What to do when your instructor is wrong?

[Chemicist]

In my high school Phyiscs class, we have a new teacher, it's his first year teaching. And based on the things I am reading here, he has been giving the class some wrong information. There are times at which even the inexperienced students correct simple mistakes.

Should I ignore everything he says and do my own independent study? I'd like to get a college degree in Theoretical Particle Physics and Astrophysics, and I doubt his misinformation is going to help get near that goal.


Thanks!

Chemicist

 

[bcbwilla]

What kind of wrong information? Teachers / professors make mistakes, just like anyone else.

 

[Chemicist]

What kind of wrong information? Teachers / professors make mistakes, just like anyone else.

I understand that, I mean completely false statements. Wrong answers. I think he even gave us a wrong equation one time.

I know he's not doing it on purpose, but it's kind of annoying when you're passionate about the class and you're being given a giant load of...

 

[member 392791]

This teacher of yours probably went through a lot harder courses than you give him credit for.

 

[Chemicist]

This teacher of yours probably went through a lot harder courses than you give him credit for.

I didn't give him or take away any credit. Sorry, but I fail to see how that's relevant.

 

[Pengwuino]

I understand that, I mean completely false statements. Wrong answers. I think he even gave us a wrong equation one time.

I know he's not doing it on purpose, but it's kind of annoying when you're passionate about the class and you're being given a giant load of...

Well, the first lesson you should take away from this is the fact that you should be reading ahead so that the material that shows up during class is not new. When something seems wrong, tell the teacher why you feel something is wrong. When you're new to teaching, you're bound to make multiple mistakes and give poor information from time to time. It's probably in the best interest of all parties involved to have an interaction between the students and teacher to make sure the correct information is being given out. Any teacher worth their wage should want to give the correct information and as long as you speak up in an inquisitive , rather than accusative manner, you should be able to nudge him into being more careful and possibly prep more for the lesson. I don't think any new instructor wants to be bad at their job from the get-go and will probably respond well to questions.

 

[Chemicist]

Well, the first lesson you should take away from this is the fact that you should be reading ahead so that the material that shows up during class is not new. When something seems wrong, tell the teacher why you feel something is wrong. When you're new to teaching, you're bound to make multiple mistakes and give poor information from time to time. It's probably in the best interest of all parties involved to have an interaction between the students and teacher to make sure the correct information is being given out. Any teacher worth their wage should want to give the correct information and as long as you speak up in an inquisitive , rather than accusative manner, you should be able to nudge him into being more careful and possibly prep more for the lesson. I don't think any new instructor wants to be bad at their job from the get-go and will probably respond well to questions.

That's actually not a bad idea! Thank you! I guess I should of remembered that I do have a textbook available. Oh, and I forgot to mention, I don't believe he gets the course material out of the textbook. I am always quick and ready to raise my hand and ask a question, but I am very shy and have a hard time speaking in public, so it gets tough for me to talk to the teacher without choking.

I know he means well, it's just that I think he needs to review his material a bit more before giving it to us.

 

[Moonbear]

Well, the first lesson you should take away from this is the fact that you should be reading ahead so that the material that shows up during class is not new. When something seems wrong, tell the teacher why you feel something is wrong. When you're new to teaching, you're bound to make multiple mistakes and give poor information from time to time. It's probably in the best interest of all parties involved to have an interaction between the students and teacher to make sure the correct information is being given out. Any teacher worth their wage should want to give the correct information and as long as you speak up in an inquisitive , rather than accusative manner, you should be able to nudge him into being more careful and possibly prep more for the lesson. I don't think any new instructor wants to be bad at their job from the get-go and will probably respond well to questions.

Along those same lines, politely asking at the time it's taught also gives your teacher a chance to correct you if s/he's not wrong and you've misunderstood something.

 

[Antiphon]

I did this with one of my teachers.

He said that in a closed system like a flashbulb, the weight of the bulb didn't change after the chemical reaction. I raised my hand and told him that the flashbulb was a little bit lighter after the flash because of the light that escapes. He said no, that light didn't weigh anything. I then said that the light had an equivalent mass by E=mc^2 so that was the mass that was lost.

He started screaming at the top of his lungs that light didn't weigh anything. I just calmly told him he was wrong. The principal took over the science class after that for about a month.

I suggest talking to him when the rest of the class isn't around.

