What if a teacher told your DC she was wrong, when really, she was right? - Page 4

[MusicianDad]

So many parents on here stating that the OP's dd is wrong, I had to say this.

Matter is loosely defined as any physical object that has mass and takes up space. There is, however, no consensus in physics on the true definition of matter because the idea of "taking up space" is and must be ill-defined. When they need to be precise with matter, physicists discuss mass, particles, and energy.

Why matter is energy. Matter cannot exist without energy. Energy cannot exist without matter. Matter is the physical manifestation of energy.

All though, this is just my understanding...

MusicianDad (sorry not gonna get my real name), BSc. (Physics).



And no I don't think a teacher should tell a child "Your Wrong" in front of the whole class regardless of whether she's wrong or not.

[MusicianDad]

Ya know, know that I think about it... The teacher shouldn't be asking the children a question when the experts don't even agree on the answer. The definition of matter hasn't yet been determined fully and everyone has their own theories on it in the scientific community.

[Oriole]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

So many parents on here stating that the OP's dd is wrong, I had to say this.

Matter is loosely defined as any physical object that has mass and takes up space. There is, however, no consensus in physics on the true definition of matter because the idea of "taking up space" is and must be ill-defined. When they need to be precise with matter, physicists discuss mass, particles, and energy.

Why matter is energy. Matter cannot exist without energy. Energy cannot exist without matter. Matter is the physical manifestation of energy.

All though, this is just my understanding...

MusicianDad (sorry not gonna get my real name), BSc. (Physics).



And no I don't think a teacher should tell a child "Your Wrong" in front of the whole class regardless of whether she's wrong or not.

I think admitting to being wrong is not a bad thing. I can't comment on teacher's reply since I wasn't in the classroom. "You are wrong" are not harsh words, if I am wrong about something, I am wrong.

E doesn't equal M. As simple as that. Matter is NOT loosely defined... matter is defined with precision. Being interdependent does not make matter and energy the same. I won't throw my credentials into the mix, simply because I don't think it matters how many degrees one has, it's whether or not they enjoy the subject and seek the truth in the subject.

If I am wrong, I hope I have enough self confidence to handle "you are wrong, and here is why", when it's meant as a learning experience and not a yell, or a smirk. So words in themselves don't worry me (and I will hope for the same for my children). Why should "you are wrong" bother me? Wouldn't I want to learn correct information? Can't I admit to being wrong?

[lisac77]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

So many parents on here stating that the OP's dd is wrong, I had to say this.

Matter is loosely defined as any physical object that has mass and takes up space. There is, however, no consensus in physics on the true definition of matter because the idea of "taking up space" is and must be ill-defined. When they need to be precise with matter, physicists discuss mass, particles, and energy.

Why matter is energy. Matter cannot exist without energy. Energy cannot exist without matter. Matter is the physical manifestation of energy.

All though, this is just my understanding...

MusicianDad (sorry not gonna get my real name), BSc. (Physics).



And no I don't think a teacher should tell a child "Your Wrong" in front of the whole class regardless of whether she's wrong or not.

OH FOR CRIPES SAKE!

I could see this being an issue IF the child understood that level of science behind the question "What is Matter?" She didn't. She was regurgitating facts she'd read in a book. She doesn't have a full understanding of the science behind it and neither does the teacher. However, the teacher teaching the children that matter takes up space and has states is in no way going to ruin these kids' understanding of science forever and ever. There is plenty of room and time to investigate the intricacies of particle physics in high school and college.

If the teacher did in fact tell your daughter that she was wrong, OP, I encourage you to TALK TO HER ABOUT IT. Whining about it on a web page is not going to fix the problem in the long run.

And, I'm out.

[MusicianDad]

Oriole, If your going on E=MC2, then your right, energy doesn't equal matter. Energy equal Mass time the speed of light squared. Mass and matter are two different things. Also, you aren't in elementary school and have a bit more life experience so what you can handle is different then what the OP's dd can handle.

