Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #526850 > unrolled thread

electron-electron vs electron-positron

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  electron-electron vs electron-positron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:50 -0500
    Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:51 -0700
    Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2015-10-20 17:12 -0400
      Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 17:25 -0500
    Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-21 01:14 +0000
      Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 07:28 +0200
        Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-21 05:48 +0000
          Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 12:27 +0200
      Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 22:32 -0700
        Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron "Raymond Luxury Yacht" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-10-21 22:23 -0700
          Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 02:39 -0700
        Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 02:57 -0700
          Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 23:04 -0700
      Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 07:31 -0500
        Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-21 16:15 +0000
          Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 20:04 +0200
            Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-21 19:50 +0000
              Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 22:02 +0200
              Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 08:01 +0200
                Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-22 14:30 +0000
                  Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 16:49 +0200
          Re: electron-electron vs electron-positron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 15:59 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#526850 — electron-electron vs electron-positron

In QED, I've always been a little muddled on how to tell the difference 
between electron-electron and electron-positron scattering. There's an 
s-channel 1st-order diagram that's present for the latter that's not 
there for the former. But if were going to ask what's the scattering 
cross section at a particular angle with respect to incident angle, I've 
been under the impression that the two cases are essentially identical, 
even though the bending of the incident particle is due to repulsion in 
the first case, and due to attraction in the second case.

But then looking over a classical mechanics book, I was reminded of 
something rather astonishing. For central forces (like the 
electromagnetic interaction), you can treat the problem as though it has 
an "effective potential" (see eq. 335 in 
http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~egardi/MfP3-Dynamics/Dynamics_lecture_20.pdf) 
that goes like this:

U(r) = L^2 / 2mr^2 + K/r

where K = ke^2 for electron-electron scattering and K=-ke^2 for 
electron-positron scattering.

The minus sign here makes a big difference. For a particle of energy 
E>0, where the trajectory is hyperbolic, the distance of closest 
approach is defined by the "turning point" in the effective potential 
U(r). And that turning point is different if K>0 or K<0, where the 
distance of closest approach is quite a bit *smaller* for the latter case.

I would think that, because of this, we should certainly be able to tell 
the difference via QED between K>0 and K<0. At the very least, we should 
see less QED vacuum polarization if we penetrate deeper to the 
scattering center?

Anybody online that can shed some light on this for me?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#526859

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 8:50:20 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> In QED, I've always been a little muddled on how to tell the difference 
> between electron-electron and electron-positron scattering. There's an 
> s-channel 1st-order diagram that's present for the latter that's not 
> there for the former. But if were going to ask what's the scattering 
> cross section at a particular angle with respect to incident angle, I've 
> been under the impression that the two cases are essentially identical, 
> even though the bending of the incident particle is due to repulsion in 
> the first case, and due to attraction in the second case.
> 
> But then looking over a classical mechanics book, I was reminded of 
> something rather astonishing. For central forces (like the 
> electromagnetic interaction), you can treat the problem as though it has 
> an "effective potential" (see eq. 335 in 
> http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~egardi/MfP3-Dynamics/Dynamics_lecture_20.pdf) 
> that goes like this:
> 
> U(r) = L^2 / 2mr^2 + K/r
> 
> where K = ke^2 for electron-electron scattering and K=-ke^2 for 
> electron-positron scattering.
> 
> The minus sign here makes a big difference. For a particle of energy 
> E>0, where the trajectory is hyperbolic, the distance of closest 
> approach is defined by the "turning point" in the effective potential 
> U(r). And that turning point is different if K>0 or K<0, where the 
> distance of closest approach is quite a bit *smaller* for the latter case.
> 
> I would think that, because of this, we should certainly be able to tell 
> the difference via QED between K>0 and K<0. At the very least, we should 
> see less QED vacuum polarization if we penetrate deeper to the 
> scattering center?
> 
> Anybody online that can shed some light on this for me?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Think charge. TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527081

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
> In QED, I've always been a little muddled on how to tell the
> difference between electron-electron and electron-positron
> scattering. There's an s-channel 1st-order diagram that's present for
> the latter that's not there for the former.