 

[genericusrnme]

I did this with one of my teachers.

He said that in a closed system like a flashbulb, the weight of the bulb didn't change after the chemical reaction. I raised my hand and told him that the flashbulb was a little bit lighter after the flash because of the light that escapes. He said no, that light didn't weigh anything. I then said that the light had an equivalent mass by E=mc^2 so that was the mass that was lost.

He started screaming at the top of his lungs that light didn't weigh anything. I just calmly told him he was wrong. The principal took over the science class after that for about a month.

I suggest talking to him when the rest of the class isn't around.

I'm assuming this was a high school class as such relativity doesn't exist yet. Would you do the same thing when someone is trying to teach F=ma?
There's quite a few things wrong with F=ma depending in what level you want to go, to yet I wouldn't say anything about it because everything I could say would be completely out of context, just like what you said.

 

[Pengwuino]

I did this with one of my teachers.

He said that in a closed system like a flashbulb, the weight of the bulb didn't change after the chemical reaction. I raised my hand and told him that the flashbulb was a little bit lighter after the flash because of the light that escapes. He said no, that light didn't weigh anything. I then said that the light had an equivalent mass by E=mc^2 so that was the mass that was lost.

He started screaming at the top of his lungs that light didn't weigh anything. I just calmly told him he was wrong. The principal took over the science class after that for about a month.

I suggest talking to him when the rest of the class isn't around.

You're ridiculous. That's nice that you had an understanding beyond the class, but most students are simply trying to get the basic concepts. One doesn't need to include general relativity in a course where students are barely learning currents and basic electricity. Including that simply creates more confusion and no self-respecting teacher would do such a thing.

 

[member 392791]

besides no teacher would ever have an nervous break down over something as stupid as that, atleast its a good story

 

[Jorriss]

I did this with one of my teachers.

He said that in a closed system like a flashbulb, the weight of the bulb didn't change after the chemical reaction. I raised my hand and told him that the flashbulb was a little bit lighter after the flash because of the light that escapes. He said no, that light didn't weigh anything. I then said that the light had an equivalent mass by E=mc^2 so that was the mass that was lost.

He started screaming at the top of his lungs that light didn't weigh anything. I just calmly told him he was wrong. The principal took over the science class after that for about a month.

I suggest talking to him when the rest of the class isn't around.

I recant my statement.

 

[DaveC426913]

I confess Antiphon, your intention may have been good, but that was certainly a smartass answer, even of you didn't realize it. You derailed a chemistry class with irrelevant information.

Students need to understand that, in a closed environment, chemical reactions don't cause changes in mass.

 

[Nano-Passion]

You guys are being a little harsh and a bit quick to judge. Antiphon simply wanted to point something out. And in fact, he pointed out something a bit interesting that might spark a bit of curiosity in a couple individuals. And if it didn't then so what? It was in completely good intentions anyways. His professor was the one who had the inappropriate reaction (screaming in a class?). No point in watering things down too much. It often does injustice to human curiosity, something that is lacked in this society.

And besides, it isn't like he intentionally wanted to confuse other students (I doubt it even did any harm to students' understanding) or belittle the professor's example. He did what a scientist-mind would want to do, and that is correct something that is misinformed. By the way his story sounded, he had a normal response to the misinformation; no one is perfect and will know for sure how the professor would react. Another likely reaction would have been, "oh yes, interesting point. That is true but let's not get into the technicalities for the basis of this classroom, that won't be discussed and we will worry more about more basic chemical reactions." It kind of depends on the relationship with the professor I guess.

You're ridiculous. That's nice that you had an understanding beyond the class, but most students are simply trying to get the basic concepts. One doesn't need to include general relativity in a course where students are barely learning currents and basic electricity. Including that simply creates more confusion and no self-respecting teacher would do such a thing.

I confess Antiphon, your intention may have been good, but that was certainly a smartass answer, even of you didn't realize it. You derailed a chemistry class with irrelevant information.

Students need to understand that, in a closed environment, chemical reactions don't cause changes in mass.

 

[Antiphon]

I confess Antiphon, your intention may have been good, but that was certainly a smartass answer, even of you didn't realize it. You derailed a chemistry class with irrelevant information.

Students need to understand that, in a closed environment, chemical reactions don't cause changes in mass.

You may be right. It was a 7th grade science class; E=mc^2 isn't general relativity and had in fact been taught but the point was conservation of mass.


