| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"qwerty" |
| Date: |
29 Sep 2005 10:05:10 AM |
| Object: |
Can someone idiotproof this for me |
I am trying to explain SR to my brother - again.
I think I will use the Doppler Shift to explain it.
postulate 1 of SR : all inertial reference frames are the same. ie an
experiment in one will give the same result as an experiment in the
other
postulate 2 of SR: the speed of light will always be measured the same
in any inertial reference frame
I have a car with a red light at the back emitting light at 700 nm.
scientist1 and scientist2 are passengers and each has a device for
measuring the wavelength of the light.
The car is driven at 30 m/s and scientist1 measures the wavelength of
the light.
He measures 700 nm. The car is stopped and scientist1 again repeats the
expirement and again gets 700 nm. This demonstrates the first postulate
of SR.
Scientist2 also gets the same results.
scientist1 then gets out and stands at the side of the road.
The van is then driven towards him at 10,000 m/s (its a thought
experiment ! )
scientist2 inside the van measures the wavelength and measures 700 nm
as before. he has another device for measuring frequency and the
frequency he measures is 4.254 x 10 ^ 14 hertz.
he does a calculation and gets a speed of light of 2.98 x 10 ^ 8 m/s
scientist1 however measures a slightly shorter wavelength caused by the
doppler shift (ive already explained this for sound using a siren on
the van) .
he also measures a slightly higher frequency, doing his calculations he
too gets a value for c of 2.98 x 10 ^8 m/s
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
i am sure ive made a howler at the end by referring to the doppler
effect.
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 05:01:32 PM |
|
|
"qwerty" <footballdvds@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128006310.789018.124150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|I am trying to explain SR to my brother - again.
I expect your brother has more sense than you.
|
| I think I will use the Doppler Shift to explain it.
|
| postulate 1 of SR : all inertial reference frames are the same.
NONSENSE!
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an
electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at
the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet
is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in
the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding
energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in
the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a
postulate, "
| postulate 2 of SR: the speed of light will always be measured the same
| in any inertial reference frame
NONSENSE!
"and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated
in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body."
PLAINLY your brother has more sense than you.
| I have a car with a red light at the back emitting light at 700 nm.
Ok.
| scientist1 and scientist2 are passengers and each has a device for
| measuring the wavelength of the light.
Gonna be hard to do in empty space, but go on.
|
| The car is driven at 30 m/s and scientist1 measures the wavelength of
| the light.
| He measures 700 nm. The car is stopped and scientist1 again repeats
the
| expirement and again gets 700 nm. This demonstrates the first
postulate
| of SR.
You don't know what the first postulate is.
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and
a conductor. .... Examples of this sort ...(be called the ``Principle of
Relativity'') to the status of a postulate"
|
| Scientist2 also gets the same results.
|
| scientist1 then gets out and stands at the side of the road.
|
| The van is then driven towards him at 10,000 m/s (its a thought
| experiment ! )
Ok.
|
| scientist2 inside the van measures the wavelength and measures 700 nm
| as before. he has another device for measuring frequency and the
| frequency he measures is 4.254 x 10 ^ 14 hertz.
|
| he does a calculation and gets a speed of light of 2.98 x 10 ^ 8 m/s
Which proves the speed of light is added to the velocity of the car, so
the second postulate is *****.
|
| scientist1 however measures a slightly shorter wavelength caused by
the
| doppler shift (ive already explained this for sound using a siren on
| the van) .
| he also measures a slightly higher frequency, doing his calculations
he
| too gets a value for c of 2.98 x 10 ^8 m/s
Which proves the speed of light is added to the velocity of the car, so
the second postulate is *****.
|
| @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
|
| i am sure ive made a howler at the end by referring to the doppler
| effect.
|
Not at all. You've proved Einstein was a huckster. Well done.
Now... since we KNOW that the speed of light is added to the speed
of the source, and 18 years ago Valdimir Sekerin and myself (although on
opposite sides of the Iron Curtain then) figured out:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (figure 3)
and then 6 years ago this was seen:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
perhaps you can stop telling your brother a pack of lies?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 01:17:10 PM |
|
|
Qwerty posted:
"I am trying to explain SR to my brother - again.
I think I will use the Doppler Shift to explain it. "
Qwery, before doing so, please learn a bit more about SR for yourself.
Doppler shift is a classical physics phenomena that has absolutely no
connection with special relativity!
