Comments on: If it ain’t broke … http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:39:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: aab http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18835 aab Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:43:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18835 And to see the effect of electrical vs gravitation force over distance take an electron and a proton with a distance d between them. Now we know the masses and charges of this two particles. The only variable is distance d. Plot Fg (gravitational force) as a function of d. Also plot Fe (electrical force) as a function of d. Compare the two plots. The two graphs should be asymptotically approaching 0 with concave curves facing up (more like graph of 1/x for x>0). Whichever plot approaches 0 the fastest is the weaker force. I think the problem is that students are not taught how to use Math to solve elementary questions such as the above. An equation is worth thousand statements (or more). And to see the effect of electrical vs gravitation force over distance take an electron and a proton with a distance d between them. Now we know the masses and charges of this two particles. The only variable is distance d. Plot Fg (gravitational force) as a function of d. Also plot Fe (electrical force) as a function of d. Compare the two plots. The two graphs should be asymptotically approaching 0 with concave curves facing up (more like graph of 1/x for x>0). Whichever plot approaches 0 the fastest is the weaker force. I think the problem is that students are not taught how to use Math to solve elementary questions such as the above. An equation is worth thousand statements (or more).

]]> By: AAB http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18834 AAB Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:35:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18834 Is gravitational force stronger than electrical force? It should be easy to find out (mathematically). Assume an electron (e) and a proton (p) are (d) distance apart. Calculate the gravitational force between them using their masses and the distance between them (get the force in Newtons). Then calculate the electrical force between them using their charges and the distance between them (get the force in Newtons). Which force is bigger? Shouldn't it be this simple. Is gravitational force stronger than electrical force? It should be easy to find out (mathematically). Assume an electron (e) and a proton (p) are (d) distance apart. Calculate the gravitational force between them using their masses and the distance between them (get the force in Newtons). Then calculate the electrical force between them using their charges and the distance between them (get the force in Newtons). Which force is bigger? Shouldn’t it be this simple.

]]> By: WillieStyle http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18833 WillieStyle Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:20:33 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18833 Thanks antoni, I figured I was using the wrong terminology. I meant whatever Einstein called that wierd stuff that was supposed to apply a repulsive gravitational force. Basicaly, the analog to positive and negative charge. Thanks antoni, I figured I was using the wrong terminology. I meant whatever Einstein called that wierd stuff that was supposed to apply a repulsive gravitational force. Basicaly, the analog to positive and negative charge.

]]> By: Antoni Jaume http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18832 Antoni Jaume Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:08:42 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18832 Williestile, dark matter is gravitationally equivalent to usual matter. Dark matter was first thought to be matter that did not glow, so the dark adjective, and was not apparent to telescopes, but which was needed to explain the dynamics of stars in galaxies. The visible matter of galaxies is not enough to maintain them bound by gravity, they should have dissipated long before present. DSW Williestile, dark matter is gravitationally equivalent to usual matter. Dark matter was first thought to be matter that did not glow, so the dark adjective, and was not apparent to telescopes, but which was needed to explain the dynamics of stars in galaxies. The visible matter of galaxies is not enough to maintain them bound by gravity, they should have dissipated long before present. DSW

