What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 30 Mar 2005 17:28 mme...(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > In article <1112196981.243012.132440(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> writes: [snip] > > > >It's my experience that a lot of students -- I would even venture to > >say the majority -- come to college because they've got nothing better > >to do, and their parents have heard a statistic that people who go to > >college on average earn 30% more than those who do not. Worse, students > >leaving high school have no idea how to apply for a career-oriented > >job. It's also my experience that there is an enormous number of > >students who get an undergraduate degree and then enter a career path > >that has nothing to do with their undergraduate majors -- grocery store > >managers with poli.sci. degrees, marketing assistants with English > >degrees, bankers with psychology degrees. You want an enlightening > >experience? Go to a university commencement sometime and count the > >number matriculating with psychology, marketing, or media > >communications degrees. > > > >To me, the years 18-22 are imbued with enormous learning capacity and > >energy and drive. Unless one *needs* to go to school to attain an > >objective, I see little value in wasting four years of prime time > >learning things that will be of lesser value than on-the-job training. > >There are exceptions, of course; schools of architecture, nursing, > >engineering, law, medicine, and the like -- those are clearly > >identified with a specific end-goal. > > > Well, note that that modern university does in fact encompass two > completely different types of institutions, which used to be separate > (and which might've been better off for remaining separate). > > The traditional university was a place where kids from affluent > families (plus the occasional poor but bright youngster with an > affluent sponsor) went to acquire social and cultural polish. Its > degree didn't qualify you to do anything specific and didn't signify > any exceptional skills other than possibly the ability to maintain > pleasant and refined conversation at social functions. Of course, > there was also the sprinkling of "weirdos" who went to university to > study something they were passionately interested in, but it was > numerically insignificant (as it remains). > > The second kind of higher learning institutions were high fallutin > vocational schools. Early on law and medicine, later engineering, > nursing, teachers colleges and the like. Here there was no pretense > of "general knowledge and culture", you went there to acquire specific > skills required to practice a specific profession. Much of the > learning was hands on, you were actually tested on your ability to > perform what's needed in your chosen profession, and the diploma you > got (assuming you got that far) attested that "yes, so and so is > qualified as beginning practitioner of such and such field". > Completely different setup than the one above. And, yes, getting a > diploma from such school gave you a good chance to advance in life but > you had to work hard for such diploma (and have the necessary skills > as well). > > So now, we confused together these two different types of institutions with > quite different guiding philosophies, and confused the students as > well. > > > >Increasingly, I'm becoming a fan of the old > >apprentice/journeyman/master system of training. > > Of course. The oldest of teaching schemes and by far the best. Only, > being very demanding in terms of teacher/student ratio, it is not > really applicable as a model for universal education. thus ... > [snip] Ironically, the students who do go on to graduate school (and physics is not unique in this, though physics is an excellent case study) end up being valuable and versatile in the marketplace, even if they end up doing work completely unrelated to traditional physics. Why? Because their graduate work, under the guidance of a professor on a apprentice/journeyman/master arrangement, trains them to be excellent collaborators in a small work group, excellent communicators, highly self-motivated, and excellent problem-solvers where the solution is not obvious. It's a big Duh! In other words, specifically by eschewing a liberal arts and sciences education, PhDs end up being well-rounded and agile in just about any field. This, more than anything, should point to the future of liberal arts and science education at universities in a general way. Unfortunately, it will likely take 200 years and 50 generations of students before a fundamental change in university structure takes over. PD
From: mmeron on 30 Mar 2005 17:44 In article <1112221708.840067.203290(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> writes: >mme...(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> In article <1112196981.243012.132440(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >"PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >[snip] > >> > >> >Increasingly, I'm becoming a fan of the old >> >apprentice/journeyman/master system of training. >> >> Of course. The oldest of teaching schemes and by far the best. >Only, >> being very demanding in terms of teacher/student ratio, it is not >> really applicable as a model for universal education. thus ... >> >[snip] > >Ironically, the students who do go on to graduate school (and physics >is not unique in this, though physics is an excellent case study) end >up being valuable and versatile in the marketplace, even if they end up >doing work completely unrelated to traditional physics. Why? Because >their graduate work, under the guidance of a professor on a >apprentice/journeyman/master arrangement, trains them to be excellent >collaborators in a small work group, excellent