Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: How Would You Explain Einstein's Theories To a Nine-Year-Old?

SiggyRadiation writes: A few days ago, my 9-year-old son asked me why Albert Einstein was so famous. I decided not just to start with the famous formula E=mc^2, because that just seemed to be the easy way out. So I tried to explain what mass and energy are. Then I asked him to try to explain gravity to me. The earth pulls at you because it has a lot of mass. But how can the earth influence your body, pull your feet to the ground, without actually touching you? Why is it that one thing (the earth) can influence something else (you) without actually being connected? Isn't that weird? Einstein figured out how energy, mass and gravity work and are related to each other. This is where our conversation ended.

Afterwards I thought: this might be a nice question to ask on Slashdot; how would I continue this discussion to explain it to him further? Of course, with the goal of further feeding his interest in physics.

23 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. I Wouldn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    next.

    1. Re:I Wouldn't. by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly.

      If it was possible to explain Einstein's theory of relativity to a nine year old it would mean that Einstein was only as smart as a nine year old, which, obviously is not correct.

      But your argument is just as incorrect. The complexity of relativity gives us a lower bound for Einstein's smartiness, not an upper one. And quite often, as we understand things better, they do actually become simpler - the move from Aristotle to Kepler and Newton made the solar system a lot simpler.

      --

      Stephan

    2. Re:I Wouldn't. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They don't need the math, just the high level concept. Just like we do with every thing else you teach them.

      Use a trampoline. Roll balls around each other and each other.

    3. Re:I Wouldn't. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Relativity, spacetime curvature, and mass-energy equivalence are not beyond a nine year old's ability to understand. They aren't going to be able to understand all the formulas, but they can get the gist of the concepts.

      If you don't want to explain it to your kid, there are plenty of great Youtube videos you can point to that explain all this stuff really well in kid friendly terms.

      Youtube and Wikipedia have made parenting much easier.

    4. Re:I Wouldn't. by VernonNemitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Einstein is famous for more than just Relativity stuff. He got a Nobel Prize for some work in Quantum Mechanics (explained the photo-electric effect). He may also be famous for popularizing the use of "thought experiments" in physics --he's certainly famous for thinking of some very insightful thought-experiments, that guided his mathematical efforts. And he is certainly famous for promoting the notion that all aspects of the physical universe can be described by a few fundamental equations (even though the notion is still waiting to be proved true).

    5. Re:I Wouldn't. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They will probably have a very hard time understanding the magnitude of the numbers involved.

      So what? You don't have to understand scientific notation to know that you can vaporize Klingons with anti-matter.

      When kids ask questions, they just want a quick overview. They aren't expecting you to read them a PhD dissertation. Although that might be effective way to get them to go bother someone else the next time they have a question.

    6. Re:I Wouldn't. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If 9-yo could understand relativity then the industrial revolution would have occurred 600-BC !

      1. The industrial revolution was not based on relativity. It was based on Newtonian physics.
      2. Plenty of 9 year olds can understand that F=MA.
      3. Understanding something is not the same as discovering it. Plenty of big discoveries are "obvious" in hindsight.

    7. Re:I Wouldn't. by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The way I'd explain Relativity to a kid is that people always thought that time and space (distance) were universal constants, and everything could be represented assuming those two were constant. If two people are in the same location observing the same thing, but one person is stationary and the other moving, a light beam will appear to be moving at a different speed to the two people.

      Einstein showed that the speed of light is what stays constant. Light appears to move at the same speed to both those people in the above example. Space and time themselves warp to make that possible. In this case, by time appearing to pass more slowly for one person.

      If this is a typical 9-year old, he'll think "that's weird," go to sleep, and the next day his mind will be back on TV, video games, and sports. If he's atypical, he's going to spend a long time awake thinking about this and have a bunch more questions for you in the morning. Then you can introduce him to all sorts of fun stuff like light clocks, the twin paradox, (the lack of) simultaneity (I especially like the ladder paradox since it's very intuitive and demonstrates how the loss of simultaneity resolves seeming paradoxes).

  2. Better yet.... by eyepeepackets · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...wait until you get the pleasure of trying to explain how "gravity" warps space, which is supposedly nothing at all, and how nothing can be warped. Then there is the whole issue of time versus timing in the context of perception, etc. Not a pleasant place to be if you want the kid to think you are not just another nutter.

