Can we learn from the Master, Leonardo da Vinci, when it comes to Education?

Can we still learn from one of the great minds in the history of the western world?  I am referring to Leonardo da Vinci.   While not a great deal is known about da Vinci’s early life, he likely did not have much of a formal education.  He was not university-bound, was not well-versed in the classics, Latin, and other subjects, and throughout his life he was largely self-taught.  Along with this, he also made sure to put himself in situations where he would meet other intellects of the fifteenth century so he could learn and collaborate with them.  One of the most important lessons to learn from da Vinci’s approach to and thoughts on education is his mantra, Learn by Experience.  To get a feel for how da Vinci approached life and learning, I recommend Da Vinci’sGhost by Toby Lester.

Da Vinci fumed at inaccuracies and blatant mistakes that existed in some of the textbooks of the day, where scholars simply believed what was written down.  Why would these ‘scholars’ never question accepted ideas and principles?  A good example of this might be how the Aristotelian, intuitive conclusion that heavy objects should fall faster than lighter objects was truth, simply because it made sense to the mind.  For many centuries people simply accepted this, and not long after da Vinci, Galileo finally actually did the experiment to disprove this long-held conclusion.  I often wonder if da Vinci ever did this on his own, but never published it.

Leonardo took a different path, one that in modern edu-speak could be called ‘active learning’ or ‘engagement in the learning process.’  He observed Nature, did experiments, built models, sketched scenes, did dissections of animals and humans (to learn about anatomy), studied architectural designs both for artistic features as well as from an engineering perspective, collaborated with other experts in the fields he was studying, kept prolific journals with all his thoughts and ideas and re-read them to keep the ideas fresh, and never stopped asking endless questions about seemingly everything around him.  Granted, some might say that the pace he thought about everything, and the fact that he could think about any subject at any time, was superhuman, and obviously this is one of the near unique minds in human history and we can never expect us or our students to have this level of non-stop curiosity and drive to learn, we can and must learn from da Vinci’s approach and attitude to learning.   Learn by experience.

This approach was certainly picked up half a millennium later, in the 1930s, by John Dewey.  Dewey was perhaps the most influential educator/philosopher of education in the United States during the twentieth century.  In his published essay, “Experience andEducation,” Dewey argues that traditional classes and traditional teaching (i.e. lecturing with the intent that students are sponges for information and will simply learn from a babbling teacher) must be replaced by an evolving active learning process.  This is the progressive education approach in Dewey’s language of 1938.  As we presently debate what is best for the 21^st century student, teacher and classroom, could it be that we finally listen to and accept what da Vinci practiced five hundred years ago?   I hope so.

Dewey writes that ‘traditional’ education, where all students move together through classes at the same pace and the teacher and textbooks provide the information students must study, produces an attitude in students of “docility, receptivity and obedience.”  The subject matter and rules and standards of conduct are simply passed down from generation to generation, as education prepares students for success in life.  The curriculum is not challenged from year to year.  There is not necessarily any logic behind the order things are studied, and subjects are disconnected from each other, meaning kids are going from math class to science class to English to social studies, and they learn about topics with no relationship between the topics.  Math topics are done in their order, with no consideration of how those topics may be related and applied in science, and reading strategies and vocabulary in a reading class are not at all related to vocabulary and the readings being used in social studies, etc.

Does this sound familiar to you as you think back to your own education experience?  It certainly does for me!

Dewey’s vision of what he called progressive education paints a different picture.  Education should provide a means to cultivate individuality. It should allow for some free activity, which will get students involved with their learning, rather than just sit and absorb information from teachers and textbooks.  Students must be able to learn through experience (ah, da Vinci!).  Present issues and topics in life should be included in curriculum, and not just the ‘classics’ that have always been studied and may have no relevance any more for students – so the curriculum must be changing as the times change.  Education must teach children how to think and solve problems of any kind.  To be good at this, part of the process must show how different subjects are related, to provide students with a broad arsenal to attack problems. 

This is a very different way of teaching and learning than the traditional way of education.

Activity over boredom.  Relevance over tradition.  Problem solving and direct experience over memorization.  Experimentation over drill and kill.  Synthesis and analysis over prescribed solutions.  Differentiation over one size fits all.  Trial and error over cookbook, fill-in-the-blank activities (such as labs).  Current events and issues over same old problems in old textbooks.  Application to the real world over classical, ideal problems if there is no relevance for the modern student.  Multi- and interdisciplinary lessons over isolated topics.  Variety over singularity.

Education is the means to individual growth in Dewey’s progressive model, so students have developed the habits of mind, knowledge base, and skills necessary to handle a dynamic world, rather than study the same old things that assume the world is static. 

It is my experience that there is still a good majority of teachers who are teaching the way they were taught, which is much more the traditional way.  This is in part a product of the No Child Left Behind law, whose very foundation is the factory line version of cookie-cutter education.  All students must learn at the same pace, learn the same material, and pass the same tests.  It emphasizes the very one size fits all model that da Vinci would scream at and Dewey is dismissing.  And any hope of expanding a progressive model in education has been thoroughly thwarted by national policy.  It is the epitome of teach to the test that we presently have, and is completely counterproductive to 21^st century skills, with creativity at the top of the list, our young people need to be productive and successful in the fastest changing world we have had in human history. 

We simply MUST learn from the master, one Leonardo da Vinci, and allow kids to have guided exploration of the world on their own, and give them a chance to experience topics relevant to their world, and not the past, rather than rely on the spoon-feeding of information, as if our children are intellectual infants for the first 18 years of life.  

Why are we expecting miracles for getting out of this economic 'downturn?'