Moller (electron-electron) scattering also has a u-channel tree-level
diagram that doesn't appear in Bhabha (electron-positron) scattering.
In addition (and related), with electron-electron the particles are
identical so the labels on the final state are ambiguous.

> But if were going to ask what's the scattering cross section at a
> particular angle with respect to incident angle, I've been under the
> impression that the two cases are essentially identical, even though
> the bending of the incident particle is due to repulsion in the first
> case, and due to attraction in the second case.

AIUI, s vs. u channel does noticeably change the differential cross
section, particularly at very small and large angle scatters, with
much more very large angle scatters for electron-electron.  I think
this is consistent with your observations about the classical effective
potential.  I don't think this is directly observable because of the
labeling ambiguity (can't tell large from small angle scatters), but I'd
guess it has some observable consequences.

dunno if that helps any, been a long time since I did any actual QED.

-dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527096

On 10/20/2015 4:12 PM, Daniel S. Riley wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
>> In QED, I've always been a little muddled on how to tell the
>> difference between electron-electron and electron-positron
>> scattering. There's an s-channel 1st-order diagram that's present for
>> the latter that's not there for the former.
>
> Moller (electron-electron) scattering also has a u-channel tree-level
> diagram that doesn't appear in Bhabha (electron-positron) scattering.

But I thought crossing symmetry irons that out. Although I do think 
there are those Z-mediated diagrams that provides an asymmetry in Moller 
that isn't in Bhabha, right?

Bhabha has a t-channel and s-channel, Moller has a u-channel and a 
t-channel.

Oh, yes, I see it now.
Bhabha differential cross section is
d(sigma)/d(cos(theta)) = (pi*alpha^2 /s)[(s/t)^2 + (t/u)^2 + (u(1/t + 
1/2))^2.
So to get the Moller you do u<->s.
And then there is the phase space factor of 2 for identical particles in 
Moller.

> In addition (and related), with electron-electron the particles are
> identical so the labels on the final state are ambiguous.
>
>> But if were going to ask what's the scattering cross section at a
>> particular angle with respect to incident angle, I've been under the
>> impression that the two cases are essentially identical, even though
>> the bending of the incident particle is due to repulsion in the first
>> case, and due to attraction in the second case.
>
> AIUI, s vs. u channel does noticeably change the differential cross
> section, particularly at very small and large angle scatters, with
> much more very large angle scatters for electron-electron.

I will have to plot that up to see! I would have thought from a 
Rutherford-style argument that the closer the impact parameter, the more 
large-angle scattering you'd get.

> I think
> this is consistent with your observations about the classical effective
> potential.  I don't think this is directly observable because of the
> labeling ambiguity (can't tell large from small angle scatters), but I'd
> guess it has some observable consequences.

I suppose to do this right, we should do a calculation with one of the 
particles very heavy (probably doing it in a frame where the heavy 
particle is at rest for convenience, though it shouldn't matter). Then 
the identical particle factor of 2 goes away.

>
> dunno if that helps any, been a long time since I did any actual QED.

It does! Thanks so much for your reply. Breath of fresh air around here.

>
> -dan
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527152

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:50:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> In QED, I've always been a little muddled on how to tell the difference 
> between electron-electron and electron-positron scattering.
>

What prompts this question?  The only practical utility for electron-positron
or electron-electron scattering is luminosity measurements within particle
colliders.

Is your basement particle accelerator giving you problems?  Maybe you are
just toying with a new collider design for your back garden?

LOL!  Jeesh!  If you are doing physics as a hobby you should just stick
to accessible concepts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527169

Dne 21/10/2015 v 03:14 Fabian Russell napsal(a):
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:50:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
>> In QED, I've always been a little muddled on how to tell the difference 
>> between electron-electron and electron-positron scattering.
>>
> 
> What prompts this question?  The only practical utility for electron-positron
> or electron-electron scattering is luminosity measurements within particle
> colliders.
> 
> Is your basement particle accelerator giving you problems?  Maybe you are
> just toying with a new collider design for your back garden?
> 
> LOL!  Jeesh!  If you are doing physics as a hobby you should just stick
> to accessible concepts.
> 
Integral part of physics is theoretical physics.

