Why are Physicists so informal with mathematics?

[haushofer]

Well, there are some physicists who think you should go to the philosophy department if you ask about ontology. In my experience quite some physicists care more about calculation than interpretation and worse, they'll use faulty philosophy to justify that attitude.

 

[Sassan]

I agree completely. The applied/practical side of physics is engineering, and that is where calculations are justified. But that is the end of the journey. The beginning of the journey (which is germane to physics education) is starting with some reality, abstracting concepts from it, operationalizing those concepts, correlating those concepts, and then coming up with formulas that compress and summarize all that.

 

[pines-demon]

Yes, we know that EM waves propagate through the vacuum, 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. This borders on religion: Accepting a statement on FAITH!

Is this a real example? I mean I guess most physicists agree on the "how", specially with EM waves. Maybe you mean on the "why?" or "why is it allowed?"

 

[Sassan]

Please provide me with that version of the "how" (EM waves propagate in the vacuum) that you say most physicists agree on?

 

[pines-demon]

Please provide me with that version of the "how" (EM waves propagate in the vacuum) that you say most physicists agree on?

It's called Maxwell's equations.

 

[Sassan]

Maxwell's equations do not explain the detailed mechanism by which EM waves travel self-propagatingly through vacuum. The equations essentially state that EM waves are the result of the mutual interactions of dynamic electric and magnetic fields, but the detailed "how" of it is another story.

 

[Frabjous]

Yes, we know that EM waves propagate through the vacuum, 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.

Please provide some references. It is hard to tell exactly what you are critiquing.

 

[Orodruin]

Maxwell's equations do not explain the detailed mechanism by which EM waves travel self-propagatingly through vacuum. The equations essentially state that EM waves are the result of the mutual interactions of dynamic electric and magnetic fields, but the detailed "how" of it is another story.

That is not a physics question per se. Your question is about why the Maxwell equations appear like they do. That is not necessarily answerable through experiment and if so is not a part of physics.

 

[pines-demon]

Maxwell's equations do not explain the detailed mechanism by which EM waves travel self-propagatingly through vacuum. The equations essentially state that EM waves are the result of the mutual interactions of dynamic electric and magnetic fields, but the detailed "how" of it is another story.

I relate "how" questions to "how to describe their behaviour". The behaviour of EM waves is explained very precisely by Maxwell's equations. What you seem to ask is "why is this behaviour in particular". However "why" questions are usually thrown away and forwarded to the philosophy department.

 

[gmax137]

do not explain the detailed mechanism by which

Provide an example of physics which does explain the detailed mechanism by which the phenomenon occurs.

 

[Sassan]

Example of detailed mechanism in physics: When you talk and another person hears what you are saying, we understand the exact mechanism by which the spoken words generate waves that vibrate the eardrum(s) of the listener, leading to the effect we call "hearing".

 

[Sassan]

However "why" questions are usually thrown away and forwarded to the philosophy department.

Newton found the correct formula for gravitational force, but could not explain WHY action at a distance could occur and it actually bothered him. Had this WHY been thrown away, Einstein would not have tried to come up with a WHY-explanation in his General Theory of Relativity.
I am not saying all WHY questions are relevant in physics. But when some physics issues become perplexing, coincidental, or contradictory, then the WHY question becomes important.

 

[Sassan]

Provide an example of physics which does explain the detailed mechanism by which the phenomenon occurs.

Please provide some references. It is hard to tell exactly what you are critiquing.

References provided for Frabjous regarding controversies and disagreements in explaining how EM waves travel in vacuum.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk63uUhkZH4

The larger point here is the existence of controversies in physics theories that are supposed to be established and non-controversial. Two great examples of this are two videos produced by the Veritasium channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0
This is about how electricity actually works. Tons of controversy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsgoLc_fzI
This is about a UCLA physics professor losing a bet about the outcome of a physics experiment.

 

[Frabjous]

Videos

 

[Sassan]

Videos

What is wrong with videos? A video is a medium through which information can be communicated. If I transcribed the contents of the same videos into words, printed them and bound them in the form of a book, suddenly that would have more credibility for you?!

Just because a UCLA physics professor expresses himself on VIDEO, it is unacceptable to you?!

