By Christopher Moore
Edward Morely advocated the end of “Physics for Poets” yesterday at insidehighered.com. Or did he? Although I believe he is not advocating the end to physics classes for non-majors, I think he does take issue with the conventional wisdom of how such classes should be taught.
Conventional wisdom … has it that there are three basic elements that go into making up a good non-majors science course. First, the class should cover a relatively narrow range of topics…
Second, the topic chosen as the focus of the course should be something relatively modern…
The third element is perhaps the most important: the course should involve the minimum possible amount of math.
I definitely agree with Morely that this is the prevailing attitude among college (and high school) administrations and fellow faculty. These basic elements are not completely misguided, but polling non-science educators about what works in and should be done in science classes will always lead to something stupid!
Why do we require science classes for non-science majors? Morely states:
Science for non-majors offers an important chance to reach out to students outside the sciences, and try to give them some appreciation for scientific inquiry. This is critically important, as we live in a time where science itself is under political assault from both the left and right.
Or as I like to say: Physics is a liberal arts education for a technological society. Anyway, asking why non-science majors have to take science is like asking why non-english majors have to take a literature class, or why non-art majors have to take some sort of fine arts class. Neither required English nor required art is under attack. If you want a college degree you have to have a basic command of the English language. Makes sense to me.
But why do we keep dumbing down math and physics classes? Let’s look at the points above.
Although it is completey appropriate for one to have an understanding of both verbs and adjectives, requiring a non-science student to conceptually grasp both force and electric potential may be asking too much. I’m not quite sure how one would go about constructing a physics class with a “narrow range of topics.”
But if you could create such a class, how good could it possibly be if we’re confined to teach only “relatively modern” topics. Once again I’m at a loss. How do I teach someone about, say, Organic Light Emitting Diodes (OLEDs) without broaching the concepts of force and electrical potential … or just about any other basic concept of physics … or chemistry. And while we’re on the subject, how am I supposed to teach students how a television works without refering to an electron gun?
And if we’re to impart an appreciation of scientific inquiry, then how am I to do so without at least acknowledging the tools that make such possible.
So do we trash “Physics for Poets”?
Morely doesn’t have much of a solution, and neither do I. A general disdain for math and science is ingrained in our culture. The only way we can reverse that is by changing the culture of education from elementary school on. “Physics for Poets” has to become just as stupid a concept as “Poetry for Physicists” is now.
The main reason math and science gets back-of-the-bus treatment in secondary school is that elementary teachers are largely psychology majors, middle school teachers are mostly english and history majors, and high-school teachers are teaching science subjects they never even took in college. And these folks were able to get their degrees without the need to be competent at basic algebra.
I’m gearing up for a cultural revolution. Who’s with me?
By Christopher Moore
Solid state physicists are contributing to the battle against terrorism. And unfortunately for pseudoscientist “new paradigm” theory hawkers, quantum physics has another application.
In this article, PhysOrg.com discusses newly developed Avalanche Photodiodes (APDs) and their application in the war on bio-terror.
Once optimized, these sensitive detectors could be combined with the ultraviolet light-emitting diodes (LEDs) already pioneered by the Center for Quantum Devices to create an inexpensive detection system capable of identifying the unique spectral fingerprints of a biological agent attack.
The APD technology may see further use in the deployment of systems for secure battlefield communication. Wavelengths around 280 nanometers are referred to as the solar-blind region; in this region, the UV light is filtered out by the ozone layer providing for a naturally low background signal. Solar-blind APDs are intrinsically able to take advantage of this low background level, while PMTs must use external filters to become solar-blind. This makes secure battlefield communication possible utilizing a combination of compact, inexpensive UV LEDs and UV APDs both developed at the Center for Quantum Devices.
You can learn more about how APDs work here.
Solar blind APDs rely on the wide band-gap AlGaN semiconductor. Unfortunately, current AlGaN growth techniques lead to a large number of crystalline defects. But the Center for Quantum Devices reports AlGaN crystals exhibiting solar blind avalanche gain.
My research group has worked on GaN defect reduction. A recent paper on these efforts can be found here.
By Christopher Moore
I spent the weekend surfing. After a few days of work, I hope to spend the rest of this week surfing.
Ok, so I attempted to surf. My normally consistent ability to stand up was foiled by the combination of gravity and rushing water. And typical grace took a back seat to awkward collapse followed by pummeling by wave and board.
When I decided to learn to play golf, I read. I read about swing mechanics, club speed, shaft flex, etc. I did the same with surfing, and reading acomplished about as much in this instance as it did with golf — little to nothing. The concept is simple. A wave pushes a board. You stand up on the board while this is happening. That’s it. There is some physics in there, too. Balance is important. But the concept is simple.
The same is true with concepts in physics. They are simple. We see them in action everyday. But just like my surfing experience, and golf before that, understanding the idea doesn’t necessarily mean I can solve the problem right away.
I spent a few years playing golf before I got to the point where I considered myself adequate. By the end of this week I hope to stand up on the board at least once, even if it’s for only a few seconds. I get better with practice.
I’ve been working with physics for almost 10 years in school and in my profession. I have not yet and will never master the subject. But I get better each time I try. Once you understand the concepts, you just have to continually practice standing up.
By Christopher Moore
I was reminded yesterday of how my former advisor as an undergraduate used to distinguish between experimentalists and theorists:
“An experimentalist can fix your car. A theorist can read the manual and tell you why it doesn’t work.”
