Comments on: What Should Be Explained Better?

By: Jim K.

Jim K. — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 16:59:24 +0000

Division.

By: Charles Ames

Charles Ames — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:54:36 +0000

Demystify quantum mechanics. Bonus: The process of evolution. Most of us learn science blowing things up in chem lab, cutting apart frogs in biology, and sliding things around on ramps in physics class. But looking at what happens when you have lots and lots of things banging around for a long, long time might give more insight into things we encounter daily, like traffic jams and elections and economies and the weather.

By: meit

meit — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:50:16 +0000

Second law. That it is only a statistical law and not really a physical one. Specifically Loschmidt’s paradox. I mean, isn’t it the strangest thing, that the thermodynamic arrow of time is only a statistical arrow and not a direct implication of the physical laws as we know it(unless something ties it to the Big Bang)? I may be wrong here, but isn’t this a serious issue?

By: Droid Boy » Datentransfer: What needs to be explained better?

Droid Boy » Datentransfer: What needs to be explained better? — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:15:04 +0000

[...] mit einer Idee auf Twitter begann, sprang mir als Blogeintrag ins Auge. Ich wollte wissen: Wie kann es sein, das Zeit relativ ist? Ein Konzept, das sich mir [...]

By: oomkoos1

oomkoos1 — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:48:47 +0000

1) SpaceTime – Once a student “gets it” a whole new world opens up.

2) Probability – Many phenomena are not absolute but a continuum between 0 and 1. (Weather, Quantum Mechanics, Stock Market …)

and let us drop this religion versus science talk. The bible cannot explain quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics cannot explain how to live in peace with your neighbor.

By: Ghost

Ghost — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:36:39 +0000

“Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Nothing makes more people quit Physics and Science in general than Indeterminacy taught poorly by Physics professors who lack educational skills, or disbelief in the subject itself, or worst, both.
I’m not exactly sure what is the best way to teach this simple but vital concept, myself, but I’d suggest starting with the Mathematics of Inequalities, with the Cauchy–Bunyakovsky–Schwarz inequality, and move forward through Planck’s constant until you hit the year 1927 running!
After that, Quantum Tunneling and Quantum Entanglement.”

I don’t agree. Quantum mechanics is extremely well understood these days, but the way it is taught, by following the history, really obscures it. We don’t teach classical mechanics at the college level with the historical presentation, and quantum shouldn’t be taught that way either. Start with quantum information, axiomatically, entanglement, etc. Bam. Then do Hamiltonians and quantum dynamics.

By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:25:08 +0000

@99, You appear to generalise ‘religion’. There are many religions, some of which do not encourage science, others do. Therefore my request would be that the meanings of ‘religion’ and ‘science’ are properly understood.

By: Gammaburst

Gammaburst — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:24:56 +0000

Bell’s Theorem, Higg’s boson, Vacuum energy

By: wildemar

wildemar — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:50:55 +0000

Hmm, didn’t really want to comment twice, but my comment (#1) seems to be misunderstood. Or not. So apparently my comment “should be explained better”.

I’m tired of the whole “religion vs. science” debate. I want it to stop. Mainly because it’s unproductive (nay, counterproductive!) to do so, but also because it’s meaningless to begin with. Religions try to answer why we exist. And because most religions tend to precede scientific enlightenment, they also tend to include an account of “how”. It’s only natural to do so, given the absence of other (satisfactory) theories at the time. But that’s a side effect. The main reason why religion exists is to offer reliability, strength and a sense of community. None of which are objectives of science. So no overlap, at least fundamentally.

If it matters: I’m a physicist and an agnostic. For all I care, people can believe in the flying spaghetti monster or the second coming of Newton. I’d just like everybody to drop the holier-than-thou attitude and stop wasting time on fruitless discussion.

By: Guillermo

Guillermo — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:41:07 +0000

At the risk of giving a non-socially-charged answer…

Gears. Like in cars and bikes. How shifting gears is helpful. I ‘understand’ the concept, but it took me a while and I’m not sure I have it right.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:30:57 +0000

The curvature of space: every analogy we use is curving something from n dimensions into n+1 dimensional space. But apparently that’s not how it works.

By: gameswithwords

gameswithwords — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:59:14 +0000

Hypotheses are testable.

By: chris y

chris y — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:40:46 +0000

Why climate!=weather. If we get that one across we might be still in a position where all the rest (important as they are) can be dealt with.

By: Phillip Helbig

Phillip Helbig — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:44:13 +0000

The opposite of comment #1.

By: mat roberts

mat roberts — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:15:04 +0000

That “scientific proof” is an oxymoron.

By: What aspects of biology need to be explained better? | Code for Life

What aspects of biology need to be explained better? | Code for Life — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:07:14 +0000

[...] Carroll, writing at Cosmic Variance, asks: What is the one concept in science that you really think should be explained better to a wide [...]

By: Shawn

Shawn — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:40:47 +0000

What is the arrow of time?

By: a

Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:34:34 +0000

The answer, of course, is in the question. What should be explained is the “the concept of science” itself.

By: Caspar Addyman

Caspar Addyman — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 06:06:01 +0000

We are all terrible at predicting what makes us happy. Even professors of behavioural economics. So maybe happiness isn’t the goal of life.

By: Low Math, Meekly Interacting

Low Math, Meekly Interacting — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 04:54:29 +0000

emergence