Next Kids Assignment: IIS' Revenge !

[CraigS]

Ok.
So in a desperate attempt to stay abreast of these pesky primary school kids, I've got some of my own assignment questions, this time for them to answer. Be warned: there are preferred answers for these.


Here we go … now remember, I only want simple answers:

Question #1:
So if black is the lack of light, can something ever be truly black?

Question #2:
Is outer space black ?

Question #3:
Is space truly empty ?

Question #4:
How much energy does space have ?

Question #5:
What does question #4 mean ?


Cheers

[higginsdj]

Hmmmm..... How simple is simple?

1 - No
2 - No
3 - Yes
4 - None
5. Space is the space between stuff. Stuff can have energy but space can't because it isn't stuff

I guess it all depends on how one defines light, outer space, space and empty....

[CraigS]

G'Day David;

Interesting response - thanks for responding !

Interestingly, my answers for 3 - 5 would be completely different from yours.

The more I think about this, this is is an interesting challenge.

Your words:

I guess it all depends on how one defines light, outer space, space and empty….

are also interesting.

Do you think we have an obligation to pass onto our Primary-School-age kids mainstream science thinking & hence, mainstream answers ? (I'm just thinking we should set these questions within some kind of bounds). … toss a coin .. !

Ok .. mainstream it is !

Cheers

[avandonk]

Answers by bert aged six

My dog is pretty black

We are not allowed to go there so I don't know

My dad reckons the bloke next door has an empty head

He is lazy as well

You are asking the questions and you don't know what they mean! Sheesh!

bert

[CraigS]

Ok. So I think I need to relax the 'keep it simple' constraint, and explain myself more clearly.

The idea would be to answer as a first step, as an experienced amateur astronomer, as if these questions were asked by another amateur astronomer.
(I'm not sure we'd even get consensus on this part).

The second step would be to try and provide answers, as if a primary school aged kid, (ie: up to 12 y.o), had asked the questions.

My point here is to give an informative answer to a primary school aged kid, in language they'd understand, whilst conveying honest, accurate scientific answers.

These questions may seem like simple questions but the answers are not intuitive (if you ask me) .. just like the dark matter questions previously.

Cheers

[avandonk]

In my many years of living, kids ask the most pesky questions. I am not sure of what you are trying to achieve Craig.

The only thing one can do is answer at a level that keeps their interest.

Going into the esoteric no matter how interesting does not work.

You have to give a simple yet true version of reality.

It is a bit like the little girl that asked her father what vice meant. After a stuttering semi explanation he finally said, why do you ask. And she said that she had just been made vice captain of her class.

Communication is paramount.

A very good teacher flies on feedback from the students.

I could try and do what you defined but it would lack any sort of interaction.

My personal method would be to inspire and then see who does the hard work to get to the pinnacles of human knowledge.

Of course this depends when I feel inspired.

bert

[higginsdj]

Hi Craig,

Perhaps I should have said how the kids might define those things.

Cheers

David

[CraigS]

Hi David;
My fault for creating confusion from the start of the thread.

OK so I’ll apologise if I’ve annoyed anyone with this thread.
I’m happy to bury it and move on.

This will be my last post on it, so I’ll have a go at answering my own questions to clear up any mystery I’ve created.

Here goes:

Question #1:
So if black is the lack of light, can something ever be truly black?

No. In science we call something that is black, a blackbody.
It absorbs light. As it does this, it heats up.
As it heats up, it then gives back the light it originally absorbed.

When it does this, we can see it, so it’s not black any more !

Question #2:
Is outer space black ?

No. Even though when you look up at the sky at night, you are looking at outer space and it might look black .. but its not really.

Space is pretty empty but there’s always a very small amount of stuff there.

So is there a perfect vacuum that has nothing in it ?
(See question #3 for the answer)

Question #3:
Is space truly empty ?

Space is never truly empty. Even in ‘voids’.
So, even if you choose say, a dice-sized piece of space that has no matter in it, it still isn’t empty. It has energy. On average, every cubic centimetre of deep space has about one photon (light particle) passing through it (more photons, if they have lower energy).
What if you block this photon so it can’t pass through the dice-sized piece of space ?

Space itself has energy. Einstein’s theory of Relativity tells us this.

Question #4:
How much energy does space have ?

