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

["Alby Reid" <alby@bleary-id.co.uk>]

> QUIT BITCHING ABOUT PHYSICS ARTICLES IN THE WIKIPEDIA AND START FIXING
> THEM!!!!!

Seconded.


Alby

--
Alby <alby@bleary-id.co.uk>

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of chuck
britton
Sent: 14 December 2008 13:58
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Question about Quarks and the Standard Model

I also, hope to enjoy learning about this stuff.



On Dec 13, 2008, at Dec 13(Sat) 10:44 , Jack Uretsky wrote:

  	No, the coulomb force does not come from the "exchange of gauge
> bosons (the photon)".  Photons exert only transverse forces; the  
> coulomb
> force is longitudinal.

	hmmm, never put these two facts together.
	I'll have to rank this right up there as a major misconception.
		gotta pull out those Feynman Lectures.
			but just a word or two before I locate the books -
would be  
appreciated.

>  I do NOT recommend the Wikipedia article,

	Ok, here comes one of my MAJOR beefs with the physics folk  
represented on this list AND in other venues of recent years.
	Wikipedia articles are collaborations of 'experts' in the  
appropriate fields.
	There are controversial articles that are actually 'moderated' to  
hold down the writings of certified nutcases.
	These articles are often on religious or political topics  - NOT on

physics topics.
	The physics community needs to grow up and realize that 'we' can  
indeed work together to produce a non-judgmental, neutral point of  
view (NPoV) discussion of ANY topic related to physics.
	It's not easy, never will be.
	Worthwhile endeavors rarely ARE easy.
	But don't we owe it to the world to TRY to create non-judgmental and

NPoV discussions of our favorite topics - so that the world can  
benefit from our collective 'wisdom'?
	My humble request is that we -

			QUIT BITCHING ABOUT PHYSICS ARTICLES IN THE
WIKIPEDIA AND
				START FIXING THEM!!!!!

(I would HOPE that we could do better than the religio-politico  
nutcases in this regard.)

moving on:
> or any other discussion that speaks of ``wave-particle
> duality'' which, in my view, is a nonsense concept (for the benefit  
> of the
> more advanced practitioner, Bardeen, among others taught us that the
> relevant dichotomy is coherence and incoherence).

	ok, it's coherence vs incoherence. I think that I can appreciate  
this dichotomy.
	But, as a dedicated pedagog who wants to bring as much understanding

as I can to the 'great unwashed' -
	must I put aside the wave/particle words when dealing with true  
beginners?
	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?)

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