 

[Orodruin]

Example of detailed mechanism in physics: When you talk and another person hears what you are saying, we understand the exact mechanism by which the spoken words generate waves that vibrate the eardrum(s) of the listener, leading to the effect we call "hearing".

That doesn’t explain anything. How do the waves propagate?

 

[Orodruin]

Had this WHY been thrown away, Einstein would not have tried to come up with a WHY-explanation in his General Theory of Relativity.

This is not necessarily true. GR was mainly developed because Newton’s theory was fundamentally incompatible with special relativity, which in turn was developed because Maxwell’s electromagnetism was incompatible with classical mechanics.

 

[Orodruin]

What is wrong with videos? A video is a medium through which information can be communicated. If I transcribed the contents of the same videos into words, printed them and bound them in the form of a book, suddenly that would have more credibility for you?!

Just because a UCLA physics professor expresses himself on VIDEO, it is unacceptable to you?!

It is not the mode of presentation. It is the purpose of the presentation. Most physics videos on YouTube are popular science, which is a really bad way of learning actual physics. Its purpose is different. This is true regardless of of where the presenter works.

If you want to be taken seriously, please refer to the actually published peer reviewed material.

 

[Frabjous]

What is wrong with videos? A video is a medium through which information can be communicated. If I transcribed the contents of the same videos into words, printed them and bound them in the form of a book, suddenly that would have more credibility for you?!

Just because a UCLA physics professor expresses himself on VIDEO, it is unacceptable to you?!

It is not worth the length of viewing time to try and figure out what YOU are thinking. I’m out.

 

[Sassan]

That doesn’t explain anything. How do the waves propagate?

That doesn’t explain ANYthing?! So if I gave that explanation of how we hear sound to people from 1,000 years ago (or to the children of today), you are saying they would not learn ANYthing?!

If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, then we are done. But if you want to be fair and engage in an honest dialog, I am going to continue.

Explanations exist at various LEVELS. You asked for an example of a physics explanation (the HOW), and I provided one at level 1. So now you can pick one word in it (“wave”) and ask for level 2 explanation, thereby going deeper. But at the point that the explanation corresponds to our common sense image of how the world works, we say we are convinced and we stop.

This is level 2 explanation of how a wave propagates in a medium. At level 2 we assume we understand energy transfer (like when a moving ball hits a stationary ball, it makes the second ball move). When I keep dipping my finger into and out of a calm pool, the energy of that movement gets transferred to water drops next to my finger making them likewise bob up and down. This energy thus gets transferred horizontally while manifesting itself at each location by the water at that location bobbing up and down. THAT explains how a (transverse) wave propagates. This is level 2.

Now if you pick one of the words above and ask for its explanation, then we go to level 3, but this process has stop at some point because we will never reach the level of certainty of 3=3.

 

[PeroK]

Example of detailed mechanism in physics: When you talk and another person hears what you are saying, we understand the exact mechanism by which the spoken words generate waves that vibrate the eardrum(s) of the listener, leading to the effect we call "hearing".

That's not really a detailed mechanism. That's a superficial description. How do air molecules vibrate your eardrum? It must ultimately be an electromagnetic interaction. And, how does the electromagnetic interaction work? Then you are back to EM and QM.

Any mechanism in nature/physics must eventually boil down to some fundamental theory, which does not rest upon a more fundamental mechanism. Your criticism that the fundamentals of physics do not have any more fundamental underlying explanations is fairly pointless.

Mathematics has essentially the same issue, where eventually it can be boiled down to the axioms of set theory, which cannot themselves be based on even more fundamental postulates.

 

[AndreasC]

Yes, that is exactly my point about semantic consistency. If from the very beginning a wave is defined without reference to a "medium", then later on when it is learned that a wave can travel through vacuum, no inconsistency arises.

Mathematics is literally full of cases where you may start with a definition that is in terms of something specific, then generalize it to a larger domain. There is no difference between that and what you are saying.

 

[Orodruin]

That doesn’t explain ANYthing?! So if I gave that explanation of how we hear sound to people from 1,000 years ago (or to the children of today), you are saying they would not learn ANYthing?!

