Here is a bit of a list on what he's screwed up on:
- Proving a scientific theory:
I've ranted about this before, but it's annoying that he doesn't know, nor does he acknowledge when I state it, this basic scientific concept. This doesn't just apply to science, but anything in physical reality. The only things that can be absolutely proven are mathematics and mathematical logic. I've explained this to him several times, and he won't acknowledge it.
I'll continue this below, as ths is my primary point of annoyance with him.
- Quantum tunnelling:
Quantum tunnelling is a quantum mechanical phenomena where a particle (elementary only, probably) has the capability of showing up anywhere in the universe. According to classical mechanics, a particle has a defined area it can move to, based on its energy. In quantum mechanics, this doesn't hold true, and a particle has a given probability of occuring anywhere. When a particle appears in a place that it wasn't able to according to classical mechanics, it is said to have tunnelled to this location.
Now, the probability of it appearing correpsonds to a bell curve, where the highest point on the curve is the most likely place for it to show up, and the low points are the least likely place for it to show up (Note that that graph is an example. In a true graph of it, the line is an asymptote, and never truly reaches zero). My astronomy teacher misinterpreted this graph, and had assumed that graph corresponded to the particle gaining energy, hitting a high point, and then tapering off as it reached its new point, which is when I promptly corrected him.
- The Heisenburg uncertainty principle:
The Heisenburg uncertainty principle states, simply put, that it is impossible to know with infinite accuracy both the position and momentum of a given particle at any time. If you know one with extreme accuracy, you can't know the other with much accuracy. Information is always transferred via a photon (this is true for any system), which is a particle that transmits light, as well as being the mediating force particle for the electromagnetic force. When a photon comes in contant with another particle, its momentum or its position is change, and the same can be said for when it emits a photon. Because of this, we can never know the exact location of a given particle (hence the electron cloud or shell description of an atom).
My astronomy teacher horrendously described this as being due to the fact that the electrons move really, really fast. I don't know how much more I can say, because that just sounds completely idiotic. There isn't another way to put it.
- The Novikov self-consistency principle:
The self-consistency principle is a concept relating to time travel. We've all heard of the numerous problems with time travel, such as the grandfather/grandmother paradox, where one goes back in time and kills whichever grandparent they choose. This means that they were never born, and could never have gone back to kill their grandparent. But that means they're alive, so they could have gone back and killed them. Wash, rinse, repeat. The self-consistency principle fixes this by stating that any time travel scenario where a paradox can occur has the probability of exactly zero to occur. This essentially leads to meaning that time can not change. If one were to travel back in time to attempt to change something, they would inevitably fail.
Now, personally, I don't believe time travel is possible, because I can't foresee any method at all of the ontological paradox being resolved. The ontological paradox deals with the creation of information. If you were to go back to 1900 and tell Einstein about his theory of relativity, or about Brownian motion, or any of his annus mirabilis papers, which you then later learn about, when is the information created? This is a rather large scenario, but it can be applied to any situation where one goes back in time. Someone would have to leave some bit of information, regardless of what they do (this concept of information is slightly different from the one of common culture), and it would have consequences with the future. I can't foresee any way of it being resolved, but I move on.
This blunder of my astronomy teacher involved him, for some ungodly reason, calling it "timescape", which, on a search on Wikipedia, I am led to a science fiction novel and an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. If the self-consistency principle applies to either of these, I don't know. But, still, my bigger problem with his description is how he states this method working. He seems to imply some sort of "force" or guardian would keep them from screwing with time. In reality, the principle states that one simply loses their free will. If someone were to go back in time to see the cause of some fire, the may find that they caused it. If one were to go back to try and stop JFK's assassination, it's a valid explanation, according to this principle, they gave Lee Harvey Osswald the idea, and failed to stop him in time. There is no "guardian" or intelligent agent involved.
- The many-worlds interpretation:
This last gripe is minor, and rather speculative, but fits in with the rest of his demeanor. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics states that rather than only one event occuring, all the events occur, but each takes place in a different "world". Personally, I'm at odds with the many-worlds interpretation, and I belive it is too complicated for descriptions that can be much simpler.
We were learning this when we took a small, speculative stroll into the world of time travel as we were discussing relativity. This came up alongside "timescape", and he discussed it somewhat accurately, though I don't know if it applies beyond the quantum level. He said this could be a resolution, as killing your grandmother would alter your timeline, whereas in another she still exists. I don't believe he fully understands the ramifications of this, though, as there are a large number of quantum mechanical "choices" at any one time. The number would boggle the minds of most anyone, I'm sure.
- The movement or orbitting bodies
As anyone who has taken a class that involves thermodynamics knows, the conservation of energy is one of the most basic laws in all of physics. Simply stated, energy can not be created or destroyed (due to mass-energy equivalence, the same extends to mass). Most people are also aware of Newton's laws of motion. The one I'm mainly referring to is "an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force". Orbitting bodies are being acted upon by gravity, meaning they have to lose energy somehow. As dictated by general relativity, all orbitting bodies orbits gradually degrade, so at some point they will fall into what they're orbitting, albeit it's too small to be detectable.
My astronomy teacher has stated that planets do not have a degrading orbit. Instead, by some inane statement, he said that the planet's momentum keeps it from degrading in orbit. Of course, to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of even Newtonian mechanics, this doesn't make sense.
As I said earlier, his insistence that theories can be proven is the major point that just frustrates me to no end. People often believe that a law is a theory that has been proven, but they are considerably different things. If there is a "hierarchy" in science, theories are higher than laws. A law states what will happen. They make no attempt to explain why. The laws of thermodynamics state what is going to happen in any given system, and they make no attempt to describe why that will happen. The why is left up to thermodynamic theory.
My teacher insists that general relativity has been absolutely proven due to several factors. Light has been observed to bend as described by Einstein's equations, the movements of the planets have been described more accurately thanks to them, and time dialation has been measured. But, couldn't the same have been said for Newton's equations in his time? For every situation they observed, his equations were right (they don't hold up in near-light speeds). So, if one were to say his description was correct, they'd be wrong when relativity was presented. As well, what is currently dubbed "dark energy" is something that is increasing the expansion of the universe. A small, but signification, group of scientists thing this may be failure of relativity on extremely large scales, as it is a rather large jump to believe that something that works in the solar system will work on scales involving billions of galaxies. If this is shown to be true, then Einstein's theory, while an extremely good approximation, would be incorrect (and, therefore, it would have been wrong to say it's been proven).
I have given my teacher a website that explains all this (Not Just A Theory.com. While it deals mainly with evolution, it gives an accurate description of the idea.), and I gave him this link back before Thanksgiving break (in November for you non-US folk), and he still has yet to look at it. I'm going to make his life easier by printing out several pages from this website, as well as a few examples in showing the absolute absurdity of calling a theory "proven".
Try sucking up more :)