Q.E.D.

a week or so ago, I caught wind of a web site that students are apparently visiting because it can somehow make people feel like they are high or drunk. at least, that’s the way I heard it. because I’m generally hip to the doings of young folk, I figured it was just some silly site and kids who were acting disoriented or in some kind of trance were just kidding around, or susceptible to psychosomatic suggestions, or gullible, or all of the above.

today, however, two students approached me and asked if I could explain how the site works, what the science behind the procedure is, and whether it was harmful. they were asking me because they were working an assignment for the school newspaper and I am apparently a trusted scientific resource. after asking a few pertinent questions, I was able to glean from my conversation with these kids that people apparently download audio files from the web site onto ipods and similar devices, then listen to them and experience some kind of altered state. the web site charges a fee for each “dose” and markets different files as the equivalent of taking doses of various drugs, illegal and otherwise. still convinced this was a ruse designed to target high school kids who might otherwise like noise or trance music but wouldn’t consider listening to it unless someone suggested it was rebellious or dangerous or secret, I tried my best to work around the school’s internet filters (once again foiled by that matronly rufus, Bess) but could not view the site.

what I did figure out, though, is that the web site itself, I-Doser.com, claims to offer, (ahem, sell), audio files that contain binaural beats that are designed to induce trances or altered states of mind in ways that mimic specific drugs. (as much as I want to explain it in detail here, I also want you to keep reading my post, so if you’re unfamilar with acoustic beats, it would probably work out better if you read the wikipedia article about them).

so, after reading a little more, I’ve learned that there has, in fact, been research to suggest that when a person listens to two sounds producing binaural beats at particular frequencies, they can have effects on brainwave frequencies, which in layman’s terms translates into causing a state of relaxation or meditation. that makes the topic sentence of this paragraph: yes, apparently there is some scientific evidence to suggest listening to files from this site can put you in a trance. maybe. I think? I suppose that’s the idea here; however, I can’t confirm the phenomenon because I haven’t had a chance to find a file that claims to contain said binaural beats that won’t cost me $20, (I’ll settle for free, though. and I admit I haven’t really looked around. I’m sure they’re all over filesharing sites..). either way, I’d like to know if this is all in a few high school kids’ heads, or if listening to a noise track through your earbuds on the bus ride to school (when you’re still half asleep anyway) can really make you feel high by the time you get to homeroom.

on a seperate note, leave it to the internet to find yet another way to make a fortune on kids who could probably score real drugs, cheaper. or even just spin around in a circle a bunch of times instead and get the same feeling. genius. I wish I’d thought of it.

from the most recent issue of Discover Magazine, wherein an award winning high school science teacher interviews Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings:

How does the Department of Education plan to support creative approaches to science teaching?
One of the best ways to strengthen science instruction is to get more scientists into the classroom to teach and share their real-world knowledge. President Bush has proposed an Adjunct Teacher Corps, which would provide an opportunity for talented and dedicated industry experts from outside the teaching profession to share their knowledge in middle and high school classrooms.

What do you regard as good science education?
The ability to apply a problem to a real world, a relevant kind of example, I think you’d see that. I’m big on this because I think often our schools are isolated from the community broadly. I hope you’d find a veterinarian or a NASA scientist or a doctor or a pharmacist or people who were using those sorts of skills in fields successfully today.

what the hell is this woman talking about? apparently, since science teachers aren’t “using those sorts of skills in fields successfully,” or helping students “apply problems to the real world” through “relevant examples,” we ought to forget about professional development, hell forget about those guys anyway.. (you know what they say.. “those who can’t, teach..”) ..and while we’re at it, let’s forget about developing and supporting better science curricula in the schools where reading and math assessments have pushed some, ahem, other subjects aside. instead, let’s hope those people who were smart enough to take their science brains into the “real world” and become “scientists” instead of teachers will be happy to do what those silly teachers can’t seem to get done, in addition to all that “science” they’re doing there at NASA and stuff.

good idea, Marge.

instead of posting here, I left town again. this time for New England, to visit my parents in Massachusetts for a week. a little later, I’ll post a short summary of the awesome time I had (and always have) when I’m there, but in the mean time, please enjoy these snippets of dialogue that took place between the man and two women who sat directly behind me on the flight home:

enter three 30-somethings who for all intents and purposes appear to be well adjusted, successfully employed and reasonably intelligent..

on the nature of thunderstorms
woman #1: so you said you almost majored in physics- what is lightning? I’ve always wondered.
man: electricity.
woman #2: can’t it hit planes?
m: yeah it does but it doesn’t hurt the plane.
w1: why not?
m: it’s always trying to get to the ground so it doesn’t bother hurting the plane or its engines on the way. it’s more concerned with getting to the ground than messing up the plane or other stuff in it’s way.
w1: huh. interesting.

on the tragedy in Minnesota
w2: so here is something I’ve always wondered- how do they build bridges? how do they stay up? why don’t they fall down as they’re adding each piece of the bridge?
m: well first they sink footers down into the bedrock in the bottom of the river. that’s how they stay.
w1 & w2: ohhhh.

on insisting that all proper names in company and business use be posessive
w2: I really love candy. all kinds. especially Sarris’s. I love going down to Sarris’s in Canonsburg.

