Should Science be a *practical* thing?

[andrew s]

3 hours ago, iantaylor2uk said:

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 1.29 MB · 3 downloads

Yes, I read that some years ago. It just goes to show how enigmatic photons are, the most difficult of quantum "particles ". However, if you read any criticism of what is art you would find just as much variation and confusion. 

I recall an issue of what a Farm is in US law. The conclusion was that anything important enough was in effect too difficult to pin down.

As with all models defining terms for "useful " components or elements depends on perspective and is in some sense a matter of choice. 

What one understand by terms like electron or table are dependant on ones formal education, culture and motivation. 

Bring it back to @Macavity point what a scientists can gain from it, likes, notoriety or income. Photonics expects seem to get by ok.

Regards Andrew 

Edited August 9, 2023 by andrew s

[Macavity]

Getting repetative now, but:

"If your hands aren't dirty, you haven't done science"! 😎
https://www.csusm.edu/stem/documents/testimonials/jaqueline.pdf

At risk of siding with "health freaks", the above might enhance the
physical/mental well-being of Scientists? It cannot be good for you
just making Youtube Videos re. how your: "Nobel Prize was stolen"...
Or listening to others re. how you: "Didn't deserve one anyway"! 😅

"Bronies" - Uhm, OK!  But, another possibility for "What a Scientist
looks like"? I remember one who looked pretty much LIKE this...
So: "Get in touch with your Inner Hardware Guy/Gal"! 🤣

Edited August 10, 2023 by Macavity

[andrew s]

28 minutes ago, Macavity said:

Get in touch with your Inner Hardware Guy...

I did an experimental PhD it involved woodwork, metalwork, plumbing,  electronics (lots of soldering), stick and ball models (plasticine, tooth picks and group theory), bent paper clips and window cleaning (laser mirrors).

All good life skills. However, the group theory and Raman scattering of laser light by crystals of moly slip (more generally transition metal dicalcogenieds ) proved a good in to astronomical spectroscopy but little else. 

Memories what memories. 

Regards Andrew 

 

[AstroKeith]

Timely piece of news. Talks about a 'showdown' between theoreticians and experimenters.🍿

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66407099

[andrew s]

31 minutes ago, AstroKeith said:

Timely piece of news. Talks about a 'showdown' between theoreticians and experimenters.🍿

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66407099

This paper has a good discussion on the difficulties in doing the theoretical calculations. 

This diagram from the link shows the difference from two approaches 

Time and more experiments and theoretical number crunching will tell.

Regards Andrew 

[Macavity]

Fermilab just streamed it live... Haven't got to the "clincher" (or not) bit yet! 😛
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMB1znns4lQ
 

 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Macavity

[saac]

21 hours ago, Xilman said:

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.

Ok you now have 43 minutes of the remaining 45 minute period left - smoke on go !

Jim

[saac]

I must admit I do know a number of science teachers who are nervous about doing practical work in the class. Now this could be for a number of reasons but I couldn't survive without the practical element, take that away and you may as well be in a maths class. Of course we are not doing real science, we are just demonstrating what has been done by other more gifted souls but you still got to have fun   

Jim 

[AstroKeith]

As I understood it, efforts to 'close the gap' between Standard Model and experiments appear to do so, but in themselves rely on other 'new physics'. May be not such bold new physics, but new all the same.

Its been a long time since I truely understood particle physics, and wayback then it was a lot simpler to understand

[andrew s]

29 minutes ago, AstroKeith said:

wayback then it was a lot simpler to understand

Me too earth, fire, air and water. 😊 Regards Andrew 

Edited August 10, 2023 by andrew s

[Macavity]

I'll stick with: "the result is an Experimental tour de force"! 😎

Rather than a show-down between Theorists & Experimentalists
it is clear that the two have worked closely and in collaboration.
The discerepancy between experiment and the SM remains at
around Five Sigma - with future clarification a possibilty? 🙃

Not adding anything new, but I note the number of people
involved on both "sides" is around Dunbar's Number ...
Proabably advantageous in many ways? 😁