We have been in a serious economic recession/depression since about 2007, when rising unemployment, home foreclosures, and a near banking collapse began to show their teeth.  And the U.S. obviously was not alone, as this has been a global disaster.  There is no way around the fact that, with globalization of markets and deep interdependencies between various national economies, when one country suffers, it is conceivable that the ripple effect through this complex system results in global consequences - when one of those countries is the U.S., or if it is the European Union, then it will more quickly result in a global disaster.

And now we are in the midst of a U.S. election campaign season.  Our leaders and wanna-be leaders are out there telling us that they have 'The Plan' to quickly get us out of this financial mess.  Oh, it is so tempting to believe them.  For those who have been out of work or taken pay cuts over the past four or five years, this is music to the ear.  But the trouble is, history certainly does not support these claims.  I think the American public is rightly wary of anyone stepping up to the microphone saying it will be essentially 'easy' to get out of this mess.

The Great Depression began more or less in 1929.  This is the only period in modern history with a worse economic meltdown than what we have seen presently.  That lasted at least a full decade, and the main engine for getting us out of that period was a world war, that forced millions of people back into work either in the military or in factories to get our war machine in place.  We will never know how long, absent WWII, the depression would have lasted otherwise, if all we had in place were political 'economic recovery' plans or policies.  I suspect it could have lasted another decade.  Another financial collapse of significant magnitude happened in the 1980s, when Japan was on the rise and many thought it could surpass the U.S. as the major economic power.  They still have not fully recovered, and this is well into its second decade for Japan.  Obviously there are large differences between Japan and the U.S., and different economies and interests, but the point is major collapses tend to not be solved or see good recoveries in just a couple years.

I am no historian, I am no economist, so I will not be able to cite theories or provide many other examples supporting this thought without doing some research.  But I am fairly confident in stating that the politicians are blowing smoke.  I think they understand this.  Rather than stepping up and being honest with us (to his credit, President Obama has repeatedly told us this is not going to be fixed overnight, which is not a politically smart thing to say), they continue to try and win votes with the development of fantasy sales pitches about how they are the economic savior.

The thing to think about is how did this happen.  There are so many contributions, but the well-known major contributors include government fiscal mismanagement (two unpaid wars, historic tax cuts and loss of revenue, increased spending, health care costs rising well above inflation and higher entitlement costs, etc.), pure greed in a highly unregulated banking system (through increased DEregulation during the 1990s and through the Bush administration), which allowed millions of careless loans and financing of businesses and mortgages to be made, where the lendees could not possibly afford the loans over the long term.  We were in a period where we, the American citizen, was spending more on credit than we were ever attempting to save.  Personal bankruptcies were beginning to explode, and record per capita debt developed.  As bad as credit card debt is, our college graduates are coming out with even higher college debt.  This by itself, along with a very difficult job market for graduates, is a long-term issue some are finally talking about - we have set up the next generation for long-term financial problems.  And this in a group that historically spends a lot of money that the U.S. economy depends on. This is why Obama has made such a big deal about keeping college loan rates low, which nearly doubled due to some in Congress that were threatening to double the rate.  And another stress on the economy for the past two or three decades: the average American worker's wages have been flat when adjusted for inflation.  By the way, the upper couple percent of American's wages have went up a few hundred percent...and they get the largest financial support through tax policy and loopholes.

Our economy depends on consumer spending.  About 2/3 of the economy is through consumers buying stuff.    It is a fair statement to say that we cannot see much improvement unless there is more spending, which requires people to have jobs that do not just have flat wages over time.  The middle class drives the economy.  When the middle class cannot spend, we have trouble.  The wealthy are not making up the difference, even though many have been taken care of quite nicely throughout this crisis.  Spending must come from somewhere - the government is the only entity capable of such spending.  This was the logic behind the 'Obama stimulus.'  It probably prevented an official depression, as it helped keep another million or more people from losing their jobs.  I don't agree that it was a complete waste of money as the right suggests.  It leads to higher deficits, absolutely.  But in the short term the government spending is one of the few things preventing things from getting even worse.

The rest of the world is not doing well, either, which means any U.S. recovery is affected and slowed down. Even China and India have seen substantial slowing of their economic growth the past two decades.  China cannot maintain double-digit growth forever.  And of course Europe is an absolute mess right now.  None of these circumstances suggest it is possible for the U.S, to have a speedy recovery as the politicians suggest and want us to believe.

Do we try a balanced approach to get our economy moving?  Some spending cuts and some revenue?  Don't go too far in either direction, but have a balanced attack and diverse recovery portfolio?  Or do we cut taxes more for the wealthy, and go solely with spending cuts?  With the middle class suffering, and likely will suffer a bit more since spending cuts will affect everything from being able to buy food (some want cuts to food stamps) or afford college loans or lose unemployment support or lose health insurance (some want to simply repeal the ACA)...average Americans will not be able to spend more if all we have are reductions in government spending, in fact many will need to spend even less!  This is not an economic recovery since it depends most on consumer spending!

This is going to last quite a bit longer.  Regardless of who is President.  But I personally believe the approach Obama wants to take makes more sense than what Romney is suggesting (I would like him to state three things about his plan that are not part of the Bush plan that was largely responsible for the collapse).  We will see what happens with the election, but for the sake of the country the refusal of the parties to work with each other has been disgusting and detrimental to the prospects of reducing the time it will take to get some relief for Americans and the world.  It has only been five years, and history tells us to expect a number of years to come....we cannot afford to wait for political games to play themselves out.

Have the Higgs!