If you don't understand the basic concepts of SR, get hold of some of
the original publications of Einstein that describe it in terms that
even a school boy can comprehend.
At any rate, since it is obvious that you don't even comprehend the
basic concepts of SR, please don't mislead anyone else.
Curmudgeonly yours, Harry C.
Qw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 05:04:55 PM |
|
|
<hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128017830.635536.62780@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Qwerty posted:
|
| "I am trying to explain SR to my brother - again.
| I think I will use the Doppler Shift to explain it. "
|
| Qwery, before doing so, please learn a bit more about SR for yourself.
| Doppler shift is a classical physics phenomena that has absolutely no
| connection with special relativity!
Err...
Einstein divides Doppler's equation by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Of course he divides everything by that anyway.
Androcles.
|
| If you don't understand the basic concepts of SR, get hold of some of
| the original publications of Einstein that describe it in terms that
| even a school boy can comprehend.
|
| At any rate, since it is obvious that you don't even comprehend the
| basic concepts of SR, please don't mislead anyone else.
|
| Curmudgeonly yours, Harry C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Qw
|
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "blackboab" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 02:36:37 PM |
|
|
can you point out where he went wrong instead of just beratig him.
he did say that he thought using the doppler shift may have been a bad
idea.
i am sure he can use the doppler shift if he just uses the relativistic
form of the doppler shift.
the point being that both scientists measure the same speed of light.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 05:07:04 PM |
|
|
"blackboab" <blackboab@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128022597.309237.77440@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| can you point out where he went wrong instead of just beratig him.
|
| he did say that he thought using the doppler shift may have been a bad
| idea.
|
| i am sure he can use the doppler shift if he just uses the
relativistic
| form of the doppler shift.
|
| the point being that both scientists measure the same speed of light.
No they don't.
can you point out where YOU went wrong instead of just beratig Harry C?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 11:31:59 AM |
|
|
all inertial reference frames are the same. ie an
experiment in one will give the same result as an experiment in the
other
**************
Try making your rest frame a child's spinning toy top. Then the
entire Universe whirls around it at say 10 rev/sec. (Just like in that
blonde joke about her changing a light bulb). No preferred frame of
reference? I'd choose the one tied to the Cosmos at large.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 01:50:03 PM |
|
|
qwerty wrote:
I am trying to explain SR to my brother - again.
I think I will use the Doppler Shift to explain it.
Then you had better start by knowing the four unique cases of Doppler
shift, two of them being relativistic.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop2.html>
<http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~rfield/PHY2061/images/chp39_2.pdf>
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 05:10:44 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:433C375B.3AE2E1A3@hate.spam.net...
So the Chinese told you to *****. Who can blame them?
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer (Alan Schwartz),
the royal fuckwit, "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:421CA8D5.202258D0@hate.spam.net...
Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?
Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
What a right royal stooopid *****.
See the peeing puppy moortel, he'll not be glad to add
you to his list of truly IMMORTAL fumbles. I will, though.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity
of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely
great velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 01:37:15 PM |
|
|
qwerty wrote:
I am trying to explain SR to my brother - again.
I think I will use the Doppler Shift to explain it.
postulate 1 of SR : all inertial reference frames are the same. ie an
experiment in one will give the same result as an experiment in the
other
This is called the "Principle of Relativity", and is simply an
expression of the idea that the universe operates according to laws
that do not depend on one observer's position or velocity. In other
words, there is no single observer or frame of reference that rules the
universe, but the laws that *do* govern the operation of the universe
are consistent and knowable.
postulate 2 of SR: the speed of light will always be measured the same
in any inertial reference frame
This is simply a special case of what you have called "postulate 1" in
which the 'experiemnt' is simply the measurement of the speed of light.
Your two postulates are thus reduced to one Principle. We *must* use
this principle, for if we abandon it, then we must adopt a position of
contingency, in which the laws of the universe may vary in
unpredictable ways depending on where and when they are observed to be
at work, or how fast you are going relative to the center of the
universe (wherever THAT may be). This position renders the universal
laws unknowable, and all efforts at understanding them futile.
This seems a bit too anthropic for some readers, I know, but once you
get beyond Descarte's dictum 'cogito ergo sum,' you have to assume that
there is *something* beyond one's self (the 'observable universe'), and
that whatever that something may be is knowable. Our evidence to
justify the assumption that the 'observable universe' really exists is
that our observations of it are repeatible, verifiable, and independent
of the observer - we can readily communicate our replicate observations
to others who can then test the observations and report back to us.