My instructor had an inappropriate and abusive reaction to my earnest attempt to clarify the science.

I guess my point today is that if your instructor is teaching incorrect facts it might be better to take him aside after the lecture to make you point. You don't know how people will react in a public setting. That's my advice to the OP.

Edit: I agree with Nano-passion. Some of the kids were interested until they became terrified of the instructor. A couple kids even asked why light doesn't weigh anything. It could have been a positive thing.

 

[bcbwilla]

If I was a 7th grade science teacher and a student corrected me by invoking relativity, I would say something like "Wow! Excellent! You're right, but for the purposes of our example, we don't need to worry about that. You'll learn more about E=mc^2 in more advanced courses."

 

[DaveC426913]

If I was a 7th grade science teacher and a student corrected me by invoking relativity, I would say something like "Wow! Excellent! You're right, but for the purposes of our example, we don't need to worry about that. You'll learn more about E=mc^2 in more advanced courses."

Yep. And if the teacher hadn't been so out of his league, he might have thought of that. But he was obviously highly defensive about his knowledge.

 

[chiro]

I commend what Antiphon did for the reason that it is a) usually a brave thing to question a teacher and b) because it was the right thing to do (IMO).

The best way I think the teacher could have handled it if there was any reason for teaching it they way they did was to acknowledge antiphon and then go on to say 'why' it was being taught the particular way it was being taught.

This only takes half a minute, doesn't distract from the course or content and helps reinforce the understanding that a student like Antiphon brought up and on top of these, also gives students a reason why they are learning what they are learning.

The teacher that Antiphon had needs a bit of a talk about 'human interaction' despite whether he was 'wrong', 'right' or somewhere inbetween.

All you teachers out there, I would be grateful to have students like Antiphon as it will really add to the learning experience if its handled right (like suggestion above).

 

[DaveC426913]

I commend what Antiphon did for the reason that it is a) usually a brave thing to question a teacher and b) because it was the right thing to do (IMO).

Really. Was it appropriate?

In the classic mechanics course, where you're being taught about elastic collisions between billiard balls at 2 metres per second, would you be correcting the professor on his velocities by insisting he apply relativistic velocity addition formulae?

 

[chiro]

Really. Was it appropriate?

In the classic mechanics course, where you're being taught about elastic collisions between billiard balls at 2 metres per second, would you be correcting the professor on his velocities by applying relativistic velocity addition formulae?

Again I refer to my comment above:

The teacher could have acknowledged this fact and then said that 'this is a more general result that is true, but due to the factors involved that relate to this course we will use an approximation that doesn't require these corrections that give us accurate enough results'.

There you go: bang, answered. If the students didn't know that then they know now and if they are wondering why this wasn't being told then they now know.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Again I refer to my comment above:

The teacher could have acknowledged this fact and then said that 'this is a more general result that is true, but due to the factors involved that relate to this course we will use an approximation that doesn't require these corrections that give us accurate enough results'.

There you go: bang, answered. If the students didn't know that then they know now and if they are wondering why this wasn't being told then they now know.

I agree with Chiro here.

In the classic mechanics course, where you're being taught about elastic collisions between billiard balls at 2 metres per second, would you be correcting the professor on his velocities by insisting he apply relativistic velocity addition formulae?

Insisting the professor apply that formula is a bit absurd, that I agree with. But this other scenario was a sincere correction and not an smart-*** remark as opposed to telling the professor to use the relativistic velocity addition formula. It all lies within the intention, if the intention was to be a smartass then that is something else altogether.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I did this with one of my teachers.

He said that in a closed system like a flashbulb, the weight of the bulb didn't change after the chemical reaction. I raised my hand and told him that the flashbulb was a little bit lighter after the flash because of the light that escapes. He said no, that light didn't weigh anything. I then said that the light had an equivalent mass by E=mc^2 so that was the mass that was lost.

He started screaming at the top of his lungs that light didn't weigh anything. I just calmly told him he was wrong. The principal took over the science class after that for about a month.

I suggest talking to him when the rest of the class isn't around.

My math professor held up a little cartoon drawing the other day. Depicted was a kid rather like you who held up his hand and said, and I quote, "I have something completely irrelevant to say for the purpose of impressing you that will waste everyone's time". That is what you did.

