Physics Then and Now

Today, physics, not so long ago.  The University of Houston presents this series about the machines that make our civilization run, and the people whose ingenuity created them. 

______________________

I studied college physics in 1948.  And here’s my old textbook.  A fine thick old volume.  So much in it.  And so much not in it.  No quantum mechanics beyond a brief mention of the particulate character of light.

Hausmann and Slack’s 1939 Physics textbook

But it’s a cornucopia of material that anticipated my studies in engineering.  Today’s physics books aren’t likely to explain how steam or gasoline engines work.  But this book is filled with applied thermodynamics.  The same might be said of its chapter on light – a fine course in applied optics. 

It does drop hints as to what was going on in the then-modern studies of physics.  But only hints.  By then, quantum mechanics was a well-established science, but two serious jolts finally brought it into engineering classrooms.

First, the Atom Bomb.  It made us all see that modern physics had life well outside the ivory towers of learning. And it brought on pressure for new textbooks.  Then 1957: A second event really hit home: The Russians launched Sputnik – first manmade object to orbit earth. 

At that point a strange thing happened in America.  It’s as though we said, “Ok: They have a large rocket and could launch an orbiting vehicle.  But we have to be more sophisticated.  Our science will do better than just that orbiting sphere.” 

The result?  Many of our engineers now wanted to be engineering scientists.  And those in engineering science wanted to become just scientists.  Scientists wanted to become mathematicians.  Mathematicians... well ... maybe they wanted to become philosophers.  The country lurched toward greater sophistication.  And our textbooks followed suit. 

Of course this meant that, for a season, we left behind so much hands-on technology in our classrooms.  I recall picking up a modern materials science textbook to check something about alloying of metals.  I had to thread through chapters of quantum theory before I could find even a few words about steel alloys. 

So this old book reminds us of a basic problem in higher education: Finding the balance between how and why.  We need to know how to do things.  But we’re forever limited if we know how without knowing why.  And, with our new emphasis on science, we really did give the Russians a good run for their money in the space race after Sputnik. 

So this lovely old book focuses on practical issues that we do need to understand. Even while it could hardly satisfy a truly curious student.  It’s not just by accident that I never parted with it.  It’d filled so many blanks over the years. 

And rediscovering it just now is a reminder: Today’s educational how vs why tension is not new.  It is, in fact, a rather old wine in new bottles.

I’m John Lienhard, at the University of Houston, where we’re interested in the way inventive minds work.

(Theme music)

E. Hausmann and E. P. Slack, Physics. D. Van Nostrand Co. Inc. NY, 1939

This report details the rise of engineering technology education.  As engineering courses became more theoretical in character, engineering technology arose as a separate curriculum.  Read "Engineering Technology Education in the United States" at NAP.edu

This episode first aired on November 9, 2026.