A new claim that they've detected the reverse cherenkov radiation using
metamaterial.

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v2/91

Z.

A while back, there was a "Vexer 33" in which I asked a rather interesting
question on why, two different methods of determining the energy of an
electrostatic case for an image charge system gave two different answers. You
can find the question in the Files section of the Undernetphysics group webpage.
The answer was posted somewhere in the old archive messages.

In any case, I found it interesting that the same issue was tackled in a recent
publication in Eur. J. of Phys.

M.M. Taddei et al.  Eur. J. Phys. 30, 965 (2009).

I think you can get free access to it within the first month after it appeared
online.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0143-0807/30/5/005

Of course, this pedagogical paper also deals with more general situation. Still,
it's fun to see the same issue that we dealt with in one of our vexer appearing
again.

Zz.

Artem Nehamkin wrote:
> You are walking in the middle of a desert. Suddenly you see a pole,
approximately 1 meter long, and with a diameter of a finger. You lift it. You
sense that the denisty of the pole is not homogeneous. You realize that If you
won't find its center of mass quickly, something horrible will happen.
>
> How can you do it?
>
>
> The answer should be accurate enough to balance the pole on your finger. (pole
parallel to the ground, perpendicular to the finger)
>
Balance it on your figure. What would be interesting is a number that
depicts how many are thrown by the question.

Best, Dan.

You are walking in the middle of a desert. Suddenly you see a pole,
approximately 1 meter long, and with a diameter of a finger. You lift it. You
sense that the denisty of the pole is not homogeneous. You realize that If you
won't find its center of mass quickly, something horrible will happen.

How can you do it?


The answer should be accurate enough to balance the pole on your finger. (pole
parallel to the ground, perpendicular to the finger)


--- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "J_Ravensroke" <video_ranger@...> wrote:
>
> I got the impression you were going to post one more, then it would become
self propagating. Except yes that might be hard to achieve in practice since
there's no guarantee the person supposed to pose a problem would do it.
>
> A nice thing about the vexer was that it got more mileage out of each problem
(than a question and answer format since individual solutions weren't posted to
the group).
>
>
> --- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "ZapperZ" <zapperz2000@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't quite know if we actually started with this, or it simply stopped
along the way. The previous Vexer game was done entirely by me, and that went on
for months (I think).
> >
> > Zz.
> >
> > --- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "J_Ravensroke" <video_ranger@>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > By the way ....
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "ZapperZ" <zapperz2000@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello everyone.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to all those who have made suggestions on the vexer. I have
> > > > decided to try one of the suggestions. What we will do is have a
> > > > vexer question posted (the first one by me), and then whoever
> > > > answered it correctly FIRST will have the chance to do the vexer the
> > > > following week. The format will still be the same, that is people who
> > > > want to participate will submit an answer to the vexer host private e-
> > > > mail address (if you are reading the group from our webpage, just use
> > > > the drop-down box to e-mail the person directly when you write your
> > > > reply. If not, the vexer host will have to provide an e-mail address).
> > > >
> > > > Any question related to physics at ANY LEVEL is acceptable. If you
> > > > are unsure, contact me. You should also indicate the period that the
> > > > vexer will run. Please post the answer and the list of members who
> > > > have answered it correctly, and indicate who will be the next vexer
> > > > host. If no one answers it correctly, the vexer host can either
> > > > continue with another vexer, or he/she can pass it on to me.
> > > >
> > > > I hope this is acceptable and a suitable solution to the vexer issue.
> > > > I truly hope we can continue with the vexer, even if it is less
> > > > frequent than it was before.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers!
> > > >
> > > > Zz.
> > >
> > > Great idea but what happened? I'm still waiting patiently for the first
vexer.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

President Barack Obama's proposed FY2010 budget contains a lot of winners, and a
few losers as well. For a change, the physical sciences, especially basic
research, are no longer treated like a stepchild. It is finally getting some
needed boosts in funding after remaining either flat, or reduced funding over
the past decade.