I am echoing your sentiment from earlier because it is the exact same argument. Please explain to the people of 1000 years ago how the wave works. Please follow through on your line of argument. You will see where it leads …

Explanations exist at various LEVELS. You asked for an example of a physics explanation (the HOW), and I provided one at level 1. So now you can pick one word in it (“wave”) and ask for level 2 explanation, thereby going deeper. But at the point that the explanation corresponds to our common sense image of how the world works, we say we are convinced and we stop.

”Common sense” is an utterly useless argument in physics. It works decently on scales we have natural intuition on because intuition is built on familiarity. The world at very small and bery large scales simply does not work in the same way. The aim of physics is not to ”make sense” to you. It is to give an accurate description of how the world works.

If you are the only one allowed to require a deeper explanation, you are being utterly disingenuous.

Now if you pick one of the words above and ask for its explanation, then we go to level 3, but this process has stop at some point because we will never reach the level of certainty of 3=3.

Exactly, but this is not what you are arguing above. In fact, you are arguing the exact opposite: that Maxwell’s equations necessarily require further explanation. So please go on. I want to know what the water consists of and why the molecules in the water collide because this is integral to understanding your wave phenomenon.

 

[Orodruin]

It must ultimately be an electromagnetic interaction.

Spoiler alert! Spoiler alert!

 

[AndreasC]

Yes, we know that EM waves propagate through the vacuum, but there is so much controversy amongst physicists as to exactly HOW this happens.

Maybe 150 years ago.

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. This borders on religion: Accepting a statement on FAITH!

People on the internet are often wrong. Actually people in general are often wrong. And often people do have misconceptions. I don't understand what that has to do with religion. Some people being confused about something doesn't make it controversial, and even if there is controversy I don't understand what that has to do with religion.

 

[symbolipoint]

What is wrong with videos? A video is a medium through which information can be communicated. If I transcribed the contents of the same videos into words, printed them and bound them in the form of a book, suddenly that would have more credibility for you?!

Just because a UCLA physics professor expresses himself on VIDEO, it is unacceptable to you?!

Depends on the video. Depends on the quality; depends on the precision; depends on the faithfulness to concept.

 

[Sassan]

”Common sense” is an utterly useless argument in physics.

Correct. I should have said, "common logical sense" by which I mean LUCIDITY in explanation vs. shoving an equation down someone's throat.

I am sorry it has not been clear that I am approaching this topic from the viewpoint of not physics but physics education. I have an undergraduate degree in physics, another in math, and have been a professor at the university level for the past 45 years in a different field: Computer Information Systems. I am approaching this topic only pedagogically. Physicists can discover their truths, celebrate, and move on. But how do we teach those truths to truth-seekers?

Case in point: There is a video entitled "Why is the speed of light what it is? Maxwell equations visualized". The interesting thing is NOT the video itself but the comments written below it. This is only a small sample . . . . . .

I teach electrical theory at university and I’ve never seen such a brilliantly clear explanation of the Maxwell equations and their consequences - Many Thanks.

I've learned more about electromagnetism and the meaning behind Maxwell's equations in these 13 minutes than in 5 years of studying electrical engineering.

As a former undergrad in physics and grad in oceanography, I wish all educators were required to be at this level of understanding, enthusiasm and preparedness.

Thanks. I learned more in 13 minutes then in a semester of Fields and Waves when I was in college 25 years ago.
If only I was taught physics like Arvin does, oh my lost life! No matter then, I will savour the delightful insights of physics in my remaining late years.

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. Or the teacher can walk into the classroom, write the Maxwell’s equations on the board, and say, “That’s it. If you don’t understand, you don’t belong. Get out”!

 

[Orodruin]

That sounds more like a teacher-specific problem than a problem of the subject. I have known professors in both physics and math who suffer from this. It is hardly something subject specific.

It should be noted that while Maxwell’s equations were important in the historical development of relativity, the modern view is rather the opposite. The speed of light is named so for historical reasons and the main insight of relativity is the geometry of spacetime and the existence of an invariant speed. That this is the speed appearing in Maxwell’s equations follows unambiguously from EM theory being one of the simplest relativistic field theories that can be written down. It is not so much that the speed of light results from Maxwell’s equations as Maxwell’s equations having to contain it in order to be a self consistent relativistic field theory.