It has advantage you need not any expensive or complicated equipments,
just a table, a chair, a paper , a pen and some books.
( or a paper napkin in cafeteria/bar in Feynman case )

That is why former Soviet union
had couple of excellent theoretical physicists
as they need not almost anything.

What is your problem ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527174

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:28:29 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

> 
> Integral part of physics is theoretical physics.
> 
> It has advantage you need not any expensive or complicated equipments,
> just a table, a chair, a paper , a pen and some books.
>

That's how string theory got started, and we all know that
string theory is free floating nonsense.

QED is addressable experimentally, but the kinds of experimental
scenarios are far removed from everyday physics.

QED is also so computationally involved that, even within specialized
domains, only highly truncated equations are of any practical use.

For these two reasons, QED may be inappropriate for the simple
discussions on this newsgroup.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527179

On 10/21/2015 07:48 AM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:28:29 +0200, Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>
>> Integral part of physics is theoretical physics.
>>
>> It has advantage you need not any expensive or complicated equipments,
>> just a table, a chair, a paper , a pen and some books.
>>
> 
> That's how string theory got started, and we all know that
> string theory is free floating nonsense.

That is how all theories started,
at least those since 1600, requiring some math.
> 
> QED is addressable experimentally, but the kinds of experimental
> scenarios are far removed from everyday physics.

Is the group about physics, or everyday physics ?
> 
> For these two reasons, QED may be inappropriate for the simple
> discussions on this newsgroup.
> 
the group share both simple and complex discussions,
all have their own thread.

with Usenet fading, Usent traffic concentrated to small number of
groups, where is at least some traffic and audience at all.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527172

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 4:14:12 AM UTC+3, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:50:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> > In QED, I've always been a little muddled on how to tell the difference 
> > between electron-electron and electron-positron scattering.
> >
> 
> What prompts this question?  The only practical utility for electron-positron
> or electron-electron scattering is luminosity measurements within particle
> colliders.
> 
> Is your basement particle accelerator giving you problems?  Maybe you are
> just toying with a new collider design for your back garden?
> 
> LOL!  Jeesh!  If you are doing physics as a hobby you should just stick
> to accessible concepts.
=====================================
according to my Model
ALL BIGGER PARTICLES ARE COMPOSED 
OF THE ELECTRON POSITRON COUPLE !!


the idea of all electron matter is quite old
yet in my model it is shown numerically 
and my 'chain of orbitals'';   theory
is compatible with that as well

see Google
'the Y Porat Model - an abstract '

---
if you mentioned the iron element and nuc
is  as well - there (unprecedented !!
2
according to me as well
 longish particles if are connected linearly 
-always with a **change in direction **
iow
never on the same straight line 
so 
the electron positron as well !!
3
the electron is not a point particle !!!

TIA
Y.Porat
===================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527393

=====================================
>according to my Model - 
>I am insane!
>ALL BIGGEr PRATICLES ARE COMPOSERED 
>OF THE ELECTROPOS COSMOTRON COUPLE !!
>Nothing I post!

You are completely insane.

>I have no idea of all electron matter is quite
>without seventeen clams with dice
>yet in my model it is shown numerically 
>and my 'chain of orbitals'';   theory
>is compatible with that as well
>with any other theory on the face
>of the universe

You are completely insane.

