Lectures On the Frontiers of Physics Online

modernphysics writes "The Outreach Department at Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics offers a wide array of online lecture playbacks examining hot topics in modern physics and beyond. Presentations include Neil Turok's 'What Banged?,' John Ellis with 'The Large Hadron Collider,' Nima Arkani-Hamed with 'Fundamental Physics in 2010,' Paul Steinhardt with 'Impossible Crystals,' Edward Witten with 'The Quest for Supersymmetry,' Seth Lloyd with 'Programming the Universe,' Anton Zeilinger with 'From Einstein to Quantum Information,' Raymond Laflamme with 'Harnessing the Quantum World,' and many other talks. The presentations feature a split-screen presentation with the guest speaker in one frame and their full-frame graphics in the other."

Comments

How do schools make science dull?

[MosesJones]

Last week at JavaOne there was a presentation on the LHC and Mars and simply put they just stunned me at how interesting this stuff was and I leapt back on the net to find out more. The Royal Institute in the UK has the Christmas Lectures which always amazed me as a child.

But at school? Apart from one teacher science was always a dull subject, it was numbers in a way that made Maths seem exciting and it just never covered where all this science was leading to. Its no wonder that there are a shortage of scientists and engineers out there when the school system turns the most exciting subjects into the dullest ones.

So sure some of these presentations are beyond the level of kids at school, but isn't it sometimes worth blowing their minds to make them realise why they are doing what they are doing? Science is a stunning thing, can we please stop making it dull.

Re:How do schools make science dull?

[Yvanhoe]

There are maybe a few dozens of wonderful high-level science speakers who can make science interesting, that's them that you see. There are millions of children that need teachers. These two numbers make things difficult.

What I would like to see, however, is a national TV broadcast of this kind of speeches. That would be a heavily profitable investment on education.

Re:How do schools make science dull?

[egyptiankarim]

Teaching science is a delicate balance, I suppose. On the one hand, you want to wow kids with the broad concepts and show them how vast and far-reaching the effects of science can be. On the other, you don't want to blind them to the fact that science at any kind of professional level is deeply steeped in complex mathematics.

The "solution" thus far, is to weed out the kids early on who can't handle the complex mathematics, but I think the "solution" could benefit from a bit of balance.

Re:How do schools make science dull?

[egyptiankarim]

I've enjoyed the efforts of universities like MIT putting lectures online via podcast. I'm also a big fan of the idea of educational programming on TV. I mean, this stuff already exists, but it gets generally low hit counts.

I don't really think that the issue facing the country is a lack of science resources (though, more thoroughly trained teachers are definitely needed), but more a fundamental shortcoming in how people (at least in the states) perceive education, specifically science education. It's seen as a chore and not a privelage, and as a result people far too easily dismiss it as "boring".

Re:How do schools make science dull?

[Thanshin]

you don't want to blind them to the fact that science at any kind of professional level is deeply steeped in complex mathematics. Then why teach them before they reach the mathematical understanding level needed to grasp the concepts?

Why not start with pure mathematics until reaching the highest level they may need and only then start with the physics?

For some reason teaching plans seem to still take into account the possibility of a child leaving the scholar system at any point. That may have been the norm half a century ago, but isn't anymore.

It might be time to consider the entire cycle as a single block of time where all has to be taught in the most optimal way, instead of gradually advancing every discipline equally.

Re:How do schools make science dull?

[egyptiankarim]

I don't necessarily think that's the most "optimal" way. My fundamental understanding of calculus only came after I saw it in motion (as it were) through experimentation in physics class. Also, I didn't have my insights into several different (computer science) data types until after I had a firm grounding in linear algebra.

I think math and science should be side by side because they compliment each other. One helps with the understanding the other.

Again, I just think it's all about how you balance the load. You have to teach enough math to make the science solid, but you need enough science to keep the math interesting. Moreover, the satisfaction of teaching math through the practical lens of scientific experimentation, is an invaluable tool.

Re:How do schools make science dull?