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
    1. Re:Better yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      General Relativity took me 5 years to get my head around as an adult. I taught my daughter, now 11alot about current cosmology. She now has nightmares about asteroid hits and the heat death of the universe, But she loves maths and wants to be an engineer, so I've done pretty well.

  3. Newton. by msauve · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Einstein figured out how energy, mass and gravity work and are related to each other. "

    That would be Newton. Einstein tweaked Newton to cover the extremes.

    To acquaint someone with Einstein, start with some of his thought experiments which break Newtonian physics.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Newton. by dfsmith · · Score: 4, Informative

      Newton didn't get the energy part.

      Einstein (as I understand it) and the rest of the physics world had a problem in that Maxwell's Equations did a really good job of describing electromagnetism. However, the wave equation that pops out does not account for the velocity of the observer. This implied that the speed of EM radiation (light) is constant for ANY observer: oh dear. Einstein (and Lorentz) hypothesized that time didn't have to be the same everywhere, and came up with Special Relativity to describe it. And, remarkably, SR was shown to be accurate. It's also how energy gets mixed in with mass.

      A handful (nearly two hands full) of years later, Einstein published General Relativity as a description of why acceleration looks the same as gravity. (Inspired by Newton's F=(constant)*Ma=GMm/(rr).) He did this by hypothesizing that distance is not the same everywhere. And, remarkably, GR was shown to be accurate. (He needed some help from other mathematicians, because the math is hard for warped spacetime.)

      Maybe the above is not quite kid-friendly, but Einstein challenged the ideas of classical physics (time and space being "flat"), and got it right. Or at least the next-level-of-right.

  4. How smart is this kid? by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If he's pretty smart, then you might be able to hand him a copy of Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory. This is a layman's-level introduction that avoids the weeds of Riemann geometry and the like. The math will still be above his head (unless your nine-year-old understands college-level algebra), but he should still be able to get the concepts from reading this.

  5. Sit them down in front of some good science TV by istartedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wouldn't try to do it directly. Plenty of other people have covered these areas, and on a level that makes it accessible. For time dilation, Carl Sagan's original Cosmos series had an excellent depiction of time dilation and travel approaching the speed of light. IIRC, part of it was based on a "what if" scenario in which c was something you could approach by peddling a bicycle really hard. When you returned from the ride, all your friends were grey-haired old people.

    I'm sure there is some other good programming out there.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  6. The same way I'd explain it to anyone by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

  7. He doesn't have an interest... by kenh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Afterwards I thought: this might be a nice question to ask on Slashdot; how would I continue this discussion to explain it to him further? Of course, with the goal of further feeding his interest in physics.

    He hasn't shown an interest in physics, he's shown an interest in a famous name he's heard (likely) repeatedly.

    You should learn not to read too much into everything a 9 year-old says.

    --
    Ken
  8. Wrong answer by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By your own account, your son is not asking you about relativity: he is asking why Einstein is so famous (and he is 9 year old).

    The proper answer is, then, because he ranked to the top of his field, just like (put here whatever TV competition he is fan of, Disney young singers or whatever). When you get to the top of your field, you get famous. Full stop.

    Now, if you really want to introduce him into Einstein's, I can tell how I introduced myself, but I was eleven or twelve back then, which I think makes the situation a world apart.

    I happened to start thinking about the relativity principle, the original one, Galileo's (no memory of how I stumbled onto it, though) and felt fascinated by the old man in his ship, trying to decide from within his cabin if the ship was moving or not. From there I moved to the "known fact" that nothing, and I mean NOTHING, can go faster than light in a vacuum (you can disgress a bit here talking about Mach's aether and Michelson-Morley experiment if you want to), and how would the world look like if that were true (I probably had read some of the old mental experiments about trains and watches coming and going, but I've forgotten when or where, probably because all this became obscured on my memory by my read, years later, of both Russell's 'ABC of Relativity' and Einstein's 'The meaning of Relativity' -*you* should read them and you would probably wouldn't be asking this question.