Otherwise one descends into a self-defeating cycle of philosophical
subjectivism - a form of paranoia in which one becomes the sole
occupant of a totally delusionary universe which one has created by
one's self.
Your example of the car's tail light is generally OK, but you
overlooked the effect of time dilation on the measurements.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 05:09:39 PM |
|
|
"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message
news:1128019035.666977.178760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip crap]
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity
of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely
great velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can "prove" (ha ha) nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 02:14:13 PM |
|
|
In article <1128019035.666977.178760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> writes:
qwerty wrote:
I am trying to explain SR to my brother - again.
I think I will use the Doppler Shift to explain it.
postulate 1 of SR : all inertial reference frames are the same. ie an
experiment in one will give the same result as an experiment in the
other
This is called the "Principle of Relativity", and is simply an
expression of the idea that the universe operates according to laws
that do not depend on one observer's position or velocity. In other
words, there is no single observer or frame of reference that rules the
universe, but the laws that *do* govern the operation of the universe
are consistent and knowable.
postulate 2 of SR: the speed of light will always be measured the same
in any inertial reference frame
This is simply a special case of what you have called "postulate 1" in
which the 'experiemnt' is simply the measurement of the speed of light.
I wouldn't quite put it this way, since it is not the claim of
postulate 1 that every measurement will give same numerical result in
any reference frame (consider velocity or kinetic energy) only that
laws of nature are the same in all reference frames. Then, postulate
2 amounts to postulating that "Maxwell's equations are proper laws of
nature". That's in the original formulation. In the more modern one
the issue of light is accidental and you rather postulate that there
exists a finite maximal speed of information propagation.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 03:22:57 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 wrote:
"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> writes:
qwerty wrote:
I am trying to explain SR to my brother - again.
I think I will use the Doppler Shift to explain it.
postulate 1 of SR : all inertial reference frames are the same. ie an
experiment in one will give the same result as an experiment in the
other
This is called the "Principle of Relativity", and is simply an
expression of the idea that the universe operates according to laws
that do not depend on one observer's position or velocity. In other
words, there is no single observer or frame of reference that rules the
universe, but the laws that *do* govern the operation of the universe
are consistent and knowable.
postulate 2 of SR: the speed of light will always be measured the same
in any inertial reference frame
This is simply a special case of what you have called "postulate 1" in
which the 'experiemnt' is simply the measurement of the speed of light.
I wouldn't quite put it this way, since it is not the claim of
postulate 1 that every measurement will give same numerical result in
any reference frame (consider velocity or kinetic energy) only that
laws of nature are the same in all reference frames. Then, postulate
2 amounts to postulating that "Maxwell's equations are proper laws of
nature". That's in the original formulation. In the more modern one
the issue of light is accidental and you rather postulate that there
exists a finite maximal speed of information propagation.
To be pedantic, postulate 2 amounts to "Maxwell's equations are proper
laws of nature" and "the constitutive relations in free space are D=eE and
B=mH where e and m are invariant scalars". Of course, the previous 2
equations can be considered included in the 8 Maxwell equations - the 2
curl equations, the 2 divergence equations, the 2 constitutive relations,
the Lorentz force law, and the (redundant) equation of continuity (of
charge).
I was trying to explain the core idea of SR to my sister yesterday. Start
with the idea of vectors in 3-space, and their independence of choice of
cooridnate system - they're the same length regardless of where and which
way you put your coordinate axes. Lengths of vectors and angles between
vectors are invariant - essentially, the scalar product is invariant.
Transfer this idea to 4D spacetime, figure out how to determine magnitudes
and angles in 4D spacetime (ie what is the metric tensor), and that's it!
Well, except for all of the details. And some people manage to fill books
with them :(
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 03:27:01 PM |
|
|
In article <20050930061250.O86081@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 wrote:
"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> writes:
qwerty wrote:
I am trying to explain SR to my brother - again.
