Communicating With Your PhD Supervisor

In Chapter X of my "So You Want To Be A Physicist" essay, I mentioned the process of selecting your research adviser/supervisor for your graduate work. This is possibly the most important person in your academic life and selecting someone compatible is an extremely important aspect of your education.

In last week's Science, there's a wonderful essay on the same issue that focuses on your interaction with your PhD supervisor. It deals with communicating with your supervisor no matter what style he/she adopts. This is very important especially if your supervisor is a well-known scientist that is in very high demand. So this is definitely a useful essay if you are about or just starting your graduate program.

Zz.

Science and Maths Exams are Harder Than Arts Subjects, Say Researchers

Oooh.. now this is bound to stir up a whole bunch of hornet's nests.

Researchers at Durham University in the UK think they have evidence that shows that science and math subjects are harder than arts subjects such as English, social studies, etc. They used the grading scale in the UK's A-Level examinations as their data.

They analysed the GCSE and A-level results of almost a million students who sat exams in the summer of 2006, comparing marks in traditional sciences and maths with those in arts and humanities.

There were "substantial differences in the average grades achieved by the same or comparable candidates", they found.

A-levels in physics, chemistry and biology were marked a grade lower than A-levels in drama, sociology and media studies and three-quarters of a grade harder than English, religious education and business studies, the researchers said.

Examiners were half a grade more generous when marking students of the same ability in psychology A-level, compared with biology A-level.

For many of us, this isn't really that surprising. There have been plenty of anecdotal studies on a general consensus that the science subjects are more "difficult" both in high school and in college. However, there hasn't been any kind of systematic studies on this. Furthermore, I don't know if it is a fair comparison between the two, and certainly it is comparing apples and oranges.

Still, with the UK system, it may reinforce the fact that teachers or even parents may encourage students to take the easier subjects in their A-level exams, which may explain why the number of students in the UK taking the more difficult subjects has been declining for the past several years.

Zz.

Physics Teacher Shortage in the UK

More physics secondary education problem in the UK. A new report indicates that one in for secondary schools in the UK no longer have a physics specialist teacher.

The survey shows substantial differences in the availability of physics teachers - both regional differences and by the type of school. And it raises concerns about the viability of physics as a separate subject.

In inner London, there is a tendency to have general science teachers rather than specialist physics teachers - and 50% of secondary schools do not have any physics teachers.

In contrast, in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, only about 10% of schools do not have any specialist physics teachers.

If we couple with with an earlier report and something that I truly believe that the problem with physics education is the way it is being taught in high schools, then the situation in the UK not very good. It is not just a matter of conveying the material. It is also the enthusiasm, creativity, and interest in the material. Presumably, someone who specialized in physics would tend to have those elements and would show it in his/her teaching.

Zz.

Recapturing The Excitement Of Science

This article is all over the place and going in all directions. Its main emphasis is on the refurbishing of the Faraday Lecture Theatre at the Royal Institution in London. Still, it is an interesting read, especially on the historical aspect. Even more interesting, however, is that the impression that I have regarding the teaching of physics, and how the importance of physics is communicated to the general public, are articulated exactly in the article.

What a contrast with today. Last week, Ofsted reported that at both primary and secondary school level, science lessons were dull and there were not enough practical experiments. Teachers no longer entertain classes with explosions of powdered magnesium; gone are the bunsen burners for heating noxious mixtures in fragile test-tubes.

"Science is a fascinating and exciting subject," said Chief inspector Christine Gilbert. "Yet for many pupils, it lacks appeal because of the way that it is taught."

So why are so many people today happy to admit that they find science difficult and dull? Some of the blame may be laid at the doors of our education system, as the Ofsted report suggested. But there must be more to the flight from science.

People who would never admit to a lack of understanding of art or literature are happy to confess to total incomprehension where science is concerned. Yet our lives today depend as never before upon the outcomes of innovative science and technology. Without medical science, our lives would be shorter and more painful; without physics and chemistry, domestic conveniences that ease our everyday lives could never have been developed.

If, however, the reason for the general public's disenchantment with science is to be laid at the door of scientists unable or unprepared to communicate their subject so as to engage the interest and enthusiasm of non-specialists, then the Royal Institution is continuing a long tradition actively to counter such a trend.

