The discussion revolves around the role of General Relativity (GR) in scientific education, particularly whether it should be a requirement for students. Participants explore the importance of GR compared to other scientific concepts, the appropriateness of teaching it at various educational levels, and the broader implications for science education.
Participants express a range of opinions on the necessity and timing of teaching GR, with no clear consensus reached. Some advocate for its inclusion in education, while others emphasize the importance of foundational knowledge and the scientific method over specific theories.
Participants highlight limitations in current educational approaches, including a potential lack of emphasis on the scientific method and the challenge of teaching complex theories like GR to younger students. The discussion reflects varying perspectives on the relevance of GR across different scientific fields.
PAllen said:I think the rubber sheet analogy should be a criminal offense. At minimum, the ants on an apple as presented in MTW equally simple and far less wrong.
No it isn't, because of its attempt to show mass bending the sheet by sitting on it, which invariably leads foolish questions, as fallenapple acknowledged. Even worse, it is often presented with balls rolling on the sheet, bringing in external gravity again. Ants on an apple has neither of these defects. It explicitly uses the idea of ants trying to go as straight as possible to get across the idea of geodesic.atyy said:Rubber sheet is the same as the apple.
No, they would be LESS interesting. We would lose the artists, poets, musicians, etc, that MAKE life interesting.FallenApple said:But could you imagine what society would be like if everyone was interested in science? We would have better phones, cars, theories etc. Things would be more interesting
phinds said:No, they would be LESS interesting. We would lose the artists, poets, musicians, etc, that MAKE life interesting.
PAllen said:Just as an aside, I did find it useful in my youth to memorize the several hundred minerals at all likely to occur in visible amounts. Not just the names, but, by studying properties, pictures and samples where possible, gain the ability to narrow most any sample by look and feel and locale to at most a few plausible candidates. Of course the aim wasn't "useless facts", but rather efficiency as a collector. The process happened pretty naturally. Unfortunately, I donated my collection to a state university over 4 decades ago, and never took this up again.
FallenApple said:True, as someone that does math and physics during free time, I'm easily biased on this. Not going to deny that.
But could you imagine what society would be like if everyone was interested in science? We would have better phones, cars, theories etc. Things would be more interesting. Not that things aren't good now, but it could be better. And this leads to improvement in quality of life as well as science leads to prosperity and useful applications.
dkotschessaa said:I think we need more basic science and numerical literacy. But that doesn't include GR.
-Dave K
PAllen said:I think the rubber sheet analogy should be a criminal offense. At minimum, the ants on an apple as presented in MTW equally simple and far less wrong.
Dr. Courtney said:I certainly have nothing against teaching GR, but would prefer it to be up to the discretion of the individual instructor. My son took a Coursera astrophysics course where the instructor did an excellent job with it.
Why do we need more and more "requirements" handed down from a central authority?
FallenApple said:I agree. Skills are more important. That should be the priority, and if there were to be a heavy tradeoff, then of course the things that develop applicable skills should be done instead.
However, the public should still be kept up to date whenever feasible.
Do you agree that knowing about the news of AlphaGo is important? It's quite monumental. Yet, you aren't going to just drop everything in life just to learn the algorithms. But you should still know the basic gist of what happened.
A cute thing about the apple is the curvature dimple. This leads into ideas about deflection by a mass concentration.Andy Resnick said:I agree with this (although 'criminal offense' is a little strong :). I present GR in my college and university physics I class in terms of walking around on the earth, the same as ants on an apple. Students readily grok the meaning.
PAllen said:A cute thing about the apple is the curvature dimple. This leads into ideas about deflection by a mass concentration.
Andy Resnick said:I focus on the relative distance between two students if they both walk north- they say 'attractive force', I say 'curvature'. That's about as detailed as I have time for.
ZapperZ said:... even when faced with scientific facts, a large percentage of the public will still let their beliefs trump over those facts ...
PAllen said:No it isn't, because of its attempt to show mass bending the sheet by sitting on it, which invariably leads foolish questions, as fallenapple acknowledged. Even worse, it is often presented with balls rolling on the sheet, bringing in external gravity again. Ants on an apple has neither of these defects. It explicitly uses the idea of ants trying to go as straight as possible to get across the idea of geodesic.
Get real. I am responding to near certain confusions that arise when people are presented with the rubber sheet. It shows a ball bending the sheet, apparently from gravity, oops, circular reasoning. If you remove the ball, and discuss only straightest possible lines on it, then it is equivalent to ants on an apple. What you get is the notion that geodesic can converge or bend, as viewed from afar, due to curvature.atyy said:So you'd be fine with the rubber sheet if it were done upside down? (I mean it's just a curved surface, like the apple) I would think the main problem with both analogies is that it doesn't make it clear that the curved surface is spacetime (instead of space).