>see Google
>'the Y Porat Model - an abstract '
> I'm too stupid to actually post
>a "link" to it but I have herd
>of posibilty of poastign a "link"

You are completely insane.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527429

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 8:23:28 AM UTC+3, Raymond Luxury Yacht wrote:
> =====================================
> >according to my Model - 
> >I am insane!
> >ALL BIGGEr PRATICLES ARE COMPOSERED 
> >OF THE ELECTROPOS COSMOTRON COUPLE !!
> >Nothing I post!
> 
> You are completely insane.
> 
> >I have no idea of all electron matter is quite
> >without seventeen clams with dice
> >yet in my model it is shown numerically 
> >and my 'chain of orbitals'';   theory
> >is compatible with that as well
> >with any other theory on the face
> >of the universe
> 
> You are completely insane.
> 
> >see Google
> >'the Y Porat Model - an abstract '
> > I'm too stupid to actually post
> >a "link" to it but I have herd
> >of posibilty of poastign a "link"
> 
> You are completely insane.

=====================
anonymous dreck pig  P D gangster 
go fuck your mother 
Next!!
to human being 

Y.P
===================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527430

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 8:32:07 AM UTC+3, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 4:14:12 AM UTC+3, Fabian Russell wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:50:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > 
> > > In QED, I've always been a little muddled on how to tell the difference 
> > > between electron-electron and electron-positron scattering.
> > >
> > 
> > What prompts this question?  The only practical utility for electron-positron
> > or electron-electron scattering is luminosity measurements within particle
> > colliders.
> > 
> > Is your basement particle accelerator giving you problems?  Maybe you are
> > just toying with a new collider design for your back garden?
> > 
> > LOL!  Jeesh!  If you are doing physics as a hobby you should just stick
> > to accessible concepts.
> =====================================
> according to my Model
> ALL BIGGER PARTICLES ARE COMPOSED 
> OF THE ELECTRON POSITRON COUPLE !!
> 
> 
> the idea of all electron matter is quite old
> yet in my model it is shown numerically 
> and my 'chain of orbitals'';   theory
> is compatible with that as well
> 
> see Google
> 'the Y Porat Model - an abstract '
> 
> ---
> if you mentioned the iron element and nuc
> is  as well - there (unprecedented !!
> 2
> according to me as well
>  longish particles if are connected linearly 
> -always with a **change in direction **
> iow
> never on the same straight line 
> so 
> the electron positron as well !!
> 3
> the electron is not a point particle !!!
> 
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ===================================

for people who didn't understand what i said above
while i say
''all particles '
it starts with the Proton neutron 
you can see in my  above model the binding energies
inside the  P N particles 
by historic finding there is 
that
BINDING ENERGIES Are actually su particles 
and you see that those binding energies 
are sub composed  of some basic unit 
of about 0.0005 A M U 
multiplied by 3 
and you can see as well that the 'magic '  figure '
3
goes up and up along heavier and heavier particle 
that it is composed  of 3 sub smaller particles 
that each of the sub composer 
is a gain sub composed by 3 smaller
ones
)does it remind you the 3 quarks ??!!
yet the quark itself is  sub composed of smaller 3 sub particle etc etc !!so ??
there is some more basic law that is hiding underneath !!
i think i know what and why 
but that is for later 
only for decent cleave people 
not for hired  block had gangster 

TIA  to serious responsible un  bribed 
not criminal people  against mankind 
-----------------------
Y.Porat
============================

etc etc  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527609

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 12:57:13 PM UTC+3, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 8:32:07 AM UTC+3, Y.Porat wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 4:14:12 AM UTC+3, Fabian Russell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:50:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In QED, I've always been a little muddled on how to tell the difference 
> > > > between electron-electron and electron-positron scattering.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > What prompts this question?  The only practical utility for electron-positron
> > > or electron-electron scattering is luminosity measurements within particle
> > > colliders.
> > > 
> > > Is your basement particle accelerator giving you problems?  Maybe you are
> > > just toying with a new collider design for your back garden?
> > > 
> > > LOL!  Jeesh!  If you are doing physics as a hobby you should just stick
> > > to accessible concepts.
> > =====================================
> > according to my Model
> > ALL BIGGER PARTICLES ARE COMPOSED 
> > OF THE ELECTRON POSITRON COUPLE !!
> > 
> > 
> > the idea of all electron matter is quite old
> > yet in my model it is shown numerically 
> > and my 'chain of orbitals'';   theory
> > is compatible with that as well
> > 
> > see Google
> > 'the Y Porat Model - an abstract '
> > 
> > ---
> > if you mentioned the iron element and nuc
> > is  as well - there (unprecedented !!
> > 2
> > according to me as well
> >  longish particles if are connected linearly 
> > -always with a **change in direction **
> > iow
> > never on the same straight line 
> > so 
> > the electron positron as well !!
> > 3
> > the electron is not a point particle !!!
> > 
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ===================================
> 
> for people who didn't understand what i said above
> while i say
> ''all particles '
> it starts with the Proton neutron 
> you can see in my  above model the binding energies
> inside the  P N particles 
> by historic finding there is 
> that
> BINDING ENERGIES Are actually su particles 
> and you see that those binding energies 
> are sub composed  of some basic unit 
> of about 0.0005 A M U 
> multiplied by 3 
> and you can see as well that the 'magic '  figure '
> 3
> goes up and up along heavier and heavier particle 
> that it is composed  of 3 sub smaller particles 
> that each of the sub composer 
> is a gain sub composed by 3 smaller
> ones
> )does it remind you the 3 quarks ??!!
> yet the quark itself is  sub composed of smaller 3 sub particle etc etc !!so ??
> there is some more basic law that is hiding underneath !!
> i think i know what and why 
> but that is for later 
> only for decent cleave people 
> not for hired  block had gangster 
> 
> TIA  to serious responsible un  bribed 
> not criminal people  against mankind 
> -----------------------
> Y.Porat
> ============================
> 
> etc etc
===================================
now a bit more tips about it 
from that site c;ose to its end 
that no one bothered to look for
so i will help you a bit
------------------
look towards the end  
the section about the magic figure 3

in the binding energies
0.0375 A M U 
0.01125 A M U 
0.00045  A M U 
the finding that
binding energies are actually sub particle with mass

=============================================
NO MASS THE ONLY MASS **- NO REAL PHYSICS !!
=============================================
energy  is - mass in movement !!!
etc etc 
and its unprecedented conclusions !
------------------------

TIA
Y.Porat
=================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527182

On 10/20/2015 8:14 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:50:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> In QED, I've always been a little muddled on how to tell the difference
>> between electron-electron and electron-positron scattering.
>>
>
> What prompts this question?  The only practical utility for electron-positron
> or electron-electron scattering is luminosity measurements within particle
> colliders.
>
> Is your basement particle accelerator giving you problems?  Maybe you are
> just toying with a new collider design for your back garden?
>
> LOL!  Jeesh!  If you are doing physics as a hobby you should just stick
> to accessible concepts.
>

I don't dismiss processes just because I can't make practical use of 
them. Physics theories should be consistent with each other in domains 
where they overlap. Here QED says something and classical mechanics says 
something, and I'm looking to see if they agree.

I don't understand the policy of saying that physics should only be 
looked at in situations where everyday applications are available.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527200

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:31:29 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> 
> Physics theories should be consistent with each other in domains 
> where they overlap. Here QED says something and classical mechanics says 
> something, and I'm looking to see if they agree.
> 

That is a job for the historian of science.  All things classical should
be relegated to the trash heap and given no consideration whatsoever.

A case in point would be the Raleigh-Jeans Law as an attempt to
explain black-body radiation.  Raleigh-Jeans agrees very accurately
at long wavelengths but, in spite of the overlap, its theoretical
foundation is NOT consistent with modern ideas.  IOW, the Planck Law
is not an extension or modification of Raleigh-Jeans but a completely
different concept.

Now I won't attempt to dictate where your interests should lie, but
you shouldn't be wasting time flogging a dead horse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527219

On 10/21/2015 06:15 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:31:29 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
>>
>> Physics theories should be consistent with each other in domains 
>> where they overlap. Here QED says something and classical mechanics says 
>> something, and I'm looking to see if they agree.
>>
> 
> That is a job for the historian of science.  All things classical should
> be relegated to the trash heap and given no consideration whatsoever.
> 

Surely you are joking, Mr. Russell.