This person in that speeding case may be exactly the product of such an environment, resulting in a complete disconnect between the advances in physics and the way we live our lives today.

Zz.

Public Outreach Program For Gravitational Wave Astronomy?

It could happen! It certainly isn't a very well-known area of physics/astronomy, so any kind of publicity and public outreach can certainly help in making the field more familiar to students and the public.

This preprint highlights the effort in introducing gravitational wave research by the LIGO collaboration to students, educators, and the public.

Abstract: The nascent field of gravitational-wave astronomy offers many opportunities for effective and inspirational astronomy outreach. Gravitational waves, the "ripples in space-time" predicted by Einstein's theory of General Relativity, are produced by some of the most energetic and dramatic phenomena in the cosmos, including black holes, neutron stars and supernovae. The detection of gravitational waves will help to address a number of fundamental questions in physics, from the evolution of stars and galaxies to the origin of dark energy and the nature of space-time itself. Moreover, the cutting-edge technology developed to search for gravitational waves is pushing back the frontiers of many fields, from lasers and materials science to high performance computing, and thus provides a powerful showcase for the attractions and challenges of a career in science and engineering. For several years a worldwide network of ground-based laser interferometric gravitational-wave detectors has been fully operational, including the two LIGO detectors in the United States. These detectors are already among the most sensitive scientific instruments on the planet and in the next few years their sensitivity will achieve further significant improvement. Those developments promise to open an exciting new window on the Universe, heralding the arrival of gravitational-wave astronomy as a revolutionary, new observational field. In this paper we describe the extensive program of public outreach activities already undertaken by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, and a number of special events which we are planning for IYA2009.

Zz.

A Celebration of Learning?

I don't think so.

OK, so this is another one of those where I know that I am being overly critical here, and possibly nit-picking the issue. But still, based on my experience, the important distinction here is lost on many people who are not familiar with science and science education.

This story is reporting a group of high school and college students reading out loud various books in an effort to highlight the love of learning.

Inside the gazebo at Goettel Park was not the place Monday for anyone with a headache: Sebastian Notaro's voice boomed chapters from "College Physics" while Kate Sheldon read a cookbook. Andrea Catania recited from a Harry Potter book, and Chelsea Meredith read from the Quran.

Five others were reading aloud - all at the same time.

They even explained the reason why they are doing this silly exercise.

The event, which didn't have a name, had two purposes, including the collection of donations for a food pantry.

"It's a great way to revitalize intellectual spirit among our youth and show we are interested in learning," Miller said.

The food pantry drive thing, I have no problem with, and certainly can be effective if advertised. But the "we are interested in learning" part has a lot of things wrong with it especially as far as learning physics and mathematics are concerned.

First of all, just because someone can read something, doesn't mean he/she understands the content. Give a high school student a copy of Jackson's Classical E&M text and I can easily see that student reading it. He may stumble over a few words, but he can read it. But did he understood what he just read? I bet you cash the weight of that book that he did not. So just because someone reads off "College Physics" is meaningless as far as "learning" is concerned. That is why you never see authors of a college physics text at bookstores or coffee lounges reading chapters off their books. That would be absurd.

Secondly, one does not study physics and mathematics simply by reading it similar to what one would do when reading a novel, or a cookbook. You don't just sit in a chair with nothing else, and read Griffith's Quantum Mechanics text. While you can get some superficial knowledge out of doing something like that, you do not get the clear grasp of the content without actually working it out while reading the book. One learns and understand the material via working out the examples and following along the mathematics with pen and paper. It is also why these texts have exercise problems to test one's understanding of the material. This is the only way to really get a grasp of the physics. There are no shortcuts.

So while I can appreciate this as being nothing more than "symbolic" or a publicity stunt, the way it is done to emphasize "learning" is all wrong for understanding "College Physics". They could have done better if they read and understood the book and showed a demonstration instead. It certainly would have been a lot more exciting for the audience and may even had prevented headaches!

Zz.

Graduate Quantum Mechanics Reform

So I've written a bit on revamping the undergraduate physics laboratory. I believe that many, if not most, of the studies on better teaching and presentation methods have been directed at introductory college, undergraduates, and high school students. We don't hear much about graduate programs that need revamping. I suppose one assume that students at that advanced level can mostly learn on their own even with unequipped instructors and teaching methods that aren't well-developed.