]]> By: WillieStyle http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18831 WillieStyle Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:41:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18831 <blockquote>I had an interesting talk with my Physics teacher about the relative strength of gravity and the electromagnetic force. Common shorthand was that electric force is stronger, but gravity is more effective over long distances. Since both are subject to the inverse square law I wasn’t convinced that was a good way of putting it. If you could get as much of an electric potential difference as you get mass, there isn’t any reason why the two shouldn’t be comparable over long distances. Electric force calculations are important inside atoms because there is a very high charge to mass ratio. They aren’t so important in Earth/Moon interactions because there is a low charge to mass ratio. So I suggested that you couldn’t really make a statement about which was the stronger force unless you knew what the fundamental units of charge and mass were. (My logic might be wrong, or ill-informed but the response I got was ‘no, gravity is the weaker force’. </blockquote> That's a terrible story Sebastian. I worked as a substitute Science and Math teacher for a few months and the complaint I heard most often from teachers was that most students simply didn't give a damn. So I find it especially distressing that your teacher would just dismiss your question like that. In any case, if you're still interested in your question: The problem with your reasoning, I think, is what constitutes a high or low matter to charge ratio? Why is 10^-19 coulombs "a lot" of charge but 10^-27 kg is "a little" charge. I think the only way to give any meaning to terms like "a lot" or "a little" is to look at the range of quantities we see in nature. A little mass is a single sub atomic particle like a proton, while a lot of mass is planets, stars or what have you. Similarly, a little charge is a single charged particle like a proton, while a lot of charge is macroscopic chunks of charge. If you use this metric, then even when there's only "a little" charge and "a little" mass, the electric force is still significant while the gravitational force is almost entirely insignificant. So in that sense, it is right to speak of the electric force as "stronger" than the gravitational force. As for range, the way to calculate the effect of electric charges from a distance is to sum up the total qi/r^2 from that distance. Because positive and negative charges are rather evenly distributed throughout the universe, summing over any large distance will add up many positive and negative charges leading to a total that is almost always close to 0. On the other hand, if "dark matter" exists, it doesn't seem to be as evenly spread over all space. As such, gravitational sources don't tend to "cancel each other out" over large distances the way electrical sources do. At least I think that's right.
I had an interesting talk with my Physics teacher about the relative strength of gravity and the electromagnetic force. Common shorthand was that electric force is stronger, but gravity is more effective over long distances. Since both are subject to the inverse square law I wasn’t convinced that was a good way of putting it. If you could get as much of an electric potential difference as you get mass, there isn’t any reason why the two shouldn’t be comparable over long distances. Electric force calculations are important inside atoms because there is a very high charge to mass ratio. They aren’t so important in Earth/Moon interactions because there is a low charge to mass ratio. So I suggested that you couldn’t really make a statement about which was the stronger force unless you knew what the fundamental units of charge and mass were. (My logic might be wrong, or ill-informed but the response I got was ‘no, gravity is the weaker force’.
That’s a terrible story Sebastian. I worked as a substitute Science and Math teacher for a few months and the complaint I heard most often from teachers was that most students simply didn’t give a damn. So I find it especially distressing that your teacher would just dismiss your question like that. In any case, if you’re still interested in your question: The problem with your reasoning, I think, is what constitutes a high or low matter to charge ratio? Why is 10-19 coulombs “a lot” of charge but 10-27 kg is “a little” charge. I think the only way to give any meaning to terms like “a lot” or “a little” is to look at the range of quantities we see in nature. A little mass is a single sub atomic particle like a proton, while a lot of mass is planets, stars or what have you. Similarly, a little charge is a single charged particle like a proton, while a lot of charge is macroscopic chunks of charge. If you use this metric, then even when there’s only “a little” charge and “a little” mass, the electric force is still significant while the gravitational force is almost entirely insignificant. So in that sense, it is right to speak of the electric force as “stronger” than the gravitational force. As for range, the way to calculate the effect of electric charges from a distance is to sum up the total qi/r^2 from that distance. Because positive and negative charges are rather evenly distributed throughout the universe, summing over any large distance will add up many positive and negative charges leading to a total that is almost always close to 0. On the other hand, if “dark matter” exists, it doesn’t seem to be as evenly spread over all space. As such, gravitational sources don’t tend to “cancel each other out” over large distances the way electrical sources do. At least I think that’s right.