Unfortunately, videos that present things seemingly lucidly can still be wrong or not in line with a modern theoretical viewpoint.

 

[Sassan]

That sounds more like a teacher-specific problem than a problem of the subject. I have known professors in both physics and math who suffer from this. It is hardly something subject specific.

It should be noted that while Maxwell’s equations were important in the historical development of relativity, the modern view is rather the opposite. The speed of light is named so for historical reasons and the main insight of relativity is the geometry of spacetime and the existence of an invariant speed. That this is the speed appearing in Maxwell’s equations follows unambiguously from EM theory being one of the simplest relativistic field theories that can be written down. It is not so much that the speed of light results from Maxwell’s equations as Maxwell’s equations having to contain it in order to be a self consistent relativistic field theory.

Unfortunately, videos that present things seemingly lucidly can still be wrong or not in line with a modern theoretical viewpoint.

Thank you for your explanation. 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, never mind that Einstein's own book (The Evolution of Physics) is the very picture of lucidity and clarity.
I hope you agree that even among living professional physicist who read only peer-reviewed journals, there is a lot of deep disagreement on a number of topics.

 

[Orodruin]

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.

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.

I hope you agree that even among living professional physicist who read only peer-reviewed journals, there is a lot of deep disagreement on a number of topics.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

FYI, some of the people you are discussing this with are in fact teachers.

 

[Sassan]

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.

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.

 

[pines-demon]

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 . . .

No that is not enough.

that student also needs to UNDERSTAND (key word) its mathematical derivation (where the formula came from)?

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

word) its mathematical derivation (where the formula came from)? The first is knowing, the second is understanding.

Can that even be taught?

Doesn't it fall upon the motivated student to ensure he understands it?

 

[Sassan]

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.

Neither. I mean deriving the mathematical expression for the Lorentz factor geometrically in one minute using Pythagoras' Theorem.

 

[Frabjous]

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.

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.

Your argument is all over the place.

 

[pines-demon]

Neither. I mean deriving the mathematical expression for the Lorentz factor geometrically in one minute using Pythagoras' Theorem.

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]

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.

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?!

 

[Dale]

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

@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.

 

[Sassan]

@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.

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 . . . .
"If you wanted to (dis)prove this conjecture, what experiment would YOU perform?"
"From such-and-such (historic) experiment, what other theoretical deduction can you make?"
I am not hallucinating that one of the most convincing, lucid, and imaginative physics textbooks is entitled "Physics for the Inquiring Mind" (Eric Rogers). It does not take Sherlock to deduce from this title that many other physics textbooks are NOT for the inquiring mind. If they were, why would Eric Rogers waste his time writing another one?!?! When you read that book, you UNDERSTAND physics, not just LEARN physics.
If this does not make sense, then I am at the end of the line.

 

[Orodruin]

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.

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.

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,

It is not, and they do not. You are simply way off base here.

who am I to disagree?!

First you should inform yourself better about what is the actual state of the field.

 

[Dale]

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.

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.

Some select students will gain understanding that way. Others will gain understanding through spacetime diagrams. Others will gain it through homework problems. Others will gain it through group work or projects.

A conscientious instructor will try as varied an experience as feasible and will carefully watch and listen to their students and check for understanding.

 

[Orodruin]

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 . . . .

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]

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.

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.

 

[Dale]

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

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. Not all instructors are gifted, and not all students desire more.

Again, this is not particular to physics instructors. It applies to all academic fields, and probably most non-academic fields. Your singling out physics for this criticism is unwarranted

 

[Orodruin]

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.

I spend a lot of my free time trying to help people understand physics on these forums. For free. I happen to generally believe in the openness of the forums and the idea that anyone that has the knowledge and the time can weigh in rather than pre-solociting replies to unknown questions. If you have subject questions, please direct them to the appropriate subforum here on PF.

 

[Sassan]

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.

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]

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.

Then how can you make these ludicrous assertions specifically singling out physics instructors? You should know better

 

[Sassan]

Then how can you make these ludicrous assertions specifically singling out physics instructors? You should know better

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]

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.

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.

This poses a dilemma for the physics instructor …

Again, this is not unique to physics. As someone with your background should know.

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.

It is the reality at the graduate level. Again, as you should know.