Edited August 11, 2023 by Macavity

[Macavity]

"Dreams of New Physics Fade..." - How (un)surprisingly Predictable? 🤣

Cue: "Team Anti-Mainstream (Science)"? With zero actual knowledge
of Science! Yet, I still feel *Slightly Sad* for Experimental Physicists. 😑

As remarked above: "Memories, what memories"... 🙂
 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Macavity

[saac]

4 hours ago, Macavity said:

"Dreams of New Physics Fade..." - How (un)surprisingly Predictable? 🤣

Cue: "Team Anti-Mainstream (Science)"? With zero actual knowledge
of Science! Yet, I still feel *Slightly Sad* for Experimental Physicists. 😑

As remarked above: "Memories, what memories"... 🙂
 

My spin is all over the place with this one  

Jim 

[malc-c]

Not read through the whole thread, but I too came from an era where the children in class could do their own experiments in groups or as individuals.  From simply things like producing hydrogen in chemistry (every kid gets a thrill out of hearing that pop and seeing the flash in the test tube), through to dissecting a rat  in biology.  We also had demonstrations for things that were too risky.  I remember our chemistry teacher demonstrating how a powder such as flour can become explosive using a large tin, length of rubber hose and a candle.  The resulting explosion left the lid embedded in the false ceiling ! - 

Several years ago there was a program where three scientist were challenged with getting 12 of the worst pupils that resided in one of the worst schools in London to pass their GCSE science a year early.  They had one girl who no matter what they did simply played up all the time.  She was removed half way through the allotted time as she was a bad influence on the rest.  The remaining 11 all passed their exams.  How, well the scientist taught them through practical examples, some of which the kids done.  They made science fun and the kids then wanted to learn more.  Granted some of the things were not what every school could do and were done for the program, but these lessons also changed the kids.  They became more respectful, their attitudes to teachers changed and they realized their own potential.

My kids hated science... (hated most lessens really) because it was boring.  Sat there watching a video demonstrating something rather than doing it themselves.  Reasons, probably cost, health and safety, the fear of being sued should little johnny prick his finger or similar.   

Edited August 11, 2023 by malc-c

[saac]

38 minutes ago, malc-c said:

Not read through the whole thread, but I too came from an era where the children in class could do their own experiments in groups or as individuals.  From simply things like producing hydrogen in chemistry (every kid gets a thrill out of hearing that pop and seeing the flash in the test tube), through to dissecting a rat  in biology.  We also had demonstrations for things that were too risky.  I remember our chemistry teacher demonstrating how a powder such as flour can become explosive using a large tin, length of rubber hose and a candle.  The resulting explosion left the lid embedded in the false ceiling ! - 

Several years ago there was a program where three scientist were challenged with getting 12 of the worst pupils that resided in one of the worst schools in London to pass their GCSE science a year early.  They had one girl who no matter what they did simply played up all the time.  She was removed half way through the allotted time as she was a bad influence on the rest.  The remaining 11 all passed their exams.  How, well the scientist taught them through practical examples, some of which the kids done.  They made science fun and the kids then wanted to learn more.  Granted some of the things were not what every school could do and were done for the program, but these lessons also changed the kids.  They became more respectful, their attitudes to teachers changed and they realized their own potential.

My kids hated science... (hated most lessens really) because it was boring.  Sat there watching a video demonstrating something rather than doing it themselves.  Reasons, probably cost, health and safety, the fear of being sued should little johnny prick his finger or similar.   