on comedy
m: Chris Farley is a genius
w1 & w2: mmm hmmm…

on air traffic control
w2: I hate Philly. there are always delays. why can’t planes just take off whenever they want? why do they have to hold everybody up?
m: well there are only so many runways. and the planes fly in sort of straight paths. and there are millions in the sky at once. so they have to make sure there is room for them to take off into.
w2: ohh. that makes sense. so that’s what the pilot means when he always says “we’re cleared for takeoff” or whatever. I thought he could just go. I guess he has to get permission first.
m: yeah. and here is my theory. it’s just my theory but anyway, I think Philly only has a couple runways. and they calculate their flight times for arrivals and departures based on X number of flights coming in and out over the course of the day. but then, that’s not realistic. there are more flights at certain times, like say noon. so instead of all the flights being spread out, everyone is trying to come in and out at noon and that’s why there is a backup.
w1: yeah! I read something about that!!

on aeronautics
w2: so how do planes fly anyway? do you know?
m: yeah. it has something to do with pressure. there’s high pressure under the plane and low pressure above it and it pushes it up. you know, like the way vaccuum cleaners work.

on science education
w2: you must have been on the fast track in high school. I didn’t take physics… oh wait. maybe I did.
w1: I did! I remember, with the bunsen burners..
m: that was chemistry.
w1: oh yeah. but we did a lot of experiments and stuff in that class…
w2: I did take physics- that’s right. I remember now. it sucked. we didn’t do anything in that class. I remember dropping stuff down the stairs and measuring something and running up and down over and over again. and talking a lot.

over the course of this conversation, I went from feeling an intense desire to explain some of the utterly fascinating physics phenomena they were discussing, to wanting to punch the man in the face for spreading one of the most common misconceptions in all of physics, to feeling smug and disillusioned about my role as a physics teacher, (including one particular lab I assign requiring students to run up and down stairs..), to simply resolving to ensure that every student who enters my class will leave with the ability to answer, (correctly, I might add), every question these people posed..

and in case you’re wondering, the man didn’t ask either of them for her number!

you hear the words thrown around now and again, usually by individuals who know nothing about physics trying to appear otherwise in the context of some kind of scientific discussion, or by physicists who know far too much about physics failing to communicate the fundamental nature of the theory to anyone who has not been a physics student himself. wikipedia does a decent job outlining the concepts as well as shortcomings associated with string theory, but good luck making sense of it if you haven’t completed a course in college level physics.. and such is the way for most explanantions I’ve seen, read, or heard over the years.

unfortunately, the more advanced a theory is, the harder it can be to explain to the layperson, and most scientists working in labs are too busy trying to prove their ideas to colleagues in the scientific community to worry about whether the middle aged housewife down the street or the dozing art student in their “science for non majors” course gets it. which leaves the job of explaining why physics and its nonsensical ideas are not only understandable, but absolutely fucking beautiful, to people like me.. who interact with those laypeople on a daily basis and who must contend with the fact that 99% of the material covered in a modern high school physics class is identical to what was covered in one a hundred years ago. the most recent discoveries, the most relevant applications, the most interesting and stunning and terrifying ideas have all come in the 20th century and beyond, but you’ll never find modern physics topics in a basic physics course because most science education still functions on the notion that you have to walk before you can run, you have to crawl before you can walk, and you must learn newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetism in full before you are allowed to find out that they are only half of the story. it’s a shame, but damned if I have any good solutions; most kids do learn to crawl before they walk.

so, I find it quite gratifying when I can accomplish something like convey an even trivial sense of why string theory, (well M theory, to be more precise), makes physicists’ heads spin simultaneously with delight and disgust; I imagine Discover Magazine had the same idea when they challenged readers to produce a two minute video on the topic and submit them to be judged by Columbia University physicist Briane Greene. he’s one of the foremost experts on the topic and is also known for a better-than-average ability to explain it, (which he does in this book), and he has selected a winner, which you can view here.

I have to admit that none of the winning submissions really struck me as a true “winner;” I would like to have seen some aspects of each video incorporated into one. a two minute video on string theory needs to include simple diagrams, colorful illustrations, minimal jargon and an easy to follow, uncomplicated and logical progression from the seed idea, (which is basically that “we can’t explain gravity on a microscopic level”) to the end product, (which is basically that “we think every particle in the universe is really just a bunch of string folded over on itself and vibrating in a funny way”).

this started me wondering about how teachers teach, and why there has always been and seems there always will be such a huge disconnect between teacher and audience. everyone has a natural teaching style which is usually similar, if not identical, to one’s preferred learning style.. and successful teachers must learn to detach from that instinct to teach the way they’d want to be taught in order to teach the way the students need to be taught.

does the winning video actually explain string theory to someone who doesn’t understand it? I know I liked it, found it easy to follow and thought the choice of rubber ducky a quirky bonus, but I have a physics degree. I’d like to know what the average joe thinks of it and whether it helps him understand the nature of the theory itself in any manner, because I would have to guess that it does not. am I wrong? and why the hell is it so hard for those who possess any kind of specialized understanding to communicate it to those who do not?