**Multiversity Press, New York, New York, New York**

*Of course, we mean the students, not the instructors.

Unfortunately, most physics majors will avoid this course to take an honors course, where the subject is taught in the old, progressive way. That's fine, because there are more engineering students than physics students, so this textbook will make more money anyway. But unlike physics students, engineers will not stand for 2 full years of introductory physics. Thus a 2-yr. course must be crammed into a year. Since all physics topics are equally important (except the modern, formal ones), the same amount of material must be covered in half the time. This is another reason why the formal aspects must be reduced, & more emphasis placed on memorizing equations and plugging in numbers.

There is thus a clear need for a text directed toward people with no interest in the subject. The basic idea is to take people's interests in other topics and redirect them ("bait & switch"). This can be accomplished by making the subject matter resemble something more palatable ("tophusics"). The result is that the student will never get a deep understanding of physics, thus avoiding the need to destroy any deeply ingrained preconceptions.

- The student needn't know (remember) how to use symbols.
- The instructor (who is assumed to know algebra) can assign problems, on both homework & exams, that are identical except for changes in numerical values.

Thus, the use of arithmetic calculators is mandatory. However, computers are not allowed, since modern machine programs can be taught to actually understand physics. Likewise, students are expected to memorize commonly used equations, which could be looked up in an electronic textbook or on the internet. There is a great deal of planned obsolescence in this model, but the only alternatives would be one of:

- Replace this course with one on the physics of dinosaurs, wormholes, and monster trucks.
- Eliminate the introductory physics course altogether.
- Teach actual physics.

The essential teaching rule is to discuss as much as possible things that are already familiar to the students, to avoid the possibility of introducing totally new ideas. Pulleys, levers, ropes -- that's a real man's way to do physics. (Ah, for the good old days, when one didn't need a degree in computer science to fix a car.)

Eventually students will have to learn vectors, dot products, & even cross products. Delay each of these notions as long as possible, & don't let on that their existence has anything to do with rotational symmetry.

Then what else is gravity good for? Hitting things! If it can't even make orbit, then a projectile must come down somewhere. So make sure something else is there to feel it when it does.

Essentially, the instructor must avoid the physics of the little and concentrate on the physics of the BIG. Everything must be super-sized: meters & not centimeters, kilograms & not grams, Cal & not cal, etc. Bigger is better. But not *too* big. (See "Copernicus" above.)

Of course, start with macroscopic waves, like sound, water, ropes, etc. (See "Hydrodynamics is plumbing" above.) Then you can avoid any explanation of where waves come from, and why they are so fundamental. This strengthens the analogy with springs and their oscillatory motion, since we never explained where the spring force law comes from either.

In particular, never even mention the d'Alembertian. Forget the fact that the discovery of this operator in 1747 was the first appearance of the wave equation, and thus the foundation of electromagnetism, special relativity, & quantum mechanics. Why do today what you can put off till tomorrow?

These topics do not apply to familiar, everyday circumstances (global positioning satellites notwithstanding, since they are out of sight). Hence, unlike the previous topics, they must be made to appear more different, rather than less: The only way to justify their newness is to make them look so weird that they can safely be categorized as too bizarre to be comfortable with.

As Doctor Who once said, "Just as time is regarded as the fourth dimension, so space is equally the fifth dimension." If *he* didn't understand Minkowski space, then why should a college student?
That will allow you to skip any discussion of proper time as an invariant, used in defining energy-momentum as a 4-vector whose invariant length is the rest mass, etc. Thus you can also skip the relativistic definition of force, which could be used to understand the Lorentz force law. That would require a relativistic understanding of electromagnetism. There is only time to discuss relativity as it applies to free particles, not interacting ones, or even free waves. Thus you can limit any discussion of relativity to this chapter.

And make sure not to mention the Minkowski metric, because the analogy to the Pythagorean theorem might confuse them, since it looks so similar. They would then have a hint at general relativity, which is too advanced, and can better be explained by cartoons of the Earth sitting at the bottom of a rubber gravitational well. General relativity is geometry, and geometry is math, not physics.

Whatever you do, don't discuss the Klein-Gordon equation; it looks too similar to electromagnetism. After all, since particles & waves are really the same, nonrelativistic vs. relativistic is the only way we have to distinguish electrons & photons. Don't give a hint of spin (except semiclassically in atoms), despite the fact that we already described electromagnetic fields with vectors.

- Mathematics for Engineers
- Mathematics for Medicine
- Mathematics for Poets
- Mathematics for Jocks