Why is General Relativity not a requirement for scientific education?

[FallenApple]

It's one of the most important works in science of all time.

It's at least as important as evolution theory and the theory of the atom.

Kids these days spend too much time memorizing different types of minerals, and other random scientific facts. Obviously they would not know what a manifold is, as they wouldn't have the math. But so what?

Thinking of spacetime as curved by under presence of mass, even if it's just memorized that it is so and not well comprehended, provides more valuable knowledge than memorizing a thousand minerals.

Not knowing the nature of gravity is like not knowing organisms are made of cells. It's just too fundamental to ignore.

 

[phinds]

First you learn to crawl. Then you learn to walk. Then you learn to run. Trying to get a toddler to run is not helpful. Newtonian gravity works well enough to get men to the moon so it's not a bad idea to learn it first.

 

[FallenApple]

It's at least as important as evolution theory and the theory of the atom.

Kids these days spend too much time memorizing different types of minerals, and other random scientific facts. Obviously they would not know what a manifold is, as they wouldn't have the math. But so what?

First you learn to crawl. Then you learn to walk. Then you learn to run. Trying to get a toddler to run is not helpful. Newtonian gravity works well enough to get men to the moon so it's not a bad idea to learn it first.

True, but virtually everyone in first world countries know what a cell is. Even though most don't understand the machinery behind cells, there's still something to be said about just knowing what it's and trusting the details to the scientist. There's something to be said about being kept up to date.

It's just a shame that the vast majority of people outside physics don't even know what Einstien is famous for. They just think of him as some smart guy.

 

[Vanadium 50]

even if it's just memorized that it is so and not well comprehended

Teaching kids to chant words and think it's science is wrong.

 

[phinds]

It's just a shame that the vast majority of people outside physics don't even know what Einstien is famous for. They just think of him as some smart guy.

Sure, and most, if they have heard of Picasso at all just think of him as some weird painter who put the eye both on the same side of the face in his strange paintings and Motzart was some old white guy who did that awful "classical" music, and on and on. What's your point? You expect everybody to learn everything?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I prefer an approach to education where the common rules are taught before the rare exceptions. Undue focus on the exceptions can impart the misconception that the rules that apply most of the time are not as important as they are.

I never memorized different kinds of minerals. I did memorize a lot of the periodic table, including most of the first 70 or so electron configurations.

But more important than memorization is an appreciation for the scientific process of discovery and a passion for learning. There are simply too many science "facts" to argue about what the most important ones are for inclusion in a time too limited to include them all.

The purpose of including "facts" is to shine light on the discovery process and build a foundation for additional learning and to impart a passion for learning so the flame in each student is not snuffed out. Any set of "facts" that succeeds at this is good enough, even if one's personal sacred cows get left out.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>, there's still something to be said about [...] trusting the details to the scientist. <snip>.

Not really.

 

[Dr Transport]

I prefer an approach to education where the common rules are taught before the rare exceptions. Undue focus on the exceptions can impart the misconception that the rules that apply most of the time are not as important as they are...

true,

Very true, in everyday life just where does GR come into it. Walk before you run.

 

[dkotschessaa]

It's one of the most important works in science of all time.

It's at least as important as evolution theory and the theory of the atom.

Kids these days spend too much time memorizing different types of minerals, and other random scientific facts. Obviously they would not know what a manifold is, as they wouldn't have the math. But so what?

Thinking of spacetime as curved by under presence of mass, even if it's just memorized that it is so and not well comprehended, provides more valuable knowledge than memorizing a thousand minerals.

Not knowing the nature of gravity is like not knowing organisms are made of cells. It's just too fundamental to ignore.

I don't think relativity is on the same level conceptually and is too hard to teach. I think it would be good if kids maybe learned a bit more about Einstein from a historical perspective. I don't trust this stuff to the educational system, so I'll be reading https://www.amazon.com/dp/145215211X/?tag=pfamazon01-20to my son or doing https://www.amazon.com/dp/161374028X/?tag=pfamazon01-20 when he gets a little older.

-Dave K

 

[George Jones]

I don't understand the title. Requirement for what? Kindergarten graduation, which is so common these days? Elementary school? High school? All undergrads (as a breadth requirement)? Physics major undergrads? Physics grad students?