So it is a breath of fresh air that I came across this preprint that actually talked about reforming how graduate level QM is taught.

Abstract: We address four main areas in which graduate quantum mechanics education in the U.S. can be improved: course content; textbook; teaching methods; and assessment tools. We report on a three year longitudinal study at the Colorado School of Mines using innovations in all four of these areas. In particular, we have modified the content of the course to reflect progress in the field in the last 50 years, use modern textbooks that include such content, incorporate a variety of teaching techniques based on physics education research, and used a variety of assessment tools to study the effectiveness of these reforms. We present a new assessment tool, the Graduate Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Survey, and further testing of a previously developed assessment tool, the Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Survey (QMCS). We find that graduate students respond well to research-based techniques that have previously been tested mainly in introductory courses, and that they learn a great deal of the new content introduced in each version of the course. We also find that students' ability to answer conceptual questions about graduate quantum mechanics is highly correlated with their ability to solve calculational problems on the same topics. On the other hand, we find that students' understanding of basic undergraduate quantum mechanics concepts at the modern physics level is not improved by instruction at the graduate level.

It's an interesting reading, and I've gone through it only quickly. I plan on reading it some more when I have the time. In the meantime, why don't you take a whack at it? :)

Zz.

Can Real Life Physics Example Be Taken Too Far?

This news article reports on a physics question that does not sit well with a number of people.

In today’s Senior Physics exam, one of the problems is about a 'virtual' crime scene in which a victim is lying on the stage in the school auditorium with a gunshot wound to the head. There are four student suspects, and the problem has to do with calculating trajectory and other physics issues.

Many administrators are complaining.

Ruth Rosenfield President of the Montreal Teachers Association cannot believe how such an insensitive question could have been included in the exam, in light of the Dawson College shooting.

What do you think? Would a question like this be appropriate at Columbine high school, Virginia Tech, or Northern Illinois University? Or is there a better, less controversial way to test students about projectile motion without invoking such imagery?

Zz.

Making Sense of the Legendre Transform

I don't mind admitting that, while I was a graduate student, doing the Legendre transform in statistical mechanics was more of a "automatic" response rather than anything I actually understood. All I knew was that it got me from one place to the other, and that's that. Luckily, I don't quite use that piece of information, and that skill, in my everyday work. Unluckily, it means that, while I can still tackle such problems, I don't think I have that good of a grasp of it as I do with other aspects of physics.

That's why I was rather interested in reading this preprint on an effort to clearly introduce the Legendre transform. The authors used the standard, useful examples from classical mechanics and statistical mechanics, so physics majors should be well-familiar with the coverage. I've only looked through it rather quickly, with the intention of reading it more carefully later, but I think this could potentially be highly useful to many, especially if you are still in school learning this subject.

If you have read through this more carefully, and have some comments, please post them here. I'd like to hear them.

Zz.

Science Education for Everyone: Why and What?

This is a rather provocative and often insightful essay posted on RedOrbit. It discusses not just why a general science education for non-scientists/engineers is important (we all know that), but also how it should be done. There are certainly many points in this essay that I agree, and I certainly consider the general introductory course in Physics, for example, not quite as effective to non-science majors in terms of getting across the point. That's why I have tried to put down some suggestion on how to do this better from the perspective of the introductory laboratory exercises.

However, the essay goes a bit further than that and tackles the larger issue, which by and large, I agree with. However, I also think that the author may be missing an important point in all of this. For example:

When we take as our goal the production of students who are comfortable handling science-related issues that arise in public debate, two propositions follow immediately, both of which are profoundly out of tune with the current academic consensus: (1) the students need to know something about all areas of science, rather than a lot about a single area; and (2) the students do not need to be able to "do" science.

