4 ms·
You could say the same for many fields, even computer science: a textbook from the 1960s would cover data structures, compilers, filesystems, common algorithms
by tornato7 3y ago
You could say the same for many fields, even computer science: a textbook from the 1960s would cover data structures, compilers, filesystems, common algorithms and numerical methods, boolean algebra, etc. - not too different from what one would learn today.
Scientists generally explore the biggest, most fundamental questions first, which ends up being foundational knowledge for students generations later. Most of the modern advances in physics have been past the undergraduate level.
- p-e-w 3y agoPhysics is centuries old though. Computer science is not. That physics changed so dramatically in the first half of the 20th century is certainly surprising, considering that the field already had a long history behind it.
- mr_mitm 3y agoPrecisely because physics is centuries old, you'd expect that the things we teach beginners are settled. We teach them even though we know they're wrong, but there is pedagogical value in teaching it this way. I doubt we'll be teaching quantum gravity to freshmen in 100 years (assuming we'll have it solved by then), they'll still learn classical mechanics first.