No one knows but if they did, they’d win the Nobel Prize.
Perhaps a tiny a amount (adults: 10∧15 Joules per cc.), but if you consider a large volume of space, this can be a very big number. For a volume the size of the Solar system enough to power a country for tens of billions of years (adults: ~ 10∧30 Joules).

And that’s the presently thought to be about the lower limit.

Question #5:
What does question #4 mean ?

The energy in Question #4 could be considered dark energy which speeds up the expansion of the universe.

It also means that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.



… So, these simple questions have led to a complex issue – Dark Energy.

If Primary School kids can ask questions about dark matter (and they understand enough about it to ask the questions we have seen), then I can see no reason why they wouldn’t ask about dark energy. So how would we answer questions about it ?

I think this is an easy way to give them some of the concepts behind it, whilst keeping it fairly simple.

Sorry for the confusion .. a bit of a crazy idea, I know !
It’s the rain, and an over-active mind, y’know !

(I was actually inspired by reading an article about dark energy. I kinda liked the simplicity of the above approach).

Cheers & Rgds

[rally]

Craig,

How about

1. Yes - make sure there is no light - logical by your definition

2. Yes when I look at it at night ! - simple answer
What particular part of outer space do you refer to and at what time ? - its a big place and its been there a while !!
The spot at which the postulated big bang took place would have been quite dark prior to the big bang - based on initial theory at least, new ones maybe not ?

3. What part of space do you refer to and at what time ?
The large scale space we can see from Earth shouldnt be empty there are neutrinos and photons flying through it in large numbers - in fact therefore any space we can see through earth will be the same even if what we are looking at in the distance were empty.
The space on the "other side" at the end of the Big Bang horizon should therefore be empty - hmmm expansion (what space !?)
Now what about the small scale space - space around or below the plank length at certain points in time ought to be completely empty - now it is, now it isnt !!

4. Sum total - Zero ! - wont it all cancel out if it all got combined back to a point of singularity again ?

5. The meaning of Life the Universe and Everything

Put those worms back in the can please Craig !

Rally

[higginsdj]

1. But is the lack of light based on what one can see (what kids might assume) or the total lack of electromagnetic radiation?
2. Same response as 1.
3. Is space a 3 dimensional volume of 'space' or the space between stuff? Energy as in photons? Are there no gaps between photons? It gets very theoretical here
4. Comes back to the theorectical. We theorize photons as particles, so might there not be space between them and if there is, might the space be 'nothingness' and therefore lack energy? Could space be it's own form of energy? - Hey I don't know anything about this stuff so don't quote me
5. It means we don't know......

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

5. It means we don't know......

Ok .. I said I was going to keep quiet from now on .. I can't resist this one, so here goes …

If we tell kids "we don't know" to all these types of questions, and give them no further info/exposure to the discussions and conceptual thinking going on, what kind of message is that truly sending them about science ?

(I don't really know the answer to this question … but it concerns me).

The original article, which I unashamedly, plagiarised for this thread is here .. by Phil Plait (for those interested in the mainstream answers to all those probing questions! )

Cheers & Rgds
(& thanks for being so patient with me on this one !)

[marki]

Originally Posted by avandonk

In my many years of living, kids ask the most pesky questions. I am not sure of what you are trying to achieve Craig.

The only thing one can do is answer at a level that keeps their interest.

Going into the esoteric no matter how interesting does not work.

You have to give a simple yet true version of reality.

It is a bit like the little girl that asked her father what vice meant. After a stuttering semi explanation he finally said, why do you ask. And she said that she had just been made vice captain of her class.

Communication is paramount.

A very good teacher flies on feedback from the students.

I could try and do what you defined but it would lack any sort of interaction.

My personal method would be to inspire and then see who does the hard work to get to the pinnacles of human knowledge.

Of course this depends when I feel inspired.

bert

Spot on Bert

Craig teachers rule number one... You have 10 seconds to capture a kids interest from the time you open your mouth...dont waste the opportunity trying to transfer your entire knowledge base in one hit or all you will do is create more accountants not scientists. Kids deal with "we are not quite sure" very well as it allows them to use their own imagination and once engaged you can gently lead them on a path of discovery.

