Should Science be a *practical* thing?

[Ratlet]

15 minutes ago, saac said:

I think a more accurate interpretation is science describes how we think (understand) how nature behaves. That understanding is not perfect (complete) and not fixed and will always evolve. 

Jim 

I agree.  That's a more accurate statement.

[andrew s]

40 minutes ago, iantaylor2uk said:

is also the fact that objects, such as the electron and photon, sometimes behave as waves and sometimes behave as particles, although they are neither of these, and what they are is not at present understood all that well.

We have had QFT since the late 1950s that give a very clear picture. As it's a field theory waves won out with "particles" with mass only being localised in some special circumstances. Massless "particles" e.g. photon, can't be localised at all. 

In its QED form it has been experimentally verified to 1 in 10^-8 for its perdition of the fine structure constant. For QCD we have the standard model which has yet to be overthrown dispite the effort of many and millions of Euro. 

Unfortunately,  it serves the pop science market to keep it mysterious with talk of waves-particles and spooky action at a distance.

I am not sure why educators still stick to the historical approach (via wave particle duality) maybe @saac  can shine some light on that.

Regards Andrew 

 

 

[saac]

1 hour ago, andrew s said:

Unfortunately,  it serves the pop science market to keep it mysterious with talk of waves-particles and spooky action at a distance.

I am not sure why educators still stick to the historical approach (via wave particle duality) maybe @saac  can shine some light on that.

Regards Andrew 

 

 

I'm not entirely sure Andrew but I suspect that it is rooted in course design and the sequencing of ideas or concepts. For example, at Higher level we will treat the electron as a particle and apply classical methods to work through calculations of acceleration in electric fields - no mention of the true nature of the electron.  later the first hint that there is something more comes when we introduce the Bohr model but again this is still a classical approach - to widen the discussion we may ask questions of the pupils to consider why the electron is restricted to discrete orbits (we may mention de Broglie wavelength) and tease with where does the electron go  when transiting levels. None of this is within the course spec though and non examinable. Only when we cover the photoelectric effect and interference do we introduce the dual nature but it is very much reduced to a statement and the ability to cite evidence for both natures.  So I think to be honest it may be a time constraint, we simply don't have enough time in the short one year course to develop the ideas or more likely that the classical approach simply opens up a root to traditional calculation problems for exam setting.  At Advance Hire (A level) in S6 (final year) there is a more obvious attempt to introduce properly Quantum physics but again it is a qualitative approach.   The extracts below show the course specification for Advance Hire on Quanta from which you will get a feel for how little we actually cover.   Could we do it earlier, could we abandon the solar system model that we all grew up with and just go for it - tbh I think Chemistry has the lead on Physics in that respect as they introduce the electron clouds (s,p,d,f) at quite and early stage. 

Jim 

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by saac

[Macavity]

😁 This is now a discussion of Specific Physics! The real issue is Scientists? 😛
The idea that *random ideas*, thrown out by certain Scientists are adopted
by the media (and the public) as being important - The "truth" or whatever.

The idea of bringing science into "disrepute" by "brawling in the dust" over
"Pet theories" - But also personal opinions on current issues? It seems to me
that science is struggling (c.f. Covid) to retain credibility with the g.public. 😑

I think it actually DOES matter when Scientists "say things". This idea that
a whole group of scientists are "Fooling the Public" matters - Beyond just
being a personal irritant to me - Albeit for personal & historical reasons. 🙃

Broadcasters / Journalists - Professional Associations abide by "standards".
I'm sure I had my "conditions of employment", when I was a Scientist! lol.
More and more *Theoretical Physicists* are self-employed? They actually
don't require much funding... Beyond Patreon and Youtube? I may believe
in "freedom of speech", but I wonder re. use of... "Scientist Credibility"? 😉

[Xilman]

On 08/08/2023 at 14:45, saac said:

It can be both or singular surely.  In education (secondary school) it is the practical element of science that places the cap on class size. A non practical subject such as Maths, English Languages etc can have a maximum of 30 pupils while a science class (single subject or composite) is capped at 20. 

To coin a phrase: that is a little local difficulty,

No ${DEITY}-given reason to set an upper limit of class sizes.

[Xilman]

23 hours ago, Macavity said:

Well, maybe my attempt at "Polemic"(?) failed a bit... In the face of
Astronomical common sense?

Common sense ( compound noun ) a frequently used oxymoron.

c.f. military intelligence, civil servant, Microsoft Works.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Xilman
Bloody spill chucker ...