Lisac, no need to get all huffy about it. But there are way to tell a child you think they are incorrect with you announcing to the class "Your wrong!", hmm lets see "Not exactly, matter has mass and takes up space." Um, try some more here "Matter has energy, but our books say that it is anything that takes up space in the world."

I'm sure there are a few other ways to correct a child without saying "your wrong". In fact in the general population stating "your wrong" is considered horribly rude and disrespectful.

[Trillian]

Originally Posted by lisac77

That webpage is wrong.

Brief notes about matter and energy for a quick reference:
1) All matter in the universe (in the ordinary world) is made of small ether units and which are in a highly compressed state. I call it "Ether Magnetic Particles" or space matter. Also, the spaces between the celestial bodies in the universe are filled with space matter [The 90% 'unknown matter' in the universe is space matter.]

2) All form of energy (except gravitational potential energy) are stored in the ordinary world, in the form of highly compressed space matter (just like as a compressed spring).

3) All form of energy are released in the ordinary world, because of the decompressing, releasing or expansion of space matter (just like as a decompressing or releasing of a spring).

4) Mass and energy are not interchangeable: Releasing of energy in a nuclear reaction is due to the rapid- huge increasing of volume of ordinary matter to space matter. I.e. the missing matter (mass defect) in a nuclear reaction is converted into space matter.

Increasing of Volume = Mass disappeared / Density of space matter (V=M/D).

http://physics-edu.org/index.html

Look, this is a complex subject, there's no two ways about it. But I think you should focus on the fact that:

A) This is SECOND GRADE.
B) Your DD has a weak understanding of this subject (as do many adults, there's nothing wrong with that!), and her teacher is not a theoretical physicist. The teacher was trying to teach the unit.
C) Books are not always right.
D) Neither are webpages. Best to check your references in multiple, reputable sources (and yes, I realize I haven't done this here!).

Sorry, but I don't think you are getting good information. The webpage you quote is BS. I have spent the last 7 years doing theoretical and experimental astrophysics (about to do my thesis defense tomorrow!) and I have never heard the terms "ether magnetic particles" or "space matter", ever. (I think they are referring to dark matter?) This in particular makes no sense:

Mass and energy are not interchangeable: Releasing of energy in a nuclear reaction is due to the rapid- huge increasing of volume of ordinary matter to space matter. I.e. the missing matter (mass defect) in a nuclear reaction is converted into space matter.

I can't even figure out exactly what he's trying to say. The mass defect of a nuclear reaction is the quantity of mass coverted to energy (in the amount E = mc^2), but so-called "space matter" has nothing to do with it. The energy appears in the form of kinetic energy.

In particle physics it is very common to treat matter and energy as interchangeable. In fact, when calculating particle interactions, one does not deal with mass at all, but rather mass-energy, ie, the amount of energy stored by the mass of each particle.

I think the OP's daughter was essentially correct in saying that matter and energy are forms of the same thing. Certainly it is unfair to call it Wrong-with-a-capital-W because it really isn't.

[lisac77]

Originally Posted by Trillian

Sorry, but I don't think you are getting good information. The webpage you quote is BS. I have spent the last 7 years doing theoretical and experimental astrophysics (about to do my thesis defense tomorrow!) and I have never heard the terms "ether magnetic particles" or "space matter", ever. (I think they are referring to dark matter?) This in particular makes no sense:




I can't even figure out exactly what he's trying to say. The mass defect of a nuclear reaction is the quantity of mass coverted to energy (in the amount E = mc^2), but so-called "space matter" has nothing to do with it. The energy appears in the form of kinetic energy.

In particle physics it is very common to treat matter and energy as interchangeable. In fact, when calculating particle interactions, one does not deal with mass at all, but rather mass-energy, ie, the amount of energy stored by the mass of each particle.

I think the OP's daughter was essentially correct in saying that matter and energy are forms of the same thing. Certainly it is unfair to call it Wrong-with-a-capital-W because it really isn't.

ARE YOU CALLING ME WRONG????

Well as I said above, this is a complex subject, and I was going on my layperson's interpretation of what I was taught in physics. I am not a physicist nor to I play one on TV or the internet!

Advanced particle physics aside, I still think that the OP should talk to the child's teacher. I know my son's teacher would be happy to hear that she was wrong and would correct her information.

[eepster]

As physicist are able to detect smaller and smaller particles, the differences between matter and energy become less and less clear. Some believe that at some point they will discover a particle that makes up both matter and energy.

The OPs DD should be encouraged to think about these questions and not simply accept a simple definition that excludes the possibility of deeper understanding.

Heck, I'm not saying that the OP needs to explain particles, quarks, string theory, etc to her DD. I'm also not saying that learning about how on a pratical everyday level there are differences between matter and energy. I'm just saying that the OPs DD isn't wrong, and needs to know that the issue has more complex levels that are not fully understood, and that she may indeed be correct.

[purslaine]

You know...this is a very cool debate (and much of it way beyond my scope of knowledge).

Maybe you should show it to your DD and say:

"Wow. Not even scientists/science lovers can agree on whether matter is energy".

The quest is way more important in science, I think, than the answers.....

Kathy

[Oriole]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

Oriole, If your going on E=MC2, then your right, energy doesn't equal matter. Energy equal Mass time the speed of light squared. Mass and matter are two different things. Also, you aren't in elementary school and have a bit more life experience so what you can handle is different then what the OP's dd can handle.

Lisac, no need to get all huffy about it. But there are way to tell a child you think they are incorrect with you announcing to the class "Your wrong!", hmm lets see "Not exactly, matter has mass and takes up space." Um, try some more here "Matter has energy, but our books say that it is anything that takes up space in the world."

I'm sure there are a few other ways to correct a child without saying "your wrong". In fact in the general population stating "your wrong" is considered horribly rude and disrespectful.

I'm not sure what difference am I not seeing? Certainly I am an adult, but I grew up into this kind of adult because it was modeled for me. "You are wrong" is not an attack. It is a statement of fact that might be true, or might be false. The statement "you are wrong" is simply that, a statement. If my child was upset, I'd ask her why... Is it because she is wrong? Is it because she is wrong and someone made fun of her? Is it because she is wrong but thinks she is right, and therefore thinks she is being unjustly singled out? Is it something else?

If a child told me the teacher was disrepectful in some manner, and used demeaning tone, or made fun of her mistakes, that would be a different discussion, but condemning a teacher just because she said "you are wrong" doesn't seem informed or valid. What else did the teacher say? What did the other students say? What was said before "you are wrong" and after? If I was concerned about my child's sensitive nature I would certainly talk with the teacher, but I wouldn't assume the worst when my kid was corrected because of a mistake she made, kwim?

[Oriole]

Originally Posted by eepster

As physicist are able to detect smaller and smaller particles, the differences between matter and energy become less and less clear. Some believe that at some point they will discover a particle that makes up both matter and energy.
...
Heck, I'm not saying that the OP needs to explain particles, quarks, string theory, etc to her DD. I'm also not saying that learning about how on a pratical everyday level there are differences between matter and energy. I'm just saying that the OPs DD isn't wrong, and needs to know that the issue has more complex levels that are not fully understood, and that she may indeed be correct.

Here is what I think... I think some kids are quite able to understand physics, or get a pretty good grasp on it. The fact is... if a child is interested in physics, there is nothing wrong in showing to that child how matter and energy is different. It won't prevent the child from becoming a great scientist, but it will define the concepts: "Look... if it's gas, solid, or liquid, it's matter! Air is matter, water is matter, even tiny tiny parts that everything in the universe is made up from called "atoms" are matter... Energy is an ability to change conditions... light is energy, electricity is energy... you can see how it works, but you can't really see "IT", as you can with matter."

