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] |
The question that this makes me ask is this: Is there a place for
relativity in high school/AP/1st year college physics, taught this
way and not the historical way? I should preface this by saying that
I am not qualified to teach relativity in the manner that JD is
advocating. Like many high school teachers, I learned the physics I
teach mostly from textbooks --someone has to read them! As you know,
Halliday and Resnick, Serway, Sears Zemansky @ Young all introduce
relativity the historical way.
I think that when we teach it that way, it's because true or not, we
like the narrative. And we like the dali-esque idea of shrinking
rulers and slow clocks. It's a fun story to tell. But it is also
true that we don't think that any of our students are going to
actually use this stuff. Few enough will go on to design bridges,
computers and the like. And look where it is in the book: at the
end. It's late in the year, let's have some fun. But none of that
is a good enough reason if in fact it is wrong and if it will have to
be unlearned later.
So what should a 1st year course say about relativity in the week or
so available? Maybe nothing -- use the time for other things?