Teaching Contemporary Physics in the Introductory Course

Gordon J. Aubrecht, II

Department of Physics

The Ohio State University

Marion, Ohio 43302-5695

and Columbus, Ohio 43210-1106

Physics Education Research Group

Ohio State University

Abstract

Quantum mechanics and the associated topics of particle physics, nuclear physics, plasma physics have daunted teachers of introductory courses for years. Is it possible to teach quantum ideas at the introductory level? Is there any support available for teachers who wish to include more contemporary topics? What topics should/could one teach? How can we imagine teaching contemporary physics when our students have such poor understanding of the basics? I will attempt to address some of these questions in the course of this talk.

Mostly we pay lip service to inclusion of contemporary topics. We put them off to the end of the course, where we may (or often may not) get to them.

I believe that what we are doing in physics now is important to communicate to the public and our students.

So, you may ask, why is it important to consider contemporary topics in the introductory course?

This is a trick question, as are many that physicists ask.

We know that quantum mechanics is the best model of the world available to us. How do we claim to help understand the physical world without dealing with the quantum aspect of behavior? We can never explain the spectra taken of stars, the spectra students see in a diffraction grating, or the commonplace—indeed, ubiquitous— laser without quantum ideas.

And, as Gene Hecht pointed out after my talk, quantum ideas supersede classical ideas in surprising ways; take the example of Newton’s First Law. What do we say about the double-slit experiment in terms of this law? Is there a force that comes into existence the moment we slide the second slit open? Does this approach even make sense?

Finally, my personal experience is that I am in many ways and for many purposes interested most in what is NOW most interesting to my colleagues. M-theory seems fascinating, opening unexpected vistas. I believe that this is common—otherwise, why should one care about popular culture (as we all do to some extent), the essence of "now." In this context, Howard Gardner, in the The Unschooled Mind says:

"The understandings of the disciplines represent the most important cognitive achievements of human beings. It is necessary to come to know these understandings if we are to be fully human, to live in our time, to be able to understand it to the best of our abilities, and to build on it."

As an example, we use technology that seems magic, but has good physics underpinning. Has someone in your family "nuked" some coffee lately? A departmental colleague comments:

One of the biggest problems out there is the misunderstanding of how to use the term radiation to go from microwaves to x rays. In fact, there’s a cartoon in the newspaper the other day that illustrated this problem. You may recall the last several weeks there’ve been discussions about the FDA approving irradiation of meat. As you can imagine, there are a lot of people who worry about the radiation. The cartoon was showing a guy bitterly complaining about the irradiation of meat and the supposed irony of this was he was cooking his meat in a microwave. The cartoonist obviously didn’t know the difference between microwave radiation and nonmicrowave (ionizing) radiation. What are the issues? It’s kind of important to make people understand these issues.

What contemporary topics will be in introductory courses in the new millennium?

Quantum mechanics?

This is hard, but there have been some attempts made (some IUPP projects, for example, Tom Moore; FIPSE project: Models of Reality). (part 1 of talk)

Quantization?

The "photon" project. (part 2 of talk)

Nuclear Physics?

Particle Physics?

Plasma Physics?

The Contemporary Physics Education Project (CPEP). (part 3 of talk)

return me to Gordon's home page