Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] how to prove relativity





Edited initial post
====================================
The teacher and his wife (PhD in experimental psychology) have been
going back and forth for years about the
idea of special relativity, specifically time dilation. She insists
that the ideas produced are ridiculous, can never be tested, etc.
When I point out the experimental evidence such as muons in the
atmosphere, difference in clocks moving at different speeds, and the
fact that GPS uses special relativity to help pinpoint location has
not helped to persuade her. Does anyone know of any experiments that
could be easily interpreted by a non- physics person (She has never
taken a physics course and I have never taken a psychology course) to
help convince her?

And finally are there any good definitions for time out there?

Thanks
Perhaps going back to initial ideas that Einstein used in his derivations
would be useful. There is a very good PBS Video, Einstein Revealed, which
actually explains some of the important results using simple thought
experiments. Walking through these experiments would be a very useful way
of introducing relativity. The movie is a good introduction. It also shows
Einstein's life, which will make it interesting to a psychologist.

Then there is the role of misconceptions. If you can convince someone that
they have misconceptions about how things work, they might be more receptive
to other conceptions. Does the wife understand NTN3? Pose the problem of a
truck hitting a car using Pasco carts where one is loaded with extra mass.
Then do the collision with a force sensor on each cart. If she has the
standard NTN3 conception, attacking that with a macroscopic experiment might
be helpful. Then attack the idea that one can have misconceptions gathered
from common experiences. Once this concept has been established, other
ideas such as relativity may be possible.

Unfortunately, most physics concepts are above the formal operational level
according to Lawson's research. That is anything you can not see even with
a powerful microscope is at the theoretical level. This includes evolution.
But things you can see with time lapse photography or could see if you kept
the camera there long enough, are in between the descriptive and the
theoretical level. Relativity is at the theoretical level.

Most psychology courses do not equip one to convince people. But the PER
methods do work and do convince people, so I would look to them. Actually
most advertising is using common conceptions held by people to manipulate
people. But logical arguments do not work in changing paradigms. So
convincing people that smoking is perceived as nasty by peers works much
better than showing the bad health effects.

Oh and does the wife understand the role of paradigms in making sense of
concepts. This is now very important in psychology. What you believe then
makes you see and remember only certain things. The Mazur videos bring this
out clearly. So maybe getting her to apply this to her position, might be
useful.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX