basic electromagnetism there is consensus among physicists on how it works. These theories are over a century old and have been studied in excruciating detail. The issue you are experiencing is more likely arising from the fact that popularising these theories for general consumption presents its own set of issues precisely because they are not as easy to intuit about as perhaps classical mechanics. Speaking in a more popularised setting invariably leads to making analogies and simplifications and many times - nay usually - things are distorted in translation and concessions on accuracy have to be made for the sake of presenting a digestible message.
A number of topics at the very fore front of research, yes. That is the nature of the scientific discourse. However, special relativity and electromagnetism certainly do not belong to these topics.
No that is not enough.Sassan said:Maybe this question will clarify my point (which is not about popularizing physics but about teaching it deeply): Regarding the Lorentz factor, do you believe a student learning the Special Theory of Relativity needs to be taught only what the formula for the Lorentz factor is and what role it plays in various phenomena such as time dilation, length contraction, etc., or . . .
It depends on what you mean by that. If you mean grab some well thought postulates and derive the Lorentz factor from those postulates then that is not enough.Sassan said:that student also needs to UNDERSTAND (key word) its mathematical derivation (where the formula came from)?
Can that even be taught?Sassan said:word) its mathematical derivation (where the formula came from)? The first is knowing, the second is understanding.
Neither. I mean deriving the mathematical expression for the Lorentz factor geometrically in one minute using Pythagoras' Theorem.pines-demon said:No that is not enough.
It depends on what you mean by that. If you mean grab some well thought postulates and derive the Lorentz factor from those postulates then that is not enough.
If you mean, see how the theory explains all the contradicting experiments and how it relates to previously known physics, then yes. However, in physics (in philosophy is a different story), you do not need to think "why" the universe decided the Lorentz factor and not Riemann function, for example.
Sassan said:but there is so much controversy amongst physicists as to exactly HOW this happens. I have read many accounts of it by folks with physics degrees, but they tend to accuse one another of committing misconceptions, and that only THEY have the correct explanation.
Your argument is all over the place.Sassan said:If only I had these videos explaining these concepts 20 years back, maybe I would've been a physicist today.
These same reactions can be found to MANY other pedagogical physics videos in which LUCIDITY is the key.
You say neither, but postulating some triangle and getting the Lorentz factor is one of the options there. However that basically leads to no understanding of anything, just shows that you know how to handle triangles but not when to use them or how it maps to nature.Sassan said:Neither. I mean deriving the mathematical expression for the Lorentz factor geometrically in one minute using Pythagoras' Theorem.
I never said or implied that in teaching the role of the Lorentz factor in Special Relativity, the ONLY thing that matters is its geometric derivation. What I AM saying is that teaching that simple geometric derivation (in addition to everything else) creates a deeper understanding than just memorizing a formula. That derivation makes one UNDERSTAND the WHY of time dilation in addition to the WHAT and the HOW of it. But if the standard physics education is based on just learning and knowing physics without understanding it (whenever that understanding is possible), and professional physicists advocate this paradigm, who am I to disagree?!pines-demon said:You say neither, but postulating some triangle and getting the Lorentz factor is one of the options there. However that basically leads to no understanding of anything, just shows that you know how to handle triangles but not when to use them or how it maps to nature.
@Sassan frankly, this is a ridiculous assertion. There are many gifted and respected physics instructors. The fact that not every professional physicist is a good physics instructor does not imply some elite community disdain for others. Good physicists who are gifted instructors are celebrated as much for their scientific achievements as their pedagogical prowess (eg Richard Feynman).Sassan said:this elite group feels no need to communicate their knowledge to those at a lower level in a lucid, clear, logical manner. There is almost a feeling of disdain for clarity and lucidity
I made a generalization, and like every other generalization, there are exceptions. I am not commenting on the teaching ability of physicists. I am commenting on the fact that physics instructors (generally) feel their job is to pass on the knowledge they have to their students as opposed to awakening the spirit of discovery and exploration in their students, such as . . . .Dale said:@Sassan frankly, this is a ridiculous assertion. There are many gifted and respected physics instructors. The fact that not every professional physicist is a good physics instructor does not imply some elite community disdain for others. Good physicists who are gifted instructors are celebrated as much for their scientific achievements as their pedagogical prowess (eg Richard Feynman).
The same thing happens in every single other field of human endeavor. Not all history scholars are gifted history instructors, capable of making the material accessible to others. Are all historians therefore categorically elites with a disdain for clarity and lucidity?
Insert any other academic subject in place of physics or history. This is a nonsense complaint with 0 validity. It is a false generalization.
Obviously they need to know how it arises as a result of the spacetime geometry. Students should be kept as far away from possible from time dilation and length contraction as possible because those only act as distractions and apply only to very special cases. You obviously have not been around the relativity forums enough or you would know exactly what is my approach to teaching relativity, which goes deeper into understanding what spacetime is rather than focusing on the flashy stuff more introductory courses would throw in your face.Sassan said:Regarding the Lorentz factor, do you believe a student learning the Special Theory of Relativity needs to be taught only what the formula for the Lorentz factor is and what role it plays in various phenomena such as time dilation, length contraction, etc., or . . . that student also needs to UNDERSTAND (key word) its mathematical derivation (where the formula came from)? The first is knowing, the second is understanding.