A summary of the budget for the physical sciences can be found here:

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics/2009/05/winners-and-losers-for-science.ht\
ml

Of course, this hasn't been debated and picked over by the US House of
Representatives and Senate. So no one is certainly counting their chickens at
this point.

Zz.

Hello Tom,

Thanks for your wonderful response. I am very grateful for it since I get to
hear from someone who is actively doing it, rather than just me sitting here
trying to spew out stuff that may look good on paper, but can be impractical.

And yes, I agree with you that the PhET site is terrific. And to think that that
got started with Carl Wieman's Nobel prize money! :)

I am sure you came across this in one of my blog entry, but what do you think of
my "effort" in trying to revamp the undergraduate physics lab? :)

https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df5w5j9q_4237z67cvf&hl=en

In my personal experience, the intro physics labs are missing a huge golden
opportunity to reach out to those students, especially those who are not
physics/science/engineering majors, to introduce to them on how we gather
information from observation, and how we quantify the relationship between two
different things. My argument here is that these "skills" that we can present to
them transcends the subject itself, and that it is something they will need in
trying to make an analytical evaluation of what is valid and what isn't.

I was contacted by an instructor after I started to post these, and it seems
that he tried a variation of what I suggested with encouraging results (at
least, that's what he told me). The students appear to like the labs a lot more
because essentially there's very little background preparation for them. All
they had to do was "play" with the equipment and figure out on their own terms
how to accomplish the task they were given. I think that while this may not be
suitable at a more advanced level, it is certainly useful at the intro level,
especially if we are targetting those who will not continue in physics/science.

So what do you think? :)

Zz.

Hi Zz,
I'm definitely a fan of applying the scientific method to how people learn. 
Physics education research is way ahead of many STEM disciplines in this
respect.  Unfortunately, as a science it is more akin to sociology and the
outcomes of the experiments are often remarkably difficult to interpret. 
Indeed, I do worry that some physics education research degenerates into out of
touch pedantic nonsense at times.

Nevertheless, a few major themes have emerged over the past 20 years
demonstrating clear positive effects for lower division courses (upper division
and graduate level courses are another game entirely): peer instruction (i.e.
small group activities), learn by doing, active learning (students meeting you
half-or-more then way with concepts), directly challenging and correcting
preconceptions, etc.  Also, simply defining learning outcomes, and making those
learning objectives clear to the students, can generate tremendous clarity
(instructors frequently carry many tacit assumptions about the point of a course
that are not aligned with the students' expectations).  The studio classroom,
like those at MIT, with small group seating and computer interfaces for
simulations and activities, is an ideal place to try and further isolate these
variables.  Also, I've seen some rather impressive demonstrations of the
"clicker" technology that allows for real time feedback and correction to "quick
quizzes", displaying outcome histograms and data for the students and instructor
to view real time during lecture (this can provide a HUGE amount of information
to an instructor about how well students understood a new idea).

The least effective method seems to be "lecture mode" (again, for lower
division).  However, for me this is the most natural mode to use because it is
the one I felt most comfortable with as a student.  Also, lecturing (as an
instructor) is super fun.  However, study after study indicates that lecturing
at the average student taking physics, regardless of how dynamic, funny,
entertaining, or informative it is, is a very ineffective way to convey
information.  It has been a hard lesson for me to discover that not all college
students are like us here on undernet: motivated self learners who WANT to learn
new things.  Indeed, for most students, lecture alone is almost
indistinguishable from having not taken the course at all (from the point of
view of "delivering content").  Granted, their level of enjoyment may vary
depending on the style.  Yes, for the best, motivated students, they do fine in
lecture mode.  In fact, they thrive in just about any learning environment.  The
bottom tends to flounder no matter what.  But there is this mysterious middle
(most of the class) whose learning outcomes are very sensitive to the mode of
instruction -- and certain modes (not lecture) seem more effective than others.