Fermilab announced yesterday that they have evidence for the Higgs boson, and CERN is now announcing more convincing evidence for this particle.  The Standard Model, the theory explaining our understanding of the fundamental particles and three of the forces of Nature (with the exception of gravity), predicts a field that is responsible for the mass of other particles.  This is the Higgs field, which is 'carried' by a Higgs particle, which is the essence of modern quantum mechanics.  This is a major confirmation of our understanding of Nature, which has been ongoing for decades since the prediction of the particle.  Check out the video below.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Do We Have the Educational Infrastructure to do Major STEM Education?

There is an interesting article by Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy in Education Week, entitled "STEM: Why It Makes No Sense."  In it, he argues that the countless STEM programs being installed in schools around the country, and most of those being in high schools, won't mean that we'll see increased numbers of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians, or that we'll stop the tech gap that has existed in our favor since WWII from sliding to the likes of China, India, and other nations.  The primary reason for his skepticism is we do not have the infrastructure or will or funds being devoted to a systemic revival of STEM.  As Mr. Tucker states:

"Here is an interesting fact.  The countries that are producing more people with higher skills in mathematics, science, engineering, technology, and science don't have STEM programs.  When we do benchmarking research in those countries, we don't hear their educators talking about STEM priorities.  We don't hear their industrial leaders doing that either.  The term is not used.  The programs don't exist.

What is going on here?  How come they are doing better at this when we have STEM programs and they don't?"

I tend to agree that if all we do are scattered programs here and there, while it may generate interest and skills and expertise for some relatively small number of students in those programs as they head off to college, it will not make a significant national difference. 

I doubt if many would argue against the notion that the role of STEM for the U.S. economic growth and eventual dominance the past century is enormous.  Our industrial might, innovation, and science base are mostly responsible for the U.S. being the remaining superpower, and STEM and industrial might is leading China and likely India to superpower status in the next couple decades.  So there is good reason why many scholars, economists, educators, and politicians worry about a public that is mostly science illiterate, and there not being enough American STEM graduates to fill good technical jobs.  Many are worried that one-third of our research base in universities is filled by foreign students.  The strength of our economy and way of life will depend in large part to the next generation of STEM workers.  So this is an important topic to figure out, as Mr. Tucker points out. 

One reason why other nations might not have the number of programs we do is because they fit STEM subjects and classes into the overall educational system.  Those countries fix the system if something goes wrong, not add isolated programs.  When you take a systems approach, you can accomplish what I wish we could accomplish in American schools, and that is have a continuum of education from pre-K all the way through high school and into college.  Instead, many of our K-8 districts are disconnected from high school districts, and there is no continuum.  For political reasons, Americans tend to focus on high schools - but the issues develop in elementary school or even earlier. 

Can we expect high school programs of any kind to make up for a decade of neglect?  If insufficient skills and background knowledge and desire and creativity exist in students when they get to the high school, can we expect to suddenly turn those students around, especially in technical subject areas that tend to be difficult for those who are prepared?  I agree with Mr. Tucker that it is unlikely, and I have experience with all this that tells me the same. 

Other countries have high public support and respect for teachers, and the best and brightest going into college are recruited and encouraged to become teachers.  Elementary teachers in some countries need to at least minor in subjects like math and science before they can teach even the youngest children.  Teachers in many other countries are paid at the same level as engineers, doctors and lawyers.  In the U.S., most elementary teachers I know rate math and science as their weaknesses, and some have almost no training.  This is not their fault, but rather the system allows this to happen.  There is a bashing of teachers right now in the American public that says we are lazy, work six hour days, make too much, and have summers off (my response to this, for what it is worth, is that if it is such a cushy job with so much money and so much free time, why are those who are not teachers not flocking to try and become teachers?  And why does every teacher I know who changed careers to become teachers, to a person, say they never worked so hard compared to their previous job?)

And at the top of all this, at least for the past decade, is No Child Left Behind.  With math and reading as the only subjects that matter for elementary schools, no wonder science, as well as social studies, the arts, and all other subjects, been largely neglected at a time in history when they are more important than ever. 

What we have been doing systemically does not make sense.  But I share Mr. Tucker's doubt that anything will be done systemically.  So we will be stuck with programs, trying to prepare as many students as possible, so they can carry the load for the country. 

Does our STEM system do anything positive, though?  We still have the greatest university system the world flocks to.  Our partnerships between universities, the private sector and the government is second to none.  We still have the greatest amount of innovation the world envies, and tries to steal.  Our top students can compete with anyone on the planet.  It is the middle on down that we worry about in a global, technical world. 

I am also encouraged by those schools that take on a theme of STEM, where this is a focus for all its students.  This is bigger than a program, and is progress.  However, the fear for public schools is still the high-stakes testing that discourages inquiry, collaboration, and creativity. 

In the end, we may learn the hard way that systemic change needs to happen at a faster than glacial pace.  We'll see if a worst-case scenario plays out, where we lose our advantage in technical areas, lose our competitive edge in industry, and begin to rely on the rest of the world for tomorrow's innovation and products and medical breakthroughs. Let's try to address the writing on the wall before it becomes a reality. 

Surely we can agree to do something for hungry children

A great national debate is in process. It is a presidential election year, enough said. But what is troubling to me is the venomous nature of the two major political parties and the complete lack, at least as evidenced by their rhetoric, respect for compromise, which is an essential piece of a democracy. Debate is good, but having respect and being civil to each other must be a part of the process. Compromise is just another word meaning coming together more towards the middle of some issue, which is also where a large majority of the citizenry tends to be found.

 But this year the debate is different, as the Tea Party has grabbed hold of the leadership on the GOP side. Now the Tea Party is generally a small piece of the GOP base, but they have money and a large influence. From all appearances in the press and with several people I have met who identify themselves as tea party members, I must say they appear unwilling to even suggest there is any role for government. Perhaps 'extreme' is an appropriate term. In one instance I brought up the fact that the Tea Party member I was talking with should find another way home, having driven partly on one of the interstate highways that would not be here had it not been part of a Republican President's interstate highway construction project (and is a major reason for a robust national economy he held so near and dear to his heart). But I digress.

