Saturday, October 14, 2006
the REAL trouble with physics
The problems with unification, string theory, etc. are nothing compared to the real trouble with physics.
Here are several assertions:
1. The anthropic principle needs a lot more support than it gets. I've already talked about this. It's not "giving up" or "metaphysics." It's not philosophy.
2. Whatever happened to physics education? Why are there courses like "Physics for Poets" or "Physics for Future Presidents"? Because liberal arts students can't handle physics? I'm sure a lot of them can... and I'm not talking about the aforementioned watered-down courses.
3. Why don't engineers have to take more physics? Why are there separate "physics-related" courses like the ones here, when there are similar courses taught at physics departments? If AEP is trying to "apply these disciplines to technical problems without regard to formal or historical boundaries between various fields of engineering and physics", then why do they have to take far more engineering than physics courses?
There are serious problems with math education, too. At my local county college, there are engineering and physics programs, but very few sections of higher-level math classes. Take a look at this and sift through the thirty-some sections of Algebra 1 before you finally get to the two sections of Calculus II and III. Scroll down more; as of Fall '06, there is only ONE section of General Physics II. Nothing higher than that is listed.
I've got nothing more to say. ¶ 4:37 PM
Here are several assertions:
1. The anthropic principle needs a lot more support than it gets. I've already talked about this. It's not "giving up" or "metaphysics." It's not philosophy.
2. Whatever happened to physics education? Why are there courses like "Physics for Poets" or "Physics for Future Presidents"? Because liberal arts students can't handle physics? I'm sure a lot of them can... and I'm not talking about the aforementioned watered-down courses.
3. Why don't engineers have to take more physics? Why are there separate "physics-related" courses like the ones here, when there are similar courses taught at physics departments? If AEP is trying to "apply these disciplines to technical problems without regard to formal or historical boundaries between various fields of engineering and physics", then why do they have to take far more engineering than physics courses?
There are serious problems with math education, too. At my local county college, there are engineering and physics programs, but very few sections of higher-level math classes. Take a look at this and sift through the thirty-some sections of Algebra 1 before you finally get to the two sections of Calculus II and III. Scroll down more; as of Fall '06, there is only ONE section of General Physics II. Nothing higher than that is listed.
I've got nothing more to say. ¶ 4:37 PM