In summary, and to answer your question, I do see considerable value in
experimenting with different teaching and learning methods and personally like
many of the new hip methods.  I also see value in learning and how people learn
from quality studies.  But am not completely sold on any one technique. 
However, I am convinced that a shift in teaching/learning strategy is necessary
to reach this middle group (why this may be necessary is a different issue -- is
it cultural?  generational?  something intrinsic to the human mind?).  I
personally tend to lean towards traditional lecturing, with minor augmentations
using new methods.

As an anecdote, I was recently teaching an E&M lab for engineers.  I had given a
mini-intro to the lab which involved mapping out equipotential surfaces on a
conducting plane where different points were held at constant potential.  I
discussed the idea of electric potential and how the electric field vector was
minus the gradient of this potential ("pointing downhill").  I drew lots of
pictures on the board of topological maps and "mountains" in this new landscape
with corresponding vectors.  But the ideas didn't seem to be sinking in, even
though I thought I was being clear -- or rather, I had no way of assessing if
they were getting it.  Then I had them open up one of the PHeTs from the
University of Colorado which allows students to play with these very ideas in a
hands on way, placing charges and observing how the equipotential topology and
electric field vectors change.  In this mode, they instantly seemed to
understand.  A half hour of me explaining the ideas to them in combination with
just 10 minutes on the computer really seemed to solidify the concepts for them.
Indeed, I wondered if my mini-lecture contributed at all and if I could have
just had them use the computer from the start.  I also used the PHeTs as demos
in my modern physics course (they have a wonderful suite of interactive quantum
simulations, spectroscopy simulations, and nuclear physics sims).

If you haven't seen them, check them out:
http://phet.colorado.edu/index.php

Cheers,
Tom

--- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "ZapperZ" <zapperz2000@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Tom,
>
> Since you're at the front line of physics education, what is your opinion on
the various new and "hip" teaching methods to improve the teaching of intro
physics lessons? Several institutions, including MIT, seem to be trying a lot of
new stuff, some of them involving high-tech setups.
>
> Here are a few references:
>
> http://caes.mit.edu/projects/teal/index.html
> http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/PhysicsNewsLetter.pdf
> http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/research/educ_physics.html
> http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/physics_ed/scaleup.html
> http://scaleup.ncsu.edu/
>
> Zz.
>

I got the impression you were going to post one more, then it would become self
propagating. Except yes that might be hard to achieve in practice since there's
no guarantee the person supposed to pose a problem would do it.

A nice thing about the vexer was that it got more mileage out of each problem
(than a question and answer format since individual solutions weren't posted to
the group).


--- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "ZapperZ" <zapperz2000@...> wrote:
>
> I don't quite know if we actually started with this, or it simply stopped
along the way. The previous Vexer game was done entirely by me, and that went on
for months (I think).
>
> Zz.
>
> --- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "J_Ravensroke" <video_ranger@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > By the way ....
> >
> >
> > --- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "ZapperZ" <zapperz2000@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello everyone.
> > >
> > > Thanks to all those who have made suggestions on the vexer. I have
> > > decided to try one of the suggestions. What we will do is have a
> > > vexer question posted (the first one by me), and then whoever
> > > answered it correctly FIRST will have the chance to do the vexer the
> > > following week. The format will still be the same, that is people who
> > > want to participate will submit an answer to the vexer host private e-
> > > mail address (if you are reading the group from our webpage, just use
> > > the drop-down box to e-mail the person directly when you write your
> > > reply. If not, the vexer host will have to provide an e-mail address).
> > >
> > > Any question related to physics at ANY LEVEL is acceptable. If you
> > > are unsure, contact me. You should also indicate the period that the
> > > vexer will run. Please post the answer and the list of members who
> > > have answered it correctly, and indicate who will be the next vexer
> > > host. If no one answers it correctly, the vexer host can either
> > > continue with another vexer, or he/she can pass it on to me.
> > >
> > > I hope this is acceptable and a suitable solution to the vexer issue.
> > > I truly hope we can continue with the vexer, even if it is less
> > > frequent than it was before.
> > >
> > > Cheers!
> > >
> > > Zz.
> >
> > Great idea but what happened? I'm still waiting patiently for the first
vexer.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>

I don't quite know if we actually started with this, or it simply stopped along
the way. The previous Vexer game was done entirely by me, and that went on for
months (I think).

