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] |
On 30 Aug 2011 at 21:31, John Denker wrote:
remaining model for the given phenomenon.I explain that over time, we
correct our models until in the end there is one
remaining
Slight nitpick: We are not necessarily restricted to "one"
model. Commonly there are multiple models with overlappingcoverage.
This is where the correspondence principle comes in.certain limits.
Physical optics says that geometric optics is OK in
Quantum mechanics says that classical mechanics is OK incertain limits.
Special relativity says that non-relativistic mechanicsis OK in certain limits.
General relativity says that the flat-spacetime model isOK in certain limits.
You can do chemical reactions neglecting nuclearreactions in certain limits.
Et cetera. Other examples abound.
John, you are quite right. These points are made in my next
lecture to the class when I talk about how
Newton's laws are widely applicable, but then point out
observations which resulted in Special
Relatvity. I have been careful with my students to explain
the limited applicability of a given model and
that there may be overlap with other models, etc. I just
didn't want to recreate my whole presentation
in my e-mail to the list.
My point is that it is up to us as educators and even with
speaking with other scientists to use the
coreect language of science, so that we can put to rest these
notions that science is a lot of hand
waving and guess work that can be dismissed to promote a
religious or political agenda.