    Once I got satisfied about special, I moved to the general starting also on"known" facts (taken by me as granted, back then): energy and mass are somehow equivalent (E=m*c^2) and gravity and acceleration look very much the same but can they in fact be set appart? (hint: gravitity looks "spherical" from the perspective of an observer under a heavy field). Oh, another interesting fact: there can also be black holes under newtonian physics, as long as C stands constant and nothing can run faster than light (in a vacuum -oh! and why does light runs faster in a vacuum than through transparent matter? does something can go faster than light -on said matter? Mr Cerenkov left a message).

    The fact is, that though you cannot *demonstrate* Einstein's Special or General theories of Relativity without advanced maths (you can't demonstrate Newton's either), you can *exhibit* them on a credible manner, specially the special one (pun intended), on a two dimensional field, just using basic geometry, so a child can have a grasp of them.

  9. Einstein Disagrees by BlazeMiskulin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.""
    -- Albert Einstein

    1. Re:Einstein Disagrees by raftpeople · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd like to see Einstein explain bitcoin to his grandma.

    2. Re:Einstein Disagrees by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd like to see Einstein explain bitcoin to his grandma.

      It's a tulip made of numbers! And my grandma loves tulips so she would be an early bitcoin adopter.

  10. Annus mirabilis by langmick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would ask my nephew that when he was around that age, he starts at MIT next year at 16. I would explain to him that in one year, Albert Einstein changed the face of the world, and made all our lives better. He used his imagination to do it. He wasn't the best mathematician, in face, there were better ones hot on his heels, but he had the ability to imagine how little things work as well as the entire universe. He then set out to prove it. I think kids respond to encouraging their creativity with stories like Einstein's and how he built his ideas on other's ideas. Exposing them to Julius Sumner Miller, Brian Greene and Richard Feynman is also a lot of fun, because they had lots of fun with science. I enjoy talking to kids about science, and seeing their eyes light up. These videos are pretty good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  11. Re:If you think Special Relativity makes sense... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Informative

    Two twins orbit around each other and then meet. They are both older than each other.

    Sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand relativity.

    Two twins are set into motion relative to each other, and then left to coast inertially like that. Time passes. Each twin thinks more time has passed for the other than for themselves since they were set into motion. Neither is objectively correct; a third observer could find the same amount of time to have passed for both, or any different ratio of time to have passed for either, depending on how that observer is moving.

    But then the twins are set back into motion toward each other. Again, after being set into motion like that, they disagree about how much time is passing for each other, but then, so does every other observer, and about everything else in the universe too. Observers in different states of motion disagree about how much time is passing how quickly where.

    The twins come back together and are brought to a stop relative to each other. They have definitive ages relative to each other that they both agree on, as does every other observer in the universe.

    The trick is that when they're being set into motion apart, turned around and sent back together, and stopped at the end, time is also passing differently for each of them not just because of their different states of motion, which nobody can agree upon, but depending on whose motion is being changed how much, which is something that every observer can agree upon even if they can't agree on the absolute measure of that motion. (That is, while observers may disagree about which twin is stationary and which is moving, they will all agree that one twin is moving more [or less] now than it was before).

    If one twin stayed in the same state of motion the whole time, while the other got sped away, turned around, and then stopped when he got back, then the one who stayed behind is older, and everybody agrees.

    In your scenario, it sounds like they both underwent the same acceleration, just mirrored from each other, so both would be the same age when they came back together, and both would agree on that, as would every other observer in the universe.

    Other observers moving differently than the twins would disagree on what age they are, but they'd all agree that they're the same age as each other, whatever that age is.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  12. fake news by bugs2squash · · Score: 4, Funny

    I once read an account of a thought experiment where there are a line of cows side by side with their noses all touching a long, straight fence. The farmer attaches an electric fence shocker to one end of the fence and it makes all the cows jump as they feel the shock.

    The farmer sees the cows jump one after the other as the electricity reaches each nose

    But to a visitor from a nearby city, who happens to be standing at the other end of the fence at the time, the cows all seem to jump up in unison, since the light bringing the image of the far cow arrives at the same time as the electricity arrives to shock the nearest cow.

    When the farmer and the passerby meet they find they have different first hand accounts of the same events, proving to the farmer that city folk are ignorant of country ways, and proving to the city slicker that country folk tell tall stories

    --
    Nullius in verba