I tweeted this on an impulse:
What is the one concept in science that you really think should be explained better to a wide audience?
At least 140 characters restricts people to really only suggesting one thing. But I don’t want to leave the blog readers out, so have a go. See if you can stick to just one!
@steven coyler (38):
The right way to teach uncertainty is to explain that the probability distributions of certain pairs of incompatible observables are related through a Fourier transform. Then, you can show them that the Fourier transform of a Gaussian distribution is a Gaussian distribution, and how the standard deviations of the variable and its transform are related. Simple, elegant, and points directly to the wave nature of quantum mechanics which you’re allso trying to convince your studence of.
It’s got to be a wider explanation of quantum physics and how it fits into the picture of how our world works..
1. potential energy.
2. orthogonality
3. conservation laws
4. the math describes the world rather than the other way around.
renormalization
Faith in our senses and culture vs. faith in contingent scientific knowledge. For general audiences, how our senses are important, but can interfere with our ability to understand the world around us. Please help educate the general public about how understand and to value this discovery process and compare with other cultural and sensory knowledge systems. The fate of our species depends upon it.
There is a general pop-meme that quantum science has discovered that underneath all this stuff (existence) is an infinite field of nothingness. I would be curious to know if this is in fact an actual finding or the result of pop-culture spin. I am in no way a scientist myself, but I love to know what is actual.
I’d personally like to see an explenation of the things you talked about in the “space is not fundamental” presentation. It’s probably not a priority to teach that to the general public though :).
Exponents. Size matters and people can’t get it.
Entropy
You should explain to yourself why you don’t have a clue. Please.
The difference between life, consciousness and the universe. People seem to have a tendency to confuse those, for some reason.
In this country, the problem is not just how to explain scientific concepts; foremost, it is to stop the media, parents, and schools from ridiculing science as boring, nerdy, and as requiring too much effort to educate our children to be competent in and even excel in. As other countries increasingly realize the urgency of a scientific education in order to compete for survival in this world, and as they reinforce the desirability of scientific knowledge by enthusiastically embracing it rather than dissing it in their popular cultures as we do, we continue to slide behind. Solving this will take a huge PR effort on the part of the government: stop smoking; eat healthy food; get enough exercise; learn how the world works. Or die. The scientific community must contribute by providing numerous simple examples explaining how the world works. This is not a trivial task: explaining how your iPhone works in accurate, clear language, even including, gasp, a little math requires taste, hard work, and even genius. In fact, many scientists would probably regard it as impossible. But we now have new tools for teaching and motivating that weren’t available even 10-20 years ago.
So which “one” concept would best be explained? How about all of the suggestions above? Yes, you should select a few as a pilot project. But they should be tough ones, yet explained convincingly to primary school students and grandparents alike. Are we that good, or is it “too hard”?
The speed of light.
How we measure it, what it tells us about the age of the universe, how light-speed is linked to and incorporated in technology all around us – like how cell phones and semiconductors actually work (scientific prediction, enabling things like precise matlab simulation of engineering design work, etc., versus random guesswork).
Once people get that the speed of light is known, measurable and predictable – and that this knowledge is part of the reason we have things like cell phones, then it really put’s to bed the creationist notion that god created everything 6000 years ago. We wouldn’t be able to see the stars if that were true – let alone design cell phones. Once you dispel that 6000-year-old universe notion, maybe a few more folks would be a little bit more interested in learning some other areas of science.
How something can be a wave and a particle at the same time.
Membrane Theory.
Does it have to be a concept?
How about, why we build and operate big, expensive colliders.
I think people understand the purpose of a telescope or a spaceship. But all they hear about colliders is, “to look for a certain kind of particle”. Which I fear sounds like a terribly humble pursuit for such huge facilities and dollar figures.
I’m only thinking about it because I live near Fermi, and I sometimes wonder about their financial future. 🙁
That you can’t really understand anything very well, until you do the math(atleast in the physical sciences).
other than that: special relativity. at least at high school level. it can be done and in fact given its implications to our understanding of the world, it needs to be done. further, i think it’s the only accessible theory that shows how very counterintuitive science can be.
also, evolution.
@(12)freelancer
i agree with you. f****ing magnets.
The limitations of studies (scientific or otherwise), statistics and polls.
The scientific method. Most people have no idea how science progresses, or rather, they have a wrong one. Once you take it in, you sit up and start to pay attention.
voice through a copper wire; the door to science for non-scientists.
Right behind scale of the universe I agree with:
(12) and (68)
Magnets freak me out. The repulsive part. I could play with a set of magnets all day by putting the like poles together and wondering how in the hell those things repel each other.
(I mean, I have a pretty good feel for how, but the fact that the universe has that “how” as a property freaks me out).
Reason.
When describing the weak force, mass of bosons are used in mathematical calculations. A helpful method needed to depict the weak force could be some visualizations. Information of the nucleons is traded for information through the actions of the bosons. Consuming the data required to view these actions seems insurmountable.
A graphic solution tells more of the story. Use of computers delivers what happens well enough to lessen the tension of exasperated minds.
That both directed and abstract scientific research are needed for society to advance. . . and putting more focus on research will lead to more advances. While this is obviously self-serving, it’s also a very under appreciated fact among the population at large.
Quoting (National Energy Secretary and Nobel laureate) Steven Chu: “The federal government should be investing “tens of billions of dollars” annually to drive a Manhattan Project-style pace of innovation necessary to address the scale of the energy challenge facing the U.S.”
If the US did this, it would certainly revolutionize energy technology.
I don’t think there’s widespread opposition to this kind of a proposal, but there certainly isn’t widespread (and vocal) support.