[quintessentialk]

But at school? Apart from one teacher science was always a dull subject, it was numbers in a way that made Maths seem exciting and it just never covered where all this science was leading to.

Speaking as someone who left the academic research track, I can that's because actually doing scientific research is a mathematically intensive, highly detail oriented job. You have to be the sort of person who finds the 30 seconds of enlightenment you feel when you see a graph that confirms your predictions worth the months or years of tedious algebra (if you're a theorist) or number crunching/detailed experiment design work (if your an experimentalist). Or, you have to enjoy math for math's sake, and engineering or engineering's sake, rather than just as means to an end.

I turn out to be one of those people who find the concepts and ideas of science (at least the brand I tried, physics) fascinating, but I don't like doing lots of math, and neither do I like the detail-oriented specialization required to succeed in academia. It turns out the 'really cool' stuff -- physically overlapping matter, momentum coupling, quantum entanglement, cosmological theory, etc. -- is hidden among piles of algebra, malfunctioning computer code, and broken lasers.

That said, I fully support trying to 'blow student's minds'. :-) The problem, though, with using things that are too far beyond comprehension for non-specialists (I'd put a lot of quantum mechanics and cosmology in this category) is it can become a bit nebulous and religious. Look at how many quack-quantum-mechanics-cosmology-applied-to-daily-life books their are. We want to inspire the scientific curiosity, not the unfounded philosophizing. One can lead to the other (that's why many people do science) but one must be careful.

Re:How do schools make science dull?

[Kemanorel]

For some reason teaching plans seem to still take into account the possibility of a child leaving the scholar system at any point. That may have been the norm half a century ago, but isn't anymore. You haven't spent much time taking a look at the U.S. public school system lately, have you? Dropouts at age 16 with anywhere from a 3rd to 9th grade education are quite common throughout the inner cities, suburban, and rural areas, all for a variety of reasons. You also don't hear about dropout rates like you once used to. My district in a mid-to-upper class section of Orange County, California has a 1% or 2% dropout rate. The other 8% or so decrease in enrollment numbers that occurs in the high school years is reported as, "Moved, no new school known." That must be the trickle-down theory of creative bookkeeping... or something.

I'm doing my part to keep math as enjoyable as possible, and I know by the modifications that had to be made to the fire alarms in the chemistry teacher's room, as well as the resounding bangs every month or so, that at least one of the science teachers here is trying to inspire.

Re:Pyschology and Physics...

[Tenebrousedge]

Both are unable to prove anything I can see why you would say this, but I am stunned by the colossal gulf of ignorance it would have taken to be able to write this. Why don't you watch some of these lectures and get to know a bit about the subject?

I, for one, welcome our new--uh, wait, wrong line.

I, for one, haven't noticed a whole lot of disdain for psychology around here, except perhaps where it is justly deserved--e.g. when the methodology is suspect or the conclusions don't follow. Perhaps those sort of mistakes don't happen as often in the physics realm. Perhaps it's easier to get into the field of psychology, or easier for a non-expert to find flaws with the experiments. Perhaps it's because whenever we read a bad summary of a physics paper, we can go to arXiv and get the real story.

In short, I much doubt that there's many on here who would claim that one field of scientific investigation that is more valid than another--if the science was done right, we must accept the results.

how to download and play in linux

[wes33]

anyone know how to do what the subject says? my firefox says there is no plugin for the weird plugin perimeter is using, but I'd rather download the videos anyway. But how?

Re:Teaching isn't easy

[EMeta]

That said, a good teacher can devise interesting problems that take the requisite skills to solve. This takes an inordinate amount of effort and creativity on the part of the teacher, and there lies the problem.

Here you've skimmed over one of the major errors in our education system. Pretty much, each teacher tries to reinvent the wheel to create interesting problems and ways to illustrate the information. We get a lot of great teachers, but there's no system for them to pass on their better ideas to others. So they retire, and some kid who's watched maybe a semester's worth of one other teacher teach takes over. It's like if Linux users all coded their own kernels.

I've read that some other countries do a better job of this, but I don't recall where or how. Anyone know? I think some major investment here could make a huge difference.