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]

Re: [Phys-l] EM, is it energy - a little OT



Jack -

Yes - that was the point of my response and also, I think, the point
being made by the original poster.

This discussion really strikes home with me. We have a Western
Civilization Core program at Providence College. As part of the course
work various seminal papers are read and analyzed by the students. After
many years, these core courses are finally getting around to including
significant scientific papers. Unfortunately, the papers are assigned
after a team of faculty set up the "context" for the papers - the
historical, cultural, and scientific framework from which the papers
developed. Here we have dilettantes who have had a course or two in
college level science trying to explain the science of the period in
which the papers were produced. What they end up saying is exactly the
meaningless jumble of words that you allude to.

There is now a push to include the historical development of science and
the accompanying interrelatedness of science and society into the
science courses that we teach for the core (not for our majors). My
contention is that I am no more qualified to discourse on the history of
science than these teams of non-science faculty are to discourse on
science. I am sure I would make equally absurd and similarly vacuous
comments. History requires a solid background as a historian to get
right - not a dilettante such as myself passing out little anecdotes
about scientists or their work.

It takes a special person to teach a "science and society" course -
being an enthusiastic amateur just doesn't cut it as far as I am
concerned. Personally, I would be afraid of passing my
libertarian/conservative views on to the students as thoughts that they
must concur with to do well in the course - and I'm sure that the
overwhelmingly liberal faculty here would be aghast if I did.

Bob at PC



-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Jack Uretsky
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 11:24 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] EM, is it energy

It is easy to get lost in meaningless jumbles of wards, like, "if a
wave
is flowing in empty space." Think of an experiment - even an
idealized
one. For example, consider an an isolated antenna, and an e-m wave
incident on the antenna. Now ask about the forces on the antenna.
Ask
about the energy imparted to the antenna, and how you would measure
that
energy.
Regards,
Jack


On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, carmelo@pacific.net.sg wrote:

Quoting "LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>:
?? If the wave is traveling through empty space, what are these
"forces"
acting upon? Do you mean fields?

Wave is energy? Guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is!
Oops
- I guess this is more appropriate for the PHYSOC list

Bob at PC

This was quoted from BBC News: (Not my idea!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1702259.stm

Ironically, many physicists prefer to consider energy as an
"abstract
concept", yet explain the flow of energy through Poynting vector as
if
it is a material being. Poynting Vector gives the direction of flow
of
"abstract concept"?


Alphonsus

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l