h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Do idealistic first-year physics students think about the Big Questions of life come this new millennium? In between lectures, do they get together to discuss the epistemological conundrums of quantum theory or the latest challenges to the Big-Bang theory of the universe? I can remember long, long coffee-saturated nights musing on these matters as a student. I don't miss the lectures, but I do miss the intellectual background radiation.

At Durham its wierd. Because we're all split up into colleges, my friends from physics and the people I mix with out of college are very different. So I'm more likely to have an in-depth discussion about theology than physics, although I do occasionally. Most of the other physics students who aren't in 1st year here I know through choir, so we're more likely to talk about Purcell.
Thanks for visiting
Joanna

Thinking about that post again, I do wish that we did discuss physics, and that people weren't inclined to give me the eyes popping out look when I say I'm a physics student. But I think that as yet [after one term] most of us don't understand as much about some of the bigger questions relating to physics to discuss them properly yet.. I find it easier to hazard a guess in other subjects, whereas in physics I always have to think when I don't definitely know the answer 'what have I missed, or what don't I know that turns this theory upside down'
My other chatting physics problem is that, in a house surrounded by arts students, I would actually do better talking greek, 'cause some of them do greek modules.

This mix of arts and science sounds very healthy. Do you think more arts-oriented people would get interested in physics at school if it was actually taught with less certainty and with an acknowledgement of the mysteries at its core? What has always been exciting for me about physics is what we don't know, but that never really gets aired. We learn Newton's equations of gravitation at school, but completely miss out on the wonders of relativity. It's no wonder people cannot relate to the subject because all the really beautiful physics is censored early on.

I think that if the history of science was taught at school it may make it more accessible, but people who are going to be scientists shouldn't be deprived of the grounding they need, similarly artists shouldn't have physics rammed down their necks like some sort of bitter pill.
The trouble with saying that this is Newtonian mechanics, but it doesn't work, but we teach it to you anyway, I suppose, is that it makes people think whats the point? Special relativity could, I suppose be taught without all those horrendous equations to back it up, as probably lots of physics could.
The people behind the physics that we study today could also be included in the course, they have fascinating stories, as could the theories people had which were blatantly untrue, and even in some cases lies.
I find it really hard to see the beauty of physics through the equations sometimes, and then its like: this constant is c, the speed of light, and it comes up in so many contexts... wow!
but today the equation we studied in Quantum Mechanics was patently un-beautiful... but then it had the interest that its creator desparately searched for an alternative, before accepting it.
I think a lot of peoples trouble with physics is that its *physics*, and everone thinks its spectacularly difficult and horrible, and so they don't give it a chance.
But I really don't know.

You make some good points. The history of science contains some of the most amazing detective stories. The story behind the formulation of quantum theory is quite enthralling, and to learn the physics without the historical background would be very dull. My fear is that quantum physics is still being taught as quantum MECHANICS - as a technique for mechanically grinding out numeric solutions - as opposed to quantum THEORY - as a tentative descriptive theory which happens to work in paractice fantastically well despite us not really knowing why.

I shall be interested to get your reaction to the magic of renormalisation when you come across it - if you haven't already that is.

Also, do I assume that your un-beautiful equation was Schrodinger's? There are, of course, a variety of mathematical formalisms for expressing quantum theory, which although very different can be shown to reduce to the same thing. I think I have to agree that the beauty of the mathematics is not readily apparent; indeed it's very deep. I have to say that I never discovered that beauty until years after university - which is a regret.

No, we haven't quite got to Schroedinger, we've only had 2 QM lectures so far. It was Planck's, for describing Black Body radiation curves, in such a way as to avoid the Ultraviolet Catastrope.
And ultraviolet catastrophe sounds quite good.
Schroedinger's equation is un-beautiful too... they showed it to us in maths, and I have this sneaking suspicion that it was primarily to scare us

You’re probably right. They are trying to scare you a little. It gives them power. But, in a way, you have more power - to understand in a deeper way - because you are entering the arena with (hopefully) fewer preconceptions. It is very easy to pretend that an understanding of the mathematics leads to an understanding of the meaning. In fact, the very opposite is true: the better our understanding of the mathematics, the greater our apparent powerlessness before an understanding of the meaning – the more inexplicable it all seems to be. I can state with some confidence that very soon you will understand no less about what Schrodinger’s equation actually means than your lecturers. I hope you find that prospect exciting. It certainly still fires my imagination.

I’m very glad you get WOWed by c. Give h a chance too. It’s only a very tiny number, but just as remarkable in its own way.

It seems bizarre to think I'd understand as much as my lecturers
Something exciting from this morning, I had my lab, and we were studying something to do with the Rydberg constant [at this point you'll realize I didn't read the experimental very carefully before plunging in... generally if I read it beforehand it makes me feel so discouraged that I'd almost (not quite) invent some hypercondriac disease to avoid going].
We had a diffraction grating all set up, and we were measuring the angles of sodium D1 lines. First of all we had hardly any light coming through the slit, but then we couldn't find the second order lines, so we increased the intensity, and then there were red lines and green lines as well as the orange ones, just like there were in the picture in my physics classroom last year. That was exciting
[as well as the fact that the lab worked for once]
Then we used hydrogen to find the Balmer lines H-alpha, beta & gamma, which were important in our astronomy course for the classification of stars.
I suppose another problem with secondary level physics is that the practicals are inclned to a) not work or b) be very predictable. I remember when I was in year 9 [at age 13/14] we had a practical on whether or not putting certain metals in water would result in an exothermic or endothermic reaction [I think]. My teacher was not impressed when I asked her if I could skip doing the next metal, since the last three had been exothermic, and there was no apparent reason for this one to be any different. She said no, and it was exothermic.
I'll be sure to give h a chance, don't worry.
Joanna

I hope I'm not barging in, but I also have been a physics student - and I can agree with you that the Black Body radiation equation isn't very pretty...However, when you look at the background radiation throughout the universe and consider the BB radiation curve...that's really cool. At least I thought so when I took Quantum physics.