Now you have said you have a problem with the "we really don't know" answer but I have a real problem with the "we do know" answer. What is science??? A systematic method of finding relationships in phenomena we observe that allow us to make accurate predictions based on the models we ceate. I spend half my time teaching the model and the other half pointing out all the pitfalls, assumptions and exceptions to the rules. This along with carefully selected investigations give the kids a better chance of building critical thought processes.

For example my year 11 Chemistry students do an investigation on the solubility of ionic salts with temperature. Theory states solubility increases with temp until saturation point is reached. They do a series of experiments, draw solubility curves for a large number of water soluble salts which always show an increase in solubility as temp rises except one, Lithium sulfate which decreases in solubility as temp rises. Ties them into knots trying to explain that and I always try to throw things in that will ruffle their feathers. But it also opens their eyes to the fact that science is often flawed and we don't have all the answers which is a good thing IMHO as it makes them think and they can only be better for the experience. In short I believe there is no such thing as a scientific fact and to say so is simply foolish. What we have is a set of carefully thought out ideas through a rigorous process of investigation that allow us to make some sense of the world that confronts us.

Mark

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by marki

Now you have said you have a problem with the "we really don't know" answer but I have a real problem with the "we do know" answer. What is science??? …
….
In short I believe there is no such thing as a scientific fact and to say so is simply foolish. What we have is a set of carefully thought out ideas through a rigorous process of investigation that allow us to make some sense of the world that confronts us.

And I don't have a problem with anything you've said, either. Not quite sure why you've directed this at me (??) Preaching to the converted here mate !

I guess I might have a slight issue for the case of when we're talking about when we do know something .. so I presume we're excluding this aspect from this discussion (ie: the majority of what science has discovered).

what I said was:

Originally Posted by CraigS

If we tell kids "we don't know" to all these types of questions, and give them no further info/exposure to the discussions and conceptual thinking going on, what kind of message is that truly sending them about science ?

Passing on concepts is as important as the details. Without them, there is no framework and without framework the answer means nothing.

Regards

[marki]

Originally Posted by CraigS

And I don't have a problem with anything you've said, either. Not quite sure why you've directed this at me (??) Preaching to the converted here mate !

I guess I might have a slight issue for the case of when we're talking about when we do know something .. so I presume we're excluding this aspect from this discussion (ie: the majority of what science has discovered).

what I said was:



Passing on concepts is as important as the details. Without them, there is no framework and without framework the answer means nothing.

Regards

Don't take this personally Craig, my answer is in respect to primary aged and highschool aged children and how we can inspire them to take up all things scientific. I am simply trying to point out that if you trully want to inspire kids you need to slow down and carefully think about how you answer their questions. Going for broke will do exactly the opposite and I have been guilty of this on many occassions. As for the majority of what science has discovered perhaps we should put on our vestments and make a list of the 100% irrefutable infallable without exception scientific facts we have to date. As a teacher I refuse to burden kids with such ideas and will always teach from the" through lots of observation and experimentation we think this is the case, is it 100% true? Who knows but it's the best we have right now and appears to work in most cases". If you are trully interested in the education of young kids become a teacher, we need enthusiastic people doing this job and you will learn more about human nature then you thought possible. As for me I am outta here.

Mark

[CraigS]

Ok Mark. That's cool.

Great to have teachers that are presenting a balanced view of it all.
Good onya !

.. And thanks for your comments about how to work with kids.
As I've said before, (and demonstrated many times), I'm hopeless at explaining complex issues, and I have much to learn.

I had a feeling that at the primary school level, kids tend to believe anything the teacher 'teaches' them, so perhaps there's more 'instructional' information needed.

I suppose at the end of the day, I guess it all depends on keeping it light, airy and positive for the kid.

Cheers and Regards.

[higginsdj]

Originally Posted by CraigS

If we tell kids "we don't know" to all these types of questions, and give them no further info/exposure to the discussions and conceptual thinking going on, what kind of message is that truly sending them about science ?

The truth!

Cheers

David

[CraigS]

David;

Aha ! .… Science isn't about the truth !!
And we do know a lot about the framework, or the contexts.

Its an interesting topic. I think its all about balance.

It seems, the shorter the answer, the less balance delivered.

Perhaps an engineering tradeoff approach is required !


Its been an interesting discussion for me (I wish I could get out of it ! )

Mark's approach, and his answers certainly show good balance.
And I totally support your honesty (truth) approach, at all times.

Cheers