I'd like to bring up one issue that I am hoping everyone will be able to find common ground. The poverty of children, and the resulting malnutrition that is occurring around the country. In a recent article in the local newspaper, there is an estimated 400,000 hungry children in and around the collar counties of Chicago. 400,000. This is an especially difficult time of the year now that school is out, and free or reduced cost lunches are no longer available for these children.

The U.S. is the wealthiest nation in the history of humankind. How can we allow 1 in 5 children to go hungry on a regular basis? This statistic may in fact be worse with the recession, and families having too much pride to admit they need to take part in a food program that is run, that is correct, by the federal government and administered through the states.

Can we try to maintain even some small level of compassion and not penalize children, who had no say to whom they were born or what neighborhood and family, and therefore financial status, they are part of? Let's keep free and reduced lunch programs in place. Nutrition is vital for health and cognitive development, and at the very least let's try to give all kids this basic life-sustaining need so they may have a chance to participate in the chase for the 'American Dream.'

This is one area government intervention, in conjunction with local food pantries, churches, community groups, and individual donations, is and should continue to make a difference. The numbers both locally and nationally are incredible, mind-numbing, and unacceptable. Political opposition should remain, I hope, in the background with some small numbers of extreme members who may propose budget cuts so there will not need to be any tax increase at all on the wealthiest Americans. Let's continue to select a child's basic life need over a few dollars for a multimillionaire. It is vital to our nation's future.

What is wrong with our Political System? In a word, Money.

Here we go. After what I consider to be a disastrous decision by the Supreme Court in 2010 (Citizen's United vs FEC), where essentially corporations are now individuals and there can effectively be unlimited contributions from the wealthiest people, Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire, has given $5 million to a super-PAC that backs Newt Gingrich. He is reportedly willing to spend $20 million for Gingrich. How is this democracy, where the few have the power to manipulate elections? How does this work in the spirit of 'every man created equal,' which is then forgotten when it comes to elections, where we are clearly NOT equals since money is the kingmaker? I fear this is just the start of what will be an insane campaign season when it comes to money - super-rich individuals and big business and and unions and lobbyists as the go-betweens vying to have the biggest influence on the election. What's more, they will almost all contribute at least something to both sides, so they will be able to have access and influence regardless of who wins.

What I would love to see is public financing for elections. Give candidates some lump amount of money to spend on their campaigns. Let the public see how they are able to work with a fixed amount of money (like they will need to do in office), how they set up a campaign budget, and may the one who is able to best convince the electorate that their ideas are best win. No PACs, no unions, no corporations, no dominance by a few individuals. As one comment I saw states very well: "It is not an election - it is an auction." Office sold to the highest bidder!

No Evidence for a Dec. 21, 2012, End of the World Event! Now I can sleep at night.

I am glad NASA scientists have spoken up about the predicted end of the world on December 21, 2012. Check out responses to some of the main threats non-scientists keep yapping about at http://news.yahoo.com/apocalypse-not-now-2012-doomsday-predictions-debunked-nasa-055304813.html. Looks like we will only need to suffer through the election year nonsense instead of an apocalypse.

At least I can wish everyone a Happy and Healthy 2012!!!!!

A 'Smoking Gun' Regarding Climate Change - Yep, We are Responsible for Increased CO2 Levels

I have not been able to watch the Republican presidential debates with any regularity, as time and a lack of cable channels do not permit. However, even if I were to watch these, I would find it difficult to keep the TV on when they begin any discussion of climate change. I would not be able to stomach it when Rep. Bachmann or Gov. Perry say the science is not there - that this is a hoax - that humans have nothing to do with increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. This is either simple, blind ignorance of the actual science that exists, or a blatant disregard of scientific facts in order to cater to certain interest groups and get their money and support.

If there is one thing in the science of climate change that is not in doubt, it is that human beings are largely responsible for the dramatic increase in carbon dioxide (a leading greenhouse gas) since the second half of the 19th century to the present. Now, THE question that is correct to ask is how do we know this? How do we know that humans burning carbon-based materials like coal, oil, and natural gas has led to increased carbon dioxide levels, and that the increased levels are not due to natural causes?

A series of tests provide the answers to this question. There are multiple, independent tests that all lead to the same conclusion. And what's more, these tests rely on basic, fundamental science principles that are not disputed...yes, there are basic, science facts that the conspiracy believers simply have to ignore if they continue their rhetoric.

A brief summary is provided below, but a better, more detailed explanation is found here.

One way of thinking about human contributions to the rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which have increased from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to 380 ppm in just the past 150 years is human activity, i.e. the industrial revolution. One can calculate the amount of carbon burned over that time span, and one finds that humans have put enough carbon in the atmosphere that could place CO2 at some 500 ppm. So why do we measure only 380 ppm? This is because the earth is a complex system, and there are natural carbon sinks such as forests and the oceans, which absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere. These sinks have been able to absorb some of the excess CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere, but in the end we are putting greenhouse gases into the air at a rate faster than natural sinks can absorb it. We are not in chemical equilibrium, and as we now have more humans on the earth than ever, and burning even more carbon materials at faster rates than any other time in human history, it is a natural prediction that this increase in greenhouse gases will rise and put us in a larger non-equilibrium state with carbon sinks.

There is another way to test whether or not humans and the burning of carbon materials are responsible for the increase in CO2 during the last 150 years. It is the measurement of the relative abundance of carbon-13 to carbon-12. The most abundant carbon is carbon-12...this is the form of carbon we are made of, as well as plants. Carbon-13 is an isotope of carbon, with one extra neutron in the nucleus.