I think I will use the Doppler Shift to explain it.
postulate 1 of SR : all inertial reference frames are the same. ie an
experiment in one will give the same result as an experiment in the
other
This is called the "Principle of Relativity", and is simply an
expression of the idea that the universe operates according to laws
that do not depend on one observer's position or velocity. In other
words, there is no single observer or frame of reference that rules the
universe, but the laws that *do* govern the operation of the universe
are consistent and knowable.
postulate 2 of SR: the speed of light will always be measured the same
in any inertial reference frame
This is simply a special case of what you have called "postulate 1" in
which the 'experiemnt' is simply the measurement of the speed of light.
I wouldn't quite put it this way, since it is not the claim of
postulate 1 that every measurement will give same numerical result in
any reference frame (consider velocity or kinetic energy) only that
laws of nature are the same in all reference frames. Then, postulate
2 amounts to postulating that "Maxwell's equations are proper laws of
nature". That's in the original formulation. In the more modern one
the issue of light is accidental and you rather postulate that there
exists a finite maximal speed of information propagation.
To be pedantic, postulate 2 amounts to "Maxwell's equations are proper
laws of nature" and "the constitutive relations in free space are D=eE and
B=mH where e and m are invariant scalars".
Yes, true.
Of course, the previous 2
equations can be considered included in the 8 Maxwell equations - the 2
curl equations, the 2 divergence equations, the 2 constitutive relations,
the Lorentz force law, and the (redundant) equation of continuity (of
charge).
I was trying to explain the core idea of SR to my sister yesterday. Start
with the idea of vectors in 3-space, and their independence of choice of
cooridnate system - they're the same length regardless of where and which
way you put your coordinate axes. Lengths of vectors and angles between
vectors are invariant - essentially, the scalar product is invariant.
Transfer this idea to 4D spacetime, figure out how to determine magnitudes
and angles in 4D spacetime (ie what is the metric tensor), and that's it!
Well, except for all of the details. And some people manage to fill books
with them :(
Well, people are not going to buy a one page book:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 04:47:05 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
I was trying to explain the core idea of SR to ...
... and that's it!
Well, except for all of the details. And some people manage to fill books
with them :(
Well, people are not going to buy a one page book:-)
Students, OTOH, like 1 page books (reading, at any rate, if not buying). 1
down, 499 to go!
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
30 Sep 2005 06:29:12 AM |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0509300745390.28959-100000@localhost>,
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
I was trying to explain the core idea of SR to ...
... and that's it!
Well, except for all of the details. And some people manage to fill books
with them :(
Well, people are not going to buy a one page book:-)
Students, OTOH, like 1 page books (reading, at any rate, if not buying). 1
down, 499 to go!
I had several cheat sheets at work. They were worth 20 textbooks.
Of course, when I needed the details, I went to my 20 books to
look it up.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 04:53:29 PM |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0509300745390.28959-100000@localhost>, Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
I was trying to explain the core idea of SR to ...
... and that's it!
Well, except for all of the details. And some people manage to fill books
with them :(
Well, people are not going to buy a one page book:-)
Students, OTOH, like 1 page books (reading, at any rate, if not buying). 1
down, 499 to go!
That much is true. But, as you say, they don't like paying for books.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
29 Sep 2005 05:26:42 PM |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0509300757460.28959-100000@localhost>, Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
Students, OTOH, like 1 page books (reading, at any rate, if not buying). 1
down, 499 to go!
That much is true. But, as you say, they don't like paying for books.
I tell my 1st year students (actually, it's a bridging course, high school
physics in 12 hours of lectures for those who didn;t do it in high school)
something along the lines of:
1) They might want to have a textbook to complement the lectures
2) I don't recommend any specific textbook; in the past I have, and
some students have liked the recommended book, and others have not.
3) If they're going to do another 1st year physics course, the book for
that one will do fine
4) The best book is the one they like to read
5) The best book is the one they understand best
6) The library has about 12 linear metres of shelf space of generic
physics books; borrow one. At the very least, go there and browse and see
which one you like.
7) Here are some www links to free physics books. No/inadequate
connection? - a CD will get you a bunch of freely redistributable books.
I would add just one more suggestion to this: check with the library
which books disappear (getting stolen or "lost"). If it is worth
stealing, it is worth having.
Given the money that's poured into generic 1st year physics textbooks by
publishers, I'm a little surprised that there are so few good ones. OK,
there are lot's of reasonable ones, reasonably correct, easy enough to
read, comprehensive enough. But they're (mostly) so immensely thick! What
student wants to read a kpage?