 

[dkotschessaa]

I don't understand the title. Requirement for what? Kindergarten graduation, which is so common these days? Elementary school? High school? All undergrads (as a breadth requirement)? Physics major undergrads? Physics grad students?

It sounds like he is referring to the upper level high school classes where you learn basic Newtonian Mechanics (maybe) and chemistry and whatnot.

 

[dkotschessaa]

We could all make good arguments for why kids should learn certain subjects at younger ages. I've seen good arguments made for teaching calculus concepts as early as 5th grade (in an appropriate manner). I think we should teach graph and certain types of number theory in elementary school. Probably biology and chemistry folks have similar opinions relative to their area of expertise.

If there's something I feel my son is not learning in school I'm going to teach him myself (or send him to science summer camps.)

-Dave K

 

[ZapperZ]

It's one of the most important works in science of all time.

It's at least as important as evolution theory and the theory of the atom.

Kids these days spend too much time memorizing different types of minerals, and other random scientific facts. Obviously they would not know what a manifold is, as they wouldn't have the math. But so what?

Thinking of spacetime as curved by under presence of mass, even if it's just memorized that it is so and not well comprehended, provides more valuable knowledge than memorizing a thousand minerals.

Not knowing the nature of gravity is like not knowing organisms are made of cells. It's just too fundamental to ignore.

This is an overkill.

There is a difference between learning about Newtonian gravity versus learning GR. It is not the same thing.

Many of us who specializes in condensed matter, particle accelerators, etc.. etc... don't have to deal with gravity, because it is so freaking weak, it might as well not be there. That is why we don't care take ANOTHER course that has no direct relevance with our field of study, especially when we're already have our plates full.

So that is your answer.

Zz.

 

[phinds]

@FallenApple if you are really looking for something condemn our educational system for, focus on the lack of teaching the scientific method. This is ENORMOUSLY more important than any particular theory and yet huge swaths of the high school population, as I understand it, can't even tell when something is blatantly false and they really have no idea how to find out. If it's on the Internet it's true, seems to be their attitude.

 

[FallenApple]

Teaching kids to chant words and think it's science is wrong.

Of course, that's why the concepts should be covered as well, maybe by the time of high school.

But really, in elementary school, you think they learn anything else besides chanting words?

 

[FallenApple]

This is an overkill.

There is a difference between learning about Newtonian gravity versus learning GR. It is not the same thing.

Many of us who specializes in condensed matter, particle accelerators, etc.. etc... don't have to deal with gravity, because it is so freaking weak, it might as well not be there. That is why we don't care take ANOTHER course that has no direct relevance with our field of study, especially when we're already have our plates full.

So that is your answer.

Zz.

I'm more or less referring to the population in general. Many people go through life without even knowing what GR is. I mean, a cursory chapter in middle school science would suffice, just to keep kids up to date. How hard is it to include some pictures of the rubber sheet analogy?

 

[FallenApple]

I don't understand the title. Requirement for what? Kindergarten graduation, which is so common these days? Elementary school? High school? All undergrads (as a breadth requirement)? Physics major undergrads? Physics grad students?

Just education in general. People should know at least what the topic deals with. Just like how everyone should know that the Earth is round. That's not asking for too much.

 

[FallenApple]

Sure, and most, if they have heard of Picasso at all just think of him as some weird painter who put the eye both on the same side of the face in his strange paintings and Motzart was some old white guy who did that awful "classical" music, and on and on. What's your point? You expect everybody to learn everything?

Well, not knowing the basic nature of space and time at least conceptually is like not knowing that the Earth is round instead of flat. They don't need the details, for example, for most people, Earth being spherical suffices. For astronomers, sure they need to that planets are more elliptical due to rotation, hence the refinement in knowledge for the task at hand.

It's just important because it's fundamental. Physics is just going to keep moving forward, while everyone is being left behind. Can you imagine if we reach the space age( think star trek) and people still are stuck in thinking that 19th century physics is the true description of the world?

 

[FallenApple]

@FallenApple if you are really looking for something condemn our educational system for, focus on the lack of teaching the scientific method. This is ENORMOUSLY more important than any particular theory and yet huge swaths of the high school population, as I understand it, can't even tell when something is blatantly false and they really have no idea how to find out. If it's on the Internet it's true, seems to be their attitude.

True. You'd think that human knowledge would improve with the internet.

 

[FallenApple]

I prefer an approach to education where the common rules are taught before the rare exceptions. Undue focus on the exceptions can impart the misconception that the rules that apply most of the time are not as important as they are.

I never memorized different kinds of minerals. I did memorize a lot of the periodic table, including most of the first 70 or so electron configurations.

But more important than memorization is an appreciation for the scientific process of discovery and a passion for learning. There are simply too many science "facts" to argue about what the most important ones are for inclusion in a time too limited to include them all.

The purpose of including "facts" is to shine light on the discovery process and build a foundation for additional learning and to impart a passion for learning so the flame in each student is not snuffed out. Any set of "facts" that succeeds at this is good enough, even if one's personal sacred cows get left out.

I agree that learning the methods and mode thinking about science is the most important thing.

I see your point about giving people misconceptions. But at the same time, if anyone is going to teach it, it should be schools. You know when I heard about the theory of relativity? When I was watching star trek as a teenager. Hopefully, the education of modern physics isn't relegated to science fiction. I've seen a lot of kids whose first time of hearing about QM is when watching Antman. Can you believe that?

I would imagine that learning about GR and really interesting stuff that comes along with it like black holes and time dilation would inflame their passion for learning, not snuff it out. People are drawn towards the esoteric. Especially kids. It doesn't have to be difficult. Just at a level of the rubber sheet analogy.

 

[dkotschessaa]

Well, not knowing the basic nature of space and time at least conceptually is like not knowing that the Earth is round instead of flat. They don't need the details, for example, for most people, Earth being spherical suffices. For astronomers, sure they need to that planets are more elliptical due to rotation, hence the refinement in knowledge for the task at hand.

It's just important because it's fundamental. Physics is just going to keep moving forward, while everyone is being left behind. Can you imagine if we reach the space age( think star trek) and people still are stuck in thinking that 19th century physics is the true description of the world?

I think you are conflating two possible meanings of the word "fundamental." Arithmetic is fundamental math that everyone should know, but if I were to follow your logic here I'd be insisting that children learn mathematical logic and set theory.

-Dave K

 

[FallenApple]

I think you are conflating two possible meanings of the word "fundamental." Arithmetic is fundamental math that everyone should know, but if I were to follow your logic here I'd be insisting that children learn mathematical logic and set theory.

-Dave K

Well, set theory and formal logic is too difficult. I don't see anyway set theory can be dumbed down. Maybe Venn Diagrams, but that's about it.

I don't think the rubber sheet analogy is too difficult absorb. A child can understand it. Sure it's not going to give them the whole picture. But then again, what does? I mean, we teach kids what DNA is, but we don't go into all the biochemistry behind it, so they obviously are not going to use that info. It's just for knowledge sake.

GR isn't just important because it's fundamental; it's also a completely new way of looking at the universe.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, set theory and formal logic is too difficult. I don't see anyway set theory can be dumbed down. Maybe Venn Diagrams, but that's about it.

I don't think the rubber sheet analogy is too difficult absorb. A child can understand it. Sure it's not going to give them the whole picture. But then again, what does? I mean, we teach kids what DNA is, but we don't go into all the biochemistry behind it, so they obviously are not going to use that info. It's just for knowledge sake.

GR isn't just important because it's fundamental; it's also a completely new way of looking at the universe.

As a physicist, I disagree that GR needs to be taught to the general public. People can learn all about it at the superficial level if they wish, but there are MORE important topics in physics that the public should be exposed to. Plus, I put more emphasis in the SKILLS that people acquire in the study of physics, rather than the actual topic or material itself. This is, and has been, my philosophy in teaching physics to non-physics majors. I'd rather teach the public how to catch fish, rather than give them the fish.

Zz.

 

[PAllen]

Just at a level of the rubber sheet analogy.

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.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's at least as important as ... the theory of the atom.

Did you add that? That just adds to the ridiculousness. You should take a look at The Feynman Lectures on Physics, and see what Feynman has to say about this. And why we should ignore what he thinks and do what you think instead.

But really, in elementary school, you think they learn anything else besides chanting words?

I think they do. I did. Which means you are advocating the replacement of teaching actual science with the chanting of words.

