Re: On 1/4*Pi in Coulomb's law

[Joel Rauber <Joel_Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>]

Ludwik wrote in part:
> But we do not teach physics this way in elementary courses.
> For us Coulomb's law is the starting point. Students know
> nothing about Gauss law at this time. Heaviside introduced
> 4*Pi into the Coulomb's law to make it disappear in the Gauss
> law. That was his main motivation; right? But how can one
> use this reasoning with somebody who does not know Gauss
> law? We do not. We say "accept the 4*Pi factor because it
> will benefit us in the future." That is how an element of
> apparent dogmatism is introduced. It is not a scientific
> topic, it is a pedagogical topic.
> Ludwik Kowalski

I think it is OK to say " . . . will benefit us in the future." sometimes.
We need to be judicious when doing that; but it just makes life easier at
times as this thread illustrates.  I don't think that one should be
"dogmatic" about *only* introducing ideas that have had all the precursors
laid out carefully before hand.  Taken to its extreme you than have what
amounts to an overly pedantic "axiomatic" course.

Joel