It is not, and they do not. You are simply way off base here.Sassan said:But if the standard physics education is based on just learning and knowing physics without understanding it (whenever that understanding is possible), and professional physicists advocate this paradigm,
First you should inform yourself better about what is the actual state of the field.Sassan said:who am I to disagree?!
I think that you are missing the point in your question. As a physics instructor I can tell you for certain that different students learn things differently. The idea that a solid grounding in the mathematical derivation will generally lead to UNDERSTANDING is incorrect.Sassan said:do you believe a student learning the Special Theory of Relativity needs to be taught only what the formula for the Lorentz factor is and what role it plays in various phenomena such as time dilation, length contraction, etc., or . . . that student also needs to UNDERSTAND (key word) its mathematical derivation (where the formula came from)? The first is knowing, the second is understanding.
Why do you think physics instructors are any different from instructors of other subjects here? I can name a number of math instructors that would fit the bill perfectly. You'll find good and bad instructors in all areas of teaching. Physics is no different and your assertion that it is while calling the entire cadre of practicing physicists elitists is quite frankly extremely insulting.Sassan said:I am commenting on the fact that physics instructors (generally) feel their job is to pass on the knowledge they have to their students as opposed to awakening the spirit of discovery and exploration in their students, such as . . . .
Thank you for your advice, and for the time you took to engage me. We have obviously reached the end of this particular line. However, I have some genuine questions (not in the argument mode) about some stuff that puzzles me. Thank you.Orodruin said:Obviously they need to know how it arises as a result of the spacetime geometry. Students should be kept as far away from possible from time dilation and length contraction as possible because those only act as distractions and apply only to very special cases. You obviously have not been around the relativity forums enough or you would know exactly what is my approach to teaching relativity, which goes deeper into understanding what spacetime is rather than focusing on the flashy stuff more introductory courses would throw in your face.
It is not, and they do not. You are simply way off base here.
First you should inform yourself better about what is the actual state of the field.
What is your background? You seem to be completely ignorant about how teaching works.Sassan said:I am commenting on the fact that physics instructors (generally) feel their job is to pass on the knowledge they have to their students as opposed to awakening the spirit of discovery and exploration in their students
Sassan said:However, I have some genuine questions (not in the argument mode) about some stuff that puzzles me. If you care to help me out, please send an email to <redacted> to open the lines of communication outside of this forum.
Yes, I must be ignorant about how teaching works after having taught at the university level since 1979 at three different universities, currently at California State University.Dale said:What is your background? You seem to be completely ignorant about how teaching works.
Most instructors (physics, history, any subject) teach at some educational institution as part of a broader curriculum. Their job literally is to pass on a specified subset of the knowledge they have to their students in a specified time frame. They have to do that because the rest of the instructors will assume that students who passed that class already know that specified material.
A gifted instructor can do that and also convey enthusiasm for a topic. That can be contagious and lead a student to desire further discovery and exploration. Again, this is not particular to physics instructors. It applies to all academic fields, and probably most non-academic fields.
Then how can you make these ludicrous assertions specifically singling out physics instructors? You should know betterSassan said:Yes, I must be ignorant about how teaching works after having taught at the university level since 1979 at three different universities, currently at California State University.
This is how: Physics (also chemistry) is different from all other subjects (I have an undergrad degree in physics and another in math, a Masters degree in math, another in philosophy, and a doctorate in Systems Sciences from an Ivy League institution) because it involves understanding nature via experimentation. This poses a dilemma for the physics instructor: Do I teach only the generally acceptable results deduced from those experiments, or do I go further back and encourage students to understand why an experiment was performed, how that experiment was performed, how certain deductions were made from that experiment, and whether the outcome of that experiment is amenable to other conclusions. As the adage goes, are we giving students fish or teaching them HOW to fish? If the reality of physics teaching today is to encourage students to foster the spirit of independent discovery/exploration, then I apologize and we have nothing more to discuss.Dale said:Then how can you make these ludicrous assertions specifically singling out physics instructors? You should know better
Well that is another false generalization. There is a huge body of experimental work in medicine, psychology, biology, materials science, and many other scientific fields. Physics does not have a monopoly on the scientific method.Sassan said:Physics (also chemistry) is different from all other subjects (I have an undergrad degree in physics and another in math, a Masters degree in math, another in philosophy, and a doctorate in Systems Sciences from an Ivy League institution) because it involves understanding nature via experimentation.
Again, this is not unique to physics. As someone with your background should know.Sassan said:This poses a dilemma for the physics instructor …
It is the reality at the graduate level. Again, as you should know.Sassan said:If the reality of physics teaching today is to encourage students to foster the spirit of independent discovery/exploration, then I apologize and we have nothing more to discuss.
