Teaching Relativity?

[buzzlightbeer]

so since relativity came out eons ago to explain things like gravity, why do we still teach newtonian stuff exclusively?

before you jump all over .....

* It is possible to explain concepts like spacetime to kids - dont even try to say its not. at least in senior years, dont teach kids newtonian mechanics exclusively --
at least start telling people that -- by the way, gravity is really warps and curves in spacetime

* because it works here on earth and its easy to understand? sure it works - but its wrong and thats no excuse not to teach (even just the concepts) of relativity.

* because relativity is too hard to understand??? LOL. there is some amount of relativity (concepts, etc etc) that can be taught.

its a burn and disrespect to everything einstein achieved to teach newtonian physics as an exact science.

thats what i think today.
Cheerz!!!!!!!!&#33 ;!!!

[Duane]

Pardon my wording, but that is just silly. Einstein's concepts arose from Newtonian physics. If it were not for Newton's Laws of Motion Einstein would never have reached his conclusions on relativety.

You cannot teach algebra to a child without first ensuring they understand the basics of addition and subtraction. Trying to teach relativety without first ensuring an adequate base understanding of simpler physics is the same thing.

[Polarbeast]

Besides which, Newtonian physics aren't disproved, they just can't address the larger aspects of space and time... just as neither set of theories explain the truly large or truly tiny.

Newtonian physics worked well enough so that we were able to launch a rocket with humans inside it, figure out how to guide it to a large moving satellite, land it, and successfully bring them home. Newtonian numbers explain the what, just not the how or why.

As to why Einsteinian relativity isn&#39;t taught more? I couldn&#39;t say. Perhaps it is there, one just doesn&#39;t see it until one gets more into physics and science classes. As it is, I am embittered enough that the U.S. public school system isn&#39;t able to teach enough of ANY subjects. <_<

[ASEI]

As for newtonian mechanics being "incorrect", and relativity being "correct", I have the following to say about our physical laws. All of our physical laws are, in the end, inductive relationships between one observed phenomena and another. Fortunately, the universe makes sense and is consistent, so most of these end up looking pretty simple and elegant, but they are inductive nontheless. Eventually we will always probe into areas of science where these relationships begin to develop inaccuracies.

In the end, the behavior of the universe is "correct". Everything else is a model. Some take more things into account than others. Assuming the universe is infinite, none will ever be able to take "everything" into account.

[buzzlightbeer]

Originally posted by Duane@Jul 29 2004, 04:29 PM
Pardon my wording, but that is just silly. Einstein&#39;s concepts arose from Newtonian physics. If it were not for Newton&#39;s Laws of Motion Einstein would never have reached his conclusions on relativety.

it is not just silly. and i wasn&#39;t knocking classical mechanics. i am just posing the question: Why don&#39;t we start framing the understanding of the universe (even conceptually) with the principals of relativity. If you read brian greene&#39;s "fabric of the cosmos" he explains it very elegantly (no pun intended).

Quote from einstein (the dude himself) : "Even though classical mechanics does not supply us with a sufficiently broad basis for the theoretical presentation of all physical phenomena, still we must grant it a considerable measure of "truth," since it supplies us with the actual motions of the heavenly bodies with a delicacy of detail that is little short of wonderful"

what a nice quote eh? lets pause for a moment and smile about that one...

ok, back to topic... further to what im saying, is that i think its really really important to teach kids, teenagers, (whatever, im not an expert on exactly where to start)... with the truth about gravity..... about relativity.... everything is relative to the perspective ... that time is intertwined with space and is not constant....

ok...u say its not proven....well then... are we waiting for gravity probe b? if relativity is not proven, then either is newtonian --- its just "close enuf"....

[end ramble] for now.....


and By the way..... no question is silly.

[blueshift]

While special relativity and general relativity cannot be taught in school,
Galilean Relativity can be taught...and should be..

Relativity started with observations of motion and is a theory based on motion.

Children understand uniform motion when they ride in the back seat and notice the car next to them, moving right next to them at the same speed doesn&#39;t look like its moving and that they can take a sip from their pop without spilling it.

Galileo&#39;s ramp experiments are easy to understand for people who go down slides
for fun...

I think they would get turned on to science more..Or maybe that&#39;s just my own experience saying that I would if it was presented to me in this manner.

blueshift

[buzzlightbeer]

thanks for that nice post blueshift. made some nice points there. thats _exactly_ how i feel after i started reading a lot of books (mystery of the aleph, the golden ratio, entaglement, biography of e=mc^2, fabric of cosmos, hawkings books, etc)...

not that they are to do just with relativity they cover a lot of different topics, but the fact that I wish i could have learned a little more about them in school -- definitely would have excited me a lot more....

when i was in school, infinity was annoying, physics wasnt very interesting, etc. now im facinated...etc etc

well, off to go camping/fishing for the weekend, every1 have a good one&#33;

[StarLab]

Wow, Buzz&#33; You seem to be mentioning a lot of books there&#33; Do me a favor: in the Feedback section (or the OffTopic section, can&#39;t remember which) there is a thread which is an attempted amazon-like book review. Use it to tell us about your books. B)

And though Einstein did delight in and give credit to Newtonian Physics, the real basis for his work was compiled by none other than Maxwell, not Newton.

Here&#39;s what I think: explain the most basic concepts of relativity to kids can be done, yet both mathematical relativity and Newtonian Mechanics are high school subjects, and both could be taught together.

[buzzlightbeer]

I started this topic a while back. I just noticed an article that I thought might interest those who are keen to see relativity taught to these days....

relativity can now be practiced in virtual labs for kids&#33;
Article

excerpt:
In addition to digital physics textbooks, Kinetic Books provides a set of digital labs. Kinetic Books&#39; computer-based, virtual labs contain simulations of physics situations that offer comprehensive coverage and reinforcement of the curriculum.
...snip....
Some of these labs can be conducted in well-equipped labs, but lab equipment is expensive, and many cover topics that cannot be covered in any traditional educational facility. In one lab, students recreate Einstein&#39;s special relativity experiments, and experiment in this lab with objects moving at near the speed of light.

[Matthew]

Teaching relativity at high school isn&#39;t the easist of tasks. As teaching einstiens&#39; special (we&#39;ll keep it simple, no need talking about general, who would try?) the concepts would need to be taught which would be easy. But, assuming you are teaching this in a physics class, the only way you could put it in is if there was any use and the only way for it to be useful is if there is various formula. Would the stundents know the maths to use the formula?

Besides where would you fit it in? There&#39;s already enough to fill entire courses without adding more in. Leave it to people who want to study it at uni.

Though it would be nice... i&#39;m concurrently studying high school physics.

[ferg.c.]

Hi matthew
The reason we teach Newton in schools is because some of these kids will become engineers. Engineers need the science of mechanics and this for all intent and purposes is described infinitely simpler by Newtons laws than by Einsteins.
For those of them who are interested in interstelar space travel and nuclear physics we can teach them "Book 2" in the series.
Cheers
Ferg