Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Question about Quarks and the Standard Model



Hi Paul-
Well, at some primitive level, I feel your pain.
I was tempted to pontificate on the process of ``science'' (whatever that is) but I think that the problem extends to whatever teachers do. So here's my take, along with a suggestion:
Teachers can only teach material for which the have supporting material. Most elementary physics textbooks, today, refer to the wave-particle duality, because that is the way that the authors were taught, and most of them have never been in such research as would challenge that characterization. So, unless you were to appoint my son (not a physicist, by the way) to burn all the books with the w-p heresy,
we're just going to have to live with it for a while, until the word gets around. Those who are involved in research involving coherent beams of massive (maybe that's the operative word) particles, will probably take a different view.
Moral: the subject matter that we teach is not static. Any textbook is, by its nature. outdated. The best we can do is to teach our best understanding of the subject matter, and to diligently stay abreast of developments in our subject matter.
On the other hand, here's a suggestion. I suppose that you, as a diligent teacher of physics, are a member of the AAPT. As a member, you are free to propose that the AAPT appoint a committee to review and update physics submissions to Wikipedia, and to submit proposed updates to the membership.
It's a free country. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Regards,
Jack


On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Paul Lulai wrote:

I am minimally familiar with the standard model and these levels discussion. I am not familiar with longitudinal and transverse forces. Aside from the general wave discussions of coherence and incoherence, I am not familiar with these terms applied to something non-wave-y. Is there a resource on line for help on these topics? I don't have a hard-copy reference for these questions.

I would plead with those on this list that do have high-levels of understanding in these areas to listen to Britton's request. Please do edit / contribute to wikipedia. I do not have a copy of Feynman's lectures. I know this is close to being a Cardinal Sin with this group. Regardless, I don't. I know that none of my students do.

HS students are hungry for information. They use different channels than those more experienced. HS & BS students will search out information online. If you can, why not make it accurate?

Thanks.

Paul Lulai
Physics Teacher
US First Robotics Teacher
..:: Medtronic - St Anthony RoboHuskie 2574 ::..
Science Olympiad Coach
3303 33rd Ave NE
St. Anthony Village Senior High
Saint Anthony Village, MN 55418
(w) 612-706-1144
(fax) 612-706-1020
plulai@stanthony.k12.mn.us
http://www.robohuskie.com <http://www.robohuskie.com/>
http://prettygoodphysics.wikispaces.com <http://prettygoodphysics.wikispaces.com/>
http://sites.google.com/site/go4st8physics/ <http://sites.google.com/site/go4st8physics/> <http://go4st8physics.wordpress.com/>
http://www.stanthony.k12.mn.us/hsscience/ <http://www.stanthony.k12.mn.us/hsscience/>



________________________________

From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu on behalf of Jack Uretsky
Sent: Sun 12/14/2008 1:15 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Question about Quarks and the Standard Model



On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, chuck britton wrote (in part):
Can't I use the analogy of
wave => incoherent and
particle => coherent
as a warm-up exercise?
or is there too much evil lurking in the words wave and particle for
this to be acceptible?)
__________________________________________
If you think of an electron as a particle and an electromagnetic
wave as representing your idea of a wave, the answer is, "no". As Feynman
predicted, and as has been demonstrated more recently, a beam of
electrons, no matter how attenuated, can be made to show diffraction
patterns (that, in fact, is why electron microscopes work). So the
problem with wave-particle is to specify what you mean by ``particle'', a
non-trivial task. A coherent beam will show diffraction phenomena, an
incoherent beam will not -it doesn't seem to matter what the beam is made
of.
Bottom line: coherent-incoherent is not the 1:1 equivalent of
wave-particle.
Regards,
Jack



--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley