Well, even if you are very busy, this should qualify as a Must Read.
Sir Ernest Rutherford, President of the Royal Academy, and recipient of the
Nobel
Prize in Physics, related the following story:
Some time ago I received a call from a colleague. He was about to give a
student a zero for his
answer to a physics question, while the student claimed a perfect score. The
instructor and the
student agreed to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected. I read the
examination question: "Show
how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid
of a barometer." The
student had answered: "Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach
a long rope to it,
lower it to the street, and then bring it up, measuring the length of the
rope. The length of the rope
is the height of the building." The student really had a strong case for
full credit since he had
really answered the question completely and correctly! On the other hand, if
full credit were given,
it could well contribute to a high grade in his physics course and certify
competence in physics,
but the answer did not confirm this. I suggested that the student have
another try.
I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that
the answer should
show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he hadn't
written anything. I asked if
he wished to give up, but he said he had many answers to this problem; he
was just thinking of
the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please
go on. In the next
minute, he dashed off his answer, which read: "Take the barometer to the top
of the building and
lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a
stopwatch. Then, using
the formula x=0.5*a*t^2, calculate the height of the building."
At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and
gave the student almost
full credit. While leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the
student had said that he had
other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were. Well, "said the
student, "there are
many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a
barometer. For example, you
could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the
barometer, the length
of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use
of simple proportion,
determine the height of the building.""Fine," I said, "and others?"
"Yes," said the student, "there is a very basic measurement method you will
like. In this method,
you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the
stairs, you mark off the
length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks,
and this will give you
the height of the building in barometer units. A very direct method." "Of
course. If you want a
more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string,
swing it as a
pendulum, and determine the value of g [gravity] at the street level and at
the top of the building.
From the difference between the two values of g, the height of the building,
in principle, can be
calculated. On this same tack, you could take the barometer to the top of
the building, attach a
long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swing it as a
pendulum. You could then
calculate the height of the building by the period of the precession".
"Finally," he concluded,
"there are many other ways of solving the problem. Probably the best," he
said, "is to take the
barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the
superintendent
answers, you speak to him as follows: 'Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine
barometer. If you will tell
me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer."
At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the
conventional answer to this
question. He admitted that he did, but said that he was fed up with high
school and college
instructors trying to teach him how to think.
The name of the student was Niels Bohr." (1885-1962) Danish Physicist; Nobel
Prize 1922; bestSir Ernest Rutherford, President of the Royal Academy, and recipient of the
Nobel
Prize in Physics, related the following story:
Some time ago I received a call from a colleague. He was about to give a
student a zero for his
answer to a physics question, while the student claimed a perfect score. The
instructor and the
student agreed to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected. I read the
examination question: "Show
how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid
of a barometer." The
student had answered: "Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach
a long rope to it,
lower it to the street, and then bring it up, measuring the length of the
rope. The length of the rope
is the height of the building." The student really had a strong case for
full credit since he had
really answered the question completely and correctly! On the other hand, if
full credit were given,
it could well contribute to a high grade in his physics course and certify
competence in physics,
but the answer did not confirm this. I suggested that the student have
another try.
I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that
the answer should
show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he hadn't
written anything. I asked if
he wished to give up, but he said he had many answers to this problem; he
was just thinking of
the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please
go on. In the next
minute, he dashed off his answer, which read: "Take the barometer to the top
of the building and
lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a
stopwatch. Then, using
the formula x=0.5*a*t^2, calculate the height of the building."
At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and
gave the student almost
full credit. While leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the
student had said that he had
other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were. Well, "said the
student, "there are
many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a
barometer. For example, you
could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the
barometer, the length
of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use
of simple proportion,
determine the height of the building.""Fine," I said, "and others?"
"Yes," said the student, "there is a very basic measurement method you will
like. In this method,
you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the
stairs, you mark off the
length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks,
and this will give you
the height of the building in barometer units. A very direct method." "Of
course. If you want a
more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string,
swing it as a
pendulum, and determine the value of g [gravity] at the street level and at
the top of the building.
From the difference between the two values of g, the height of the building,
in principle, can be
calculated. On this same tack, you could take the barometer to the top of
the building, attach a
long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swing it as a
pendulum. You could then
calculate the height of the building by the period of the precession".
"Finally," he concluded,
"there are many other ways of solving the problem. Probably the best," he
said, "is to take the
barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the
superintendent
answers, you speak to him as follows: 'Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine
barometer. If you will tell
me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer."
At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the
conventional answer to this
question. He admitted that he did, but said that he was fed up with high
school and college
instructors trying to teach him how to think.
The name of the student was Niels Bohr." (1885-1962) Danish Physicist; Nobel
known for proposing the first 'model' of the atom with protons & neutrons,
and various energy
states of the surrounding electrons - the familiar icon of the small nucleus
circled by three
elliptical orbits ... but more significantly, an innovator in Quantum
Theory.
and various energy
states of the surrounding electrons - the familiar icon of the small nucleus
circled by three
elliptical orbits ... but more significantly, an innovator in Quantum
Theory.
2006_Iron_Maiden_Holdings_Ltd..jpg)
