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 04/06/2003 12:48 PM, Mark Sylvester wrote:the
The answer affects how I teach the background to the discovery of
Ifelectron. There is already the wave/particle discussion about light.
so.there is good reason to mention differences here then I want to do
Inand
fact, I have for years talked about a particle vs continuum debate,
am
wondering if I've been wrong all this time.
The pedagogical question is central.
IMHO the so-called wave/particle "debate" gets too much
emphasis in many classrooms. Why bring it up at all?
1) In general, the history of physics is a poor guide to
the teaching of physics. Kuhn had something to say
about this. Typically the "historical" approach leads
to a distortion of the history and sometimes a distortion
of the physics as well.
The history of science is an _advanced_ topic, open
to those who already understand physics and already
understand the methods of historical inquiry.
Students have a limited time budget. Historically,
the facts were discovered in convoluted and difficult
ways. The best evidence nowadays for the nature of
electrons doesn't come from Thomson's experiments.
Why not give the students the best evidence and
leave it at that?
2) It has long been known (deBroglie 1924) that there
is no real distinction between the physics of waves
and the physics of particles. So why foist on the
students a false and useless distinction?
If you're going to do history, do it right. Even
then, remember it is usually not a good guide to
teaching the facts and concepts of science as presently
understood. And it's not even a good guide to how
science should be done; past scientists have made
plenty of mistakes.