I think the equations are very rarely beautiful in themselves (the exception would have to be E=mc^2), it's their implications that can be beautiful. I'm still fascinated with Maxwell's Equations - the fact that soo much can be written down in 4 lines of math. I love that.

F

'Course you're not barging in!
Re: Maxwells equations: I guess it is quite amazing, put that way.
Unfortunately at the moment they remain just so much maths, but I hope that this will change soon, too.
Joanna

That sort of practical would be exciting. My practical physics career ended at the age of 13 when I dropped the subject in disgust at the teaching. A bit like your experience, I couldn’t see the point of doing these boring experiments which rarely worked and gave completely predictable results. In fact, I thought, rather arrogantly in retrospect, what’s the point of doing ANY experiment that’s been done before. I did persevere with Chemistry, but I was proud of being recognised as the worst practical chemist in the school. I was won over by Mathematics, the queen of sciences – much less messy. Anyway, I’m glad you stuck with the subject. You mention an astronomy course. Are you interested in cosmology?

Absolutely agreed. To think about the microwave background radiation and observe that perfect black-body curve is astonishing. This is abstract theoretical physics made real in the most dramatic way possible. However, I don't believe it to represent the echo of the Big Bang. I have an alternative theory which is rather beautiful, but that will have to wait because it is too late right now. I also like to be mysterious - especially deep into the night.

Actually, if you're interested in my unconventional lines of thought you may care to visit the forum "Mountains" where I give the game away.

An aside from an outside, interested, virtual observer! Although I hope I don't dilute the discussion.

The up/down side of Education:
All our experiences and love of subjects seem crucially to relate to how and by whom we were taught. Feeding the eager, interested mind is paramount in our education system but which probably fails more times than it succeeds. Unfortunately the E system is weighted towards the minority than the majority. In my experience teachers who transcend the problems of personality and 'deliver' their subject to appeal to most, occur in schools about as frequently as blue moons.

I wonder, if we took a straw poll, how many of us ended up missing out on something because of poor teaching, facilities or the intransigence of those 'in control' of our Education?
-1

Having to admit my total ignorance here, I still haven't quite sorted out which is cosmology, and which is astrophysics, and which is astronomy. Don't think to badly of me, I've always been given them lumped together. I looked up cosmology on Merriam-Webster, "a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory
dealing with these matters", according to that I think I am.
I can't think of mathmatics as the queen of the sciences, rather I'll pretend to take my A-level physics teacher's view and say that physics is the only real subject: Maths is the language we use to describe physics, chemistry is the physics of atoms... biology is the physics of organic systems... I've not quite worked out what english is under this system yet though.
I also used to think that there was no point in repeating an experiment, now I think there's no point in re-doing an experiment that you know won't work, which probably rules out most secodary level experiments. What I said isn't quite what I meant... I suffer from a chronic lack of words.
-1, I keep wondering why I like astrophysics/astronomy/whatever. I didn't get taught much specifically 'till my Origins & Nature course this year, but I wonder if its because I did keep looking at the stars whenever I could see them. I remember taking a obsessive interest in Neptune in a project in year 9 [with the teacher I mentioned earlier in this thread, in my class I was the only person who admitted to liking her], but I think I was intrinsically interested beforehand. Lucky me; if I hadn't have been my physics career would be over already, my GCSE science teacher said he didn't understand GCSE physics. Nice.
I dislike my Phases of Matter course, but I wonder whether my Origins lectures were fascinating because of the subject or the lecturer, and if another lecturer took Phases of Matter I'd like it more.

Just a thought but isn't the real subject 'LIFE' in a universal sense? All other subjects, physics, chemistry, maths, english etc, are just languages which seem to be the best way of describing, understanding or interpreting an aspect of this? Consequently we have segmented and pigeon-holed 'subjects' as such and missed the universal whole that all things are related to LIFE?

Perhaps, when we find we are interested in a subject for whatever reason, teachers, chance, etc, we should stick with our intuition more and rely on our own strengths to follow that path to a conclusion. I remember when I was studying for a psychology degree I was continually frustrated by not being able to follow an interesting path to its conclusion by the pressure of having to know something else! I realise that we need a general view as well as a specific but there should be time allowed to follow one's bees, if you get my meaning?

As to your lack of words there is ample evidence here that you do not. I marvel at them for you seem very assured and learned. Perhaps what you mean is rather, like Eric Morcombe (sp?), you have all the right words (notes) but they are not necessarily in the right order! More power to your verbosity.....ventis secundis, tene cursum! (go with the flow)

PS here's an excuse (I noted you were looking for them somewhere!) for late or failed work delivery: Canis meus id comedit!
-1

Its all so much clearer when I think it. I know what I feel, and I see the impression on the screen, but they don't match

I'm the opposite. It's so much clearer when I write it down, unfortunately that's when I see all the holes and realise what pontification means! I suffer from 'holographical opinions/sight' (just thought of that) which leave me holding neither one view nor another but bits of many. To say one thing is so, is difficult unless you know everything!
-1

I refer you to Betrand Russell's 5 minute read on 'How I Write' which may be of some use to you:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/2795/how_i_write.htm

-1

Thats very interesting, thanks.