I have absolutely no problem with that one. But this one is where the author missed something important:

A common response to the notion of teaching all of the sciences is the claim that the standard type of courses really teach something called the "scientific method," and that this will magically give students the background they need to read the newspaper on the day they graduate. This argument is so silly that I scarcely know where to start commenting on it. If it were applied to any other field, its vacuity would be obvious; after all, no one argues that someone who wants to learn Chinese should study French, acquire the "language method," and learn Chinese on his or her own. If we expect our students to understand the basic principles of ecology or geology, we should teach those principles explicitly. To do otherwise is to indulge in what I call the "teach them relativity and they'll work out molecular biology on the way home" school of thought. Incidentally, the notion that there is a magical "scientific method" explains a bizarre feature of the modern scientific community. I am referring to the fact that, outside of their fields of specialty, professional scientists, as a group, are probably the most scientifically illiterate group in the United States. The reason is simpie: scientists are never required to study science outside of their own fields. The last time a working physicist saw a biology textbook, for example, was probably in high school. If you do not believe me, ask one of your scientific colleagues how he or she deals with public issues outside of his or her field. Chances are you'll get an answer like "I call a friend," a technique I refer to as having recourse to the Golden Rolodex.

There are 2 problems with the author's view on this:

1. Scientists, more than anyone else, I would think, know the limitation of what they know, and because of that, realize that that what they know about other fields are only at the superficial level. I can bet you that if you take someone off the street and another physicist, for example, evaluate carefully what each of them know about stem-cell, I will put my money that the physicist has a deeper technical understanding of what a stem-cell is. Yet, if you ask them casually about such issue, you can easily get the "I call a friend" answer. Why? Because most of us do not consider our knowledge to be on the expert level on such issues. Our "threshold" for considering that we have a valid understanding of something is SO HIGH, because we know what is meant to be an "expert" at something, that many of the important aspect of understanding something are in the DETAILS which one are not aware of by knowing something just superficially! So to deduce the fact that a scientist would rather rely on someone who is an expert in the other field as being "illiterate" in that area of study is bogus! This is where an "anecdotal" observation simply doesn't have enough substance to draw up such conclusion.

2. When we teach students science, or physics in particular, we are teaching them SKILLS, or more specifically, analytic skills. It is a systematic examination of the problems, looking at correlations via the relationships between various quantities and parameters, and then looking at the cause and effect. If one look closely, what I've mentioned here is totally INDEPENDENT of physics! You can apply such skill to any problem that one encounters in life! In fact, I just applied such skill in #1 to argue why the author's conclusion is faulty! When I did my series on the revamping of the undergraduate physics lab, the whole purpose of it is to make a CONSCIOUS effort to get the students to examine these aspects of the formation of knowledge. How do we accept something as being valid? When someone claims that "... scientifically illiterate group...", how do we judge that to be valid rather than just simply accepting it blindly just because someone writes it on a webpage? This is the whole essence of our ability to analyze a situation to make a valid conclusion, and thus, forming knowledge about something. While you do not study classical mechanics in introductory physics classes so that you can be able to understand the issues surrounding global warming, the SKILL that you acquire in thinking through a problem in classical mechanics is very much relevant in your effort to decipher the wide range of information that is contained in global warming.

But why can't we simply cut to the chase and just teach the kids about global warming, stem-cells, energy crisis, etc.. etc? Because there are an infinite number of scientific issues that can pop up! We simply can't cover ALL of these issues or even anticipate what's to come in the future. Nanotechnology is something that is fast emerging as something that could create quite a social issue soon. And who knows, there are those that could easily pop up anytime soon. Teaching specific subject matter rather than the skills that are subject independent is like giving a hunger person some fish, rather than teach that person how to fish. You can satisfy the immediate needs, but next time the same type problem crops up, you have to continue to provide more, rather than just give that person the skill to be able to solve it on his/her own.

I'm not saying covering these areas in a general science course is useless. They are not. However, they should be covered as ILLUSTRATIONS of the application of the analytical skills they learned in science classes. When someone mention "stem cell", a scientist wanting to know about it will first ask "OK, what is a stem cell? How is it defined? What does it do, and what are the properties?" Then the scientist will ask "OK, what are the social/cultural/moral issues? What are the points from each side? Do they make any valid ideas that are consistent with what stem cell is defined as? Are their conclusions unique, or can there be more than one conclusions based on the same set of data and understanding?" These are ALL the same type of questions a scientist asks in his/her own line of work, and the same skill applies when he/she tries to understand the same thing. I don't see any other way to evaluate something to be valid. This will allow someone to clearly know the boundary between something that is based on solid, physical evidence, versus something that has gone beyond that into the realm of moral decisions and social opinions.