I really think that it is a matter of creating the impression that
they get enough for their money. "What, $60 for this textbook, that's
outrageous!" "Now, now, consider, you're getting 12 lb worth of
knowledge for your money, at 5 bucks a pound it is dirt cheap":-)
It's not buying the book that's necessarily
the issue, but reading the thing! A clear and concise 300-500 page
textbook might be just thing I'd tell my students to buy.
At least one publisher is now offering a cut-down 700-or-so page textbook;
I should get a copy for evaluation. OTOH, maybe I should just set "Cartoon
Guide to Physics" as a required text.
Not a bad idea.
Advanced students have different needs. I tell them that Jackson is a good
investment; they'll stil be learning from it in 10 years time. OTOH, this
is also a reflection on the difficulty of learning from the book ...
I had Jackson with me in a dugout in Sinai, for half a year.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
30 Sep 2005 12:39:19 AM |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0509301500240.29208-100000@localhost>, Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 wrote:
I really think that it is a matter of creating the impression that
they get enough for their money. "What, $60 for this textbook, that's
outrageous!" "Now, now, consider, you're getting 12 lb worth of
knowledge for your money, at 5 bucks a pound it is dirt cheap":-)
Back when I was a student, I worked at a textbook store. Among other
things, I got to process incoming stock. The heaviest carton of a single
title was Alberts "The Cell" - it might have only been 8 to a box, but it
was thick, and apparently printed on extra-dense paper. About 30kg/carton,
iirc. (Of course, the publishers would say that when packing returns,
don't exceed 20kg (or 15kg, depending on the publisher) per box, but
they're happy to send us 30 kg monsters.)
Sure, the shipping space isn't isotropic.
The funny part is that one shipment had a largeish carton in it that was
surprisingly heavy. When I picked it up, I thought "this feels like
Alberts". Generic box, rather than a single-title box. Open it up, and
look. Inside was a complete single-title box of Alberts, with about 1cm of
packing around it.
Now, why would somebody do that? To make it heavier yet?
Advanced students have different needs. I tell them that Jackson is a good
investment; they'll stil be learning from it in 10 years time. OTOH, this
is also a reflection on the difficulty of learning from the book ...
I had Jackson with me in a dugout in Sinai, for half a year.
Not long enough to exhaust the book, I assume?
Not quite, but I made good progress (and learned some humility in the
process).
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
30 Sep 2005 02:52:24 PM |
|
|
In article <20051001044825.A47661@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
The funny part is that one shipment had a largeish carton in it that was
surprisingly heavy. When I picked it up, I thought "this feels like
Alberts". Generic box, rather than a single-title box. Open it up, and
look. Inside was a complete single-title box of Alberts, with about 1cm of
packing around it.
Now, why would somebody do that? To make it heavier yet?
I don't think 1cm of packing and an extra box made any significant
difference. I can't guess why, beyond the generic reason of "stupidity".
:-))
I used to train people to pack books in boxes (so they could do this when
I wasn't there, since I was part-time). This wasn't too difficult,
usually, but I did find one person (who was a uni student, as were almost
all of the part-time employees there) who I could train. How can somebody
get into a university if they can't be taught how to pack books in boxes?
Perhaps his parents knew the right people:-)
It might have been that that made stupidity cease to surprise me.
Advanced students have different needs. I tell them that Jackson is a good
investment; they'll stil be learning from it in 10 years time. OTOH, this
is also a reflection on the difficulty of learning from the book ...
I had Jackson with me in a dugout in Sinai, for half a year.
Not long enough to exhaust the book, I assume?
Not quite, but I made good progress (and learned some humility in the
process).
Are you (or any other reader) familiar with Van Bladel's book? It was
mentioned to me that it's a good book, intermediate in crypticity and
completeness between Jackson and Landau & Lifshitz. I see that Wiley is
bringing out a new edition.
Hmm, no, can't say I hear of it. You got me interested, may take a
look.
<rant>
Why, oh why, does Jackson grind through electrostatics and magnetostatics
first, and put the real beginning in the middle of the book?
Hmm, yes, there is a point here. It appears that Jackson felt obliged
to follow the historical development of the field (something that
Landau never cares about). Does this make it easier for the students,
in the sense of gradual introduction of concepts before the full
Maxwell's equations are deployed? Perhaps.