Zz.

--- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "J_Ravensroke" <video_ranger@...> wrote:
>
>
> By the way ....
>
>
> --- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "ZapperZ" <zapperz2000@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > Thanks to all those who have made suggestions on the vexer. I have
> > decided to try one of the suggestions. What we will do is have a
> > vexer question posted (the first one by me), and then whoever
> > answered it correctly FIRST will have the chance to do the vexer the
> > following week. The format will still be the same, that is people who
> > want to participate will submit an answer to the vexer host private e-
> > mail address (if you are reading the group from our webpage, just use
> > the drop-down box to e-mail the person directly when you write your
> > reply. If not, the vexer host will have to provide an e-mail address).
> >
> > Any question related to physics at ANY LEVEL is acceptable. If you
> > are unsure, contact me. You should also indicate the period that the
> > vexer will run. Please post the answer and the list of members who
> > have answered it correctly, and indicate who will be the next vexer
> > host. If no one answers it correctly, the vexer host can either
> > continue with another vexer, or he/she can pass it on to me.
> >
> > I hope this is acceptable and a suitable solution to the vexer issue.
> > I truly hope we can continue with the vexer, even if it is less
> > frequent than it was before.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Zz.
>
> Great idea but what happened? I'm still waiting patiently for the first vexer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>

By the way ....


--- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "ZapperZ" <zapperz2000@...> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> Thanks to all those who have made suggestions on the vexer. I have
> decided to try one of the suggestions. What we will do is have a
> vexer question posted (the first one by me), and then whoever
> answered it correctly FIRST will have the chance to do the vexer the
> following week. The format will still be the same, that is people who
> want to participate will submit an answer to the vexer host private e-
> mail address (if you are reading the group from our webpage, just use
> the drop-down box to e-mail the person directly when you write your
> reply. If not, the vexer host will have to provide an e-mail address).
>
> Any question related to physics at ANY LEVEL is acceptable. If you
> are unsure, contact me. You should also indicate the period that the
> vexer will run. Please post the answer and the list of members who
> have answered it correctly, and indicate who will be the next vexer
> host. If no one answers it correctly, the vexer host can either
> continue with another vexer, or he/she can pass it on to me.
>
> I hope this is acceptable and a suitable solution to the vexer issue.
> I truly hope we can continue with the vexer, even if it is less
> frequent than it was before.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Zz.

Great idea but what happened? I'm still waiting patiently for the first vexer.






>

I am still here...
kris







Im still here... but whats the url for the blog then?
I would hate to miss out on that...
Thanks

/Kb

To: undernetphysics@ yahoogroups. com
From: kent_over_2pi@ hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:15:50 +0000
Subject: [undernetphysics] Re: Greetings, Earthlings

Almost forgot my password for the place. :P I'm still around though. Although I
must admit I pretty much just follow Zz's blog. It's very good. :) Blogs are the
new thing man. Forums are so 2007...

Does anyone still go on the undernet chat-room?

I would be interested in doing a vexer once in awhile. My brain is getting dull
doing the same research all the time. :D

-Kent

--- In undernetphysics@ yahoogroups. com, "ZapperZ" <zapperz2000@ ...> wrote:

>

> Wow! Almost all the gangs are still here! Now if we get Tom to response, we'll
have a full house! :)

>

> The group hasn't had any discussion for a long time. Like I said, I've
neglected it after my physics blog kinda took off faster than I expected (when
someone from the Inst. of Physics starts to feed you info, and a PR officer from
a university wrote to ask you to correct a wrong information, you know you've
hit big time).