I was reminded of that yesterday when in the beginning of the day I was asked about some problem in Quantum Mechanics to which I had no idea. Later in the day I was beating the underside of my truck with a hammer trying to replace an oxygen sensor. I work on half-million dollar German vacuum systems every day, so I was pretty sure I could figure out a two thousand dollar American truck.
I got the truck running without ever looking at the manual. I still don’t know how to begin the QM problem after reading at least four books on the subject.
By Christopher Moore
The successful flight of Burt Rutan’s SpaceShipOne not only won the Ansari X-prize, but it also set off a flurry of activity in the fledgling space tourism industy. As I reported here, Richard Branson already has paying customers lined up to be the first space tourists hitching a ride on a non-governmental rocket.
That’s exciting news.
But as Alan Boyle reports on MSNBC, the government is “riding to the rescue” to save poor, innocent people from the dangers of space flight. God bless them for once again attempting to stifle a young (nearly non-existent) industry. Here’s how Boyle descibes a bill before Congress:
In its original as well as its amended form, the bill lays out the process for licensing suborbital space vehicles so that they could carry paying passengers — something that SpaceShipOne, for example, is not allowed to do. The Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation already issues suborbital launch licenses, but the new legislation would have put the FAA’s procedures on firmer footing.
The law also would have allowed customers to fly on those space vehicles, provided that they were fully informed about the risks and signed a consent form.
The House approved the original version by a 402-1 vote, but when it went over to the Senate side, it became caught up in negotiations — at first, over the definitions of space vehicle, then over the bill’s safety priorities.
In the amended version, the FAA is repeatedly charged with looking after the “safety of crew and spaceflight participants” as well as public health and safety. The original bill notes that “space transportation is inherently risky,” while the amended version adds this phrase: “but the industry should be held to the highest standards of safety when transporting humans.”
Let’s forget for a second that the single most dangerous activity one could participate in is driving to work. Nevermind for a short while that people “jump out of perfectly good airplanes” daily with very little government involvement. Don’t consider the thousands of people who hang from steep, tall rocks or those silly folks who get a kick out of swimming in deep, cold water.
People do dangerous, stupid stuff. But the government doesn’t even bother to hold theme parks to “the highest standards of safety.” When I got SCUBA certified, a private citizen representing a private organization taught me and certified me. I taught myself how to rock climb. I used to do it all the time, and I never asked or told the government what I ws doing. I do really stupid stuff in my garage all the time, and I’ve never had a government agent stop by. I’m still alive, too.
But this legislation is different. We’re talking about GOING INTO SPACE. So of course government must get involved, right? Here’s what Glenn Reynolds has to say about this:
Regulation of commercial space passengers should be based on ensuring the highest standards of safety for third parties — nobody consents, as part of everyday life, to the risk of having a rocket come down on top of him. But where passengers are concerned, it’s another story. We ought to let people consent to the risks, both the known risks and the “known and unknown unknowns” regarding problems we can’t really anticipate in detail.
Sure. I conceed that it would be a bad idea to allow just anyone to light up a huge rocket anywhere they please. I’d be a little miffed if I woke up to find my neighbor’s rocket sitting in my kitchen. I feel the same way about my neighbor’s kids, dogs, and bullets. That’s why there are laws against trespass, for fences, and against shooting at my windows.
But as Reynolds points out, people understand risk. And so long as they understand the risk, and don’t harm anyone else, let ‘em fly. I think my neighbor’s German Shepard is a big, dangerous dog. I wouldn’t own one. I’d be afraid it would eat my kids. But he knows and understands the risks and has a nice, tall fence.
What would the revised version of this congrssional bill do for space tourism? It would kill it. You can’t insure the “safety of crew and spaceflight participants.” This Space.com article suggests that the FAA understands the issue:
Our first concern will be the safety of the uninvolved public, making sure that as this grows and develops that we’re doing everything we can to protect the folks on the ground, to make sure that the people who go into space understand the risks,” she said. “It will be a risky business for many years to come, no doubt.
Why can’t the congress listen? I still have hope that I will one day leave Earth atmosphere. The market always seems to survive, even while being held beneath the fluffy pillow of government regulation. I’d rather it thrived. And that’s why I’m voting for this man on November 2. And if the media would pay him some notice, I’m sure many more would follow suit.
By Christopher Moore
The rover Opportunity discovered more evidence of a watery past for the Marsian surface. For more see this article.
Data sent back by Opportunity suggests an area known as the Meridiani Planum, was drenched with water a second time, after an impact excavated a huge crater.
The rover project’s main mission has been to discover evidence that water may have flowed on Mars. If there was water, there was the possibility for life.
The big questions on most people’s minds, though, is: Who cares? How does life on Mars affect me?
Many scientists believe that Mars used to be teaming with life, much like an early, premordial Earth. For some reason, Mars became a barren ice planet and Earth became what we all sit atop today. Why?
Why did Mars fall victim to a cold death while Earth thrived? Could Earth be facing the same fate? If so, can we stop it?
These are the questions being addressed by our probing of the Marsian surface. The science behind these missions may well save our collective lives one day.
It may even be possible for us to “jump start” Mars and bring her back to life. Another habitable planet next door could accomodate our growing population and depleting resources. The resources offered by Mars could make our very existence more long-lived.
For those who consider the human race a virus and have no concern for the survival of the species … well you don’t care anyway. I, on the other hand, am ready to hop aboard a Rubicon rocket, enjoy my layover on the moon, and set-up camp on Mars.
By Christopher Moore
While you wait for ilovephysics.com to be revived from the ashes, visit my Science Blog at SciencePundit.com.
Next Entries »