Re making and testing hydrogen they currently get to do that in S1 together with testing for oxygen and carbon dioxide and the giggles are very much present. Dissecting I do with S1 and S2 - sheep lungs and hearts but to be honest I prefer leaving it to my Biology colleagues (I hate mess in my lab).  The paint tin with flour is very much still in play and I'll use that throughout the year groups at various stages as it is useful for a variety of concepts (gas laws, energy conservation). Just before splitting for the summer holidays a group of S6 pupils came to see me for an idea for an experiment to use in an RE class where they had to produce a production around a natural/human disaster. They had built a model of Chernobyl and wanted something to emulate the explosion so the paint tin with caster sugar this time was perfect - we had fun practicing that one seeing how high would make the flame plume reach. My personal favourite is the collapsing 50 gallon oil drum set over a burning barbeque  then condensing the steam raised inside - the kids get a hell of a surprise when it suddenly collapses under atmos pressure. Science without practical in school is utterly shameful and simply should not happen - there is absolutely no joy in having somebody stand up and lecture you at that age on some esoteric topic - it has be demonstrated and the pupils need to be active in their engagement. I feel sorry for your daughter sounds like she was short changed. Then again I'm also open to the reality that for many pupils science is utterly dull and without joy or interest for them - for me that was accounting for business class - how I hated that. 

Now all of that said, and while every lesson should have some form of practical, science teaching and science teachers should not be reduced to entertainers for the sake of it or purveyors of pop science (I hate that bloody cat). There has to be a point to the practicals, they have to result in meaningful and relevant learning.  For too many pupils they want the former without the academic rigor that has to follow. 

Jim 

Edited August 11, 2023 by saac

[saac]

48 minutes ago, malc-c said:

My kids hated science... (hated most lessens really) because it was boring.  Sat there watching a video demonstrating something rather than doing it themselves.  Reasons, probably cost, health and safety, the fear of being sued should little johnny prick his finger or similar.   

I may well be wrong (happily defer to others more knowledgeable) but I belive in England schools will quite often employ science teachers who have no science qualification and hence these are most likely to be hesitant or incapable of running practical work.  In Scotland we were fortunate that we still retain our General Teaching Council which acts as the independent regulatory and professional body .  We retain graduate status for teachers and science teachers must hold an accredited science or relevant engineering degree.  There have been some legal challenges to the graduate status but so far I think we have prevailed. 

Jim 

Edited August 11, 2023 by saac

[Xilman]

22 hours ago, andrew s said:

Me too earth, fire, air and water. 😊 Regards Andrew 

Or, in modern terminology: solid, plasma, gas and liquid.

Still makes perfect sense and the classification still has its uses in science.

[Macavity]

In the 60/70's Physics perhaps lost out to Chemistry re. "excitement factor"?
But, in the early 70's, more *exciting* Physics, practical material, trickled in...
Oscilloscopes, an Led/Transistor plug-together Binary Counter demo! Some
perhaps even purchased by Teachers for their (everyone's) entertainment? 😎

But, aside from the *churlishness*, re. "Big Science" Experimental Physicists,
e.g. LHC papers now have *6000* Signatories, Time Scales (build to publish)
of Decades. Grad Students may mostly miss out on a "hardware experience".
The whole concept of a Ph.D. Thesis is different re. length and originality? 😉

The same with Space??? You build your Planetary Probe Detector, then wait
years for the data to be returned to earth? You might have retired by then?!?
Your Life's Work might... BLOW UP on the Launchpad? 😭 I wouldn't cope! 😅

Edited August 11, 2023 by Macavity

[Paul M]

This bloke would have surely been a YouTuber....

 

[malc-c]

5 hours ago, saac said:

Re making and testing hydrogen they currently get to do that in S1 together with testing for oxygen and carbon dioxide and the giggles are very much present. Dissecting I do with S1 and S2 - sheep lungs and hearts but to be honest I prefer leaving it to my Biology colleagues (I hate mess in my lab).  The paint tin with flour is very much still in play and I'll use that throughout the year groups at various stages as it is useful for a variety of concepts (gas laws, energy conservation). Just before splitting for the summer holidays a group of S6 pupils came to see me for an idea for an experiment to use in an RE class where they had to produce a production around a natural/human disaster. They had built a model of Chernobyl and wanted something to emulate the explosion so the paint tin with caster sugar this time was perfect - we had fun practicing that one seeing how high would make the flame plume reach. My personal favourite is the collapsing 50 gallon oil drum set over a burning barbeque  then condensing the steam raised inside - the kids get a hell of a surprise when it suddenly collapses under atmos pressure. Science without practical in school is utterly shameful and simply should not happen - there is absolutely no joy in having somebody stand up and lecture you at that age on some esoteric topic - it has be demonstrated and the pupils need to be active in their engagement. I feel sorry for your daughter sounds like she was short changed. Then again I'm also open to the reality that for many pupils science is utterly dull and without joy or interest for them - for me that was accounting for business class - how I hated that. 

