| Subject: RE: Physics theory Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 17:52:56 -0600 Dear
          Philip,  Checked
          it briefly, and like what you are doing there.  Suggest
          for the "standard" two-slit experiment you reference Feynman
          in his three volumes of physics. 
          That's far more accurate and exact than the limited papers I
          write, sometimes in haste under the press of affairs. 
          Also, for the full treatment, check publications by Wheeler and
          others, particularly on the "Delayed choice" two-slit
          experiment, which just about totally destroys our naïve concept of a
          "fixed thing moving through space" like a ship through
          water.  The
          earlier that students can be introduced to such novel but valid
          concepts and foundations experiments, the more comfortable they will
          be with these things when they are hit by them in sophomore and junior
          physics at a whale of a pace.  In
          my personal view, the young students -- even still in high school --
          should also be introduced to the fact that there are still questions
          on foundations in physics, and that a literature exists on these
          foundations issues, some of which still are not solved.  The
          other thing that is terribly important is that the students be at
          least conceptually acquainted with the fact that there are two major
          types of thermodynamics, that of systems in equilibrium with their
          active environment (the standard classical thermodynamics) and that of
          systems far from equilibrium with their active environment.  Another
          thing that would really be nice is for the student to be introduced to
          the fact that we use "models" in physics, and these models
          themselves are never to be taken as absolute or impeccable (Godel's
          theorem).  Instead, we
          make a model that fits the phenomena in a given area of experiments,
          and then in that area the model is "valid" (i.e., it can be
          used to make predictions).  For
          other areas outside that "fitted" area, the model may not
          capture the phenomena and may give the wrong results. 
          Either we improve the model in that case, or we form another
          model for that new area.  E.g.,
          for the photon there are at least four different models of the photon,
          all contradicting each other.  But
          each applies well in its own area. 
          So physicists quit arguing a long time ago on that question,
          and just use the appropriate one of those models in its appropriate
          area.  One of the biggest
          problems in young students is that somewhere along the line it got
          drummed into them that the models were "perfect" and Moses
          brought them down off the mountain with him on those stone tablets. 
          Once this notion is very firmly implanted, then that student is
          in risk of going on to become a dogmatic scientist who never will
          progress past the "usual accepted models". He may do good
          applied work, but will likely never do very much to make some new
          advances in physics.  Best
          wishes, Tom
          Bearden Subject:
          Physics theory  |