Quantum Poets - week 2
Before we could move to the sciences, today we examined epigrams. This is because my students were writing epigrams about quantum physics, of course. Next week I've had a request for sonnets.
Today we talked about Schrodinger's cat and waves and particles and the consequences of knowledge and uncertainty. We talked more about probability and have decided that 'probability' really has to be our word-of-the-day next week (this week's was 'repudiate') and might even be worthy of a word collage. We focussed a great deal on statistics and what different levels of statistical certainty meant to being able to keep classical science in practise (polygamy in science!).
We discussed quantum physics being emotionally easier for us ordinary mortals than most classical science because of the fuzziness of everyday life. I'm not sure that physicists would agree with me, because at this point in most books on quantum physics there are many warnings on how difficult it is for small minds to grasp. My small mind demonstrated the need for reliable outcomes in classical science through dropping a pen and the basic calculations inherent in quantum phyisics with the relationship between the Canberra bus timetable and busses actually arriving. Then I managed to make my students doubt the reliability of gravity to such an extent that many pens were dropped...We all agreed that there's a difference between something happening 99.9999999999999% of the time and 100% of the time, but that we (as pen-droppers) might not see that difference and that maybe scientists would be able to assume that things weren't inevitable, but were still reliable enough to function.
I read a bit aloud about deities who play dice with the universe and the inevitable question arose: which game? As an historian, I can only know the games played as demonstrated a limited past subset of human experience. Bigger picture stuff I leave to scientists. If anyone knows, therefore, my class would appreciate an answer. Me, I want to know what the die looks like and how it's numbered.
Right now, I'm praying I got the science right. We're all finding it straightforward and yet the earlier books I looked at said it was impossibly complicated, so I rather suspect I'm missing major stuff. (My students have been given a list of key terms and are doing a bit of checking.)
To finish with, there is poetry written by those playing along at home in the comments to last week's post. There's more on Facebook.
Today we talked about Schrodinger's cat and waves and particles and the consequences of knowledge and uncertainty. We talked more about probability and have decided that 'probability' really has to be our word-of-the-day next week (this week's was 'repudiate') and might even be worthy of a word collage. We focussed a great deal on statistics and what different levels of statistical certainty meant to being able to keep classical science in practise (polygamy in science!).
We discussed quantum physics being emotionally easier for us ordinary mortals than most classical science because of the fuzziness of everyday life. I'm not sure that physicists would agree with me, because at this point in most books on quantum physics there are many warnings on how difficult it is for small minds to grasp. My small mind demonstrated the need for reliable outcomes in classical science through dropping a pen and the basic calculations inherent in quantum phyisics with the relationship between the Canberra bus timetable and busses actually arriving. Then I managed to make my students doubt the reliability of gravity to such an extent that many pens were dropped...We all agreed that there's a difference between something happening 99.9999999999999% of the time and 100% of the time, but that we (as pen-droppers) might not see that difference and that maybe scientists would be able to assume that things weren't inevitable, but were still reliable enough to function.
I read a bit aloud about deities who play dice with the universe and the inevitable question arose: which game? As an historian, I can only know the games played as demonstrated a limited past subset of human experience. Bigger picture stuff I leave to scientists. If anyone knows, therefore, my class would appreciate an answer. Me, I want to know what the die looks like and how it's numbered.
Right now, I'm praying I got the science right. We're all finding it straightforward and yet the earlier books I looked at said it was impossibly complicated, so I rather suspect I'm missing major stuff. (My students have been given a list of key terms and are doing a bit of checking.)
To finish with, there is poetry written by those playing along at home in the comments to last week's post. There's more on Facebook.
No comments have been added yet.
