Re: impulse/momentum

[Bob Sciamanda <trebor@VELOCITY.NET>]

Early in my teaching career I decided to devote the entire first lecture of
the beginning intro course to giving the students at least a tentative
philosophic framework on which they might hang the ideas to be developed in
their study of physics.  This lecture would cover such topics as: Physics as
a human construct of models; the construction, use and limitations of models
(conceptual, empirical, mathematical); our search for usefullness rather
that "truth";  the unique nature of revolutions in physics, etc.

 I have not been so grateful to myself for any other pedagogical choice.  (I
recognized the students' need for this ground work because it was a lacuna
in my own education.)  Throughout the subsequent physics course(s) the
material of this foundational lecture lies in wait as a reference to quickly
and meaningfully answer questions which otherwise lead to endless semantic
confusion.

Bob Sciamanda
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (Em)
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor
trebor@velocity.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Uretsky" <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: impulse/momentum


> Hi all-
>         In the spirit of my answer to Jim Green I will ask Bob: Why should
> this be emphasized in the first lecture?  The suggestion has been made
> that this might very well be much more than the student wants to know at
> that time.
>                                         Regards,
>                                                 Jack
>
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Bob Sciamanda wrote:
>
> > The first lecture in an Intro Mech course should emphasize that
revolutions
> > in physics are unique (compared to the "humanities").  In physics an
> > accepted model will have been tried and proven useful, by experimental
> > tests.  The new, rival model must include these results as a special
case of
> > a wider model.  He must embrace his predecessor and stand on his
shoulders,
> > in order to see farther.  Contrast this with revolutions in the
> > non-scientific fields.
> >
> > Newtonian Mechanics is an exceedingly useful model - and will always be
so -
> > both as a learning first step, and as a lasting tool for countless
practical
> > applications.
> >
> > Bob Sciamanda
> > Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (Em)
> > http://www.velocity.net/~trebor/
> > trebor@velocity.net
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jack Uretsky" <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>
> > To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 1:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: impulse/momentum
> >
> >
> > >         Jim, you are really raising a number of points here.  A decade
ago
> > > I decided to get a high school teaching certificate; as part of the
course
> > > I student-taught at a local high school.  The chair, who was my
suprvisor,
> > > had been running a very succussful program requiring 3 physics
teachers
> > > plus others for the so-called physical science courses.  He was very
> > > critical of my opening remarks, which were somewhat along the line you
> > > suggested.  His criticism, possibly well-based, was that young
students
> > > don't want to be told that they're not getting the best, the latest,
and
> > > the most blessed that the educational system has to offer.  So my
answer
> > > to your question "Can't we say...?" is: I don't know.  At some point
the
> > > interested student is going to find out what is being offered in the
big
> > > tent.  Don't give him/her more than it wants to know.
> > > . . .
> > >                                         Regards,
> > >                                                 Jack
> > >
> > > On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Jim Green wrote:
> > >
> > > > >         What we are endeavoring to teach - no! What we are
endeavoring
> > to
> > > > > make available to the students is the opportunity to attack
problems
> > that
> > > > > they have never seen before, because that is what they will be
doing in
> > > > > real life.  We can model for them how we attack such problems, but
the
> > > > > actual solutions are irrelevant.
> > > > . . .
> > > > True enough, Jack, but there is no need of camouflaging reality.
Can't
> > we
> > > > say as we approach Newton's Laws with an introduction that explains
that
> > > > Newton only deals with slow speeds ie common speeds Ie only those
that
> > are
> > > > everyday -- and it does this quite well -- but that later in physics
> > > > education we will deal with faster speeds and then Newton doesn't
work.
> > > > . . .
> > > > Jim Green
>
> --
> "Don't push the river, it flows by itself"
>                                 Frederick Perls