Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Quantum Physics For Everybody

Posted by kdawson on from the this-time-without-the-math dept.

fiziko writes in with a self-described "blatant self-promotion" of a worthwhile service for those wishing to go beyond Khan Academy physics: namely Bureau 42's Summer School. "As those who subscribe to the 'Sci-Fi News' slashbox may know, Bureau 42 has launched its first Summer School. This year we're doing a nine-part series (every Monday in July and August) taking readers from high school physics to graduate level physics, with no particular mathematical background required. Follow the link for part 1."

7 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. No mathematical background? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Grade school level math. The most complicated math in the series is this: “if a times b is less than 6, and we measure a to be 2, then b must be less than 3.” If you can follow that, you’ll be fine.

    Physics that uses no more math than this is not graduate-level physics.

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
    1. Re:No mathematical background? by memyselfandeye · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's with all the negative comments? Anyone look at the lecture 1 PDF? Anyone actually do physics for a living?

      As I write this, I'm staring at a whiteboard drawing of three equations in my den; E=mc^2, E=hc/lambda, r=2GM/c^2. They are there show my 13 year old niece how much energy a human body is equal to, a question she asked after watching K-PAX two nights ago on Netflix. Then she asked how much energy is in a single photon, then she asked how much energy is in a black hole. All questions a little girl might ask had she been exposed to basic ideas in modern physics, aka television.

      Does she fully understand quantum mechanics, probably not. Does she she understand the jist with her pre-algebra background, sort of. Did she learn something and does she feel 'smarter' now... you betchya!

      She annoyed my sister for hours about how a tree could power the whole world, or a tiny little bug could drive her car for years. My explanations, her worlds, and now a scientist in the making.

      My point, you don't need to be able to derive Maxwell from F=ma, as my advisor's advisor did while backpacking across the Rocky Mts., to understand nature at its most simple, what you see is what you get, level. You also don't need to be some bearded mystic holed up in a university to appreciate, understand, or even contribute to our vastly poor knowledge of nature.

    2. Re:No mathematical background? by DynaSoar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Physics that uses no more math than this is not graduate-level physics.

      I call bullshit, politely though. Not only can it be done, you've got to understand what you're doing well enough to step out of the higher level math. One of the most spectacular instances teaching I ever witnessed was at Purdue, where a class on relativity for non-science students was held, using nothing more than F = ma and a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Anyone can become an expert and talk expert to other experts and future experts. The higher the level the more jargonized and incomprehensible it becomes to everyone else. Worse, it becomes a sign of rite-of-passage, a badge of membership and a competition among its adherents, who constantly push the envelope on this. In doing so they become more and more isolated and insulated, viewing others as outsiders, people to stay away from if not look down on. They become socialized to not speaking outside their box, and pressure is applied from the group ion any member who does try to talk outside.

      Anyone who can understand a field at the expert level but can explain it in non-specialized language without polysyballic words probably understands it far better than those in the specialists' club. An often misstated (but flexible enough to still work) quote from Ernest Rutherford is "An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid." There's people out there doing this thing which 'can't' be done. Go listen to them.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    3. Re:No mathematical background? by frieko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree. I didn't realize it until college, but physics without calculus is about is as satisfying as having someone describe a piece of music to you.

    4. Re:No mathematical background? by oliverthered · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you've spent far to long in school.

      A driving instructor can teach someone to drive without knowing all the math behind it.

      They can also do some amount of research, perhaps learning the math as they go along.

      given that physics is still a theoretical part of science, by not teaching the current application and instead focusing on the more fundamentals you may well be equipping people far better to then go on to push physics in new directions that 'indoctrinated' individuals wouldn't even think of, because they don't even know that there is a box to think outside of.

      now what was the name of that patent clerk again?

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  2. How do you talk about physics without mathematics? by l2718 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mathematics is the primary language by which physicists describe the world around us. Discussing post-16th century physics in any other terms is like discussing poetry purely by means of interpretive dance.

  3. Re:So far, I'm not impressed by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Would you be impressed if you didn't already know the subject?