Your 'scientific' mind may scoff at bypassing the lost energy/mass in the form of light, but my 'engineering' mind says that the amount of energy lost would be tremendously obscured by any macroscopic application that would involve conservation of mass application. Indeed, the amount of energy lost to light would be eclipsed by the amount of energy lost to sound/vibrational energy in whatever process occurred in the closed system. So frankly, not only were you wrong to interrupt the class, but you didn't even focus your attention on the largest loss of energy/mass.

I also call into doubt your story of the teacher's reactions. History is written by the victors. Sounds to me like another example of student-run classrooms.

As for the topic at hand, when the instructor is wrong, I point it out humbly and respectfully if I feel it's a grave enough error. Usually I'm wrong, unless it's a sign error.

 

[Jorriss]

On a similar topic.

Go to 8:40...

Is he an insightful student? Or a smart ***?

 

[chiro]

On a similar topic.

Go to 8:40...

Is he an insightful student? Or a smart ***?

I couldn't hear what the student said (was pretty muffled), but Dr. Susskinds response was pretty good: he stated pretty much that it was 'un-necessary' for the task at hand but agreed that in principle the issue relating to the question that was asked was justified 'in principle'.

I am not advocating any hard or fast rules here, but a real smart arse wouldn't stop after that one question: after the first, second, or even the third warning (if it ever got that far), if the lecture didn't come to a halt, then there would be some kind of 'face-off' between lecturer and student.

There's a difference between someone bringing up something vs someone using a form of 'intellectual ego' and its not that hard to see.

In a lot of my lectures, we are encouraged to pose questions and it turns out that while some questions might seem 'trivial' or 'pointless' (we don't really get the perpetual smart-arse), a lot of the questions are really useful and while I haven't asked them, I have no doubt gained from the question being asked regardless.

It's not really hard to see when someone is being way too pedantic, but aside from this: it is important to consider the context of the subject in all of this.

Mathematics is a very precise kind of subject, and I have noticed that mathematicians in particular can be super anal about anything from definitions to representations to 'even' the exact kind of notation used: it can pretty daunting personally witnessing ten minute discourse into argument about notation and equivalence thereof.

But yeah again context has to be brought in and not surprisingly if you had a pure mathematician sit in on an engineering course, then they would no doubt have different perspectives, different expectations and basically a completely different focus. To that person, being 'absolutely anal' is just being mathematically precise.

There's a whole lot of dynamics happening here which I haven't mentioned, but its important to consider some of these things.

 

[Moonbear]

I confess Antiphon, your intention may have been good, but that was certainly a smartass answer, even of you didn't realize it. You derailed a chemistry class with irrelevant information.

Students need to understand that, in a closed environment, chemical reactions don't cause changes in mass.

It was a bit of a smartass answer, but handling smartass answers without screaming is a pretty basic part of classroom management. If it's a one time thing, a response such as, "that's beyond the point of today's lesson," will suffice to end the distraction from the lesson while acknowledging that the student is correct. If it is a student who frequently interrupts to the point it is disruptive to teaching the lesson, the better response is to invite the student to stay after class or after school to discuss the topic further, at which time you can explain why they are disrupting students who are still grappling with simpler concepts.

I do remember now having a science class substitute in 7 th grade who was teaching a topic wrong. We had a long-term sub, and he ended up teaching a unit we had already covered, but taught it wrong. We (most of the class) questioned this and showed our notes from the regular teacher, and the book explanation, and he still insisted we were wrong, not him, and marked our answers on an assignment wrong and yelled at us for questioning him. Since we tried with him and got nowhere, after school, a group of us headed to the principal and complained to him, showing him our assignments and notes from the regular teacher and what the sub was teaching. We didn't get rid of the sub, but he was a lot nicer about listening to our questions after that, and finally conceded we had the right answers. We were definitely happy when our regular teacher returned!

 

[Nabeshin]

I'll weigh in on the Antiphon situation. To any scientist, it is easy to say that the effect he is noting is negligible, and can be neglected. But, in my opinion, such a concept is extremely difficult to grasp for beginning students (effective neglecting and estimation of terms and effects). How does one know that it is the case? Once you admit mass is not conserved absolutely, only approximately, the question is well how approximately? With such foreign concepts, I think it's a whole can of worms that is best not to be opened, from which likely stems the teacher's response. Of course, blowing up is not the solution however.