Now all of that said, and while every lesson should have some form of practical, science teaching and science teachers should not be reduced to entertainers for the sake of it or purveyors of pop science (I hate that bloody cat). There has to be a point to the practicals, they have to result in meaningful and relevant learning.  For too many pupils they want the former without the academic rigor that has to follow. 

Jim 

Jim, that's pleasing and reassuring to hear that the same fundamentals are being practiced in current teaching...  Practical experiments and or demonstrations get turned into memories, especially if / or when they go slightly better than anticipated 🙂

  

[andrew s]

I always enjoyed practical science.  Pops, bangs, unintended explosions and the odd rogue projectile enlivened the day.

As did a near blind chemistry teacher spending some time trying to put a rubber bung into the wrong end of a test tube. He also created a flame thrower to melt a students bag. Having struck a match to light a Bunsen burner he could not get the rubber tube on the gas tap. As the flame reached his fingers he turned on the gas and lit it with the obvious result.

He was a brilliant chemist who help develop the first epoxy resins. He could also be easily distracted into his favourite topic fireworks and suitable demonstrations followed. He did nearly axasphyxate us demonstrating oxygen would burn in ammonia gas as well as vice versa.  (Health and Safety had yet to ..)

The one area I did find a tad tedious was organic chemistry.  Boiling up various clear liquids to produce another one with not quite melting or boiling point was somewhat dull.

One trick was to get in with the stores personnel where a request for a sample of the target chemical could pull said melting or boiling point into the correct range. 😊

Regards Andrew 

PS recalling my days at Cambridge College of Arts and Technology reminded me of the wonder of nature. The class was a mix of 11 plus failures (including me) doing A levels and foreign students. One day the teacher had obviously lost the students attention.  It had stated to snow and half the class had never seen it before. To his credit we stopped and went outside. Brilliant. 

Edited August 11, 2023 by andrew s

[JeremyS]

I recall only one visit of the Fire Brigade during Chemistry A Levels.

The master was demonstrating phosphorus chemistry by doing various reactions. He had forgotten that there was chlorine gas coming from another nearby practical.

We all learned that day that phosphorus spontaneously combusts in chlorine. And that it is almost impossible to put out when the reacting phosphorus starts burning through the lab bench, setting that on fire.

[saac]

Malc I totally agree and more often or not it catches you by surprise what a pupil remembers about a class from years back. For me, the practical work I remember from physics when I was a kid were the Maltase cross with the teltron tube (diffraction of electron beam) ,  the flame test with the alkali metals and while not necessarily enjoyable at the time the ticker tape contraptions we used for speed and acceleration investigations.  The other one is the pearls of water demo which uses a strobe light to freeze the motion of a water jet accelerating under gravity  - it shows the constant horizontal velocity and downward acceleration component of projectile motion. It's an impressive thing to see. I thought I had a video of a recent demo I did but I can only find a still.  Funny how these things stay with you though. 

Jim 

 

[George Jones]

18 hours ago, andrew s said:

Pops, bangs, unintended explosions and the odd rogue projectile enlivened the day.

Or intended (by the student!), as happened several years ago while I was teaching a second-year electricity and magnetism lab that involved capacitors. A student took hold of a capacitor and motioned like he was going stick the cap's leads into an electrical outlet. I said "Don't do that; it will explode!".  After I went to help another group of students, I heard a "Pop!" behind me. The student had taped a capacitor to the end of a plastic ruler with leads sticking out, and then had inserted the leads into the electrical outlet.