]]> By: gamini http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18830 gamini Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:32:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18830 The argument seems to be that education in science and technology confers no direct advantage to the student, equips her with no practical skills that will improve her life prospects, and therefore should not be a cirricular priority. The same argument is often made about other academic disciplines - literature, history, art, even political and economic theory. The more-or-less explicit suggestion is that education ought to be seen as having only instrumental, rather than intrinsic, value. While we can all agree that some level of economic and social success are important, many of us also cling to an ideal of learning for learning's sake: individuals and societies are better off, we claim, when they have an understanding of their world and the forces that shape it, independent of any tangible benefit this understanding may bring. It's hard to think of any forces that shape the world more fundamentally than those considered by the sciences, and I would argue that these fields of study can be every bit as rewarding as, say, the humanities (having spent time in each). Even rejecting this notion of (public funded) education for its own sake, however, Daniel's argument fails, because its premise - that scientific knowledge is not useful - is false. Forget about that significant fraction of occupations which interact directly with the physical world, from doctors, nurses, and engineers to plumbers, electricians, and chefs. The study of science and technology teaches (albeit often rather obliquely) scientific <i>reasoning</i>, the ability to ask interesting questions and to draw valid conclusions based on available evidence. Empirical observation and logical inference are not of course unique to science, but nowhere are they more central or practiced more rigorously. These intellectual habits come in handy in every field of study, every occupation, and surprisingly many common problems and tasks. For all the importance of critical and subjective modes of thought, it is casual scientific reasoning that gets most of us through the day. I do think that we could improve science education by making it less substantive and more methodological: concentrate on the <i>process</i> of scientific inquiry, and the philosophical underpinnings of that process, rather than exclusively on the end results. The argument seems to be that education in science and technology confers no direct advantage to the student, equips her with no practical skills that will improve her life prospects, and therefore should not be a cirricular priority. The same argument is often made about other academic disciplines – literature, history, art, even political and economic theory. The more-or-less explicit suggestion is that education ought to be seen as having only instrumental, rather than intrinsic, value. While we can all agree that some level of economic and social success are important, many of us also cling to an ideal of learning for learning’s sake: individuals and societies are better off, we claim, when they have an understanding of their world and the forces that shape it, independent of any tangible benefit this understanding may bring. It’s hard to think of any forces that shape the world more fundamentally than those considered by the sciences, and I would argue that these fields of study can be every bit as rewarding as, say, the humanities (having spent time in each). Even rejecting this notion of (public funded) education for its own sake, however, Daniel’s argument fails, because its premise – that scientific knowledge is not useful – is false. Forget about that significant fraction of occupations which interact directly with the physical world, from doctors, nurses, and engineers to plumbers, electricians, and chefs. The study of science and technology teaches (albeit often rather obliquely) scientific reasoning, the ability to ask interesting questions and to draw valid conclusions based on available evidence. Empirical observation and logical inference are not of course unique to science, but nowhere are they more central or practiced more rigorously. These intellectual habits come in handy in every field of study, every occupation, and surprisingly many common problems and tasks. For all the importance of critical and subjective modes of thought, it is casual scientific reasoning that gets most of us through the day. I do think that we could improve science education by making it less substantive and more methodological: concentrate on the process of scientific inquiry, and the philosophical underpinnings of that process, rather than exclusively on the end results.

]]> By: Sebastian Holsclaw http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18829 Sebastian Holsclaw Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:51:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18829 "One of the things you get (or so it is to be hoped) when you force a little more science down children’s throats is a little more understanding that facts actually mean something, and that arguing from authority or by ad hominem doesn’t change the underlying nature of the world." I think it is more to be hoped than anything else. Mediocre science education can be all about memorizing things handed down from an authority. I had an interesting talk with my Physics teacher about the relative strength of gravity and the electromagnetic force. Common shorthand was that electric force is stronger, but gravity is more effective over long distances. Since both are subject to the inverse square law I wasn't convinced that was a good way of putting it. If you could get as much of an electric potential difference as you get mass, there isn't any reason why the two shouldn't be comparable over long distances. Electric force calculations are important inside atoms because there is a very high charge to mass ratio. They aren't so important in Earth/Moon interactions because there is a low charge to mass ratio. So I suggested that you couldn't really make a statement about which was the stronger force unless you knew what the fundamental units of charge and mass were. (My logic might be wrong, or ill-informed but the response I got was 'no, gravity is the weaker force'. “One of the things you get (or so it is to be hoped) when you force a little more science down children’s throats is a little more understanding that facts actually mean something, and that arguing from authority or by ad hominem doesn’t change the underlying nature of the world.” I think it is more to be hoped than anything else. Mediocre science education can be all about memorizing things handed down from an authority. I had an interesting talk with my Physics teacher about the relative strength of gravity and the electromagnetic force. Common shorthand was that electric force is stronger, but gravity is more effective over long distances. Since both are subject to the inverse square law I wasn’t convinced that was a good way of putting it. If you could get as much of an electric potential difference as you get mass, there isn’t any reason why the two shouldn’t be comparable over long distances. Electric force calculations are important inside atoms because there is a very high charge to mass ratio. They aren’t so important in Earth/Moon interactions because there is a low charge to mass ratio. So I suggested that you couldn’t really make a statement about which was the stronger force unless you knew what the fundamental units of charge and mass were. (My logic might be wrong, or ill-informed but the response I got was ‘no, gravity is the weaker force’.