 

[mal4mac]

In the UK, at least, your physics teacher might be a biology graduate, and mass-energy equivalence is not something biology graduates are expected to know much about...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/dec/13/physics-teachers-shortage

"the subject is far too often being taught by "non-specialists", teachers who are usually qualified in chemistry or biology. Many of these teachers have not studied physics beyond GCSE and some even actively dislike physics."

 

[daveyinaz]

Just to throw my two cents in...I actually agree with all points here except for the teacher blowing up on the student but like someone said this might have been an exaggeration told in part by the student got got blown up on...or it could entirely be true, so who knows..

One thing to note is that this was a 7th grader...a 7th GRADER! I remember being that young and I can tell you what, 7th graders are obnoxious little brats. Not only that but they are going through puberty and starting to get that mentality that they are invincible and know everything.

I think antiphon should just be lucky they didn't have corporal punishment for he would have otherwise been telling different story...like how he got his rear end handed to him for speaking up.

 

[Choppy]

In high school I once had a teacher explain to me that gravity was caused by the Earth's rotation.

I had another high school teacher who tried to explain the motivation behind blocking a slapshot up close was because it would hurt less. His explanation was that the puck continues to accelerate after it been hit by the stick, so if you're further away, it hurts more.

I think most people who go into physics will have encountered something like this at some point - particularly within seondary school or below. A big part of this has to do with teachers being assinged to teach classes they are not comfortable teaching or have little to no background in. There can be a lot of politics behind teaching assignments. But he question is what to do about it as a student.

First, question everything. It's easy to fall into the trap of taking everything you're told as gossipal. Questioning involves a lot of work on your own, but it is, in my opinion, the root of all learning. (I might also insert a caveat of doing most of the questioning in your head, rather than out loud.)

When you do encounter a situation where the instructor is wrong, realize that there are multiple ways that can challenge him or her, and that there will be consequences to doing so.

Sometimes you know your instructor is wrong, but you know you'll be marked wrong if you put down the correct answer. You face a decision. Fill in the blank for the mark, or fill it in for the greater truth. If you go for the greater truth, ultimately you can make a case for it and so long as you actually are right after a substantial effort of escalating the mark to a higher power you will likely get the mark. Or you can fill it in for the mark and move on.

Sometimes the latter is just easier.

Provided you can live with yourself.

 

[jtbell]

A couple kids even asked why light doesn't weigh anything.

I can imagine why that question would make the instructor freak out, especially if he/she has visited PF and seen some of our threads about photons and invariant versus relativistic mass.

More seriously, I don't know what it's like in your state, but in my state, and specifically at the college where I work, students can get certified to teach middle-school science after taking two semesters of intro biology, one semester of intro chemistry, one semester of intro physics (algeba-based), and one earth-science course. Plus a bunch of education courses, of course. You shouldn't expect a great depth of science knowledge from them (I'm sure there are shining exceptions, of course.)

 

[Sankaku]

It was a bit of a smartass answer, but handling smartass answers without screaming is a pretty basic part of classroom management.

This is exactly what I was going to say. Not every school-teacher has enough knowledge to answer technical questions, but they all should have the skills to manage the question.

For the OP, as has been said before, do your best to raise questions at the time. Some of my best professors were prone to mistakes at the chalkboard. I find that a correction phrased as a polite question is received much better than one that is done with aggression.

 

[Chemicist]

I tried making a correction to his equation, after class and privately.

Apparently as far as the EQUATION that was supposedly wrong goes, the place I got my information from was wrong. Although his other mistakes still stand.

 

[mathwonk]

Making mistakes does not matter. Leaving them unquestioned does matter. A great way to learn is to ask about every single thing you disagree with, no matter who may be mistaken.

This is not a competition, to always be right. The idea is to make it a collaboration, trying to discuss together and learn. If you see things you disagree with and do not bring them up for discussion, it is you who is making the biggest mistake.

 

[Moonbear]

In the UK, at least, your physics teacher might be a biology graduate, and mass-energy equivalence is not something biology graduates are expected to know much about...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/dec/13/physics-teachers-shortage

"the subject is far too often being taught by "non-specialists", teachers who are usually qualified in chemistry or biology. Many of these teachers have not studied physics beyond GCSE and some even actively dislike physics."