[Xilman]

1 hour ago, saac said:

I'm not entirely sure Andrew but I suspect that it is rooted in course design and the sequencing of ideas or concepts.

Define the term "particle" as being an excitation in the relevant field and everything goes away.  Phonons, magnetons, electrons, quarks, gluons, Higgs bosons, etc are all equally particles in this picture.

IMAO, the real problem is with people thinking as particles as being very small billiard balls. Physics has come a very long way beyond that picture, starting about 100 years ago.

We no longer think about combustion as involving phlogiston exchange or chemistry in terms of 4 elements (air, earth, fire and water) so why don't we update our ideas about the nature of particles?

[saac]

31 minutes ago, Xilman said:

Define the term "particle" as being an excitation in the relevant field and everything goes away.  Phonons, magnetons, electrons, quarks, gluons, Higgs bosons, etc are all equally particles in this picture.

IMAO, the real problem is with people thinking as particles as being very small billiard balls. Physics has come a very long way beyond that picture, starting about 100 years ago.

We no longer think about combustion as involving phlogiston exchange or chemistry in terms of 4 elements (air, earth, fire and water) so why don't we update our ideas about the nature of particles?

S3 school pupil - "what's an excitation", "what's a field" "what's and excitation of a field" "how do you know". "Can we do an experiment"  , " minutes later "what is a excitation". 

Ok it's like this, atoms comprise the proton and neutron in a central nucleus with electrons orbiting around them just like the planets orbit the sun.  It's actually a little more complicated than this but this simple model will help us get to where we want to get.  School pupil - "why didn't you say that first".

 

There is a time for everything and a season for every activity  

Jim 

Edited August 9, 2023 by saac

[Xilman]

9 minutes ago, saac said:

S3 school pupil - "what's an excitation", "what's a field" "what's and excitation of a field" "how do you know". "Can we do an experiment"  , " minutes later "what is a excitation". 

Ok it's like this, atoms comprise the proton and neutron in a central nucleus with protons orbiting around them just like the planets orbit the sun.  It's actually a little more complicated than this but this simple model will help us get to where we want to get.  School pupil - "why didn't you say that first".

 

There is a time for everything and a season for every activity  

Jim 

A damning criticism of the current education system.

I  have, taught the concepts of quantum field theory and general relativity to kids under 10 years old -- my great-nieces to give just two examples. To the best of my knowledge they understood the concepts. Of course, this was profoundly subversive and doubtless caused disquiet among school teachers who were not so well educated. So be it.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Xilman
Add 2nd para.

[saac]

1 minute ago, Xilman said:

A damning criticism of the current education system.

Really. 

Jim

[iantaylor2uk]

2 hours ago, andrew s said:

We have had QFT since the late 1950s that give a very clear picture. As it's a field theory waves won out with "particles" with mass only being localised in some special circumstances. Massless "particles" e.g. photon, can't be localised at all. 

In its QED form it has been experimentally verified to 1 in 10^-8 for its perdition of the fine structure constant. For QCD we have the standard model which has yet to be overthrown dispite the effort of many and millions of Euro. 

Unfortunately,  it serves the pop science market to keep it mysterious with talk of waves-particles and spooky action at a distance.

I am not sure why educators still stick to the historical approach (via wave particle duality) maybe @saac  can shine some light on that.

Regards Andrew 

 

 

QED can calculate things to amazing accuracy. It doesn't mean we know what a photon actually is. If you think we do, then you are wrong.

[saac]

39 minutes ago, Xilman said:

To coin a phrase: that is a little local difficulty,

No ${DEITY}-given reason to set an upper limit of class sizes.

It is a long standing practice in Scotland to limit the class size of all practical subjects to 20. Allowing amongst other things for adequate supervision while conducting practical tasks.  It is not seen as any sort of difficulty really, local or otherwise.  Not sure what the situation is elsewhere in the UK but I would be surprised to see that similar arrangements were not in place.  So sure, no God given reason just local Authorities, Unions , and the  Association of Science Education, Royal College of Science and COSLA all working together to form a working agreement.  

Jim 

[andrew s]

1 minute ago, iantaylor2uk said:

QED can calculate things to amazing accuracy. It doesn't mean we know what a photon actually is. If you think we do, then you are wrong.

In that sense we don't know what anything actually is. What's a table or chair? What's water or air?