The problem right now, as I see it, is that there isn't a conscious effort to tell these students that this is one of the main purpose of them enrolling in such science courses. Many, if not most, of the instructors are simply teaching the content, with little emphasis, even if they are aware of it, of the analytical skills that are being "accidentally taught" through such classes. So these students are encountering a very valuable skill without knowing it, and they lose it afterwards because it isn't something that was visible to them as being important. It is why, I think, that we can start with the revamping of the intro physics labs, because this is where science is right in front of their face, and where they see how we accept or understand something. Only through a conscious and deliberate effort of emphasizing such analytical skills can we generate a general population that can do their own self-evaluation of the information that they are being bombarded with.

Zz.

Revamping Intro Physics Laboratory - Part 5

{{Note: If you wish to follow what has transpired so far in this series, here are Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 3-Follow-up, Part 4, and Part 5}

This may be a bit misleading because it is not strictly a "laboratory exercise". In fact, I think it might be more suitable to be presented during class. Still, it involves the students doing something, so that fits in with the spirit of a laboratory.

This exercise has 2 parts to it. The first is in class where the students are asked to think about a situation, and write down what they think should occur. Then, they get to go out and test it themselves and observe the situation. They then come back and write down what they observe, and compare it to what they wrote earlier of what they THINK should occur. Finally, they get to explain their observations, especially if what they wrote earlier is different than what actually occurred.

So what is the exercise? Here goes...

You are in a stationary vehicle (a train, bus, or a large vehicle). You have a helium balloon attached at the end of a length of string, so the balloon floats freely (without being confined or rubbing against other objects), while you hold the other end of the string. The vehicle then accelerates forward. What happens to the balloon?

The whole point here is to see the effect of the acceleration in a vehicle (on earth) on an object that is less dense than air. You first give this in a class (or a lab) towards the end of the session, and then ask the students to write down what they think they will observe. They don't have to give you any reason, just what they expect to happen.

Then, give them some way to get a helium balloon. This shouldn't be too expensive, should it? Maybe they can get on a train to go downtown, let's say, with a group of their friends. That would be a great way to observe the balloon. Advice them that maybe it would be a good idea to write down there and then some notes on what they observe, and any relevant circumstances surrounding the observation (i.e. was the train packed? Did the balloon float freely? Were the windows open? Was the air conditioning blasting right at them? etc.) Then when they come back, they need to write down exactly what they observed, and compare that to what they wrote earlier before they did the "experiment".

I would then suggest that everyone discussion what they have done. Who predicted an observation that is consistent with what they actually observed? Who didn't see what they thought would happen? Why?

Now, it would be OK to tell the students before they did this that they need to make sure that there are no significant moving air, because that would ruin any effects of the acceleration. But I'm even tempted not to say that. This is because if there are students who did not consider this effect, then there could easily be a discussion on the nature of the 'experiment', and why the result that these students get doesn't quite tell you the effects of the acceleration. The "observation" isn't valid as far as finding the effect of the acceleration in a vehicle on the balloon, because other external factors have intruded into the observation. If these students acknowledged this extra factor, then they have been observant, and understands the non-validity of their observation. If the students did not realize this, then hopefully, other students will point it out during the discussion.

I'm hoping that during the discussion session is where the students start "argue" about the validity of each other's observation, such as the possibility that the wind or other factors might affect some other's observations. I'm also hoping that they might try to come up with some physics on what exactly is the most valid observation for a balloon in an accelerating vehicle that isn't affected by any other external factors. As the instructors, I would suggest you simply stay out of the way, and see how the students are thinking and reasoning their way through this. You can certainly offer some guidance, but the "thinking process" may take awhile, especially if there are many students who observe things differently from each other. They need to weed out which observation is "faulty" as far as answering the question at hand. Once they figured out the valid observation, then they need to figure out why it happened that way. It is the students that need to make their own self-discovery.