I want to smack around the people who decided to drop the physics requirement for a biology degree. Though, conservation of mass AND energy was taught to me back in high school chemistry...or perhaps sooner. It makes perfect sense to discuss it when covering chemical bonds and energy released from breaking the bonds (such as the flash bulb example...though today I'm surprised students still know what a flash bulb is). Anyway, physics is needed to understand a lot of biology. I know I really struggle having to lecture about lenses or membrane potential or blood pressure changes with vessel diameter and changing velocity when my students haven't had any physics.

 

[chill_factor]

I did this with one of my teachers.

He said that in a closed system like a flashbulb, the weight of the bulb didn't change after the chemical reaction. I raised my hand and told him that the flashbulb was a little bit lighter after the flash because of the light that escapes. He said no, that light didn't weigh anything. I then said that the light had an equivalent mass by E=mc^2 so that was the mass that was lost.

He started screaming at the top of his lungs that light didn't weigh anything. I just calmly told him he was wrong. The principal took over the science class after that for about a month.

I suggest talking to him when the rest of the class isn't around.

you are wrong. the change in mass is unmeasurable. chemical reactions do not result in mass change only mass redistribution. if it cannot be measured it does not exist. you want to be a smartass and say that the 10^-19 joules or so is actually going to influence the mass of the system?

this is why relativity should be left for grad school, it only confuses people including me, and it is not useful in the design of new devices.

 

[genericusrnme]

this is why relativity should be left for grad school, it only confuses people including me, and it is not useful in the design of new devices.

I support this 100%!

Relativity and quantum mechanics shouldn't even be brought up in those intro high school/first year physics textbooks unless they include full derivations (which would be beyond a first years skills), most of the analogies and/or equations they just pump out at you are either very easy to take out of context or very oversimplified. It does more harm than good imo.

 

[chill_factor]

quantum should still be brought up imo because it is the core of all chemistry. you can't do chemistry without knowing what an electron is it just doesn't happen.

relativity on the other hand is not useful for 99.9999999999% things that happen right here on earth.

 

[Jorriss]

quantum should still be brought up imo because it is the core of all chemistry. you can't do chemistry without knowing what an electron is it just doesn't happen.

relativity on the other hand is not useful for 99.9999999999% things that happen right here on earth.

I think relativity is better to bring up because it is very easy to build intuition for special relativity as opposed to quantum. The arguments for relativity are very clear compared to quantum.

And relativity is not something most people will use regularly but it has its uses, even to us chemistry people. Outside of physical, its not uncommon for relativistic effects to be noticeable in, say, gold compounds or as a partial explanation for lanthanide contraction.

 

[DaveC426913]

relativity on the other hand is not useful for 99.9999999999% things that happen right here on earth.

Well, considering a large fraction of world's population owns a cellphone that has a GPS tracker in it, your numbers are way off.

While we don't necessarily have to know how it works, you can rest assured the tracker in your phone has to know - quite often over the course of a day - or it would not work.

 

[chill_factor]

Well, considering a large fraction of world's population owns a cellphone that has a GPS tracker in it, your numbers are way off.

While we don't necessarily have to know how it works, you can rest assured the tracker in your phone has to know - quite often over the course of a day - or it would not work.

GPS and other satellite navigation systems can be replaced by a network of radio beacons. Its not irreplacible technology and its just 1 niche application. I can go on and on about the applications of quantum physics but we already know that.

Jorris:

Relativity has niche uses in chemistry and materials science for sure, like you said, for gold, lanthanide contraction and even the liquidity of mercury. However, we cannot MANIPULATE relativity the way we can manipulate quantum effects, so while its nice to have, its just purely theoretical science and not applicable outside, like you and dave mentioned, niche fields.

On the other hand I really think people should know what an electron is and why it behaves the way it does, before touching chemistry. without quantum mechanics, chemistry would just be statistical mechanics, thermo, empirical chemical kinetics and maybe some heat/mass transfer.

i also believe the math for quantum, at the level needed for even advanced chemistry and materials science, is far easier than even a basic understanding of relativity.

 

[DaveC426913]

GPS and other satellite navigation systems can be replaced by a network of radio beacons. Its not irreplacible technology...

What does "replacing" have to do with anything? You said it was not useful in real world applications. It's quite useful.

... and its just 1 niche application.

Cellphones are niche applications?? What millennium are you in?

There are more than 4 billion cellphones in the world. That's better than 1 in 2.

