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] three central misconceptions about relativity



I would not consider the motion of a top or gyroscope as "conflict free". The idea that a hoop rolls down a ramp more slowly than a bowling ball is hardly "conflict free" either. We certainly wouldn't start a mechanics course with the study of rotating bodies.

The undue emphasis on Twin Paradox and the like leaves the students with the impression that the sizzle is more important than the steak. There are enough real life examples like particle accelerators, questions about superluminal neutrinos, GPS coordination, etc., that can be used as validations of relativity after the foundation is laid that we hardly need to go into bizarre examples that no one will ever encounter.

Bob at PC
________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] on behalf of Moses Fayngold [moshfarlan@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 7:21 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] three central misconceptions about relativity

The so-called "relativistic paradoxes" are not within Relativity itself. They are merely the conflicts between the relativistic effects and our everyday life intuition (and the same is true about Quantum-Mechanical paradoxes). Such conflicts usually do not appear in Classical Mechanics or Classical Electrodynamics simply because the latter are mostly within our classical intuition. It is hard to believe that some professional physicists do not understand this simple distinction.