> experimental work in medicine, psychology, biology, materials science,Dale said:Well that is another false generalization. There is a huge body of experimental work in medicine, psychology, biology, materials science, and many other scientific fields. Physics does not have a monopoly on the scientific method.
Again, this is not unique to physics. As someone with your background should know.
It is the reality at the graduate level. Again, as you should know.
That’s simply not true. I strongly doubt the let your (former?) spouse into an OR without any previous hands-on knowledge on how to handle it. That is experimentation. The entire subject of medicine rests on the results of countless trials and other experiments. Suggesting otherwise is quite astonishing.Sassan said:Medical education does NOT involve experimentation; I know: I was married to a surgeon.
That’s several history of science courses. It took centuries to get from Newton to Hamilton. Faraday started his career in the 1810’s. Hertz didn’t do his experiments until the 1880’s. Does one need to teach the old quantum mechanics before doing Heisenberg and Schrodinger? These debates took generations. One cannot teach them and get students to state of the art in an acceptable amount of time.Sassan said:Do I teach only the generally acceptable results deduced from those experiments, or do I go further back and encourage students to understand why an experiment was performed, how that experiment was performed, how certain deductions were made from that experiment, and whether the outcome of that experiment is amenable to other conclusions.
Another ill informed generalization. Some medical education DOES involve experimentation; I know: I coauthored papers where medical students actually performed and published experiments. This is universal in combined MD PhD programs.Sassan said:Medical education does NOT involve experimentation; I know: I was married to a surgeon.
How is that for elitism? You want to dismiss the science-ness of an entire branch of science because it isn’t “rigorous” enough for you. I don’t think that the scientific method forbids nominal measurements, so why should you?Sassan said:Psychology involves experimentation but because they use mostly nominal/ordinal/interval (and not ratio) scales of measurement, those experiments have a different (less rigorous) scientific basis than physics
Words must mean different things to us! "Hands-on knowledge" is not experimentation. Dissection is not experimentation; it is demonstration and, at best, exploration. Are medical students told by their professor, "This is the research question, and this is a hypothesis pertaining to that question. Now I want you to set up an experiment to see if you can confirm or falsify that hypothesis"?!Orodruin said:That’s simply not true. I strongly doubt the let your (former?) spouse into an OR without any previous hands-on knowledge on how to handle it. That is experimentation. The entire subject of medicine rests on the results of countless trials and other experiments. Suggesting otherwise is quite astonishing.
My parents, both medical doctors, used to say they met at a corpse that they had to dissect.
I write "those experiments have a different (less rigorous) scientific basis than physics" and you read that as I "want to dismiss the science-ness of an entire branch of science." So much for communication.Dale said:Another ill informed generalization. Some medical education DOES involve experimentation; I know: I coauthored papers where medical students actually performed and published experiments. This is universal in combined MD PhD programs.
How is that for elitism? You want to dismiss the science-ness of an entire branch of science because it isn’t “rigorous” enough for you. I don’t think that the scientific method forbids nominal measurements, so why should you?
Not only is psychology, as a field, highly experimental, but it is also a perfect counterexample to your claim because experiments are central to the education process. Freshman psychology classes are packed full of experiments and even undergraduates perform novel scientific experiments as part of the routine curriculum.
Agriculture is another field where the education curriculum relies heavily on experiments. Both agriculture and psychology are trying to understand very complicated systems, but such complicated systems are in fact part of nature, and scientific experiments are in fact part of their curriculum.
Anyway, I am done here. Your arguments have been sufficiently debunked. Your criticism of physics education is full of false generalizations, and your valid criticisms apply to all disciplines.
Impossible. It may be possible in early stages of physics education, but certainly not in latter stages.Sassan said:"This is the research question, and this is a hypothesis pertaining to that question. Now I want you to set up an experiment to see if you can confirm or falsify that hypothesis"?!
Sassan said:Medical education does NOT involve experimentation;
Then this is a weird example, because physics student do learn that.Sassan said:I never said or implied that in teaching the role of the Lorentz factor in Special Relativity, the ONLY thing that matters is its geometric derivation. What I AM saying is that teaching that simple geometric derivation (in addition to everything else) creates a deeper understanding than just memorizing a formula.
It does not tell you the WHY, you can remove WHY from physics and everything stays the same.Sassan said:That derivation makes one UNDERSTAND the WHY of time dilation in addition to the WHAT and the HOW of it.
Physicists understand it, what makes you think that they don't? I maybe missed that part.Sassan said:But if the standard physics education is based on just learning and knowing physics without understanding it (whenever that understanding is possible), and professional physicists advocate this paradigm, who am I to disagree?!
Despite the efforts of the professional scientists and educators who've been replying to you, you appear quite set in your opinions, and this thread is not going anywhere productive. It is now closed.Sassan said:You sound like there is perfect consensus amongst professional physicists who read only peer-reviewed journals, and also that this elite group feels no need to communicate their knowledge to those at a lower level in a lucid, clear, logical manner. There is almost a feeling of disdain for clarity and lucidity