10 year olds have cellphones. 10 year olds don't even have cars. Are cars a niche application?

 

[Jorriss]

Jorris:

Relativity has niche uses in chemistry and materials science for sure, like you said, for gold, lanthanide contraction and even the liquidity of mercury. However, we cannot MANIPULATE relativity the way we can manipulate quantum effects, so while its nice to have, its just purely theoretical science and not applicable outside, like you and dave mentioned, niche fields.

I'm not an inorganic chemist but I have heard good inorganic chemists need to know about special relativity as it can be a guiding factor of how to synthesize certain compounds. Rarely, but I've heard it's good to know. Not a rigorous mathematical manipulation but small corrections to MO's and such. I'm speaking outside my comfort zone here though.

Otherwise, I wouldn't say it's a chemists first weapon at attacking a problem but I think chemists should be aware of special relativity.

On the other hand I really think people should know what an electron is and why it behaves the way it does, before touching chemistry. without quantum mechanics, chemistry would just be statistical mechanics, thermo, empirical chemical kinetics and maybe some heat/mass transfer.

Well I'm not arguing quantum is less important than relativity! I just think at a lower division one can say a lot about relativity without feeling too lost or drowned in math.

Also, you must be referring to p chem. Because without quantum, most chemistry is still organic chemistry haha.

i also believe the math for quantum, at the level needed for even advanced chemistry and materials science, is far easier than even a basic understanding of relativity.

I don't know about that. I feel someone can get a really good insight into special relativity with just some calculus and algebra. I would say they can be treated on equally light mathematical footings and still not be meaningless.

 

[chill_factor]

What does "replacing" have to do with anything? You said it was not useful in real world applications. It's quite useful.

Cellphones are niche applications?? What millennium are you in?

There are more than 4 billion cellphones in the world. That's better than 1 in 2.

10 year olds have cellphones. 10 year olds don't even have cars. Are cars a niche application?

i do not believe that GPS is necessary for cell phone usage. most cell phones function fine without relativity. its just straight EM for data transmission and solid state physics for the processor hardware.

 

[chill_factor]

I'm not an inorganic chemist but I have heard good inorganic chemists need to know about special relativity as it can be a guiding factor of how to synthesize certain compounds. Rarely, but I've heard it's good to know. Not a rigorous mathematical manipulation but small corrections to MO's and such. I'm speaking outside my comfort zone here though.

Otherwise, I wouldn't say it's a chemists first weapon at attacking a problem but I think chemists should be aware of special relativity.


Well I'm not arguing quantum is less important than relativity! I just think at a lower division one can say a lot about relativity without feeling too lost or drowned in math.

Also, you must be referring to p chem. Because without quantum, most chemistry is still organic chemistry haha.


I don't know about that. I feel someone can get a really good insight into special relativity with just some calculus and algebra. I would say they can be treated on equally light mathematical footings and still not be meaningless.

well, organic chemistry needs to understand a lot about orbitals and electron transfer reactions... oh no quantum, what's an orbital, what's an electron?!

i just mean to say that relativity has very few applications and most people do not need to know it.

 

[Jorriss]

well, organic chemistry needs to understand a lot about orbitals and electron transfer reactions... oh no quantum, what's an orbital, what's an electron?!

Organic chemists don't need to know a lot about orbitals or the quantum mechanics of electron transfer. Organic chemist in practice involves zero to no quantum. Organic chemists actually still use lewis structures predominantly because they are qualitatively correct for second row elements despite being utterly wrong.

i just mean to say that relativity has very few applications and most people do not need to know it.

Most people probably won't. But you take relativity in a lower division modern physics course or in upper division classical mechanics. You don't really know what you need at that point.

 

[Fredrik]

i just mean to say that relativity has very few applications and most people do not need to know it.

You could say this about anything except maybe basic reading/writing skills.

 

[chiro]

Cmon peoples!

Everything is useful in some way or another and although there probably are practically things that are more useful than others (like reading and writing as mentioned by Fredrik), the fact is that it doesn't take away from the fact that everything is still undoubtedly useful.

Its like when I hear about Arts majors being useless, but then if you think about what you can learn by reading a few accounts of history you learn not only human behaviour (and thus psychology) but all about the things that are implied from that: this is valuable information if used in the right context.

I hear about all kinds of bashing of all kinds and at the end of the day it's just pretty much for many purposes, absolutely pointless.