communicators, highly >self-motivated, and excellent problem-solvers where the solution is not >obvious. It's a big Duh! > Yep. It works beautifully. >In other words, specifically by eschewing a liberal arts and sciences >education, PhDs end up being well-rounded and agile in just about any >field. This, more than anything, should point to the future of liberal >arts and science education at universities in a general way. Well, liberal arts and sciences education may be valuable enriching the lives of those who *are* genuinely interested in the topics. On the others (who are the vast majority) it is wasted. And as preparation for the workplace it has no merits. >Unfortunately, it will likely take 200 years and 50 generations of >students before a fundamental change in university structure takes >over. It takes generations to fix what took generations to screw up:-( Though, employers may hasten up the process if and when they'll adjust their selection criteria. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Bill Hobba on 30 Mar 2005 17:42 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:RtidnWcXTP7uC9ffRVn-2Q(a)rcn.net... > In article <07n2e.41$45.5359(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >In article <GJk2e.16991$C7.9156(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill Hobba" > <bhobba(a)rubbish.net.au> writes: > <snip> > > >>> That said, there is certainly room to analyze the way things are being > >>> taught. The natural tendency is to teach things in the historic order > >>> in which they were developed (an educational equivalent of "ontogeny > >>> recapitulates philogeny"). That may not necessarily be the best > >>> course of action. > >> > >>Having read the replies by yourself, Gregory and PD I relise in > suggesting > >>that I had forgetten one of the things I emphasize in education. It must > >>actually be tested rather than be based on what I or others may think > >>belongs in a course. > >> > >Aye, exactly. > > The Mass. board of education is now trying to add science > as part of the high school graduation requirement. Hmmmm. Although a proponent of science teaching in schools I am not sure if knowledge of science beyond grade 10 or even grade 8 is required. Many professions such as law, graphic design etc require only minimal science. I think the interests of students would be better served by examining the needs of each student on an individual basis and igniting an interest in math and science (look what Jaime Escalante did) rather than setting minimums. > The > year proposed was 2008 but news broadcasts are now saying > it can't happen until 2010. Listen for the whinging from > teachers' unions. One of them is already running ads that > they can't teach science because there is only 1 microscope/ > 10 students. That's an awfully high ratio even though the > ads want you to think that it's too low. When I went to > high school, I estimate the ration to be 1/100. The carry on of unions sometimes is pathetic - and where I worked I was a union delegate. But keep in mind their purpose is to get the best deal possible for their members. They couch it in the language we want what is best for the students but it is easy to see what there true agenda is. If they were really concerned we would see more teachers taking matters into their own hands - teachers like Jaime Escalante. Here in Australia it is well known that a much higher percentage of teachers send their students to private schools. When reporters ask about this you know what the union advises the teachers to say - we are just exercising our right to choose. They must think people are brain dead or something. Thanks Bill > > /BAH > > Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: Bill Hobba on 30 Mar 2005 17:50 <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:j7E2e.47$45.6426(a)news.uchicago.edu... > In article <e9adncBCPNmLCdffRVn-uw(a)rcn.net>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >In article <f1l2e.34$45.5068(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >>In article <pPmdnT872IUW8tTfRVn-rw(a)rcn.net>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >>>In article <7K52e.21$45.3808(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > >>> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >>>>In article <Xns9627C5AEB62D6WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>, bz > >>><bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> writes: > >>>>>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in > >>>>>news:8B12e.18$45.3391(a)news.uchicago.edu: > >>>>> > >>>>>> In article <Mo12e.16031$C7.902(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill > >>>Hobba" > >>>>>> <bhobba(a)rubbish.net.au> writes: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>><mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message > >>>>>>>news:XQ02e.15$45.3352(a)news.uchicago.edu... > >>>>>>>> >coordinates, but I think what is misleading is to call the > >>>correction > >>>>>>>> >terms "forces". > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Only if you attach more meaning to the term "force" than it > >deserves. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Ahhhhhh. Yes. As Feynman says it is half a law. It gains its full > >>>>>>>meaning when combined with other laws and/or concepts such as > >Coulombs > >>>>>>>law or the introduction of non inertial reference frames. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, it is a rather complex issue. I wrote some stuff about it in > >the > >>>>>> past, here, but I never kept a copy. But it certtainly needs some > >>>>>> sort of broad framework, to make sense. > >>>>> > >>>>>Especially when someone keeps insisting that force is always the result > >>>of > >>>>>acceleration > >>>> > >>>>Cause, not result. > >>>> > >>>>> and that without acceleration (as for example when a gyro > >>>>>precesses at a constant rate, or when a mass moves at a constant > >velocity > >>>>>because it is overcoming drag or friction) there is no force and no > >work. > >>>>> > >>>>Where there is net force, there is acceleration. The F in Newton's > >>>>law is the total (i.e.) net force acting. Since forces are vectors, > >>>>it is perfectly possible to have different non-zero forces to sum up > >>>>to a zero net force. > >>> > >>>This is why using algebra in first physics courses hurts learning > >>>more than it helps. > >>> > >>I don't see why it should hurt. Of course, it is better if you can > >>use calculus, not just algebra. > > > >Oh, it hurts because the concept of changes doesn't show up > >when doing the math. > > Well, that's true. Newton had good reasons to create calculus, > without it you're mostly limited to static situations. Unfortunately, > though, high schools teach calculus late (if at all). Is that true Mati? Here in Australia it is taught in grade 11 and 12 (which would make the students 16 and 17) And last I heard it was being taught in some private schools in grade 9 and 10 which I thought was a positive move. I wonder why? I learnt about it when I was 14 and had no trouble. Thanks Bill > > Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, > meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: mmeron on 30 Mar 2005 18:09
In article <g3G2e.18186$C7.13173(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba(a)rubbish.net.au> writes: > ><mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message >news:j7E2e.47$45.6426(a)news.uchicago.edu... >> In article <e9adncBCPNmLCdffRVn-uw(a)rcn.net>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> >In article <f1l2e.34$45.5068(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >> > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>In article <pPmdnT872IUW8tTfRVn-rw(a)rcn.net>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> >>>In article <7K52e.21$45.3808(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >> >>> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>>>In article <Xns9627C5AEB62D6WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>, bz >> >>><bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> writes: >> >>>>>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in >> >>>>>news:8B12e.18$45.3391(a)news.uchicago.edu: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> In article <Mo12e.16031$C7.902(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill >> >>>Hobba" >> >>>>>> <bhobba(a)rubbish.net.au> writes: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>><mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message >> >>>>>>>news:XQ02e.15$45.3352(a)news.uchicago.edu... >> >>>>>>>> >coordinates, but I think what is misleading is to call the >> >>>correction >> >>>>>>>> >terms "forces". >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Only if you attach more meaning to the term "force" than it >> >deserves. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>Ahhhhhh. Yes. As Feynman says it is half a law. It gains its >full >> >>>>>>>meaning when combined with other laws and/or concepts such as >> >Coulombs >> >>>>>>>law or the introduction of non inertial reference frames. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> Yes, it is a rather complex issue. I wrote some stuff about it in >> >the >> >>>>>> past, here, but I never kept a copy. But it certtainly needs some >> >>>>>> sort of broad framework, to make sense. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>Especially when someone keeps insisting that force is always the >result >> >>>of >> >>>>>acceleration >> >>>> >> >>>>Cause, not result. >> >>>> >> >>>>> and that without acceleration (as for example when a gyro >> >>>>>precesses at a constant rate, or when a mass moves at a constant >> >velocity >> >>>>>because it is overcoming drag or friction) there is no force and no >> >work. >> >>>>> >> >>>>Where there is net force, there is acceleration. The F in Newton's >> >>>>law is the total (i.e.) net force acting. Since forces are vectors, >> >>>>it is perfectly possible to have different non-zero forces to sum up >> >>>>to a zero net force. >> >>> >> >>>This is why using algebra in first physics courses hurts learning >> >>>more than it helps. >> >>> >> >>I don't see why it should hurt. Of course, it is better if you can >> >>use calculus, not just algebra. >> > >> >Oh, it hurts because the concept of changes doesn't show up >> >when doing the math. >> >> Well, that's true. Newton had good reasons to create calculus, >> without it you're mostly limited to static situations. Unfortunately, >> though, high schools teach calculus late (if at all). > >Is that true Mati? Here in Australia it is taught in grade 11 and 12 (which >would make the students 16 and 17) And last I heard it was being taught in >some private schools in grade 9 and 10 which I thought was a positive move. >I wonder why? I learnt about it when I was 14 and had no trouble. > Well, you have to realize that in the US there is no such thing as nationwide (or even state wide) public school curriculum. Policies are set on the school district level and the population a given school district serves may range in size from 10-20 thousand to few millions. So, it is quite possible to have high schools in neighboring towns at widely different levels (yes, I'm aware that even where the schools are nominally all the same, they're not really so, but the differences here are larger). This said and done, in any US public school I know, calculus is taught (not to all, only the students who opt to take it) in grade 12 (with a possibility of a bright 11 grader taking it as en elective). Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |