The article directly connects to the reform program for math/science education I have been working on since the 1980s as a synthesis of mathematical analysis, computation and application, with the following main insights:
The computer revolution in physics education will have two striking effects, both of which will happen overnight: differential equations will be taught in introductory physics, and the number and types of physical systems that can be analyzed will explode.
This will require rewriting the courses in classical physics, introductory to advanced.
I am happy to announce that such new course material is already available in the form of
All leading physicists tell us that quantum mechanics as the physics of the microscopic world of atom physics, is crazy, strange and weird:
Quantum mechanics is weird. I don't understand it. Just live with it. You don't have to understand the nature of things in order to build cool devices. (Seth Lloyd)
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. (Richard Feynman)
We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough. (Niels Bohr)
Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think. (Werner Heisenberg)
....
Ok, so quantum mechanics is weird, but does it say that also Nature as what exists, is weird? Quantum mechanics is theory about the microscopic world constructed by physicists and if it is weird, it is because it is so constructed.
On the other hand Nature as what exists cannot be weird, because things that are weird cannot exist over time. Anything weird will quickly collapse. Now the microscopic world of protons and electrons serves as the foundation of Nature and it is inconceivable that the very foundation what exists is weird. It is possible that there are macroscopic phenomena which can be described as weird as an Earth quake or car crash, but they are short-lived. It seems protons do not ever decay and so are remarkably long-lived and so cannot be truly weird.
Ok, so real atom physics as the foundation of Nature cannot be truly weird. Only a theory about atom physics can be weird, and this undoubtedly the case with quantum mechanics constructed by physicists.
How can that be? How come that the theory of quantum mechanics is weird, while the atom physics it is supposed to describe cannot be weird?
We are led to the troubling question: Has quantum mechanics deliberately been constructed by physicists so as to be so weird that it cannot be understood?
This connects to Newton's admittance that his Principia Mathematica was written to be almost impossible to read (using geometry instead Leibniz Calculus), in order to make criticism from "little smatterers" impossible. Is this the attitude of also modern physicists?
In any case, if you follow the broad road of weird physics, there is no limit to what weirdness you are allowed to invent, and this now showing up as the crisis of modern physics, witnessed by so many.
To say that quantum mechanics is weird is a to give up rationality and resort to mysticism. The sad consequence is the present deep crisis in the affairs of the world, caused by irrational thinking of leading human minds, ultimately rooted in weird physics. If the foundation is weird, everything built thereon is weird.
PS Of course media is flooded by articles selling the idea that quantum mechanics is weird as a preparation to massive public spending on quantum computing. The more weird theory the more likely it will work in practice.
Skolans styrdokument ger inte lärarna tillräckligt bra stöd för hur de ska undervisa i programmering.
Man talar om att eleverna ska lära sig programmeringens grunder, men vad de består av kommuniceras väldigt kortfattat i kursplanerna, framför allt för ämnet matematikbudskapet om programmering kommuniceras via flera olika texter.
Man är väldigt otydlig med vad det är för kunskaper som eleverna ska lära sig.
Lärarna upplever budskapet som väldigt luddigt.
Det behövs ytterligare en revidering av kursplanerna för att göra det tydligare för lärarna hur de ska arbeta med programmering i undervisningen.
Peter Vinnervik går så långt att han föreslår att programmering skall överföras till teknikämnet, eftersom reform av matematikundervisningen förefaller vara utsiktslös.
Studiematerial och tillfällen till fortbildning i programmering finns.
Flaskhalsen är tid och den är det bara skolhuvudmännen som kan skapa för sina lärare.
Innebörden är att Skolverket inte anser att Skolverket kan göra något mer än det som redan gjorts.
Det skall bli intressant att se om Skolverket är kapabelt att lyssna på något av den svidande kritiken från Vinnervik. Det är inte säkert. Som Skolverkets Generaldirektör Peter Fredriksson urskuldande brukar säga: "Matematik är inte Sveriges bästa gren".
From Vinnervik's Abstract:
The results show that teachers face several intrinsic and extrinsic challenges during the process of integrating programming in their teaching. A perceived lack of professional knowledgeand understanding of programmingamong the teachers emerged as aprominent challenge both prior to and more than two years into the reform.Additional challenges are related to teaching materials, time for preparation and professional development. In technology education, teachers mainly see programming as a medium to explore and understand technological systems and construction work. They are uncertain of what programming means in terms of practices and concepts, and about learning progression and assessment. The results further reveal that the curriculum texts are sparse on details about what programming knowledge entails. Important strategic decisions are left entirely to the teachers without any clear guidance. In addition, the results indicate that many technology teachers work in isolation and that interdisciplinary work around programming, as intended in the curriculum, is generally lacking. It is concluded that there is a risk of inequality among schools and that the children’s experience of programming becomes fragmented, despite good intentions. The current implementation model needs to be improved, and this thesis presents two possible actions.
Inlägg