There is a natural concentration of the different isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere that is accurately measured. Scientists use the ratio of C-13/C-12 to quantify this concentration of carbon types. Carbon-14, which is radioactive and used in dating many different types of objects, is much more rare than carbon-12 or -13. So Nature has a basic value for the C-13/C-12 ratio in the atmosphere, that has been effectively constant for hundreds of thousands of years with minor variations due to events such as major volcanic activity. By the way, how do scientists measure this over long time periods? Water, ice, and plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Ice core samples from the poles can be dug out and measured and dated. CO2 levels have increased to levels never seen in at least the last 400,000 years, for instance. And this rise has occurred in the last 150 years.

But here is one last aspect of the isotope ratio. The ratio has one value for the atmosphere. But when you burn stuff, there is a significantly different ratio in the CO2 produced from that combustion process! So the study to do, and has been done multiple ways and by independent groups, is to measure the present ratio of Carbon-13/Carbon-12 and compare it to past values. The expectation is that as carbon-based materials are burned, there will be a rise in CO2 (this is simple chemistry that one cannot get around...sorry, no true clean coal exists...if you burn it, CO2 will be produced). but at the same time, the C-13/C-12 ratio should decrease. This is because plants favor absorbing the lighter C-12 from the atmosphere more than C-13. And coal, gas and oil are made from plants that die. Plants, and therefore coal, gas and oil, have a lower C-13/C-12 ratio than the atmosphere.

What is the result of such studies? C-13/C-12 is flat for thousands of years in the atmosphere...natural atmospheric concentrations. But in the last 150 years, CO2 has increased, and C-13/C-12 has decreased, just as predicted. So multiple tests confirm that the burning of carbon-based materials by humans (because there have not been any constantly burning forest fires during this same period, or any other natural process) in the past 150 years has occurred, and this corresponds, over the same time period, to the unprecedented increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Yes, humans are responsible for at least a significant portion of the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 traps heat, and can cause warming of the atmosphere. These are basic facts of chemistry and physics. It is not a hoax. The more difficult problem to solve is the longer-term consequences on the global climate. This is done via computer simulations. The global climate system is an unbelievably complex system, and as climate models improve of time we may have a better grasp of what will eventually happen.

If CO2 levels continue to increase at increasing rates, which will be the case if developing nations like China and India continue to rapidly increase automobile use and coal-burning plant production, and the US does not do anything to decrease its CO2 deployment into the atmosphere, obviously we will continue to see further changes in the natural climatic cycle.

How do we get the general population in tune with the science? When will policymakers accept science facts instead of ignoring them for political gain? And when does it become too late, where even if we cut off all carbon combustion, there will be no turning back the clock on climate change and potential disastrous consequences of high greenhouse levels? That part is debatable; but human responsibility for increased CO2 levels is no longer debatable.

Little Sue and the Rock

I am looking for feedback. I have a children's story that tries to get the concept of atoms and ultimately quarks across to children. I see kids in the age range of 4-8 or so as the target group.

If you have kids and want to read it, or if you have any comments of your own as to what you think about it, please let me know! If you have any experience with children's books, also let me know as I have a number of questions for you. I can see some interesting illustrations that could be produced for the story. Thanks.

Here goes:

Little Sue and the Rock
By Mark Vondracek, Ph.D.

It was after school, and Little Sue was walking down the street,
when she noticed a pretty little rock down by her feet.
She picked it up, looked at it, and wondered what was inside,
when all of a sudden she was going on an amazing ride.

Little Sue began to shrink,
and she did not know what to think.
Was she really getting smaller,
or was the rock just getting taller?

Whatever the case, she quickly began to see,
sparkling crystals appear, like when the sun shines on the sea.
And while these crystals were simply amazing,
little Sue knew this was only the surface of the rock she was grazing.

Ever smaller did little Sue grow,
before she was in a world she did not know.
Those beautiful crystals disappeared,
into a number of balls forming patterns, that much was clear.

The balls were bound together, which to little Sue was very cool,
when she realized she was seeing objects her teacher called molecules.
But she also wondered what was with those once little balls,
which seemed to be getting bigger as her size continued to get small.

Even though little Sue’s height was still decreasing,
she could not help but think this new world was pretty pleasing.
She kept approaching those balls, and it was becoming a little cloudy,
and the balls seemed to be shaking, and even seemed a little rowdy.

“Those balls must be atoms!” exclaimed little Sue to herself,
she knew this because she had read that science book on her shelf.
As she shrunk into one of the clouds it seemed a little fuzzy,
and as she struggled to see, smaller specks flew by and sounded a little buzzy.

Little Sue was checking out the electrons flying by,
moving very fast, so fast she could not even say “Hi.”
And before long little Sue shrunk into a place,
where the electrons were now gone and all she saw was empty space.

It seemed like forever that little Sue kept on shrinking,
seeing nothing around caused her to start thinking.
“Is there nothing else around here that will stop my fall?”
when suddenly in the distance she could see another little ball.

Atoms have a second part, little Sue seemed to remember,
with electrons whizzing and circling the outside, and a nucleus in the center.
Little Sue kept shrinking and suddenly was able to see,
a bunch of smaller balls in the nucleus, glued together so perfectly .

“Wow, these little balls are protons and neutrons! This is really cool!”
as little Sue was remembering that science lesson from school.
She was now seeing the smallest pieces of that rock she had been holding,
at least this is what she thought before she got a little scolding.

Little Sue heard voices complaining as she shrank a little more,
falling inside one of those protons that were at the atom’s core.
Even smaller balls were inside and finally had a chance to make their mark,
by introducing themselves to little Sue, saying, “Hello, we are the quarks!”