 

[PAllen]

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]

As a physicist, I disagree that GR needs to be taught to the general public. People can learn all about it at the superficial level if they wish, but there are MORE important topics in physics that the public should be exposed to. Plus, I put more emphasis in the SKILLS that people acquire in the study of physics, rather than the actual topic or material itself. This is, and has been, my philosophy in teaching physics to non-physics majors. I'd rather teach the public how to catch fish, rather than give them the fish.

Zz.

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.

 

[phinds]

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.

It seems to me that you persistently and vastly overestimate the intellectual curiosity and interest in science of 90% of the population. There ARE other things in life.

 

[FallenApple]

It seems to me that you persistently and vastly overestimate the intellectual curiosity and interest in science of 90% of the population. There ARE other things in life.

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.

 

[FallenApple]

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.

Touche. I can imagine some kid asking why we are portarying gravitational phenomena with something that is obviously deformed by Newtonian gravitational force. The apple analogy is much better.

 

[atyy]

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.

Rubber sheet is the same as the apple.

 

[PAllen]

Rubber sheet is the same as the apple.

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.

 

[phinds]

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

No, they would be LESS interesting. We would lose the artists, poets, musicians, etc, that MAKE life interesting.

 

[dkotschessaa]

No, they would be LESS interesting. We would lose the artists, poets, musicians, etc, that MAKE life interesting.

Rather than everyone it would be better if there were a lot more people involved. Forget about creative types and think about administrators, politicians, business leaders, etc. I'd certainly spend less time cringing reading the news if these folks had even some basic science literacy.

-Dave K

 

[dkotschessaa]

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.

It's become fashionable to say things like "memorization isn't learning, because it is better to understand things." We really have to revisit this idea. I understand we are trying to get away from mechanistic rote memorization, but if you can't remember something, than you haven't learned it, period.

-Dave K

 

[dkotschessaa]

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.

I think we need more basic science and numerical literacy. But that doesn't include GR.

-Dave K

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I think we need more basic science and numerical literacy. But that doesn't include GR.

-Dave K

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?

 

[Andy Resnick]

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.

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.

 

[dkotschessaa]

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?

Parenting and income have a lot (almost everything) to do with how well kids do in school. If my son doesn't learn the things I think he should from his schooling I'm either pulling him out or giving him some other opportunity to learn. It might not be free or cheap.

-Dave K

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

You have changed the color of your stripes.

I have zero arguments about the public keeping abreast of the news and advances in science. Why do you think the APS, the IoP, Nature, Science, etc...etc.. all have news feeds and press releases? There is no excuse for not knowing all the major news from the world of science when it can be done at the click of a mouse (or a touch pad) from the comfort of one's home.

But you are advocating something ELSE at the beginning of this thread. Read it again in case you forget.

And this utopian goal that just because the public have access to all these scientific idea will make them appreciate and accept science more is a fallacy. This study clearly shows that even when faced with scientific facts, a large percentage of the public will still let their beliefs trump over those facts. The general public, more than scientists, are more susceptible to upholding their beliefs in spite of evidence against them.

This is not an argument against science literacy. Rather, it is an argument on why you think every single topic in physics should be taught, especially to non-science majors. Even Richard Muller, who taught a course, and eventually wrote a book title "Physics for Future Presidents" had to pick and choose the topics he covered. So where is the topic on topological insulators, on neutrino oscillation, on the BEC-BCS crossover, etc...? I find those "important" as well. Shall we just pile it on into our educational system and follow the philosophy of quantity over quality?

Have you thought this through, seriously?

Zz.

 

[PAllen]

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.

A cute thing about the apple is the curvature dimple. This leads into ideas about deflection by a mass concentration.

 

[Andy Resnick]

A cute thing about the apple is the curvature dimple. This leads into ideas about deflection by a mass concentration.

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.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

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.

Great analogy.

 

[gmax137]

... even when faced with scientific facts, a large percentage of the public will still let their beliefs trump over those facts ...

I saw what you did there.

 

[atyy]

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.

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).

 

[PAllen]

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).

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.

Of course, you then need to state that this is using spatial curvature purely as an analogy to spacetime curvature. You might then choose to use diagrams like AT has presented here for bridging to spacetime.