>

> In any case, I thought I should ask around and see if we either revive the
group, or put it to sleep permanently. It seems that from the responses,
everyone wants to keep on going with the group, which is more than fine with me.

>

> ... this is assuming that I can control my evil twin...

>

> Zz.

>

> --- In undernetphysics@ yahoogroups. com, "Scott Johnson" <scott.c.johnson@ >
wrote:

> >

> > I'm still here, too, although I haven't heard anything from this group for a
long time. Have you moved the discussions somewhere else (I think you mentioned
a blog some time ago) or have they just stopped?

> > --Scott

> >

> > --- In undernetphysics@ yahoogroups. com, David Strayhorn <straycat_md@ >
wrote:

> > >

> > > Zz, you better not get rid of this group; unlike PF, it is delivered to my
inbox, and also has archives of what I consider to be some very interesting
discussions!

> > >

> > > And you better not let your evil twin destroy it either!!

> > >

> > > straycat

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > From: ZapperZ <zapperz2000@ >

> > > To: undernetphysics@ yahoogroups. com

> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 6:12:05 AM

> > > Subject: [undernetphysics] Greetings, Earthlings

> > >

> > >

> > > Hello? Just checking to see if anyone is still here, and if this group is
still worth maintaining.

> > >

> > > Zz.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > >

> >

>










____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Vi vet vem du passar ihop med! Klicka här för att få veta!
http://dejting. se.msn.com/ channel/index. aspx?trackingid= 1002952

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



________________________________
From: Kristofer Barros <kristoferbarros@...>
To: undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:30:13
Subject: RE: [undernetphysics] Re: Greetings, Earthlings



       Get your preferred Email name!
Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail.com.
http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/aa/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Im still here... but whats the url for the blog then?
I would hate to miss out on that...
Thanks

/Kb

To: undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com
From: kent_over_2pi@...
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:15:50 +0000
Subject: [undernetphysics] Re: Greetings, Earthlings


























       Almost forgot my password for the place. :P I'm still around though.
Although I must admit I pretty much just follow Zz's blog. It's very good. :)
Blogs are the new thing man. Forums are so 2007...



Does anyone still go on the undernet chat-room?



I would be interested in doing a vexer once in awhile. My brain is getting dull
doing the same research all the time. :D



-Kent



--- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "ZapperZ" <zapperz2000@...> wrote:

>

> Wow! Almost all the gangs are still here! Now if we get Tom to response, we'll
have a full house! :)

>

> The group hasn't had any discussion for a long time. Like I said, I've
neglected it after my physics blog kinda took off faster than I expected (when
someone from the Inst. of Physics starts to feed you info, and a PR officer from
a university wrote to ask you to correct a wrong information, you know you've
hit big time).

>

> In any case, I thought I should ask around and see if we either revive the
group, or put it to sleep permanently. It seems that from the responses,
everyone wants to keep on going with the group, which is more than fine with me.

>

> ... this is assuming that I can control my evil twin...

>

> Zz.

>

> --- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Johnson" <scott.c.johnson@>
wrote:

> >

> > I'm still here, too, although I haven't heard anything from this group for a
long time.  Have you moved the discussions somewhere else (I think you mentioned
a blog some time ago) or have they just stopped?

> > --Scott

> >

> > --- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, David Strayhorn <straycat_md@>
wrote:

> > >

> > > Zz, you better not get rid of this group; unlike PF, it is delivered to my
inbox, and also has archives of what I consider to be some very interesting
discussions!

> > >

> > > And you better not let your evil twin destroy it either!!

> > >

> > > straycat

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ________________________________

> > > From: ZapperZ <zapperz2000@>

> > > To: undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com

> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 6:12:05 AM

> > > Subject: [undernetphysics] Greetings, Earthlings

> > >

> > >

> > > Hello? Just checking to see if anyone is still here, and if this group is
still worth maintaining.