Not that that's such a big deal, since grad students should be capable
of turning to the middle of the book ... But the stuff on Fresnel reflection
coefficients? Ack! It's the perfect opportunity to present a nice simple
1D case of pruning of general solutions to the vector Helmholtz equation
through boundary conditions and orthogonality of wavefunctions over said
boundary, and it's all theta, theta', theta''. What are you going to do if
it's a lossy/gainy dielectric? Complex angles? (Well, apparently some
people like it that way, but not me.) Such an icky presentation of what
should be the simplest example of practical use of general solutions from
separation of variables.
Well, there ain't no such thing as a perfect book.
Of course, when I did it the way I think it should be done, my students
didn't understand me either. Well, at least not without effort and pain.
So? Is this a problem?:-)
(Wot? No learning without effort and pain? Is the "gimme" culture really
without foundation? Heh, heh, NMP!
</rant>
:-))
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
30 Sep 2005 03:47:16 PM |
|
|
In article <20051001055557.X47661@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
Are you (or any other reader) familiar with Van Bladel's book? It was
mentioned to me that it's a good book, intermediate in crypticity and
completeness between Jackson and Landau & Lifshitz. I see that Wiley is
bringing out a new edition.
Hmm, no, can't say I hear of it. You got me interested, may take a
look.
I should see if they'll send me an evaluation copy. Don't know if it's out
yet. I'll post a review if I can get a copy.
Why, oh why, does Jackson grind through electrostatics and magnetostatics
first, and put the real beginning in the middle of the book?
Hmm, yes, there is a point here. It appears that Jackson felt obliged
to follow the historical development of the field (something that
Landau never cares about). Does this make it easier for the students,
in the sense of gradual introduction of concepts before the full
Maxwell's equations are deployed? Perhaps.
Well, who gets Jackson as a first dose of electromag?
That would've been an unspeakable cruelty.
The gradual introduction of concepts is the task of 1st and 2nd year
course. An advanced undergrad/graduate course should build on past gradual
introduction, not repeat it all.
I agree, but I'm getting the impression that many textook writers
don't quite trust that any of the previous courses the students took
was any good (oe, even if it was any good, that the students learned
anything there) and so they tend to retreat all the way to Adam and
Eve and start from there. The beginning of Jackson is certainly
written this way.
Again, I find it worth mentioning that Landau doesn't follow this
practice at all.
In practice, it's almost exactly the same, as far as what the students
have to do. Start with electrostatics as a separate theory, or start with
the Maxwell equations, and set all d/dt to 0 -> same equations, same
problems, same almost everything.
If there was any huge advantage to one approach over the other, then I
think there'd be a much greater tendency to do it The One True Way in
textbooks. As it is, it's a matter of opinion, that wonderful unverifiable
thing, and thus continues to generate argument.
Rather like SI vs cgs, only moreso.
Yes, exactly.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Muldrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
03 Oct 2005 01:01:12 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I agree, but I'm getting the impression that many textook writers
don't quite trust that any of the previous courses the students took
was any good
I suppose the safe assumption is that all students have been subjected
to "lies told to children" in their previous coursework and not all of
them were also told that these lies were not the last word on the
subject. See the tensor thread for a recent example.
Ken Muldrew
kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
01 Oct 2005 02:07:30 AM |
|
|
In article <20051001154914.N33862@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
That would've been an unspeakable cruelty.
The gradual introduction of concepts is the task of 1st and 2nd year
course. An advanced undergrad/graduate course should build on past gradual
introduction, not repeat it all.
I agree, but I'm getting the impression that many textook writers
don't quite trust that any of the previous courses the students took
was any good (oe, even if it was any good, that the students learned
anything there) and so they tend to retreat all the way to Adam and
Eve and start from there. The beginning of Jackson is certainly
written this way.
Again, I find it worth mentioning that Landau doesn't follow this
practice at all.
Stratton is the best classic textbook I know of that starts with the
Maxwell equations. Landau does too, but inflicting Landau on students is
even more evil than inflicting Jackson on them.
Oh, I fully agree. Nobody should touch any of Landau's books as a
first textbook on any topic. They're to be used after you already
studied a topic for a semester or two and think you understand it, to
show you that no, no quite yet.
Having taught graduate EM
for a couple of years now, I find I can actually get some Good Stuff from
Landau. Perhaps Russian students are better prepared?
Either this or the selection was for more sever over there.
