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: Feynman and the FCI



In a truly fruitful study of physics there is much more to be learned
(and taught) than physics itself. Something pragmatically useful and
aesthetically inspiring is lost by looking only at the latest physics and
ignoring the thought processes of our pioneer thinkers.

Newton began with the very natural presumption that a true and simple
physics would only be possible if phenomena were viewed and analyzed from
a position of absolute rest. (Were we not so conditioned, we would also
find this a most natural beginning assumption.) The sought after laws
were to relate measurements made from this preferred frame; this was a
self evident given.

The existence of a whole class of equivalent inertial frames was an
unexpected (and disappointing) result - not an assumption. That is why
Maxwell's electrodynamics was hailed as finally providing, through
optical experiments, what could not be achieved by mechanical
experiments - a measurement of our absolute velocity.

Without understanding this mindset one cannot appreciate the truly
revolutionary accomplishment of Einstein's maverick view (to which we are
now, perhaps unthinkingly, conditioned) and the entire subsequent
development of physics.

When I teach Newtonian physics, I teach Newtonian physics (complete with
preferred frames and fictitious forces), along with appropriate
commentary on its limitations, the possibility of alternatives, and its
surprisingly long-lasting usefulness.

We should not teach the latest physics as if it arose by magic - we
thereby deny our students their rightful participation in the evolution
of human thought.

Bob Sciamanda
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (ret)
trebor@velocity.net
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. William Newbolt <NewboltW@madison.acad.wlu.edu>
To: phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu <phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu>
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Feynman and the FCI


It seems to me that Newton made it very plain that his
laws of motion applied in an inertial frame of reference.
It seems to me that if we are going to deal with nature in
a Newtonian framework we need to understand that in
non-inertial frames of reference the laws of physics may be
altered. In particular, inertial forces may appear. I
don't want anyone to call them pseudoforces or anything
like that, but it can't hurt to point out that they arise
because of the frame or reference which is used.

It would be wonderful if we could begin with some kind of
covariant laws and all reference frames are equivalent
approach, but I fear that this will lead to more confusion
than enlightenment in all but the most advanced physics
courses. WBN
Barlow Newbolt
Department of Physics and Engineering
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450