PS - I REALLY miss blackboards!

campermon wrote:PS - I REALLY miss blackboards!

You don't use a blackboard in class, campy?

natselrox wrote:

campermon wrote:PS - I REALLY miss blackboards!

You don't use a blackboard in class, campy?

I used to! I had this really fantastic roller blackboard that was about 6ft wide and 10 feet tall.

It's all white boards and interactive projector boards now.. In fact, when I started at my current school, all I had was an interactive projector board in the room! I managed to find a decent white board and had it installed pronto!! I use both.

campermon wrote:PS - I REALLY miss blackboards!

No, not at all. I hated chalk. I have skin that is very sensitive to dust and stuff, and I absolutely hated the feeling of the chalk on my hands, plus I had to wash them so many times, otherwise I would get an itch. Plus sometimes, when there was that strident sound from chalk, I absolutely hated that.

I prefer the white boards.

Darkchilde wrote:

campermon wrote:PS - I REALLY miss blackboards!

No, not at all. I hated chalk. I have skin that is very sensitive to dust and stuff, and I absolutely hated the feeling of the chalk on my hands, plus I had to wash them so many times, otherwise I would get an itch. Plus sometimes, when there was that strident sound from chalk, I absolutely hated that.

I prefer the white boards.

I used to love the way I could write in a joined up italic style on the blackboard! You just can't do that on a white board.

I also miss drawing colour, 3D diagrams on the blackboard. It's just not the same on the whiteboard.

[/old fart moaning]

campermon wrote:PS - I REALLY miss blackboards!

I bet the kids don't miss the piece of chalk describing a nice ballistic curve across the classroom.


Regardign Cox's description of the exclusion pirnciple this link:

http://www.hep.manchester.ac.uk/u/forshaw/BoseFermi/Double%20Well.html

Appears to explain where he is coming from a book written by a poster on one of the forums (physicsforum) mentioned by twistor seems to cover it. The explanation appears to be current at Manchester Uni (where Cox is based).

I leave further explanations to others. I'm just a lowly optom who works in a dark room all day!

Finally got around to watching this

Seriously, I gotta say. I'm mad for Cox. I can't get enough Cox. Honestly, give me Cox all day I'll never tire of it. It's just Cox = Brilliant, I love it.

ramseyoptom wrote: I'm just a lowly optom who works in a dark room all day!

Ah, you're an optometrist - I did wonder what optom meant...

Animavore wrote: I'm mad for Cox. I can't get enough Cox. Brilliant, I love it.

You sound a lot like a dirty young strumpet I once knew in Manchester!! Damn near killed me.

Good to know I wasnt the only one confused, considering lasers do work on similar energy levels of electrons of different atoms. But they can extend this idea to more regions.It would be interesting.I guess this is what happens when someone wishes to change how things are being taught in undergraduate classes.I am still not sure .

Lol after diligently reading all three pages of that physics forum, I still have no clue what anyone is on about. But then it seems that people with high level physics educations can't seem to agree on much of it either.

I think expecting people (or maybe just me) to understanding such high grade theoretical physics without them (me) spending several years studying it, and the maths necessary to follow it, is a fool's errand.
Just like I couldn't recreate the Sistine Chapel ceiling if you show me how to apply paint to plaster.

trubble76 wrote:Lol after diligently reading all three pages of that physics forum, I still have no clue what anyone is on about. But then it seems that people with high level physics educations can't seem to agree on much of it either.

I think expecting people (or maybe just me) to understanding such high grade theoretical physics without them (me) spending several years studying it, and the maths necessary to follow it, is a fool's errand.
Just like I couldn't recreate the Sistine Chapel ceiling if you show me how to apply paint to plaster.

here is a simple explanation(which is why it is wrong), which Mr cox already provided. In an atom the electron in an orbit(not by modern QM) is either in spin up or spin down, you can get the jist of it from old quantum mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_number
In short, no two electrons in an atom can have all the same quantum numbers, at the very least, the spin will change. Now to go from there to atoms in the whole universe...
Basically you take a wave fn for the whole damn thing, then you could say that the moment a tiny change happens here, the energy in all states across the universe in changing, or so I think (would require correction if incorrect )

cavarka9 wrote:

trubble76 wrote:Lol after diligently reading all three pages of that physics forum, I still have no clue what anyone is on about. But then it seems that people with high level physics educations can't seem to agree on much of it either.

I think expecting people (or maybe just me) to understanding such high grade theoretical physics without them (me) spending several years studying it, and the maths necessary to follow it, is a fool's errand.
Just like I couldn't recreate the Sistine Chapel ceiling if you show me how to apply paint to plaster.

here is a simple explanation(which is why it is wrong), which Mr cox already provided. In an atom the electron in an orbit(not by modern QM) is either in spin up or spin down, you can get the jist of it from old quantum mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_number
In short, no two electrons in an atom can have all the same quantum numbers, at the very least, the spin will change. Now to go from there to atoms in the whole universe...
Basically you take a wave fn for the whole damn thing, then you could say that the moment a tiny change happens here, the energy in all states across the universe in changing, or so I think (would require correction if incorrect )

Thanks for trying. I'm going to go and look up what a wave fn is.

I have to admit to being ambivalent about the programme - which at a superficial level was enjoyable but frustrating.

On the one hand it is great that science gets a (almost) primetime slot to explain some rather complex physics. I don't even realy mind that it used the relatively new-found 'celebrity status' of Brian Cox and a 'celebrity audience' as part of the mechanism to get it on air on a mainstream TV channel. If the show helps to dispel even a quanta of myth and superstition fromt he minds of the great unwashed populace then it is probably worth it.

On the other hand I felt it was a pity that he had to go from the really trivial to the really complex in 60 minutes and it was pretty clear that almost all his audience were not never going to follow his arguments with anything close to true comprehension. I do not want to see science reduced to celebrity science presenters (no matter how well qualified) giving rational (but over-simplistic) explanations to an audience that has clearly only turned up because of the status of the presenter and because they get one more chance to remind the public that they exist (eg Jonathan Ross) and therefore boost their own flagging egos.

As a say - I am ambivalent - the previous paragraph can be seen as a bit mean sprited I guess. I would have at least liked to see some questions from the audience which would have provided 2 things - a) a chance for us to assess how much they understood and b) a chance for us to see Cox explain in more detail some of the statements/claims he made (like every electron in the universe changing its energy state instantly - which seems like tosh to me).

I get what you're saying but remember Cox just released a detailed book on QM with Jeff Forshaw (don't know if it was plugged at the end after the credits) and has another great one on E=MC2. If people become interested in what he is saying they may go buy those books and watch his documentaries. Some may even be inspired to become physicists. That has always been the goal of pop science since Carl Sagan's Cosmos (which inspired Brian Cox) and maybe before.