I can understand lecturers not trusting past courses, and not trusting
students to have learned what was intended that they learn from them -
after all, that's the way it is. I think textbook writers should avoid
this (mostly, but not entirely. I think an introductory "EM theory in a
nutshell" chapter/chapterlet would be nice to provide context for what
follows. And it would be a nice short summary of the core material).
I agree.
It's funny. I think Jackson and Landau are great books, and I'd even
recommend that keen students get them, but I wouldn't set either as a
required text.
Yes, they should be kept as advanced text, a followup.
Stratton's the closest that would get to that, but apart
from being somewhat old - thus not covering anything about photonics other
than the microwave radar birth of the field - it's out of print :( (Oi,
Dover, it'll sell!)
I recall that Dover used to (and probably still does) solicit
suggestions regarding which books they should reprint. You can give
them some suggestions, nothing to lose.
.. Elliott and Balanis are both good;
engineering-directed but thorough, correct, and clear. Elliott's history
vignettes are nice (but perhaps not the best way to present the history).
No shortage of books, just a shortage of Good Books. Odd, it's a
reflection of the situation with generic general physics textbooks, but
the market is 1% the size, at best. There can't be much money in it as an
author; the books must be labours of love or loves of labour.
There is no other reasonable explanation.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
01 Oct 2005 02:51:40 AM |
|
|
In article <20051001171522.C33862@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
Odd, it's a
reflection of the situation with generic general physics textbooks, but
the market is 1% the size, at best. There can't be much money in it as an
author; the books must be labours of love or loves of labour.
There is no other reasonable explanation.
Our former state government (departed about 1988) was rather puritanical;
they had a whole bunch of censors. Banned movies, banned books, etc. They
banned a classic Australiana book, "Poor fellow, my country". Apparently
the censors couldn't tell the difference between the authors Xavier
Hollandiera (sp?, some semi(?)-porn writer, and Xavier Herbert, and
auto-banned it.
Yes, censors can be quite confused at time. Besides, how would they
find the time to actually read all these books:-)
A review of the book described it as a "love of labour".
Aha.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
01 Oct 2005 03:59:42 AM |
|
|
In article <20051001184447.W55269@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
Our former state government (departed about 1988) was rather puritanical;
they had a whole bunch of censors. Banned movies, banned books, etc. They
banned a classic Australiana book, "Poor fellow, my country". Apparently
the censors couldn't tell the difference between the authors Xavier
Hollandiera (sp?, some semi(?)-porn writer, and Xavier Herbert, and
auto-banned it.
Yes, censors can be quite confused at time. Besides, how would they
find the time to actually read all these books:-)
A review of the book described it as a "love of labour".
Aha.
A fellow student of mine actually owned a copy. I don't think he'd ever
read a line. He used it as a doorstop, and it was most excellent in that
role.
:-))
Perhaps the same fraction of owners of that book read it as did owners of
Brief history of time?
Well, one wonders what fractions of the books sold around the world
are actually being read by the owner (as opposed to those that
somebody just feels "appropriate" to have).
I would venture the guess that more paper backs are being read, since
whoever buys them buys with an intention to read. After all, they're
not very good for bragging and miserable as doorstops.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
01 Oct 2005 06:43:38 AM |
|
|
Why read books at all, when you can go on the web and extract precisely
what you need?? They just use up trees. Oh, Brave, New World. That
was a book, wasnt it? Cant remember? And something about Fahrenheit
451???? It's all just a vague memory, me being a bot recreated from my
memes which I created while I lived on Earth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
01 Oct 2005 03:49:01 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
Our former state government (departed about 1988) was rather puritanical;
they had a whole bunch of censors. Banned movies, banned books, etc. They
banned a classic Australiana book, "Poor fellow, my country". Apparently
the censors couldn't tell the difference between the authors Xavier
Hollandiera (sp?, some semi(?)-porn writer, and Xavier Herbert, and
auto-banned it.
Yes, censors can be quite confused at time. Besides, how would they
find the time to actually read all these books:-)
A review of the book described it as a "love of labour".
Aha.
A fellow student of mine actually owned a copy. I don't think he'd ever
read a line. He used it as a doorstop, and it was most excellent in that
role.
Perhaps the same fraction of owners of that book read it as did owners of
Brief history of time?
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
01 Oct 2005 02:21:19 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
Odd, it's a
reflection of the situation with generic general physics textbooks, but
the market is 1% the size, at best. There can't be much money in it as an
author; the books must be labours of love or loves of labour.
There is no other reasonable explanation.
