Physics has been a continuous
revelation of the vastness of our human limitations and of our unseen potential
for making errors. Our perceptions reveal to us no more than the
wispiest of shadows of what we look at. Our language balks at its
attempts to express and communicate what physicists have seen in
their experiments and conjured by their equations. Yet, the little
that science has revealed of the territory around these edges of human
comprehension has catapulted us into a new age of control over Nature—and
over other human beings.
Physics—and its foundation, mathematics—remains mystery to most who try to learn it. Most give up too quickly, unaware that physics (and mathematics) teachers have discovered effective new ways to help their students "see" their occult worlds, and to comprehend—and use!—the power of that catapult. Those who abandon the pursuit of understanding often continue to believe that what their perceptions reveal is potentially all there is; that what their language communicates is The Universe; that all opinions, hypotheses, and aspirations are equally valid or possible; and that they cannot be deceived, by self or others. Wake up! It's a new age! |
|
It's
the magic of math.
|
"Become a magician." |
Merriam-Webster dictionary
|
¤ Some "magician" makes something happen, and you're pretty sure that you could not do it. |
Jerry
Andrus
based on deep understanding of human perception.
But the
magic in math peers past the edges of human comprehension.
It's perception of the deeper patterns in the world. |
There are two kinds of geniuses: the "ordinary" and the "magicians." An ordinary genius is a fellow whom you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what they've done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. Even after we understand what they have done it is completely dark. Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest calibre. Mark
Kac
(in Phyics Today) |
¤ The simpler thing is more difficult. |
problem from
Don Howard
Both of these problems ask for a calculation of the acceleration of some object. On the other hand, the bouncing ball question simply probes understanding, at the simplest and most elementary level, of what acceleration is. |
What
is the direction, up or down, of the
acceleration
of
a freely bouncing ball at the bottommost point of its bounce, that is,
at the instant its velocity changes from down to up?
This question is so simple that it answers itself. Nevertheless most classes give about 5% correct answers if they haven't learned the answer to this specific question; that is, if they must rely on their understanding of acceleration. |
¤ Even "experts" sometimes get it wrong. |
|
|
|||||
a definition used by about half of elementary physics texts. (Even those which speak of "energy unavailable for doing work.") Definition requires logical (Boolean) equivalence, and a magician will sense that this definition fails to meet that requirement--in the way "a vegetable is a potato" fails. |
The Feynman Lectures
on Physics Vol I, p 4-1
|
|||||
Energy: once used can't
be used again: like food and fuel
Quantum Leap: humongous change Heat: temperature Parameter: perimeter Field: an invisible force Light-year: a humongous time Acceleration: increase of speed Crystal: faceted and glass-like Statistics: a tool of liars, propagandists and politicians Epicenter: the center of something big |
Everything was written
by someone who didn’t know what the hell he was talking about, … They were
teaching something they didn’t understand, and which was in fact useless…”
All of those books were, "a little bit wrong, always! ... Perpetual absurdity
... UNIVERSALLY LOUSY!
Surely You're Joking
Mr. Feynman, pp 262-276
|
¤ You
suddenly see it...and you know it's
right. You know it will work.
And
you know you're a bit closer to being a magician yourself.
|
People choose, "Switch" or "Stay." The correct choice is shown statistically. Do more people choose the winning or the losing strategy? Why? |
The magic is in how we think about it. . .TRYtTTRY
IT
|
18 blocks form a cube In many different ways. But it's very easy to erect a barricade to a solution. |
The magic is in simple arithmetic. |
A
carpenter, working with a buzz saw, wishes to cut a wooden cube, three
inches on a side, into 27 one-inch cubes. He can do this job easily
by making six cuts through the cube, keeping the pieces together in the
cube shape. Can he reduce the number of necessary cuts by rearranging
the pieces after each cut? Either show how or prove that it's impossible.
When you don't see the answer, you may wallow in a mud bog of complexity. When you see the answer, the mud suddenly vanishes and you have no doubt. The answer is extremely simple. And the answer has "buzz-saw certainty." |
The
magic is in how we think about it.
|
Arrange the athletes so that position and similarity correlate. |
Physicists always
have a habit of taking the simplest example of any phenomenon and calling
it "physics," leaving the more complicated examples to become the concern
of other fields... Since most of you are not going to become physicists,
but are going to go into the real world...sooner or later
you will need to use tensors.
The Feynman Lectures
on Physics Vol II, p 31-1
|
|
The magic of physics reveals a
little of of what lies beyond human perceptions and easy comprehension.
And understanding it might be necessary to avoid errors, possibly very
serious errors. But understanding requires hard work: "Don't
shirk hard work...Learning is not your goal, 'seeing' is."
In America, (and
elsewhere?)
"This is not suitable bedtime reading — not if you want to fall asleep, that is. Those who think that public policy should be based on sound science will be left in despair that such a goal can ever be reached in the midst of the competing political interests endemic to modern industrialized democratic societies, exacerbated by scientific illiteracy on the part of both leadership and electorate." Paul M. Grant, reviewing
Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking Nature 18 Oct, 2003, p. 663 |
Vandana
Shiva,
a physicist from India |
RETURN TO
MANY-SITES INDEX