Re: simulation +- hands-on experiments

[Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

John Denker wrote:.

> The questions that were being asked (arrival times and various
> cumulative and marginal distributions) are purely mathematical
> questions.  They contain no physics whatsoever, and there's
> no point in pretending otherwise.

An experiment with a Geiger counter, or with a different counter
of nuclear transformations, is a way to demonstrate that such
transformations are "IID events (Independent and Identically
Distributed over time)", as you referred to them yesterday.
Is this physics? How else can this fact about the nature of
radioactivity can be demonstrated?
Ludwik Kowalski




> For the stated purposes one is no worse off, indeed better off, using excel
> rather than the Geiger counter.
>
> But I completely agree that a different experiment -- a real hands-on
> experiment -- would have value.  That's why I suggested using dice.
>
> > Finally, as instructors we need to note that students take on our own biases
> > very quickly. If we (or a prior instructor) talk up experiment as the
> > ultimate authority, then students will find experiments striking. If instead
> > we talk up the mathematics, then elegant presentations may have great
> > impact.
>
> It's not an all-or-nothing situation.
>
> There are some mathematical questions that require mathematical answers.
> There are some experimental questions that require experimental answers.
> There are some questions that can be attacked either way.