All we have are mental or mathematical models

 Regards Andrew 

[iantaylor2uk]

The attached article is from 2003 - well after QED was formulated - there are clearly many physicists out there that still don't consider we understand what a photon is.

what is a photon.pdf

[Macavity]

56 minutes ago, Xilman said:

Common sense ( compound noun ) a frequently used oxymoron.

Don't worry! I used to find "The Big Bang Theory" (TV prog) slightly funny...
But mostly an irritating stereotype - I now realise it was a Documentary! 😅
The idea they might have benefitted from *practical* experience / reality?

Edited August 9, 2023 by Macavity

[saac]

52 minutes ago, Macavity said:

Don't worry! I used to find "The Big Bang Theory" (TV prog) slightly funny...
But mostly an irritating stereotype - I now realise it was a Documentary! 😅
The idea they might have benefitted from *practical* experience / reality?

The best line from The Big Bang Theory - from Sheldon "Engineering, the slower younger brother of Physics".  

Jim

[Ouroboros]

5 minutes ago, saac said:

The best line from The Big Bang Theory - from Sheldon "Engineering, the slower younger brother of Physics".  

Jim

…. and often, though not always, wrong. Usually the physics is the easy bit. Making it work. ie the engineering, is the tricky bit.  

[VNA]

Hello, the more one knows, the richer one's life will be.

Education is a life long endeavor.  Besides, curiosity is so much fun!

[andrew s]

23 minutes ago, VNA said:

Hello, the more one knows, the richer one's life will be.

Education is a life long endeavor.  Besides, curiosity is so much fun!

Absolutely Regards Andrew 

[Xilman]

2 hours ago, andrew s said:

In that sense we don't know what anything actually is. What's a table or chair? What's water or air?

All we have are mental or mathematical models

 Regards Andrew 

Try asking a secondary school teacher why everything, the Earth included, doesn't fall to the centre of the Earth because of gravity.

Rather hard to explain without a qualitative knowledge of Fermi-Dirac statistics. With that knowledge, easily explicable to kids 10 years old or younger (again, I have practical experience), the answer is obvious.

[Bivanus]

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes , but it depends on the domain. Not certain I would like being in the same area with somebody having a practical approach to …ahem...atmospheric thermonuclear reactions 😁 

Interrogative answer: How many of us remember who Lee de Forest was without looking it up ? Having look it up , what was he in your eyes - a theoretician or a practician ?

[Xilman]

8 minutes ago, Bivanus said:

Interrogative answer: How many of us remember who Lee de Forest was without looking it up ? Having look it up , what was he in your eyes - a theoretician or a practician ?

At least one: me.

Both, IMAO. The two are not exclusive.

[saac]

13 minutes ago, Xilman said:

Try asking a secondary school teacher why everything, the Earth included, doesn't fall to the centre of the Earth because of gravity.

Rather hard to explain without a qualitative knowledge of Fermi-Dirac statistics. With that knowledge, easily explicable to kids 10 years old or younger (again, I have practical experience), the answer is obvious.

I think explaining to children age 10 that the consequences of the half integer spin property of fermions prevents Earth's collapse against its gravitational field would be somewhat questionable and the motives rather unclear!

Jim 

Edited August 9, 2023 by saac

[saac]

43 minutes ago, VNA said:

Hello, the more one knows, the richer one's life will be.

Education is a life long endeavor.  Besides, curiosity is so much fun!

I cannot honestly think of any alternative way to live a life. 

Jim 

[Xilman]

Just now, saac said:

I think explaining to children age 10 that the consequences of the half integer spin property of fermions prevents Earth's collapse against it's gravitational field would be somewhat questionable and the motives rather unclear!

I said "qualitive".

The explanation for 10 year olds: many particles, including the electrons in the atoms which make up you, the Earth and everything are called "fermions". Experiments have shown convincingly that two fermions can't be in the same place at the same time (a simplification I gloss over because I do not want to explain spin at this point) so they have to keep a minimum distance apart. Gravity tries to squash them together, this is counteracted by the fermions not wanting to be squidged too close together.

Some other particles, such as photons which are particles of light, are called bosons.  Bosons are different from fermions because they can all be squidged together in some situations. This is the main reason why a laser pointer has a very narrow beam, is a single colour, and looks speckly.  (Again I over simplify).

When the explanation is done face-to-face I draw diagrams and go into slightly more detail. I do, of course, answer the inevitable questions as best I can.