BTW, the valid observation in this case is that the balloon will tilt FORWARD, in the direction of the motion of the vehicle. This is, at first, counter-intuitive, because when a vehicle accelerates, objects tend to get pushed back in the opposite direction of motion. So the first inclination is to expect the balloon to tilt backwards. However, a floating balloon is less dense than the air surrounding it. So when the vehicle accelerates, the air surrounding the balloon gets pushed to the back of the vehicle more than the balloon, and thus displacing the balloon forward.

Strangely enough, it observation shouldn't be THAT unusual, because there's an identical situation to this that we are quite familiar with. If we apply Einstein's equivalence of gravity to acceleration, then technically, we are accelerating "upwards" at 9.8 m/s^2. Now try letting go of a helium balloon. It floats UP, in the direction of our "motion". It's the same effect we see in the accelerating vehicle. Yet, I'm sure, for many people, the observation of the balloon tilting forward is non-intuitive. If you are lucky enough to have students who actually argue using this point, then you have one heck of a student! I consider the ability to see the similarities of something "new" with something that they are familiar with as a major accomplishment. It is how we can describe many things that appear to be "different", yet share almost the same type of description or phenomena. I would suggest that if no students realize this, that you bring it up at the end of the discussion.

Zz.

Physics In Action at Theme Parks

Summer is almost here (at least here as in the northern hemisphere). With that, many theme parks are gearing for their busiest time of the year. Taking advantage of this are several schools and programs that try to marry the fun of theme park rides with physics lessons.

There are two recent examples to this. The first one is the Physics Day for area students at the Six Flags theme park in Largo.

Barnabas Adekanye, Irving Delco, Frailen Ramirez, Ludwin Romero and Johnny Wilks, all sophomores at Northwestern High School in Hyattsville who study engineering, were somewhere in the middle. They had brought a 28-page workbook of problems to solve. It was complicated stuff with a lot of formulas.

"Compare the change in potential energy to the gain in kinetic energy," went one question about the Mind Eraser. "Within experimental error, was energy conserved? Explain your answer."

Johnny, 15, had an easier explanation for what they were learning: "Like how the gravity and force relates with the loops and stuff."

The second example is a trip to Ceder Point by students from Windsor, Canada. I think it is a valid concern to look at it closely and see if the students are learning something, rather than simply using it as an excuse for a trip to a theme park. There has to be a conscious program to clearly demonstrate the physics principle to the students, and that the students actually got something. I think most of these programs try do that.

Zz.

Teaching Superfluidity at the Introductory Level

I've only glanced through briefly this preprint, but from what I can see, it might provide a useful intro to superfluidity to undergraduate students, and even to those with some physics background. This isn't a topic that is dealt with in extensive details at the modern physics intro level, so it might fill a gap (no pun intended).

If you have read this and have comments about it, I'd like to hear them, especially if my impression of it isn't accurate.

Zz.

The Extreme Deficit of Physics Undergraduates

David Harris is posting his report from the APS April Meeting going on this week in St. Louis. He is reporting on a session on physics education presented by Ted Hodapp from the APS. A listing of the issues involved in the shortage of physicists were given.

* The nuclear power industry will soon be suffering a shortage of qualified physicists to work for them. About 33 new power plants have been approved in the United States and will be starting up from 2010. That industry needs people with good science/math/problem solving abilities and physics graduates are an obvious choice.
* The medical physics industry employs about 3200 physicists, and have about 300 new jobs each year more than the current capacity for people with undergrad physics degrees. 78% of those people work in radiation oncology, and 16% in medical imaging.
* The growth of occupations requiring science and engineering undergraduate degrees has much higher growth than the civilian labor force but S&E enrollments are not growing anywhere near that fast.
* School principals rated physics and maths teachers about the hardest to recruit along with special needs teachers, primarily due to a shortage of qualified people.
* Math and computer science have about 70,000 undergraduate degrees granted each year, life science about 260,000. Physics has a mere 5000.
* Unemployment for physics graduates is very low, and for physics PhDs is an all-time low of 2.5%
* There is a need for US citizens with advanced physics degrees to work in classified areas. Hodapp says that Cherry Murray called the lack of US citizens with advanced degrees as “a national crisis.”
* The Rising Above the Gathering Storm report, the America COMPETES act, and the Tapping America’s Potential report all call for large increases in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates.