> > >

> > > Zz.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > >

> >

>






















_________________________________________________________________
Vi vet vem du passar ihop med! Klicka här för att få veta!
http://dejting.se.msn.com/channel/index.aspx?trackingid=1002952

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello everyone,

Good to see this place with some activity again.

The Undernet chat room is still around, and is occupied by myself (cyby) and a
few other regulars.

Do drop by and say hi!

-Cyby

Almost forgot my password for the place. :P I'm still around though. Although I
must admit I pretty much just follow Zz's blog. It's very good. :) Blogs are the
new thing man. Forums are so 2007...

Does anyone still go on the undernet chat-room?

I would be interested in doing a vexer once in awhile. My brain is getting dull
doing the same research all the time. :D

-Kent

--- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "ZapperZ" <zapperz2000@...> wrote:
>
> Wow! Almost all the gangs are still here! Now if we get Tom to response, we'll
have a full house! :)
>
> The group hasn't had any discussion for a long time. Like I said, I've
neglected it after my physics blog kinda took off faster than I expected (when
someone from the Inst. of Physics starts to feed you info, and a PR officer from
a university wrote to ask you to correct a wrong information, you know you've
hit big time).
>
> In any case, I thought I should ask around and see if we either revive the
group, or put it to sleep permanently. It seems that from the responses,
everyone wants to keep on going with the group, which is more than fine with me.
>
> ... this is assuming that I can control my evil twin...
>
> Zz.
>
> --- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Johnson" <scott.c.johnson@>
wrote:
> >
> > I'm still here, too, although I haven't heard anything from this group for a
long time.  Have you moved the discussions somewhere else (I think you mentioned
a blog some time ago) or have they just stopped?
> > --Scott
> >
> > --- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, David Strayhorn <straycat_md@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Zz, you better not get rid of this group; unlike PF, it is delivered to my
inbox, and also has archives of what I consider to be some very interesting
discussions!
> > >
> > > And you better not let your evil twin destroy it either!!
> > >
> > > straycat
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ZapperZ <zapperz2000@>
> > > To: undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 6:12:05 AM
> > > Subject: [undernetphysics] Greetings, Earthlings
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello? Just checking to see if anyone is still here, and if this group is
still worth maintaining.
> > >
> > > Zz.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

This is proof that all you need is a good project, a good mentor, and hard work,
and you'll get to be an author in a Phys. Rev. paper even if you're a high
school sophomore! :)

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/117639/group/home/

Of course, it isn't trivial to find the combination of a good project, a good
mentor, and a lot of hard work. If it is, we would see this occuring very often.

Zz.

I'm still here.


-------------- Original message from "ZapperZ" <zapperz2000@...>:
--------------

Hello? Just checking to see if anyone is still here, and if this group is still
worth maintaining.

Zz.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Still here and just waiting for more!

IB

ZapperZ wrote:
>
> Hello? Just checking to see if anyone is still here, and if this group
> is still worth maintaining.
>
> Zz.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.53/2054 - Release Date: 04/11/09
10:51:00
>
>

Hey Tom,

Since you're at the front line of physics education, what is your opinion on the
various new and "hip" teaching methods to improve the teaching of intro physics
lessons? Several institutions, including MIT, seem to be trying a lot of new
stuff, some of them involving high-tech setups.

Here are a few references:

http://caes.mit.edu/projects/teal/index.html
http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/PhysicsNewsLetter.pdf
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/research/educ_physics.html
http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/physics_ed/scaleup.html
http://scaleup.ncsu.edu/

Zz.

The first scientist that looks at the output from such a program will probably
get credit.
;-)

--- On Wed, 4/8/09, William Ragans <dfused@...> wrote:
From: William Ragans <dfused@...>
Subject: Re: [undernetphysics] Computer program replacing scientists?
To: undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 6:07 AM












             Regarding that article, I have a question for those reading:

How do you think that this type of technology will affect our scientific

processes and will it affect what we focus OUR brains on.



