How much may contemporary physics be simplified ?

Question

Einstein said: There is a limit a theory or concept may be simplified, after which meaning is lost. From the other side we are quickly approaching an information singularity: by the time a person finishes his studies, the information aquired would be obsolate( See lecture of Dr. Vernon Vinge 1993) We obviously must discover a more efficient teaching method !!!
an example: Less than 1% of the World can possibly understand the space dynamics perfected by Lagrange in the 18'th century

Answer 1

As usual, Einstein was correct. The theory can be no simpler than the underlying physical phenomenon, or it's incorrect. The relationship between electricity and magnetism is complex but well understood, and was represented mathematically by Maxwell in the form of four equations, which can be presented in integral or differential form. They are well known to students in physics and electrical engineering, and can't be further simplified. They are perfectly adequate until you reach quantum scale. Then, you need quantum electrodynamics (QED). Here, improving theoretical correctness made things more complex, not simpler. Relativity added complexity to Newtonian mechanics. Bringing gravity down to the quantum scale will probably also require increased complexity. If quantum gravity doesn't solve the problem, we may need the immensely increased complexity of superstring theory, with 'strings' vibrating in at least 10 dimensions.

Fortunately, we don't need more than 1% of the world understanding Lagrangian dynamics or superstring theory. We could make more progress if more people worked on them than are now working, but society isn't willing to pay for it. So, much of that 1% is working on things of much lesser value. Sadly, but fortunately, some of those are working on keeping us from destroying one another.

How should we teach science? We should teach everyone the basic fundamentals, most importantly the scientific method. It's a key part of teaching people how to think. Beyond that, teach as far as their learning ability and interest go. We don't do enough. We even make education so painful for that 1% that they give up and waste their talents. Look around you and watch TV and it's obvious we've failed at teaching people to think. This category of Yahoo Answers is enough to prove we've failed at teaching the fundamentals.

Answer 2

I heard recently that it's being proposed that students in school being taught physics for the first time be taught quantum mechanics first, so that "they wouldn't be hampered by archaic Newtonian concepts". I'm not sure if that's the right way to a "more efficient teaching method". For example, most people start with a simplified understanding of what an atom is, where it's said that very tiny electrons whirl around in a vast space compared to a pretty tiny but very dense nucleus. That's the Rutherford model of the atom, but it's the wrong picture. The quantum picture is one of electron orbitals, which are stable state eigenfunctions of the electrons, usually described as a kind of a "cloud" but actually a probability distribution, and in fact this space around the nucleus is almost entirely filled up with these orbital state functions. To begin teaching people with more advanced concepts as these at the beginning may only leave them frustrated and confused. In the 1960s, "new math" was introduced into the middle school curriculum, with the intention of "fast fowarding" students into advanced concepts in mathematics, but today, 45 years later, academic performance of American students have dropped far behind many other nations in the world. It didn't work as advertised. Young students do need to begin with simpler concepts before progressing to more advanced ones.

What is the cure? The challenge lies with the physics community. The history of physics is marked periodically by great achievements in simplification, such as Maxwell's equations of electromagnetics, or Feynman's quantum field theories, but most physicists today are more interested in discovering new explanations for physical phenomenon, or confirming present theories for them, and not many are focusing on streamlining the mathematics of currently known physics. There are some making a career objective of doing that, but they are too few and far apart. Textbook authors and publishers are not the best hope for simplifiying physics for education, even though it's supposed to be their business, because with them it's more about consensus, tradition, politics, and just plain meeting schedules, than real genius.

Answer 3

I'm not entirely sure what it is you are asking for. If you are asking for a solution which pares down the amount of information that should be taught at the secondary education level, the question is complex and rife with reasons why we should or should not remove things from the curriculum. The same holds true for higher education.

If you are asking about the amount of contemporary physics knowledge needed by the average Joe/Jane on the street, the answer is probably zero. That is to say, the average person has absolutely no use for the theories of special or general relativity; Maxwell's equations are best left to electricians and physicists; Compton scattering is necessary for nobody outside of a particle accelerator or high-energy astrophysics research.

Answer 4

First of all contemporary physics in its simplest form is:

Contemporary research in physics is divided into several distinct fields that study different aspects of the material world. Condensed matter physics, by most estimates the largest single field of physics, is concerned with how the properties of bulk matter, such as the ordinary solids and liquids we encounter in everyday life, arise from the properties and mutual interactions of the constituent atoms. The field of atomic, molecular, and optical physics deals with the behavior of individual atoms and molecules, and in particular the ways in which they absorb and emit light. The field of particle physics, also known as "high-energy physics", is concerned with the properties of submicroscopic particles much smaller than atoms, including the elementary particles from which all other units of matter are constructed. Finally, the field of astrophysics applies the laws of physics to explain celestial phenomena, ranging from the Sun and the other objects in the solar system to the universe as a whole.

Therefore as you said the info is immense: The best way to study the subject matter is by a specialty, when you know something as well as someone can describe it, then you can add to the info with your own reseach...