For little Sue this was unexpected and really quite the surprise,
as she began to look around and rub her wide-open eyes.
“Quarks,” she said, “were not mentioned in my science book.”
and she closed her eyes for a moment, then opened them for a second look.

The quarks explained to little Sue they aren’t very well known,
but they do exist and are real, with identities all their own.
“Our names are Up and Down,” they said to little Sue,
“but the protons and neutrons are more popular, so what can we do?”

Just then little Sue realized she was no longer shrinking,
for now she had reached the smallest piece of the rock, and she was left thinking –
I have seen the smallest piece of the rock….or have I not?
could there be something smaller than the quarks, as small as a dot?

For now, little Sue will need to wonder about that question,
but as she grows back up in size I leave her this suggestion.
For little Sue, as well as all her little school friends,
if you don’t know the answer to your questions do not leave that as the end.

Keep asking your questions, and don’t leave any of them to silence;
look around, try to find an answer – and before you know it, you will be doing science.
It doesn’t matter what it is, from the smallest atom to outer space,
because you will find questions that still need answers all over the place.

Gaming in Education

OK, something many of my students may have been waiting for. Here is a TED talk about how gaming makes kids smarter, and argues that gaming should be a major part of school. While I agree that there are certain skills that are captured in playing computer and video games, such as being able to process large amounts of information, analyze it and make quick decisions based on that information, and in many games this could be a collaborative activity, let's remind ourselves that this is a different skill set than, say, being able to have patience and focus on a complex problem that requires long periods of time to collect information, keep records and notes, stay organized with ideas as they come up in this thought process, perhaps, in the case of science, develop a physical experiment to test ideas, or build a device or object or model to further investigate aspects of this complex problem, find other information about it from numerous sources, and develop logical conclusions from all this work. Gaming does not really jive with such a skill set.

My point is this: this video, while making a good point, is not a silver bullet. I will always argue that there is no single solution to the optimal education of any individual. There are so many good ways to learn, and it is a useful exercise to experience multiple ways of learning a topic or subject. In real life, one is faced with countless possible problems at a moment's notice, and depending on the type of problem and the environment you are exposed to that problem, some solutions will fall back to what you learn in a 'classical' or traditional manner, while others will make use of a skill set developed best through video gaming systems. Others will require the use of physical tools such as hammers and nails and saws, which one will never learn through gaming. Do NOT fall into the trap that you need to do all of one thing over none of some other things...learn about both methods and have a broad set of intellectual approaches to take on any problem! Remember, if you can talk about an idea or concept in multiple ways with multiple examples, chances are you have mastered the information.

Remember 9/11/01

Ten years ago to the day, I was greeting students for first period. It was a different feel, however, to any other day, as colleagues were walking quickly through the halls with very distressed faces. I asked if something had happened in school, and the quick response was that New York City was supposedly under attack. Rumors were spreading rapidly. I and a handful of students ran into our computer room and pulled up CNN, only to see both towers of the World Trade Center ablaze. Reports had other planes attacking Washington, DC. Within about 15 minutes from when we started watching, we saw the towers collapse.

Anyone who was alive and old enough to remember that day can tell a story like this, for they, too, know exactly where they were and what they were doing. I can only hope those who lost loved ones have found time as a healer of some of the pain, and hope the souls of those who were lost have found peace.

My dear friend, Zenpundit, has a wonderful post. In it, he lets us know his great hope and lesson from all this, which is something we have talked about numerous times together - that our generation stops the trend we have been in, which is reactive to events. We need to try to develop a longer-term strategy, and build to reach the goals of whatever that strategy is. I am not sure how this will ever happen in today's combative, completely partisan political environment. With 2-year election cycles, long-term thinking, proposals, and action are nearly non-existent. This is why, literally for decades, people have brought up the issues with Medicare and Social Security, and that it needs to be fixed to remain solvent for future generations, and yet NO ONE in either party has had the political spine and will to do what we already know must be done. Again, it is a known problem with some known solutions, been there for decades, and no action at all.

Will we be able to do better? Who will come out of the crowd to help lead a new era of strategic thinking in the near-, mid- and long-term perspectives, rather than simply near-term for political gain? When will the tipping point take place that will create the level of public outrage for this era to begin? Time will tell, and let's hope it does not take another 9/11 scale incident to bring us back to this same discussion.

The East Coast Earthquake Discussed by NU Professor

I just wanted to share a segment from Chicago Tonight, a daily show on Chicago's local PBS station, WTTW. A professor I know from Northwestern University, Suzan van der Lee, was the guest who spoke about the recent magnitude 5.8 earthquake on the east coast. She does a very nice job of explaining some of the details about the geology of the east coast and how this event produced the strongest recorded tremor (at least on NU's seismometer) in Chicago over the past few years.

Mathematics - Both Discovered and Invented

There are two Scientific American links of interest to me.

One of the Scientific American articles is about the beauty of mathematical structures. There are some wonderful pictures in this slide show. The second article is in the August edition of Scientific American, which looks at 'Why does math work?' This goes to the age-old question: Is mathematics a natural entity that is there for us to discover, or is it invented by humans to satisfy our ability to quantify bits of our world? The author, Mario Livio, argues that it is both, and I tend to go along with this view.

There is a type of mathematics, pure math, that is analogous to pure science. This is where mathematicians investigate math for the sake of doing math, with no applications necessarily in mind. It is playing with curved surfaces, like Riemann investigated. Or when Galois was checking out the properties of various groups to solve polynomial problems. At their respective times, there were no real-world problems to which these mathematics were related. Perhaps one could say these topics were 'discovered.' Later on, years after the math was understood, scientists found new phenomena in Nature where the non-euclidean geometry (general relativity) and group theory (such as in particle physics) were important and necessary to describe.

