Physics of the Mundane

Weeks VII & VIII (October 11 - 22)

Assigned Readings:

Hatton & Plouffe: 75-80 (Oldershaw), 81-86 (Popper), 87-93 (Gould). 

Feynman: Ch. 4, “Conservation of Energy” (pp. 69-88)

Schedule:

Suggested reading response questions (although you are free to address another issue(s)):

   Considering the readings from this week, do you think that science has become too theoretical?  Is this theoretical-ness a necessity that helps to advance knowledge, or is it a hindrance, as Oldershaw would suggest?

   What is the role of looking for beauty or aesthetics in scientific theory?  Does this enable science, hinder it, or both? If we look for beautiful or simple theories, aren’t we adding bias to an objective discipline?  On the other hand, can we make assumptions about nature’s beauty or simplicity that allow us to discredit or accept potential theories?)

   What makes science “scientific”?  Are Popper and Gould in agreement on this?  Would you agree with them?  If something is not “scientific,” then what’s its use?

Lab problem(s):

For the following systems, describe the total energy and how it is distributed throughout the system in its different forms (e.g.: potential energy, kinetic energy) as time goes by.  In other words, in what ways do we account for the total energy of the system as the system does its various stuff?

A.   A pendulum is swinging back and forth.

B.   A sledder starts at the top of a hill and slides down a perfectly smooth, frictionless slope.

C.   In the spring, a bicycle rolls down the same hill that the sledder in (B) slid down.

Compare the motion of the bicyclist and the sledder.  Who is moving the fastest at the bottom of the hill?  Why?