Open Letter to the President: Physics Education

TL;DR

Most U.S. high school physics requirements are portrayed as stopping at concepts older than 1865, leaving out major modern discoveries.

Briefing Cornell Notes

Briefing

High school physics in the United States often stops at ideas older than 1865, leaving students without core modern concepts that underpin today’s technology and scientific worldview. The letter argues that this gap matters because the last 150 years of physics—covering everything from photons and atomic structure to antimatter, lasers, transistors, GPS, MRI, the Big Bang, black holes, and the expanding universe—forms the intellectual foundation for both innovation and informed citizenship.

The argument is framed as a direct challenge to the President and, by extension, the education system. With the U.S. holding major scientific and technological milestones—such as the atomic clock and the creation of the global positioning system—the letter claims it is inconsistent that standard high school physics requirements typically exclude phenomena discovered or explained after the Civil War era. Even when students take Advanced Placement Physics or have especially ambitious teachers, the broader curriculum still fails to connect modern physics to the real world and to the ongoing scientific story that shapes contemporary life.

The letter then tackles the most common objection: modern physics is too hard to teach because it requires college-level mathematics. That concern is dismissed as “rubbish,” pointing instead to popular science communicators—Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Neil deGrasse Tyson—who have demonstrated that complex ideas can be made accessible without stripping away their wonder. The central claim is that students cannot appreciate the beauty of modern physics unless education makes room for it, and that math should not be treated as a barrier but as a powerful tool for understanding the universe.

Beyond accessibility, the letter argues for educational continuity: just as history classes would be impoverished if they skipped major events and biology if it omitted DNA and modern germ theory, physics education should not ignore the discoveries that transformed the field. It also emphasizes that teaching modern physics is not merely about producing scientists; it is about preparing citizens for the next century—people who can evaluate claims, understand technology, and contribute to future breakthroughs.

Finally, the letter suggests that the U.S. should act now to make physics education “more awesome,” warning that future innovators may emerge elsewhere if the educational system lags behind. It closes by recommending a UK perspective from Brady Haran’s channel, Sixty Symbols, reinforcing that the question of how to teach modern physics is a broader international concern.

Cornell Notes

The letter argues that most U.S. high school physics curricula omit major physics developments after 1865, even though those ideas drive modern technology and shape how people understand the universe. It lists key missing topics—photons, atomic structure, antimatter, lasers, transistors, GPS, quarks, chaos theory, electron microscopy, MRI, the Big Bang, black holes, gravity bending light, cosmic expansion, and quantum mechanics and relativity. A common objection is that modern physics is too mathematically demanding for high school, but the letter counters that popular communicators like Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Neil deGrasse Tyson show complex ideas can be taught with wonder. The letter concludes that physics education should make modern thinking central so the U.S. can cultivate future innovators and informed citizens.

What specific cutoff does the letter claim most U.S. high school physics follows, and why is that portrayed as a problem?

It claims students are typically not required to learn physical phenomena discovered or explained more recently than 1865. The problem, as framed in the letter, is that this leaves out the scientific ideas behind major modern achievements—such as GPS, lasers, transistors, MRI, and the broader framework of quantum mechanics and relativity—so students miss the “last 150 years” of physics that transformed both technology and our understanding of the universe.

Which modern physics topics does the letter list as missing from standard curricula?

The letter names photons, atomic structure, antimatter, GPS, lasers, transistors, diodes and LEDs, quarks, chaos theory, electron microscopy, MRI scanning, the Big Bang, black holes, star formation, gravity bending light, the universe expanding, and the Higgs Boson along with the weak and strong nuclear forces. It also groups “all the rest of quantum mechanics and relativity” and notes that Nobel Prize–winning physics has centered on these themes.

How does the letter respond to the claim that modern physics is too hard for high school?

It rejects the idea that modern physics can’t be taught at the high school level because it requires college-level math. Instead, it points to Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Neil deGrasse Tyson as examples of people who made advanced concepts compelling for broad audiences. The letter also argues that math is not the enemy—it is “one of the most beautiful and awesome things in the universe” because it enables understanding.

What analogy does the letter use to argue that skipping modern science would be unacceptable in other subjects?

It compares physics to history, biology, and geology. It suggests history classes would be wrong if they omitted major events like world wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War, or civil rights. It similarly argues biology would be incomplete without DNA, hormones, cell reproduction, modern germ theory, and ecology, and geology would be missing plate tectonics. The implied lesson: leaving out foundational modern developments damages education.

Why does the letter connect physics education to national competitiveness and future innovation?

It argues that without modern physics education, the U.S. risks failing to cultivate future innovators, inventors, and explorers. The closing warning is that if the U.S. doesn’t improve physics education, the next Carl Sagan or Richard Feynman may come from somewhere else with better educational foresight—possibly even “the Internet.”

Review Questions

Which post-1865 physics topics does the letter claim are most often missing from required U.S. high school physics, and what modern technologies are tied to them?
What is the letter’s rebuttal to the argument that modern physics requires too much math for high school students?
How does the letter use comparisons to history, biology, and geology to justify changing physics curriculum requirements?

Key Points

1
Most U.S. high school physics requirements are portrayed as stopping at concepts older than 1865, leaving out major modern discoveries.
2
The letter lists modern physics topics—quantum mechanics, relativity, GPS, lasers, transistors, MRI, the Big Bang, and black holes—as essential for a complete education.
3
The argument emphasizes that modern physics education supports both technological literacy and a scientific worldview.
4
A common objection—that modern physics is too mathematically difficult—is countered with examples of accessible science communication by Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
5
Math is framed as a tool for understanding rather than a reason to exclude modern physics.
6
Improving physics education is presented as necessary for cultivating future innovators and informed citizens, not just future physicists.

Highlights

The letter claims standard U.S. high school physics often avoids phenomena explained after 1865, despite those ideas powering modern life.

It directly links missing curriculum content to technologies and concepts such as GPS, lasers, transistors, MRI, and the expanding universe.

The math objection is met with a counterexample approach: advanced ideas can be communicated compellingly through science communicators like Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The closing warning frames curriculum reform as a competitiveness issue—future breakthroughs may emerge elsewhere if education doesn’t keep pace.

Topics

Physics Education
Modern Physics
Curriculum Reform
Science Communication
STEM Literacy