tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808227584959676379.post3828664315147961192..comments2023-06-28T07:56:10.910-04:00Comments on In Progress: Do teach your children quantum mechanicsPeter H of Lebohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03960259139631190172noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808227584959676379.post-27411073431774452502015-05-24T18:27:38.048-04:002015-05-24T18:27:38.048-04:00Well if anyone can teach it, you can. Can't wa...Well if anyone can teach it, you can. Can't wait to read the article. jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341775543033217737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808227584959676379.post-31866193293417516722015-05-22T22:13:56.553-04:002015-05-22T22:13:56.553-04:00I hope your last line was delivered with a particl...I hope your last line was delivered with a particle of irony.<br /><br />In fact, the main reason I wrote this is because Renée has been visiting before she goes to ESL training, and on her last visit, for some strange reason, I told her I could teach her the basics of quantum theory in about 10 minutes. This was before I found the Nova video. Consequently, the reason I liked Greene's presentation so well is because he almost exactly followed my approach with Renée. I started with spectral lines of heated elements, then to marbles (rather than bowling balls) with a little more detail with the double slit experiment, and on to entanglement and the uncertainty principle. Without any props or special effects, I think Renée understood it well. I'll let her contradict me. Anyway, Greene's approach was the same one I took, so I felt it worthy of the blog :). <br /><br />And I totally disagree with your IQ observation. As you (and Murray) know from poker, intelligence comes in many forms.<br /><br />By the way there is an article by Thomas Nagel, philosopher (Harvard PhD) and atheist, called "Public Education and Intelligent Design" in which he criticizes those scientists who claim that ID is to be ridiculed as "not science". He believes it should be debated as "bad science". "The assumption that divine intervention in the natural order is not a serious possibility" is not a scientific view but a religious view. <a href="http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1172/papa_132.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here is the article</a>.<br /><br />Anyway, as you might imagine, he was roundly criticized by his colleagues for stating such a view.James Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871338738388893364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808227584959676379.post-14885246285980614212015-05-22T21:02:40.757-04:002015-05-22T21:02:40.757-04:00Love Brian Greene and Fabric of the Cosmos. If you...Love Brian Greene and <i>Fabric of the Cosmos</i>. If you’re looking for a scientist able to explain complex subjects to a child—or to a mathematically illiterate 32 year old man who satisfied his undergraduate math requirement with a course called “Magic of Numbers”—Greene’s your guy. <br /><br />I agree Jim, the (extremely dumbed-down) lessons I’ve learned from physics are awe-inspiring and almost other-worldly. They’re enough to influence nearly everything you think about. <br /><br />But in a world where a majority of Americans don’t understand fractions and half believe in creationism, I think the implications of quantum mechanics will remain obscure to everyone but those on the far right of the IQ bell curve. <br /><br />Maybe you should go into teaching, Jim!jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341775543033217737noreply@blogger.com