If not, than it is a wall to wall running. Stay at the middle.

Every theory and its math model
has its domain of applicability,
if the accuracy is sufficient for the purpose
and if it is simpler to apply than more correct ones.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527233

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 20:04:14 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>> 
>> All things classical should
>> be relegated to the trash heap and given no consideration whatsoever.
>> 
> 
> Surely you are joking
> 

No.  I am dead serious.

I realize that it is a highly controversial position to take and
as a consequence most would reject it.  But it is the most sensible
way to proceed.

Science education should BEGIN with coordinate systems and coordinate
transformations.  This would immediately erect the framework for Minkowski
space and 4-vectors which are the ONLY foundation to physics.  Similarly,
quantum concepts should be placed at the very beginning of our understanding
and not presented as a later refinement.

Newton should share concern with Ptolemy and Aristotle as historical
figures only.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527235

Dne 21/10/2015 v 21:50 Fabian Russell napsal(a):
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 20:04:14 +0200, Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> All things classical should
>>> be relegated to the trash heap and given no consideration whatsoever.
>>>
>>
>> Surely you are joking
>>
> 
> No.  I am dead serious.
> 
> I realize that it is a highly controversial position to take and
> as a consequence most would reject it.  But it is the most sensible
> way to proceed.
> 
> Science education should BEGIN with coordinate systems and coordinate
> transformations.  This would immediately erect the framework for Minkowski
> space and 4-vectors which are the ONLY foundation to physics.  Similarly,
> quantum concepts should be placed at the very beginning of our understanding
> and not presented as a later refinement.
> 
> Newton should share concern with Ptolemy and Aristotle as historical
> figures only.
> 
Your approach would be highly contraproductive....

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527401

Dne 21/10/2015 v 21:50 Fabian Russell napsal(a):
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 20:04:14 +0200, Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> All things classical should
>>> be relegated to the trash heap and given no consideration whatsoever.
>>>
>>
>> Surely you are joking
>>
> 
> No.  I am dead serious.
> 
> I realize that it is a highly controversial position to take and
> as a consequence most would reject it.  But it is the most sensible
> way to proceed.
> 
> Science education should BEGIN with coordinate systems and coordinate
> transformations.  This would immediately erect the framework for Minkowski
> space and 4-vectors which are the ONLY foundation to physics.  Similarly,
> quantum concepts should be placed at the very beginning of our understanding
> and not presented as a later refinement.
> 
> Newton should share concern with Ptolemy and Aristotle as historical
> figures only.
> 

Proper scientific way would be
to test that education approach, evaluate it, and if it succeed,
THEN to claim it is the most sensible way to proceed.

Anything before that is speculation.

Why should anybody believe in advance your statement,
when your approach itself to it is not scientific ?

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#527447

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:01:34 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

> 
> Proper scientific way would be
> to test that education approach, evaluate it,
>

Scientific methods CANNOT be applied to education (or to sociological
concerns in general).  Human beings are not ball bearings on an assembly
line.  They are highly complex organic creatures that are beyond the
reach of ordinary science.

Education requires AUTHORITARIANISM.  What is necessary is obvious to
any perceptive person.  What is lacking is the authority to carry
out, or execute, these perceptions.

For one thing, the classroom needs to be segregated, with high achievers
being forever separated from low achievers.  Note that I do not mention
"intelligence" for it is a spurious concept.  There is no such thing as
"intelligence" but only a willingness to achieve and everyone understands
his own level.  Therefore, the segregation should be based on a kind of
self-evaluation, with each student declaring his own rank.

> 
> Why should anybody believe in advance your statement,
> when your approach itself to it is not scientific ?
>

No one will believe.  That is obvious.  That's why they need to be
FORCED to accept.  As mentioned, only an authority can settle the issue.
Otherwise, there will be endless bickering resulting from misapplied and
pseudo-scientific methods.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web