Why is General Relativity not a requirement for scientific education?

[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.