Re: [Phys-l] Simulations and Computer Homework Problems for Freshman and Sophomores

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 12/10/2011 09:58 AM, I wrote:

>                  science
>                 /       \
>                /         \
>          theory           experiment
>           /  \
>          /    \
>    algebra   simulation


The question arises, what about visualization?

The answer is that visualization is important.  It's importance
spans all the categories given above:
 -- You can visualize an algebraic formula.  For example, it may be 
  worth plotting 0.5 a t^2 versus t, as a model of the motion of a 
  freely-falling object.  As a slightly more advanced example, 
  consider the Shockley diode equation.  It really pays to plot
  that, because the concept of "diode drop" is not built into the
  equation, but emerges as a none-too-obvious consequence.
 -- You can visualize simulation results.
 -- You can visualize experimental data.

This is relevant to the current thread, at least tangentially, because
often computers provide the best way of visualizing some result ...
including /but not limited to/ simulation results.

In particular, plotting stuff with ye olde spreadsheet application is
a good example of doing science with a computer.  It has the advantage
of being interactive:  If you change the data, the graph changes immediately.
It also has the advantage of not having much barrier to entry;  it does
not require any fancy programming language.

On 12/10/2011 06:00 PM, Forinash III, Kyle wrote in part:

> > Simulations have to be interactive. They can't be just visualizations.

I agree with the sentiment, but I might have worded it differently.
 a) visualizing an interactive model is good.
 b) visualizing a one-shot static model is not so good.

The problem with (b) is not the visualization;  the problem is the 
inflexible model.

It's not worth arguing about whether it is better to have a good 
model without good visualization or vice versa;  I reckon you need
*both* a good model and good visualization;  otherwise the whole 
enterprise is not worth the trouble.

===========================

Completely unrelated:  I reckon that on Wednesday a lot of people
on this list are going to be getting "Higgs" questions.  Here is
a discussion of the issues.  I'm not (!) an expert on the subject,
but this looks reasonable to me:
  http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/degrees-of-freedom/2011/12/08/lhc-physicist-joe-lykken-on-higgs/

Here's my take on all the rumors:  With 3-sigma confidence, they
have seen what they were looking for, with a mass near 125 GeV.
However, 
  a) Out of politeness to each other nobody is supposed to say 
   anything before the December 13th meeting; and
  b) They decided in advance that it wouldn't count as a "discovery"
   until they got to 5-sigma confidence, which will take another
   several months, if things keep going the way they are.

=====

This is going to cause a certain segment of the public to go nuts,
more loudly than usual.  That's because they see the world in Manichean
terms, good versus evil, pure black versus pure white ... and they
demand that the rest of us conform to their view.  They can't handle
the idea of preliminary results.  They can't handle the idea of
probability without certainty.