One can also say that the scientist are working on converting matter into energy and vice versa. But even when it's done it will be a conversion, and "E" won't equal "M" all of a sudden. "Something" will have to happen to change one into another, something will have to convert "energy" we can't see into little particles of "matter" we can. The difference is still there, and the next Einstein will have to have a good grasp on those differences to actually do this discovery. How does one learn the differences? By another human being explaining it to a child, and correcting that child when he/she thinks "it's the same". One can't grow without learning from mistakes, especially in science, kwim?

[Juvysen]

Wait... wasn't the point just made that the differences are NOT that clear?

[Oriole]

Originally Posted by Juvysen

Wait... wasn't the point just made that the differences are NOT that clear?

They are clear.

Matter: exists in the form of atoms as liquid, gas, solid or plasma, can be measured by its volume or mass. Matter STORES energy, which doesn't make it energy (i.e. the fridge stores food, which doesn't make it food).

Energy: does NOT exist in the form of atoms, it can be stored in atoms. Energy can't be measured as volume or mass (i.e. you can't say "I have 3 cups of electricity"), can be observed, but can't be "seen", i.e. you can't just look at energy in the microscope as you can with particles of matter.

I"m not sure what's unclear... Help me out?

[Adele_Mommy]

Originally Posted by lisac77

First of all, the DD was wrong. W-R-O-N-G wrong. There's no two ways about it.

You are right that there's no two ways about it. There is only one way. The dd was correct. Demonstrably, empirically correct.

Originally Posted by lisac77

So the teacher was correct in telling her she was wrong, if that actually happened, which I'm not convinced it is. My impression of the teacher was that she said, "Well, almost!" NOT "You're WRONG!"

I'd be interested to know where you got this impression given that the OP said this:

Originally Posted by Mizelenius

According to her (I asked her again . . .what did the teacher say, did she just say "Well, almost" or something like that) and she said:

The teacher said I was wrong-- in front of the whole class.

Possibly you got this impression through a mechanism similar to how you gained your understanding of physics. That would explain a lot.

Originally Posted by lisac77

Secondly, actively encouraging a child to disrespect a teacher is a bad idea.

No, it's an excellent idea because it builds in a defence when she encounters attitudes like this:

Originally Posted by lisac77

Sometimes teachers act badly, but there is nothing wrong with learning to deal with people who are superior to you who are also jerks. It's a theme that is likely to repeat throughout life, often in situations where you can do nothing about it. Better to learn to deal with those people appropriately than to harbor resentment towards them.

First of all this teacher is not superior to my dd (or me for that matter) in any way. The fact that she is in a position of (a little bit) of authority does not mean she can do or say whatever she wants. When people say "learning to deal with people in authority who are jerks" it has been my experience that they really want you to be a complacent, obedient little follower. That is the opposite of what I want for my dd. There is virtually always something you can "do about it". You just have to decide whether it is worth the effort and the price you'll pay.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by Oriole

They are clear.

Matter: exists in the form of atoms as liquid, gas, solid or plasma, can be measured by its volume or mass. Matter STORES energy, which doesn't make it energy (i.e. the fridge stores food, which doesn't make it food).

Energy: does NOT exist in the form of atoms, it can be stored in atoms. Energy can't be measured as volume or mass (i.e. you can't say "I have 3 cups of electricity"), can be observed, but can't be "seen", i.e. you can't just look at energy in the microscope as you can with particles of matter.

I"m not sure what's unclear... Help me out?

If that were true then matter would exist without energy and energy would exist without matter.

(ie the fridge exists without food in it and the food exists without a fridge to put it in)

Show me matter without energy and I will say that matter and energy are different.

Oriole

I'm not sure what difference am I not seeing? Certainly I am an adult, but I grew up into this kind of adult because it was modeled for me. "You are wrong" is not an attack. It is a statement of fact that might be true, or might be false. The statement "you are wrong" is simply that, a statement. If my child was upset, I'd ask her why... Is it because she is wrong? Is it because she is wrong and someone made fun of her? Is it because she is wrong but thinks she is right, and therefore thinks she is being unjustly singled out? Is it something else?

