Theory of Knowledge

Measurement:

• What has influenced the common language used in science? To what extent does having a common standard approach to measurement facilitate the sharing of knowledge in physics?
• “One aim of the physical sciences has been to give an exact picture of the material world. One achievement of physics in the twentieth century has been to prove that this aim is unattainable.” – Jacob Bronowski. Can scientists ever be truly certain of their discoveries?
• What is the nature of certainty and proof in mathematics?

Mechanics:

• The independence of horizontal and vertical motion in projectile motion seems to be counter-intuitive. How do scientists work around their intuitions? How do scientists make use of their intuitions?
• Classical physics believed that the whole of the future of the universe could be predicted from knowledge of the present state. To what extent can knowledge of the present give us knowledge of the future?
• To what extent is scientific knowledge based on fundamental concepts such as energy? What happens to scientific knowledge when our understanding of such fundamental concepts changes or evolves?
• Do conservation laws restrict or enable further development in physics?

Thermal:

• Observation through sense perception plays a key role in making measurements. Does sense perception play different roles in different areas of knowledge?
• When does modelling of “ideal” situations become “good enough” to count as knowledge?

Waves and Simple Harmonic motion:

• The harmonic oscillator is a paradigm for modelling where a simple equation is used to describe a complex phenomenon. How do scientists know when a simple model is not detailed enough for their requirements?
• Scientists often transfer their perception of tangible and visible concepts to explain similar non-visible concepts, such as in wave theory. How do scientists explain concepts that have no tangible or visible quality?
• Wavefronts and rays are visualizations that help our understanding of reality, characteristic of modelling in the physical sciences. How does the methodology used in the natural sciences differ from the methodology used in the human sciences?
• How much detail does a model need to contain to accurately represent reality?
• Huygens and Newton proposed two competing theories of the behaviour of light. How does the scientific community decide between competing theories?
• There are close links between standing waves in strings and Schrodinger’s theory for the probability amplitude of electrons in the atom. Application to superstring theory requires standing wave patterns in 11 dimensions. What is the role of reason and imagination in enabling scientists to visualize scenarios that are beyond our physical capabilities?

Electricity and Magnetism:

• Early scientists identified positive charges as the charge carriers in metals; however, the discovery of the electron led to the introduction of “conventional” current direction. Was this a suitable solution to a major shift in thinking? What role do paradigm shifts play in the progression of scientific knowledge?
• Sense perception in early electrical investigations was key to classifying the effect of various power sources; however, this is fraught with possible irreversible consequences for the scientists involved. Can we still ethically and safely use sense perception in science research?
• Battery storage is seen as useful to society despite the potential environmental issues surrounding their disposal. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the long-term consequences of their inventions and discoveries?
• Field patterns provide a visualization of a complex phenomenon, essential to an understanding of this topic. Why might it be useful to regard knowledge in a similar way, using the metaphor of knowledge as a map – a simplified representation of reality?

Circular motion and Gravity:

• Foucault’s pendulum gives a simple observable proof of the rotation of the Earth, which is largely unobservable. How can we have knowledge of things that are unobservable?
• The laws of mechanics along with the law of gravitation create the deterministic nature of classical physics. Are classical physics and modern physics compatible? Do other areas of knowledge also have a similar division between classical and modern in their historical development?

Atomic, Nuclear and Particle Physics:

• The role of luck/serendipity in successful scientific discovery is almost inevitably accompanied by a scientifically curious mind that will pursue the outcome of the “lucky” event. To what extent might scientific discoveries that have been described as being the result of luck actually be better described as being the result of reason or intuition?
• The acceptance that mass and energy are equivalent was a major paradigm shift in physics. How have other paradigm shifts changed the direction of science? Have there been similar paradigm shifts in other areas of knowledge?
• Does the belief in the existence of fundamental particles mean that it is justifiable to see physics as being more important than other areas of knowledge?

Energy Production:

• The use of nuclear energy inspires a range of emotional responses from scientists and society. How can accurate scientific risk assessment be undertaken in emotionally charged areas?
• The debate about global warming illustrates the difficulties that arise when scientists cannot always agree on the interpretation of the data, especially as the solution would involve large-scale action through international government cooperation. When scientists disagree, how do we decide between competing theories?

Wave phenomena (HL):

• Are explanations in science different from explanations in other areas of knowledge such as history?
• Most two-slit interference descriptions can be made without reference to the one-slit modulation effect. To what level can scientists ignore parts of a model for simplicity and clarity?
• The resolution limits set by Dawes and Rayleigh are capable of being surpassed by the construction of high quality telescopes. Are we capable of breaking other limits of scientific knowledge with our advancing technology?
• How important is sense perception in explaining scientific ideas such as the Doppler effect?

Fields (HL):

• Although gravitational and electrostatic forces decrease with the square of distance and will only become zero at infinite separation, from a practical standpoint they become negligible at much smaller distances. How do scientists decide when an effect is so small that it can be ignored?

Electromagnetic Induction (HL):

• Terminology used in electromagnetic field theory is extensive and can confuse people who are not directly involved. What effect can lack of clarity in terminology have on communicating scientific concepts to the public?
• There is continued debate of the effect of electromagnetic waves on the health of humans, especially children. Is it justifiable to make use of scientific advances even if we do not know what their long-term consequences may be?

Quantum and Nuclear Physics (HL):

• The duality of matter and tunnelling are cases where the laws of classical physics are violated. To what extent have advances in technology enabled paradigm shifts in science?
• Much of the knowledge about subatomic particles is based on the models one uses to interpret the data from experiments. How can we be sure that we are discovering an “independent truth” not influenced by our models? Is there such a thing as a single truth?

Astrophysics option (SL and HL):

• The vast distances between stars and galaxies are difficult to comprehend or imagine. Are other ways of knowing more useful than imagination for gaining knowledge in astronomy?
• The information revealed through spectra needs a trained mind to be interpreted. What is the role of interpretation in gaining knowledge in the natural sciences? How does this differ from the role of interpretation in other areas of knowledge?
• Experimental facts show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating yet no one understands why. Is this an example of something that we will never know?