This was moved from another thread, 'Do you have a new theory', but seems more appropriate here, please see below...

 

Thus, this is NOT the "current state of our knowledge". What's more, it is the author's opinion as of 26 years ago.

 

It's funny you mention this, I'm approaching the end of my course and the last block concentrates on cosmology and universal processes, so there's a lot of focus on particle physics as well. The book was printed in 1998, and I've come across quite a few examples that to me, seem rather outdated, and not the accepted view. Although it's obviously not the fault of the university that techniques change, and new data is found on a daily basis, it's quite odd being taught a subject where I'm having to correct what I'm being taught. Most of my pre-knowledge has come from SFN

 

Does this become a problem in full time university degrees...are there any instances where a whole topic has been scrapped half way through, because it's become debunked. Or is the concencus always...'but of course this is subject to change', and the agenda is sustained, whether it's worth learning that particular topic or not.

In alot fields of study I don't believe it has a major impact, but even in my plain metallurgy book a few things are omitted by the professor. I noticed alot more articles and information is gathered from internet resources because it alot easier to change a few chapters or concepts and print off that section only rather than reprint a whole book.

 

I remember one semester I didn't purchase any books because of this very reason, everything was handed too me, and books were optional for reference (subtle suggestion of course, don't want the college knowing why there is a lack of purchased books this or tht year).

 

Physics I guess you could say might become problematic in the fact of valid sources. I guess it would be difficult for the professor to take the same approach. I don't know how it works in that world so I can't really say.

In my experience the answer is "no". Just about all of what you will learn in a typical degree in physics is well tested and understood.

 

The only exception is cosmology and particle physics, as you pointed out. With improved observational cosmology many unexpected things have been discovered.

 

I remember when I studied cosmology as an undergraduate it was just after the current inflation was discovered. It was mentioned in the course, but was held as being speculative. Today, most people beleive in the current acceleration of the expansion.

 

We were also taught about cosmic strings as a possible alternative to inflation as a method of galaxy seeding. Today most people do not expect this.

 

Also, my undergraduate particle physics course talked about neutrino mixing and neutrino mass. These things at the time were speculative although the data from Japan was there.

 

Even so, the fundamentals behind cosmology and the standard model of particle physics remain intact and so remain on the course.

I think I may have asked this before, but where are you studying, Snail?

I think I may have asked this before, but where are you studying, Snail?

 

Open University, my courses are planned for a BSc honours in Physics. I'm not sure (depending on how well I do) to do a masters full time, or carry on with the OU, I'll decide nearer the time. Ideally I'm ultimately aiming for a Phd, but that's a long way off yet.

Yes, I think you did mention that before. The only particle physicist I know working for the OU is David Broadhurst.