If a child told me the teacher was disrepectful in some manner, and used demeaning tone, or made fun of her mistakes, that would be a different discussion, but condemning a teacher just because she said "you are wrong" doesn't seem informed or valid. What else did the teacher say? What did the other students say? What was said before "you are wrong" and after? If I was concerned about my child's sensitive nature I would certainly talk with the teacher, but I wouldn't assume the worst when my kid was corrected because of a mistake she made, kwim?

There are two ways to state a fact. Nice and not nice. "You are wrong" is not nice. A teacher is old enough to phrase that fact in such a way that it is much more productive.

Of course in this case, it isn't a statement of fact because she who was 'wrong' was in fact not wrong.

[Adele_Mommy]

Originally Posted by Oriole

One can also say that the scientist are working on converting matter into energy and vice versa. But even when it's done it will be a conversion, and "E" won't equal "M" all of a sudden. "Something" will have to happen to change one into another, something will have to convert "energy" we can't see into little particles of "matter" we can.

A couple points.

Would you agree that the statement "Ice and water are two different forms of the same thing" is a true statement? I hope so! But something would have to happen to "convert" ice into water or vice versa, correct? The temperature and/or the pressure would have to increase or decrease. Something always has to happen to make something change forms or to convert one thing into another. The fact that two things have differences does not make a statement that they are two different forms of the same thing untrue.

You seem to be under the impression that scientists cannot (yet) convert matter into energy. They can and have. That is precisely how an atomic bomb works -- a tiny bit of matter (we're talking atomic size here) is converted into a tremendous amount of energy.

As an aside - I would be interested to know where light would fall in your dichotomy - it isn't matter, but we can see it. Or is light considered to be matter now? (No snark intended - I honestly don't know the most current thinking on the nature of light - I seem to remember something about photons, but do photons have mass..... Interesting to think about )

[eepster]

Originally Posted by Oriole

They are clear.

Matter: exists in the form of atoms as liquid, gas, solid or plasma, can be measured by its volume or mass. Matter STORES energy, which doesn't make it energy (i.e. the fridge stores food, which doesn't make it food).

Energy: does NOT exist in the form of atoms, it can be stored in atoms. Energy can't be measured as volume or mass (i.e. you can't say "I have 3 cups of electricity"), can be observed, but can't be "seen", i.e. you can't just look at energy in the microscope as you can with particles of matter.

I"m not sure what's unclear... Help me out?

They are not clear.

Light, for instance, is made of a particle that can be measured and does have mass, is light energy or matter?

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by eepster

They are not clear.

Light, for instance, is made of a particle that can be measured and does have mass, is light energy or matter?

Oh, oh! Can we talk about light pressure now?

[Juvysen]

Originally Posted by Oriole

They are clear.

Matter: exists in the form of atoms as liquid, gas, solid or plasma, can be measured by its volume or mass. Matter STORES energy, which doesn't make it energy (i.e. the fridge stores food, which doesn't make it food).

Energy: does NOT exist in the form of atoms, it can be stored in atoms. Energy can't be measured as volume or mass (i.e. you can't say "I have 3 cups of electricity"), can be observed, but can't be "seen", i.e. you can't just look at energy in the microscope as you can with particles of matter.

I"m not sure what's unclear... Help me out?

I guess people were saying that it gets really fuzzy when things get subatomic... but other people just jumped in on this with lots of other good points.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by Adele_Mommy

As an aside - I would be interested to know where light would fall in your dichotomy - it isn't matter, but we can see it. Or is light considered to be matter now? (No snark intended - I honestly don't know the most current thinking on the nature of light - I seem to remember something about photons, but do photons have mass..... Interesting to think about )

And there in lies the problem with the definition of "taking up space".