Of course, there is a different viewpoint to this. You can read the comments posted to that blog entry, and also to the post that I made earlier that challenges the "Gathering Storm" report of the NAS.

Still, I have my own comments here.

1. The shortage being experienced by the nuclear industry is a direct consequences of the closing down of many nuclear engineering program in universities throughout the country during the past couple of decades. This is due to the lack of demand for nuclear engineers since the industry hasn't built a new commercial nuclear power plant at least during that time period. I don't think this can be attributed directly to the lack of physics majors.

2. While the employment may be "low", one also needs to look at what areas of physics that are more in demand than others and which areas of physics managed to get their graduates to land a job related to physics.

3. Traditional physics education needs to pay more attention to non-traditional jobs that may be available to physics graduates. I've seen school programs that are preparing their physics students to go into other areas upon graduation, rather than sticking with the traditional B.Sc-Ph.D-Post Doc-Faculty career tracks. Many smaller schools are at the forefront of that.

I still believe that a physics degree can still provide a rewarding career. However, I don't think that a lot of students are well-prepared to face the reality of employment after they graduate.

Zz.

Revamping Intro Physics Laboratory - Part 5

{Note: If you wish to follow what has transpired so far in this series, here are Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 3-Follow-up, and Part 4}

I read this post in PhysicsForums and immediately realized that this is an excellent laboratory experiment and a perfect one to follow what I've described in Part 4. This was done as part of a test, but I can see this as being quite suitable for an intro undergraduate lab, especially after they had just done springs and Hooke's law.

Again, this gives them a task, rather than an explicit set of instructions on what to do. They will need to know about the elastic spring extension and also simple, basic mechanics. So this may not be that suitable to be done at the very beginning of the course, but maybe after a couple of weeks or so to make sure the students have been introduced to simple 1D kinematics. But the fact that this student could have done it, and done it well, indicates that this is certainly doable.

BTW, do most "elastic bands" obey Hooke's law rather well? I remember testing a typical rubber band one time, and it deviated from linearity rather easily. It would be a cruel thing to do to give the students such elastic bands! :)

Zz.

Sea Perch is a Fun, Hands-On Approach to Teaching Science

This Physics Today article highlights a project called Sea Perch, a hands-on approach to getting schoolchildren interested in science and technology.

For 10 weeks, Anderson will be showing the 10 students who stay after school for a couple of hours how to assemble their ROVs from kits consisting of such everyday items as PVC pipe and electrical tape. When the students are finished, they'll get to take the electrically powered vehicles to a test tank at the US Naval Academy, where they'll maneuver them by remote control. Throughout the process, the students will learn about buoyancy, displacement, and other physics principles through simple, well-crafted experiments. They also learn how to operate an electric drill and a soldering iron. Best of all, they're having fun doing it.

This is similar to my philosophy on the revamping of the undergraduate intro physics labs. Don't give some rudimentary exercise for them to do. Give them a TASK in which they have to build something or figure out something to accomplish that task. Along the way, they will need to learn certain techniques, or learn certain reason why something should be done in a certain way, just like the kids on this program:

As the children await their turn with the drill, they tested Archimedes' principle by fashioning crude model ships out of aluminum foil. Their goal was to see how many marbles they could load into the makeshift hull before it sank from the weight. By maximizing the length and width of their boats, they learned, they could increase the marble count. They recorded observations in laboratory logbooks. Asked by Anderson to explain how repeated trials are necessary in science, one savvy student explained the importance of changing a single variable at a time.

Reviewing what they had learned that day, Charlie Youngman observed, "the more weight, the more water it displaces," while Matt Rinaldi explained that if a vessel has "solid walls," it's less likely to sink. For R. J. Neal, the biggest lesson was "safety first; always use goggles when drilling."

If these are the lessons that the students learned from the program, then I would say that in my eyes, it has accomplished what many undergraduate intro physics labs have failed to accomplish or reinforce into the students. The ability to know the relationship between what we manipulate and what the corresponding outcome is one of the most important aspect of science, and certainly, experimental science. The students in this program obviously are getting that without even having to be taught of it. Why can't we do the same thing with the undergraduate intro physics labs?

Zz.

