Re: [asa] Evolution and history compulsory

I'm not certain why teaching QM in high school has come up.
QM can be taught in a number of ways.

I remember by undergraduate and graduate classes in QM as primarily
a study of mathematics & mathematical approximation, often guided by a
presumed happy union with semi-classical methods and ways of thinking.

It was taught simply as a physicist's tool, little, if nothing, was said of
various metaphysical or philosophical interpretations.

It is only in the last 20 years that I have begun to think of the supposed
philosophical implications, both for the nature of the world and the nature
of science.

What would be said in a high school QM class where none of the mathematics
would be presented? Wouldn't it be all interpretation, all philosophy?
It sounds like it would be some popular exposition, more like a religion
class.

The same can be said of all of physics, including SR and GR. Without the
mathematics, what are we left with? We are not left with tools, but studies
of the nature of the world and the nature of epistemology. This is interesting
stuff, but it is NOT science. Witness, for example, that 100 years after
Einstein's landmark 1905 paper on SR, and the relativity of simultaneity it is
still be debated whether Einstein "got it right." Not that people doubt the
mathematics and the physics. They doubt whether Einstein's arguments are
correct. They doubt, as for QM, whether it speaks of epistemology or ontology.
Yet, it seems to me, that from the beginning it was about epistemology.
Even the light postulate says that all observers will *measure* the same speed
of light regardless of their "inertial" frame relative to the source.
It appears to strictly speaking be saying something about measurement and
nothing about ontology. It is silent on what is behind the empiricism.
In as much as science relies upon observable results, we are bound only to
what can be observed. For all we know, it could be a trick of God.

So, tell me, what have I missed. Why teach QM, and what would be taught?

bill

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:23:02 -0500, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:
> What a load of nonsense, Bernie. The fact is that most people don't know a
> damn thing about quantum physics, much less the twin-slit experiment, and
> would likely instinctively reject assertions related to such - but, even
> though quantum physics challenges a very common, fundamental belief about
> reality, the "defenders of science" could not care less. Because what
> concerns them, at the end of the day, isn't science anyway.
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Dehler, Bernie
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:
>
>> “Maybe we should organization national groups whose goal it is to
> promote
>> the teaching of and belief in quantum physics. Maybe we should conduct
> polls
>> repeatedly, tracking what percentage of the population believes in
> quantum
>> physics. Maybe we should ask presidential candidates whether or not they
>> accept quantum physics, or what their opinion is on the twin-slit
>> experiment.”
>>
>>
>>
>> All that WOULD be necessary if some religious group were opposed to
> quantum
>> physics, and even denouncing it from the mega-church pulpits, as with
>> evolution. I recently saw Ken Ham in town at a large megachurch,
> presenting
>> all of his evidence to show that evolution is a farce, based on a faulty
>> atheistic worldview. No- he did not have the guts for a public Q&A.
> But he
>> did mention that atheists attend his meetings and are afraid to ask
>> questions (I was wondering how he thought atheists should ask questions
> when
>> he doesn’t even give the opportunity… I suppose he thinks their
> opportunity
>> is 1-1 in the foyer during the break.)
>>
>>
>>
>> …Bernie
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> *On
>> Behalf Of *Schwarzwald
>> *Sent:* Friday, November 20, 2009 1:39 AM
>> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Evolution and history compulsory
>>
>>
>>
>> Heya Dave,
>>
>> Demanding quantum physics be a required course in school? Interesting -
>> after all, quantum physics is a very far-reaching and important field
> that
>> shook up what used to be our tradition understanding of nature. Maybe we
>> should organization national groups whose goal it is to promote the
> teaching
>> of and belief in quantum physics. Maybe we should conduct polls
> repeatedly,
>> tracking what percentage of the population believes in quantum physics.
>> Maybe we should ask presidential candidates whether or not they accept
>> quantum physics, or what their opinion is on the twin-slit experiment.
>>
>> Nah. That'd come across as absurd, wouldn't it.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Dave Wallace
> <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Primary school children in England will have to learn about evolution
> and
>> British history under a shake-up of the national curriculum.
>>
>> Iain and Michael looks like possible trouble? North Americian
> stupidity.
>>
>> It seems seems to me that the physicists should demand that quantum
> physics
>> be taught, in fact each field of science should demand an advanced
> course be
>> taught in elementary school. ;(
>>
>> Dave W
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
>> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 21 09:42:00 2009