[Phys-l] computational physics activities (was: universal gravitation ....)

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 02/11/2007 08:10 PM, White, Pat wrote:

> Arbor Scientific Company has the current version of the software, 30 packs, for $1,995.00.

Gaaaack!

I know what I would do in such a situation.
(That does *not* mean that everybody should do as I do!)

I would march out and get 30 copies of GameMaker, for $0.
Download from http://www.gamemaker.nl/

The sort of activities I'm envisioning, such as a lunar lander
simulation, can be easily done in GameMaker, and will look nice.

  Not "easily" in the sense that naive kids can start there,
  but easily in the sense that after they have written three
  or four simpler games they can deal with Lunar Lander.

GameMaker has a drag-and-drop programming interface that physics
researchers will see as analogous to LabView, and kids (some of
them, anyway) will see as analogous to Legos Mindstorms.  Kids
who are hopelessly intimidated by the classical programming
approach (edit text, compile, load, go) are not bothered by the
drag-and-drop interface.

Space does not permit me to say enough nice things about GameMaker.

The biggest drawback is the manual;  it was written by a non-native
speaker of the language, and is written in a terse, wizard-friendly
(not Muggle-friendly) style.  It has much room for improvement.
Don't expect kids to get much out of reading the manual;  you will
have to look through the manual, find what they need, and explain
it to them.

Also, by way of praising with faint damns, keep in mind that
GameMaker operates in two-plus-epsilon dimensions.  It is not
a 3D graphics system.  That will come as something of a
disappointment to kids who are spoiled by the current generation
of 3D video games.  But they'll get over it.

===========================

You will notice I've been speaking of computational physics
"activities."  I just can't bring myself to call them "labs".

I'm a card-carrying (and scar-carrying) experimentalist, and to me
there is something sacred about a real physics lab.  That's where
the truth comes from, or as near to truth as we know how to get.

Computers can be used to advantage IN CONJUNCTION WITH real
honest-to-goodness lab work ... but when they are used instead
of lab work, something indescribably important is lost.

If *I* am modeling physics on a computer, I will make the physics
come out right, because that's what I do.  Alas if you turn kids
loose on a computer, they generally don't /want/ the physics to
come out right.  Usually they would rather have a transporter-room
that zaps them directly up to the moon, without having to mess
with complicated physics like universal gravitation.  The computer
is too powerful.  It is too unconstrained.

The computer allows fiction.  There is no fiction in a real
lab.

The only way I know to make this work is to "sell" the idea
that the kids are using the computer to check and validate
the plans for a real moon mission, and if they get it wrong
it will waste billions of dollars or worse.  Tell the story
of Gemini IV to drive home that it /is/ possible for people to
get the physics wrong, and the consequences can be embarrassing,
expensive, or worse.  (This is a very tricky sales job.)