Just trying to spark up some discussion. =)



ZapperZ wrote:

>

>

> Not sure if you have seen this news report and also the paper in

> science, but this might be interesting.

>

> http://www.nytimes. com/2009/ 04/07/science/ 07robot.html? ref=technology

> <http://www.nytimes. com/2009/ 04/07/science/ 07robot.html? ref=technology>

>

> "In an article in Friday's issue of the journal Science, two Cornell

> scientists describe a computer program that sifts raw and imperfect data

> to uncover fundamental laws of nature. The achievement could mean that

> insights that once emerged from the genius of scientists like Isaac

> Newton might now pop out of computers like, perhaps, the Hal 9000 in

> "2001: A Space Odyssey."

> .

> .

> In the same issue of Science, scientists in Britain describe building a

> robot that can not only devise a hypothesis but can also run and analyze

> experiments to test the hypothesis."

>

> Zz.

>

>





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ah, wonderful to hear from you, Tom. Looks like the gang is all here after all!

And thanks for the blog plug. Just for that, I will reveal an exclusive advance
info that hasn't been relased to the public just yet. The Argonne Open House
this year will be held on August 29. This will be the first Open House at
Argonne since 2006, and the 2nd one since Sept. 11.

I'm guessing that with all the stimulus money and whatnot that the lab gets this
year, the Open House this year promises to be an even grander event than in 2006
when Argonne celebrated its 60th anniversary.

So if anyone can make it..... :)

Zz.

--- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" <tdgutierrez@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Wow! Almost all the gangs are still here! Now if we get Tom to response,
we'll have a full house! :)
>
> Hey! It's almost like an 80s sitcom entering its 7th season.  Obviously I
haven't been very active on the boards, but still check the digests and find
myself occasionally using some of the old vexers to stymie students and
colleagues.  Although message boards are becoming "so 2004" and the blogosphere
is the place to be, I echo the comments of others and I'd like to keep the group
around.
>
> For those interested, Zz's excellent blog can be found at:
> http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/
>
> -Tom
>

>
> Wow! Almost all the gangs are still here! Now if we get Tom to response, we'll
have a full house! :)

Hey! It's almost like an 80s sitcom entering its 7th season.  Obviously I
haven't been very active on the boards, but still check the digests and find
myself occasionally using some of the old vexers to stymie students and
colleagues.  Although message boards are becoming "so 2004" and the blogosphere
is the place to be, I echo the comments of others and I'd like to keep the group
around.

For those interested, Zz's excellent blog can be found at:
http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/

-Tom

yes I'm still here :)



To: undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com
From: zapperz2000@...
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:12:05 +0000
Subject: [undernetphysics] Greetings, Earthlings





Hello? Just checking to see if anyone is still here, and if this group is still
worth maintaining.

Zz.









_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here! (or am I over there?...) :)

Best, Dan.

Wow! Almost all the gangs are still here! Now if we get Tom to response, we'll
have a full house! :)

The group hasn't had any discussion for a long time. Like I said, I've neglected
it after my physics blog kinda took off faster than I expected (when someone
from the Inst. of Physics starts to feed you info, and a PR officer from a
university wrote to ask you to correct a wrong information, you know you've hit
big time).

In any case, I thought I should ask around and see if we either revive the
group, or put it to sleep permanently. It seems that from the responses,
everyone wants to keep on going with the group, which is more than fine with me.

... this is assuming that I can control my evil twin...

Zz.

--- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Johnson" <scott.c.johnson@...>
wrote:
>
> I'm still here, too, although I haven't heard anything from this group for a
long time.  Have you moved the discussions somewhere else (I think you mentioned
a blog some time ago) or have they just stopped?
> --Scott
>
> --- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, David Strayhorn <straycat_md@> wrote:
> >
> > Zz, you better not get rid of this group; unlike PF, it is delivered to my
inbox, and also has archives of what I consider to be some very interesting
discussions!
> >
> > And you better not let your evil twin destroy it either!!
> >
> > straycat
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ZapperZ <zapperz2000@>
> > To: undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 6:12:05 AM
> > Subject: [undernetphysics] Greetings, Earthlings
> >
> >
> > Hello? Just checking to see if anyone is still here, and if this group is
still worth maintaining.
> >
> > Zz.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

I'm still here, too, although I haven't heard anything from this group for a
long time.  Have you moved the discussions somewhere else (I think you mentioned
a blog some time ago) or have they just stopped?
--Scott

--- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, David Strayhorn <straycat_md@...> wrote:
>
> Zz, you better not get rid of this group; unlike PF, it is delivered to my
inbox, and also has archives of what I consider to be some very interesting
discussions!
>
> And you better not let your evil twin destroy it either!!
>
> straycat
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ZapperZ <zapperz2000@...>
> To: undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 6:12:05 AM
> Subject: [undernetphysics] Greetings, Earthlings
>
>
> Hello? Just checking to see if anyone is still here, and if this group is
still worth maintaining.
>
> Zz.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Zz, you better not get rid of this group; unlike PF, it is delivered to my
inbox, and also has archives of what I consider to be some very interesting
discussions!

And you better not let your evil twin destroy it either!!

straycat



________________________________
From: ZapperZ <zapperz2000@...>
To: undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 6:12:05 AM
Subject: [undernetphysics] Greetings, Earthlings


Hello? Just checking to see if anyone is still here, and if this group is still
worth maintaining.

Zz.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Regarding that article, I have a question for those reading:
How do you think that this type of technology will affect our scientific
processes and will it affect what we focus OUR brains on.

Just trying to spark up some discussion. =)

ZapperZ wrote:
>
>
> Not sure if you have seen this news report and also the paper in
> science, but this might be interesting.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/science/07robot.html?ref=technology
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/science/07robot.html?ref=technology>
>
> "In an article in Friday's issue of the journal Science, two Cornell
> scientists describe a computer program that sifts raw and imperfect data
> to uncover fundamental laws of nature. The achievement could mean that
> insights that once emerged from the genius of scientists like Isaac
> Newton might now pop out of computers like, perhaps, the Hal 9000 in
> "2001: A Space Odyssey."
> .
> .
> In the same issue of Science, scientists in Britain describe building a
> robot that can not only devise a hypothesis but can also run and analyze
> experiments to test the hypothesis."
>
> Zz.
>
>

Not sure if you have seen this news report and also the paper in science, but
this might be interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/science/07robot.html?ref=technology

"In an article in Friday's issue of the journal Science, two Cornell scientists
describe a computer program that sifts raw and imperfect data to uncover
fundamental laws of nature. The achievement could mean that insights that once
emerged from the genius of scientists like Isaac Newton might now pop out of
computers like, perhaps, the Hal 9000 in "2001: A Space Odyssey."
.
.
In the same issue of Science, scientists in Britain describe building a robot
that can not only devise a hypothesis but can also run and analyze experiments
to test the hypothesis."

Zz.

The issue of CERN Courier for April 2009 is online, for those who don't know
about the webpage.

http://cerncourier.com/cws/latest/cern

Zz.

EEek! Already I'm getting senile and posted it under my Evil Twin identity! Oy
vey!

Zz.

--- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "alacrity69" <alacrity69@...> wrote:
>
> I'm glad to hear that there are still people interested in this group. It has
been entirely my fault for neglecting it, especially after I started my own
blog.
>
> In any case, I'll try to remember to bring some of the stuff that I posted
there into here and see if there are anyone interested in having a discussion.
I'm also quite open to whatever suggestion people want to do with this group, or
if we should "specialize" in a particular niche in physics that people think
might be useful.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Zz.
>
> --- In undernetphysics@yahoogroups.com, "ZapperZ" <zapperz2000@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello? Just checking to see if anyone is still here, and if this group is
still worth maintaining.
> >
> > Zz.
> >
>