# Difference between revisions of "895: Teaching Physics"

(Added a link to a very similar comic made a while later) |
(→Transcript) |
||

Line 24: | Line 24: | ||

:Teacher: Space-time is like this set of equations, for which any analogy must be an approximation. | :Teacher: Space-time is like this set of equations, for which any analogy must be an approximation. | ||

− | :Student: | + | :Student: ''Boooooring.'' |

{{comic discussion}} | {{comic discussion}} | ||

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]] | [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]] |

## Revision as of 21:58, 7 October 2013

## Explanation

The comic makes fun at the idea that physics is only interesting because teachers use interesting analogues, despite the fact that they are over-simplified and don't help when more complex theory is taught. The comic refers to the classic "Ball on a rubber sheet" metaphor as a way to explain gravity in space-time, even though the metaphor breaks when trying to explain what causes gravity. The fourth panel highlights this with the statement that space-time is a set of equations, for which no analogy can fully explain.

The title text continues the teacher's frustration with coming up with an analogy by stating that there is some analogy that is both understandable and precise... and if he were the famous physicist/teacher Richard Feynman he could come up with it. Professor Feynman was famous for his physics lectures and their ability to both entertain and educate his students, from the beginning student to the more advanced graduate students. Recordings of his lectures are still available and applicable to today's audience.

A similar explanation is given here.

## Transcript

- Teacher: Understanding gravity: Space-time is like a rubber sheet. Massive objects distort the sheet, and--
- Student: Wait.

- Student: They distort it because they're pulled down by... what?

- Teacher: <<sigh>>

- Teacher: Space-time is like this set of equations, for which any analogy must be an approximation.
- Student:
*Boooooring.*

**add a comment!**⋅

**add a topic (use sparingly)!**⋅

**refresh comments!**

# Discussion

I guess that this emphasize how a good intended teacher try to explain the general parts of the topic with simple words and this is ruined by a douche student.... I think that is the same student that says "Boooooring" when the teacher explain it without any analogy. Pablo Ochoa

I hit something like this when analogising the expansion of the Universe with dots on a balloon... people have a hardtime ignoring the insides of the balloon and think that is the centre. Goes to show how analogies can only go so far. (141.101.99.240 14:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)MARK ZAMBELLI, edited 20140114)

Maybe the problem with the universe is that the actual topography of the universe is still unknown. So since nobody knows what is the shape of the universe, it makes indeed little sense to try to define a centre. If the universe turns out to be a sphere (even if it doesn't seem likely) we could define a centre.Meneldal (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)meneldal

An analogy doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be helpful. It is meant to be a stepping stone between not understanding and full understanding, so your mind can take two smaller leaps instead of one huge one. Apologies for the poor analogy. 108.162.219.58 21:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)