War of the scientists

Hi,

Some time ago I received a call from a colleague. He was about to give
student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while the student
claimed a perfect score. The instructor and the student agreed to an
impartial arbiter, and I was selected.

I read the examination question: "SHOW HOW IT IS POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE
THE
HEIGHT OF A TALL BUILDING WITH THE AID OF A BAROMETER."

The student had answered, "Take the barometer to the top of the
building,attach a long rope to it, lower it to the street, and then
bring
it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the
height of the building."

The student really had a strong case for full credit since he had
really
answered the question completely and correctly! On the other hand,if
full
credit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade in his
physics
course and to certify competence in physics, but the answer did not
confirm this.

I suggested that the student have another try. I gave the student six
minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should
have
some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he had not
written
anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said he had many
answers
to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused
myself
for interrupting him and asked him to please go on.

In the next minute, he dashed off his answer, which read: "Take the
barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the
roof.Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using
the
formula x=0.5*a*t^^2, calculate the height of the building."

At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He
conceded,and
gave the student almost full credit. While leaving my colleague's
office,
I recalled that the student had said that he had more answers to the
problem, so I asked him what they were.

"Well," said the student, "there are many ways of gettingthe height of
a
tall building with the aid of a barometer. For example, you could take
the
barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the
barometer,the
length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building,and
by
the use of simple proportion, determine the height of the building."

"Fine," I said, "and others?" "Yes," saidthe student, "there is a very
basic measurement method you will like. In this method, you take the
barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you
mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the
number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in
barometer units."

"A very direct method." "Of course. If you want a more sophisticated
method,you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a
pendulum, and determine the value of g at the street level and at the
top
of the building. From the difference between the two values of g, the
height of the building, in principle, can be calculated." "On this same
tact, you could take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a
long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swingit
as a
pendulum.

You could then calculate the height of the building by the period of
the
precession".

"Finally," he concluded, "there are many other ways of solving the
problem.
Probably the best," he said, "is to take the barometer to the basement
and
knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent answers,
you
speak to him as follows: 'Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine barometer.
If
you will tell me the height of the building, I will give you this
barometer."

At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the
conventional answer to this question. He admitted that he knew , but
said
that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to
teach
him how to think.

The student was Neils Bohr (Quantum theory & Physics &
Mechanics,Hydrogen
Atom guru , Nobel prize winner) and the arbiter was Sir Rutherford.



GOOD is not GOOD where BETTER is EXPECTED and the BEST is POSSIBLE!!!!!