Another type of math is applied math, where math is 'invented' to solve specific problems in the world. Newton developed calculus in order to solve gravitational problems, such as proving that a planet's mass can be reduced down to a single point, or the laws of motion, that required formal connections between displacement, velocity and acceleration. The rules of geometry were formulated in order to help quantify items being traded, or in designating property lines and areas. This is analogous to applied science, which places a focus on investigating real problems and finding solutions or producing a new tool or product that will be useful to humans.

An interesting thought experiment presented in the Livio article goes like this: If the intelligence of the world resided in a jellyfish that lives deep in the ocean, where it is generally isolated, would the concept of numbers exist? If there is nothing to count, and nothing discrete about the environment in which one lives, do numbers make any sense at all? So does this mean numbers are a natural concept of Nature, or that numbers are an invented entity because humans have a need to count things? Perhaps the jellyfish thought experiment leads to a conclusion that numbers are an invented concept. This is an interesting 'battle' to think about.

Here Comes the Higgs?!?!?

A recently published article, summarizing new data presented at a high energy physics conference in Europe, show an excess of particles in the mass spectrum that may end up being the Higgs boson, as some like Nobel winner Leon Lederman have called the 'God particle.' This is a particle that has been predicted for some 45 years, from a theory known as the Standard Model. This is the theory that covers the known forces and particles in Nature, minus gravity. It has been wildly successful when compared with experimental data, and one of the key pieces is the Higgs boson and Higgs field. This particle and field are responsible for nothing less than the matter we are all made from. It is the theoretical mechanism that allows energy to transform into matter, which is summed up by Einstein's E = mc^2.

Physicists on the experiments producing these data do caution the world NOT to jump to any conclusions. In science, rumors are left just as that, rumors. There are strict statistical results that are needed before one can claim discovery. There are double and triple checks of analysis algorithms, calibrations of the detectors, fine-tuning theoretical programs called Monte Carlos to re-check the backgrounds for these types of particle decays, and many other checks before anyone would even think of calling a few excess events a discovery, especially something as vital as the Higgs. We will see over the next few months what the final conclusions are, but this provides a sense of excitement for the world of physics.

Mathematical Minds

From one of my favorite blogs, which has a focus on looking at brain functioning to understand all sorts of issues in education, learning, and life, there is a wonderful post about mathematical minds.

Gifted math minds really do 'light up' differently than average math minds when looking at math-related problems. And because of the way the brain is organized and behaves for different mental tasks, gifted math students can be difficult to identify from commonly used assessments and classroom behaviors. For instance, many truly advanced math students are not strong verbally, which can make them difficult to pick out of a crowd, and many like to 'do their own thing' when it comes to math and not at all be interested in the rote math memorization so often done in school. And likely the single most common trait is the love of solving problems of any type. This shows up not just in the 'numbers people,' but also tinkerers. Can you relate to any of these traits?

Macrocosmic Object in a Quantum State

My last post was about making some sense out of what wave-particle duality is all about. Coincidentally, when I checked out TED videos just a little while ago, I saw the one below. Physicist Aaron O'Connell is the first to show a macrocosmic object go into a quantum state...it goes into a superposition state where it is vibrating and not vibrating at the same time! Completely weird, but, hey, that's quantum mechanics. We will see more of this sort of experiment in the next few years, to be sure, and who knows where this will lead as far as applications in life. Will it be more advanced quantum computing devices? Or something we have not even considered? Perhaps! Check out the discussion.

An Attempt to Make Some Sense of Quantum Mechanics

Gaining any level of understanding of quantum mechanics is one of the great intellectual challenges in science. In a quantum world of indeterminism and probability, uncertainty and fuzziness, phenomena completely unseen in our everyday lives are the norm for atoms and particles.

At the center of the strangeness is particle-wave duality, the notion that particles can at times act like ‘solid’ balls, but in different circumstances can behave like a wave. Likewise, something we normally think of as a wave, such as light, can certainly act like a wave under certain conditions, but in quantum mechanics light can also behave like particles we refer to as photons. In fact, a favorite question I pose to students is, ‘When light is traveling from a light bulb to your eye, is it a particle or wave?’ Ultimately, someone will offer the answer, ‘It is both!’ That is an acceptable answer; but what does this mean? How can an ‘object’ be two things simultaneously, which is what the answer ‘both’ implies.

No one is comfortable with this answer, and yet it fits in with the foundational principles of quantum mechanics. The reason is, in the mathematics of quantum mechanics, objects are described with a wave function. This is a mathematical function that encompasses possible states the object can take. So a photon that is moving through space can be thought of as a combination of two states, something like Photon = [particle state] + [wave state]. More specifically, this function can be used to determine the probability of finding the photon in a particle or wave state.

But I think most of us still come back to the same questions: How do we interpret this mathematical nonsense? What does this mean for the object? This is where an analogy comes in handy, that will perhaps put this probabilistic concept into a more understandable context.

If I am talking about this in a class, I ask students to look around at each other and identify the personality snapshot of each of their classmates. This means to identify who is happy, sad, confused, angry, sarcastic, sleepy, bored, or anything else. So while there are numerous possible ‘personality states’ any person can have, while observing a person we can select one personality state at that time because we are interacting with them. However, what do we do when the bell rings and everyone goes on their way? If I ask someone to identify which personality state a specific person is in when they are no longer available for observation or interaction, what is the answer? The best we can do is to effectively guess…but to do this mathematically, we would acknowledge that at any given moment when a person is not being observed in any way, we cannot be certain about the personality state and can only try to identify the probability of that person being in each state. Perhaps there is a 20% chance she is happy, and 25% chance of being sad, and so on for each possible personality state.

