Re: [Phys-l] book/movie review: The Mechanical Universe

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>]

Hi all-
	I have been an advocate of "Mecanical Universe" for a number of 
years.  There are two editions. One, by Frautschi, et al, styled "Advanced 
Edition" is NOT the preferred edition.  The other version, by Olenick and 
others in in "et al." is more basic and reviews (it was origianlly 
intended to teach) Calculus.  The book is readable - an innovation for 
physics texts, and, for the most part stays focussed on a single goal, as 
JD suggests.  Inclusion of thermodynamics in the book was a mistake.  Look 
for Reviews.
	There was a second Volume on E&M., "Beyond the Mechanical ...", 
now out of print. We got permission to have some copies printed up at the 
Callege of Du Page (Glen Ellyn, Illiois).  I have used both for a text. 
The students seem to like the style, contrasting it with that of what they 
called the "plug and chug" textbooks that are in common use.
	The original movies suffered from long scenes with costumed actors 
walking around trying to look distinguished.  The meaty parts have now 
been extracted onto videodiscs, and acompanied by helpful textual 
material that the students can work with while viewing the videos.  In my 
classes it was important to have such material.  Otherwise student 
attention never got focussed on the movie.
					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




On Sun, 6 Sep 2009, John Denker wrote:

> I recommend most folks should by a copy of
> _The Mechanical Universe_ (both volumes).  The
> first volume is subtitled "Mechanics and Heat"
> The treatment of mechanics is exceptionally clear.
> It has a nice "flow" to it, as it moves toward
> the goal of solving the Kepler problem.  The
> Kepler problem will never be easy, but they lay
> the groundwork so that ordinary mortals can get
> through it.
>
> If/when you think lecturing is appropriate, you
> could provide pretty decent lectures in mechanics
> just by showing the "Mechanical Universe" movies.
> You can earn your pay by pausing the movie to
> answer questions when they come up ... and
> by turning it off before it gets to the "heat"
> part of "mechanics and heat".
>
> In the chapter that introduces "heat", they
> repeatedly equate thermal energy with the
> random "kinetic" energy of the molecules.  It
> makes me want to tear my hair out.  I *know*
> Goodstein knows better than that.  The fact is,
> in an ordinary solid, half of the heat capacity
> is associated with kinetic energy, while the
> other half is associated with potential energy.
> Why do so many textbooks get this wrong?????
>
> Also the chapter on entropy makes me want to
> tear my hair out.
>  dQ ???
>  If I never see another dQ it will be too soon.
>  There is no state function Q such that dQ = T dS.
>
> For details on why not, see
>  http://www.av8n.com/physics/thermo-laws.htm
>
> Entropy is defined in terms of probability.  Period.
> Entropy is not defined in terms of energy or vice versa.
> Entropy is well defined even in situations where the
> temperature is unknown, undefinable, irrelevant, or zero.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l