

Radically Modern Introductory Physics (has anyone gone through this?) - jgg
http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/teaching.html

======
frossie
Interesting. The author does have a point, to wit that a lot of the things
most students would find exciting are in the "later" parts of physics in more
traditional courses.

But I am not completely convinced with this approach. My personal bugbear is
not so much the teaching of physics, but the teaching of physics and
mathematics as if they are two completely separate subjects. One advantage of
teaching physics in the "traditional" sense, is that the kind of math that you
need to properly teach the fundamentals of classical mechanics comes before
the kind of mathematics you need to teach quantum mechanics.

------
hga
Glarg. Looking at the "Summary of Material in Chapters 1-3", it sure looks
more difficult than the initial material for calculus based classical
mechanics (e.g. Newton's laws).

I've already done introductory classical mechanics and E&M/optics many years
ago, so maybe I'll give this a try, but I'd be interested in any data from
those who don't have that background.

Also, it occurs to me that this is likely pretty much a course for physics
majors or others needing that sort and level of material. There are lots of
fields where you only need introductory classical mechanics and E&M, maybe
some quantum mechanics, but e.g. special relativity is highly optional
(although it is said it can be useful in teaching E&M:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism>).

