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]

[Phys-l] teaching different descriptions of "reality"



Hello,

On a whim, I made an end-of-semester lecture for my general physics class, which I think could be taken in number of interesting directions. Near the end of the semester we cover the basics of quantum mechanics, and it is the first time where the students are presented with the notion that the equations make predictions, and we don't always ask questions about what is "real". I realized that the same thing happens in classical mechanics, where you have several different descriptions of the same thing, but using different (although often related) underlying concepts, such as force and energy, and one may start to ask which concept is (concepts are?) fundamental, real, etc.

So I decided to look at the problem of a baseball thrown upwards and coming back down, but try to see how many different descriptions I could think of for this same problem. I came up with 5:

1) force: the ball experiences a force at every instance, which determines how the speed changes, and thus the trajectory (space and time) of the ball
2) energy: the ball chooses the trajectory which makes the total kinetic and gravitational energy constant at each point
3) least action: the ball chooses the trajectory which minimizes the summed difference of KE and GPE over the entire trajectory (as if the particle plans the whole path at the beginning)
4) general relativity: the ball experiences a local distortion of the space-time, and follows the geometry
5) quantum gravity: the ball exchanges gravitons with the Earth, which influences its path

certainly some of these could be rephrased to be shown as equivalent, but it is interesting to look at the simplest problem from the most diverse perspectives. I only did the 1st three quantitatively (numerically, for 3, using Taylor's least action applets) but it would be interesting to see if many of them could be done somewhat quantitatively.

the point here is to reinforce the idea that physics is a description of reality, and the even if the concept is intuitive, it need not be "real" in any sense other than being useful. Force seems more intuitive to many people, but energy is used exclusively in QM.


any thoughts?


bb


--
-----------------

bblais@bryant.edu
http://web.bryant.edu/~bblais