This is the way we think about particles and waves when those entities are not being observed. When we do observe the entity, the act of observing selects out the personality from the mix of possible personalities. Another way of saying it is the experiment we do selects out a single observable state that we then identify. For a person, maybe it is the ‘happy’ state that becomes crystallized out of the ‘personality state’ function that includes all the possible personality states. For an electron, if we put it through a diffraction grating the wave personality is selected, whereas if we shoot it at an atom and it is deflected, the particle personality was selected instead.

Thinking this way is not necessarily normal, obvious or instinctive, but it is something we can try to understand the way the quantum world works. Of course, in real quantum mechanical problems, the mathematics becomes very hard very fast, but trying to find more concrete ways of thinking about the consequences of probabilistic concepts can only help the student to whom this is all new.

Robotic Cars - The Future is Here

A short TED talk about Google's self-driving car. This is the sort of thing commonly found in science fiction and futurism presentations, but the technology exists now. It is the sort of device that reminds us about robotics and 'intelligent machines.' It is the sort of device that reminds us that there is very 'cool' technology that will continue to wow us, but at the same time it will make us think more and more about the consequences, intended and unintended, of the development of smart machines.

Interesting Take on China's advance - Why and how are they different from West/

Here is an interesting talk about China, and how a recent projection, as a post-western economic recession world status, has the Chinese economy matching and surpassing the U.S. economy by 2020 - just one decade away.

Martin Jacques goes over some key differences between China and the West, and how they have been able to grow so rapidly, often befuddling western analysts who think in western ways. We should not be thinking of China as a nation-state, but rather a civilization-state, as Jacques argues. Very fascinating and important topic.

Looking for Feedback - If you have kids, especially...Can this story help learn some science?

I am looking for feedback. I have a children's story that tries to get the concept of atoms and ultimately quarks across to children. I see kids in the age range of 4-8 or so as the target group.

If you have kids and want to read it, or if you have any comments of your own as to what you think about it, please let me know! If you have any experience with children's books, also let me know as I have a number of questions for you. I can see some interesting illustrations that could be produced for the story. Thanks.

Here goes:

Little Sue and the Rock
By Mark Vondracek, Ph.D.

It was after school, and Little Sue was walking down the street,
when she noticed a pretty little rock down by her feet.
She picked it up, looked at it, and wondered what was inside,
when all of a sudden she was going on an amazing ride.

Little Sue began to shrink,
and she did not know what to think.
Was she really getting smaller,
or was the rock just getting taller?

Whatever the case, she quickly began to see,
sparkling crystals appear, like when the sun shines on the sea.
And while these crystals were simply amazing,
little Sue knew this was only the surface of the rock she was grazing.

Ever smaller did little Sue grow,
before she was in a world she did not know.
Those beautiful crystals disappeared,
into a number of balls forming patterns, that much was clear.

The balls were bound together, which to little Sue was very cool,
when she realized she was seeing objects her teacher called molecules.
But she also wondered what was with those once little balls,
which seemed to be getting bigger as her size continued to get small.

Even though little Sue’s height was still decreasing,
she could not help but think this new world was pretty pleasing.
She kept approaching those balls, and it was becoming a little cloudy,
and the balls seemed to be shaking, and even seemed a little rowdy.

“Those balls must be atoms!” exclaimed little Sue to herself,
she knew this because she had read that science book on her shelf.
As she shrunk into one of the clouds it seemed a little fuzzy,
and as she struggled to see, smaller specks flew by and sounded a little buzzy.

Little Sue was checking out the electrons flying by,
moving very fast, so fast she could not even say “Hi.”
And before long little Sue shrunk into a place,
where the electrons were now gone and all she saw was empty space.

It seemed like forever that little Sue kept on shrinking,
seeing nothing around caused her to start thinking.
“Is there nothing else around here that will stop my fall?”
when suddenly in the distance she could see another little ball.

Atoms have a second part, little Sue seemed to remember,
with electrons whizzing and circling the outside, and a nucleus in the center.
Little Sue kept shrinking and suddenly was able to see,
a bunch of smaller balls in the nucleus, glued together so perfectly .

“Wow, these little balls are protons and neutrons! This is really cool!”
as little Sue was remembering that science lesson from school.
She was now seeing the smallest pieces of that rock she had been holding,
at least this is what she thought before she got a little scolding.

Little Sue heard voices complaining as she shrank a little more,
falling inside one of those protons that were at the atom’s core.
Even smaller balls were inside and finally had a chance to make their mark,
by introducing themselves to little Sue, saying, “Hello, we are the quarks!”

For little Sue this was unexpected and really quite the surprise,
as she began to look around and rub her wide-open eyes.
“Quarks,” she said, “were not mentioned in my science book.”
and she closed her eyes for a moment, then opened them for a second look.

The quarks explained to little Sue they aren’t very well known,
but they do exist and are real, with identities all their own.
“Our names are Up and Down,” they said to little Sue,
“but the protons and neutrons are more popular, so what can we do?”

Just then little Sue realized she was no longer shrinking,
for now she had reached the smallest piece of the rock, and she was left thinking –
I have seen the smallest piece of the rock….or have I not?
could there be something smaller than the quarks, as small as a dot?

For now, little Sue will need to wonder about that question,
but as she grows back up in size I leave her this suggestion.
For little Sue, as well as all her little school friends,
if you don’t know the answer to your questions do not leave that as the end.

Keep asking your questions, and don’t leave any of them to silence;
look around, try to find an answer – and before you know it, you will be doing science.
It doesn’t matter what it is, from the smallest atom to outer space,
because you will find questions that still need answers all over the place.