Webcast: Nobel Laureate to lecture on "Blind Chance or Intelligent Design: The Need for Basic Research," April 8, 2008

Here is the announcement for the next series of Honeywell-Nobel Initiative lecture series:

Some scientific advances, such as the discoveries of X-rays and penicillin were stumbled upon through serendipity. Others, like streptomycin and nuclear reactors, resulted from targeted and specific research. Honeywell will be presenting a lecture and Webcast by Nobel Laureate Dr. Sheldon Glashow on “Blind Chance or Intelligent Design: The Need for Basic Research" at 9:00AM on April 9, 2008 in Beijing (9:00PM pm April 8, 2008 in Eastern Time).

Dr. Glashow’s many research accomplishments in theoretical physics include his prediction of the charmed quark (for which he was awarded the Oppenheimer Medal) and his seminal contributions to the unified theory of weak and electromagnetic interactions (for which he shared the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics).

For the past quarter century, while he has continued his fundamental researches in particle physics and cosmology, Dr. Glashow has also focused on stimulating interest in science among high-school students and encouraging scientific literacy among non-science students at the university level.

Dr. Glashow will be delivering a lecture to students at Beihang University, Beijing, China on April 9. A live Webcast of his remarks, as well as related content, will be available for viewing from Honeywell Science.

The video of the recent lecture on Cosmic Background Radiation by George Smoot is now available online.



Zz.

Accelerator in a Bowl

This is a cool demonstration to illustrate how they accelerate particles at the Tevatron at Fermilab.



Zz.

An Inquiry Into the Reproduction of Physics-Phobic Children by Physics-Phobic Teachers

I know! I was intrigued by the title as well! :)

First of all, this is a paper that was originally published in Japanese, and this English version is, what appears to be, an almost direct translation. So there will be some awkward passages here and there. If you keep that in mind, everything should be OK (just think of literal translation and you'll be fine).

The authors studied the effect of teachers who themselves have little understanding or interest in physics on students. Somehow, the teachers disinterest in physics can (surprise!) transfers itself to the students.

It is interesting to note that, with the budget crisis in physics in the US and UK, we tout the high investments in science in Europe and Asia, particularly Japan, China, and Korea. But it is obvious from this report that even in Japan, they also face, to a lesser degree, problems in getting students to do physics, not just as a career, but in terms of being educated or literate in it.

Zz.

Considering Science Education

There has been only one essay so far in which I flat out tell everyone to go read it. It was the Helen Quinn essay "Belief and Knowledge - A Plea About Language".

OK, so here comes another one. In the March 21, 2008 issue of Science, an editorial by Bruce Alberts is a MUST READ by everyone and anyone (Science, v.319. p.1589 (2008)). He argues why science education is important to everyone, and not just science students.

I consider science education to be critically important to both science and the world, and I shall frequently address this topic on this page. Let's start with a big-picture view. The scientific enterprise has greatly advanced our understanding of the natural world and has thereby enabled the creation of countless medicines and useful devices. It has also led to behaviors that have improved lives. The public appreciates these practical benefits of science, and science and scientists are generally respected, even by those who are not familiar with how science works or what exactly it has discovered.

But society may less appreciate the advantage of having everyone aquire, as part of their formal education, the ways of thinking and behaving that are central to the practice of successful science: scientific habits of mind. These habits include a skeptical attitude toward dogmatic claims and a strong desire for logic and evidence. As famed astronomer Carl Sagan put it, science is our best "bunk" detector. Individuals and societies clearly need a means to logically test the onslaught of constant clever attempts to manipulate our purchasing and political decisions. They also need to challenge what is irrational, including the intolerance that fuels so many regional and global conflicts.

I totally agree. If you have read the beginning of my series on revamping the intro physics labs, I've always argued that these labs can be a valuable tool to these students (the majority of whom are not physics majors) as an illustration on how we accept something to be valid, or how we arrive at some of our knowledge. We should emphasize the idea that using scientific technique to verify something is the strongest degree of certainty that one can have in any endeavor. It is why scientific evidence is different than anecdotal evidence. It is why astrology is not a science, whereas astronomy is. The fact that many still can't tell the difference is an important reflection on how these arrive at what they perceive to be true. This means that many of the decisions they make may not be based on valid information or evidence.

So think of what happens when they vote for their political leaders....

Zz.