- #36
RuroumiKenshin
I agree with ahrkron. It would be much more logical and productive.
I'm sorry Einstiensqd, but reading a pop paperback book on quantum physics is not the same as learning quantum physics. If you stick to it, you'll discover this soon enough on your own.
Originally posted by Einstiensqd
As for the statement that Quantum Physics is off limits to seventh graders, that is a mockery of what the children of today can learn! Heck, I'm only in sixth grade and I am reading The Secret Life of Quanta by M.Y. Han! So if anyone has the nerve to say phyisics is of limits off kids, you are officaly going to be posted as an idiot somewhere on this site where it is most embarresing to see it!
Originally posted by drag
What's hbar and k ?
Originally posted by chroot
Phenomenally good attempt, but I really don't think any real seventh grader would actually be able to follow even a quarter of that material -- especially when you introduce operator notation and begin performing derivatives. ;) One can gloss over details such as how to solve a differential equation, but one can't easily escape the detail what is a differential equation?. Still, I applaud your effort. I think your Intro would be better suited for second or third year undergraduates. Remember, these seventh graders are still learning what functions are.
Originally posted by Einstiensqd
As for the statement that Quantum Physics is off limits to seventh graders, that is a mockery of what the children of today can learn! Heck, I'm only in sixth grade and I am reading The Secret Life of Quanta by M.Y. Han! So if anyone has the nerve to say phyisics is of limits off kids, you are officaly going to be posted as an idiot somewhere on this site where it is most embarresing to see it!
Originally posted by Mentat
Einstein said that Physics should be shown as just pictures, and that mathematics were just to work out the details. I pretty much agree with him.
I do think that there is something to be gained from learning something from an expert. I am a professional rock climber and have seen a few people who go out and read every single book there is on advanced climbing technique and think it will turn them into a great climber. In reality they just learn a bunch of vocubulary words and don't really become much better climbers. What you really need to proress in climbing is to find someone who is extremely good at it who likes to teach other people how to be good at it who will partner up with you and take you in the right direction. I think the same applies in math and physics education.Originally posted by Mentat
I understand that this has been a large detraction from the point of the thread, but I would like to point something out: You can pay thousands of dollars to go to a good school to learn advanced mathematics (and please note, I'm not putting this down) or you can check out books from the library and surf the net a little, and learn the same things.
This may sound wrong, but I have studied all of math, up to Calculus and Analytical Geometry, with books from the library. I have also seen the such complicated equations as those required for String Theory, on the internet. It is all available to people who look and try hard enough.
Yes I agree with thisOriginally posted by Mentat
climbhi, I know that the details are important - and am rather positive that Einstein did too. He was just saying that a physical concept should be expressable as a picture, so that anyone can understand/conceptualize it, and that the mathematics was the paint. IOW, the one that comes up with the idea, needs mathematics to paint the picture of the reality he/she is trying to describe. But this reality should be (in some way) "visual" - even to the layman.