]]> By: Martin http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18828 Martin Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:42:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18828 I once, for some reason, told my son about how, in the Cold War, American science education was expanded in response to Sputnik. Analogizing to discussions of terrorism and civil liberties, my son now says that the fact that he is required to take science classes in junior high school means the Soviets won. I once, for some reason, told my son about how, in the Cold War, American science education was expanded in response to Sputnik. Analogizing to discussions of terrorism and civil liberties, my son now says that the fact that he is required to take science classes in junior high school means the Soviets won.

]]> By: dsquared http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18827 dsquared Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:35:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18827 <i>One of the things you get (or so it is to be hoped) when you force a little more science down children’s throats is a little more understanding that facts actually mean something, and that arguing from authority or by ad hominem doesn’t change the underlying nature of the world</i> That's not the way I remember junior school science at all ... "Sir, why do the electrons move, sir?" "They just do". One of the things you get (or so it is to be hoped) when you force a little more science down children’s throats is a little more understanding that facts actually mean something, and that arguing from authority or by ad hominem doesn’t change the underlying nature of the world That’s not the way I remember junior school science at all … “Sir, why do the electrons move, sir?” “They just do”.

]]> By: pw http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18826 pw Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:24:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18826 One of the things you get (or so it is to be hoped) when you force a little more science down children's throats is a little more understanding that facts actually mean something, and that arguing from authority or by ad hominem doesn't change the underlying nature of the world. What I got out of my early science education was not so much a facility with numbers (although that helped) but a lifelong appreciation of "Eppur si muove" and "I had no need of that hypothesis". If we had a body politic that were more attuned to the notion that there are such things as verifiable facts rather than just fights between sides, things might (this unreconstructed modernist fondly imagines) be a little different. One of the things you get (or so it is to be hoped) when you force a little more science down children’s throats is a little more understanding that facts actually mean something, and that arguing from authority or by ad hominem doesn’t change the underlying nature of the world. What I got out of my early science education was not so much a facility with numbers (although that helped) but a lifelong appreciation of “Eppur si muove” and “I had no need of that hypothesis”. If we had a body politic that were more attuned to the notion that there are such things as verifiable facts rather than just fights between sides, things might (this unreconstructed modernist fondly imagines) be a little different.

]]> By: ahem http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18825 ahem Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:57:59 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18825 <i>most “innumerate” adults are pretty damn shapr when it comes to calculations that affect their daily life;</i> The problem is one of adaptability, though: the learned knowledge of, say, doing calculations involving £-s-d and lb/oz wasn't so easily transferred post-decimalisation, and isn't being easily transferred post-metrification. most “innumerate” adults are pretty damn shapr when it comes to calculations that affect their daily life; The problem is one of adaptability, though: the learned knowledge of, say, doing calculations involving £-s-d and lb/oz wasn’t so easily transferred post-decimalisation, and isn’t being easily transferred post-metrification.

]]> By: humeidayer http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18824 humeidayer Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:00:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18824 <i>I think I have to register one of my occasional dissenting opinions, from the view expressed by Ed Felten and semi-endorsed by Ezster below, that the world would be a better place if we forced a bit more science down the necks of schoolchildren.</i> Schoolchildren need to understand the dangers of a scary substance known as "<a HREF="http://www.dhmo.org/">dihydrogen monoxide</a>"<i> (a.k.a. water)</i> I think I have to register one of my occasional dissenting opinions, from the view expressed by Ed Felten and semi-endorsed by Ezster below, that the world would be a better place if we forced a bit more science down the necks of schoolchildren. Schoolchildren need to understand the dangers of a scary substance known as “dihydrogen monoxide“ (a.k.a. water)

]]> By: Andrew Brown http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18823 Andrew Brown Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:42:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18823 But there is a simple algorithm, requiring no mathematical skills, which helps you deal with financial offers: is it in the large print? If so, they are definitely ripping you off. But there is a simple algorithm, requiring no mathematical skills, which helps you deal with financial offers: is it in the large print? If so, they are definitely ripping you off.

]]> By: Matthew http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18822 Matthew Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:41:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18822 Phew, I was just going to do a "joke" about economists and mathematics... Phew, I was just going to do a “joke” about economists and mathematics…

]]> By: bad Jim http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/24/if-it-aint-broke/comment-page-1/#comment-18821 bad Jim Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:22:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1113#comment-18821 I'd still advise against buying lotto tickets (though I might have to admit to some bias based on life results). I’d still advise against buying lotto tickets (though I might have to admit to some bias based on life results).

]]>