| Free Column |
| Talking physics with teenagers by Prof. Thierry Giamarchi, UniGE* | ||
| This spring, MaNEP took part in "The Science Cafés for teenagers", a UniGE project dedicated to bringing science to teenagers through rather informal discussions with scientists on some specific subjects. Superconductivity was one of them ; Prof. Thierry Giamarchi shares his feedback with us on this refreshing experience.
The "Science Cafés" was a very positive experience. A priori, it is not easy to discuss science with a class of students aged around 14. In that respect it was very useful to have a professional journalist help initiating the discussion. Then it was nice to see them getting interested and asking many questions, not only on the central subject (superconductivity) but also on related topics. The demo that was presented (the levitating train) also helped making things more concrete. |
subject should only serve as an excuse to discuss physics in general and give a structure to the discussion. In fact, although there were questions on superconductivity itself, there were also many on simple phenomena such as resistivity, or liquid nitrogen (which is extremely magical). We also discussed practical  issues, such as the cost of such and such solution for transporting current. Such presentations help showing that physics is not something that is inaccessible and esoteric but that is rooted in everyday's life, and concerns things they can touch and feel. Go with the flow of questions |
does give some special flavor to the subject as a whole. The experience proves that it is crucial to let oneself be guided by the questions asked, rather than try to convey a complete picture of a specific subject. On the format itself, I have not much to say. The idea of having a skillful journalist to guide the presentation is excellent. It shows the students that there is at least another person in the audience who is not a specialist and that they should not be afraid to ask questions. Maybe a little remark : as already mentioned, the experimental part is also very important. In that respect it was awkward to have to split the group in two, with one half having to wait to see the experimental part. Maybe it would be better to have two identical experimental groups. This would give more time and possibility to interact separately with each group.  * Prof. Thierry Giamarchi from the DPMC - Geneva. |
| Go to... | |
| Cover | 1 |
| MaNEP news | 2 |
| Free Column | 3 |
| Publications | 4 |
| Reading tips | 5 |
| Calendar | 6 |
|
Are you willing to share your own views and /or new experiences in this column ? Contact the editor ! |
[ PDF - related article in the CAMPUS magazine from UniGE (in French) ]