Our former state government (departed about 1988) was rather puritanical;
they had a whole bunch of censors. Banned movies, banned books, etc. They
banned a classic Australiana book, "Poor fellow, my country". Apparently
the censors couldn't tell the difference between the authors Xavier
Hollandiera (sp?, some semi(?)-porn writer, and Xavier Herbert, and
auto-banned it. A review of the book described it as a "love of labour".
I haven't, can't make any recommendation.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
03 Oct 2005 01:17:06 PM |
|
|
In article <43417147.249000543@news.ucalgary.ca>, (Ken Muldrew) writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
I agree, but I'm getting the impression that many textook writers
don't quite trust that any of the previous courses the students took
was any good
I suppose the safe assumption is that all students have been subjected
to "lies told to children" in their previous coursework and not all of
them were also told that these lies were not the last word on the
subject.
Yes, quite so.
See the tensor thread for a recent example.
Indeed, it is a perfect illustration.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
01 Oct 2005 01:17:40 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
That would've been an unspeakable cruelty.
The gradual introduction of concepts is the task of 1st and 2nd year
course. An advanced undergrad/graduate course should build on past gradual
introduction, not repeat it all.
I agree, but I'm getting the impression that many textook writers
don't quite trust that any of the previous courses the students took
was any good (oe, even if it was any good, that the students learned
anything there) and so they tend to retreat all the way to Adam and
Eve and start from there. The beginning of Jackson is certainly
written this way.
Again, I find it worth mentioning that Landau doesn't follow this
practice at all.
Stratton is the best classic textbook I know of that starts with the
Maxwell equations. Landau does too, but inflicting Landau on students is
even more evil than inflicting Jackson on them. Having taught graduate EM
for a couple of years now, I find I can actually get some Good Stuff from
Landau. Perhaps Russian students are better prepared?
I can understand lecturers not trusting past courses, and not trusting
students to have learned what was intended that they learn from them -
after all, that's the way it is. I think textbook writers should avoid
this (mostly, but not entirely. I think an introductory "EM theory in a
nutshell" chapter/chapterlet would be nice to provide context for what
follows. And it would be a nice short summary of the core material).
It's funny. I think Jackson and Landau are great books, and I'd even
recommend that keen students get them, but I wouldn't set either as a
required text. Stratton's the closest that would get to that, but apart
from being somewhat old - thus not covering anything about photonics other
than the microwave radar birth of the field - it's out of print :( (Oi,
Dover, it'll sell!) Elliott and Balanis are both good;
engineering-directed but thorough, correct, and clear. Elliott's history
vignettes are nice (but perhaps not the best way to present the history).
No shortage of books, just a shortage of Good Books. Odd, it's a
reflection of the situation with generic general physics textbooks, but
the market is 1% the size, at best. There can't be much money in it as an
author; the books must be labours of love or loves of labour.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Can someone idiotproof this for me |
30 Sep 2005 03:01:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
Are you (or any other reader) familiar with Van Bladel's book? It was
mentioned to me that it's a good book, intermediate in crypticity and
completeness between Jackson and Landau & Lifshitz. I see that Wiley is
bringing out a new edition.
Hmm, no, can't say I hear of it. You got me interested, may take a
look.
I should see if they'll send me an evaluation copy. Don't know if it's out
yet. I'll post a review if I can get a copy.
Why, oh why, does Jackson grind through electrostatics and magnetostatics
first, and put the real beginning in the middle of the book?
Hmm, yes, there is a point here. It appears that Jackson felt obliged
to follow the historical development of the field (something that
Landau never cares about). Does this make it easier for the students,
in the sense of gradual introduction of concepts before the full
Maxwell's equations are deployed? Perhaps.
Well, who gets Jackson as a first dose of electromag? The gradual
introduction of concepts is the task of 1st and 2nd year course. An
advanced undergrad/graduate course should build on past gradual
introduction, not repeat it all.
In practice, it's almost exactly the same, as far as what the students
have to do. Start with electrostatics as a separate theory, or start with
the Maxwell equations, and set all d/dt to 0 -> same equations, same
problems, same almost everything.
If there was any huge advantage to one approach over the other, then I
think there'd be a much greater tendency to do it The One True Way in
textbooks. As it is, it's a matter of opinion, that wonderful unverifiable
thing, and thus continues to generate argument.
Rather like SI vs cgs, only moreso.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
