lvx08 wrote:
a Larson for dummies would be a good way to go. Or a bio-pic, or documentary on his work. Both of which would take an enormous amount of work and/or money. A lot of people are interested in physics proivded it is made intelligible to the non-specialist
I agree. Perhaps Gopi's powerpoint presentation is a good place to start, then once the presentation is flushed out, move over to a Quicktime movie with animation and audio commentary? Could do it as a series of lectures, that way.
I have discovered with RS2 that the basics are not necessarily
difficult concepts, as much as they are
foreign concepts. It took me close to two years to figure out projective geometry, but once I did, it was very simple to understand.
So I think the #1 thing to look at for a presentation is, "what are the building blocks of the theory?" Larson got into problems because of his concept of "motion" being the constituent of the Universe, rather than "space". People are taught to call what they see as "spatial", even though what they are actually looking at IS "motion." So here we have a missing link... or should I say "linkage"? To make the presentation viable, about the only option is to start with the "known", in terms of the "known". I would see a presentation going like this:
1) Space, the Final Frontier...
A brief explanation of the "stage" on which the Universe is played out by actors (things). This is the way everyone understands it, so by pointing it out, one can also bring out all the assumptions that go along with it. This way, they are no longer unconscious assumptions, but conscious ideas that can be examined.
2) Every-thing, Some-thing, No-thing... what are "things"?
Challenge the "actors", the "things" in the Universe. What do we know about "things"? We see 3 spatial dimensions, and a segment of time from creation (birth) to destruction (death). Makes it look like "time" is a 4th "dimension", since it has a "length" (duration), just like space does. Now we have drawn a parallel between space and time -- they have similar characteristics!
Next step is to separate time from the spatial dimensions, so it looks the same, but can act differently. The only way I know how to do that is through "exclusion". Start with a point, extrude to a line, to a plane, to a cube, then to a hypercube. Does this 4th dimension of space act like time? No. Therefore, time cannot be a "4th dimension", but must be another kind of dimension, somehow linked to the spatial dimensions.
This opens the door to the reciprocal relationship, and giving time the properties of space.
3) The Universe is but a stage...
Now that we have defined "things" to have spatial and temporal dimensions, on what kind of stage can such things do their thing?
The most common understanding here is the "aether", a backdrop that can knot up to make the things we see. Therefore, the properties of the "aether" must be the same as the "things" we observe -- dimensions of space and time.
The "no-thing" must be a condition of space/time that we are taught to see as a "vacuum" -- some type of "zero" from which we measure the presence of "things". This opens the door to displacements, deviations that create some-thing from no-thing.
We have now set the stage for the next scene... where does the speed of light fit in?
4) I've seen the light!
Hop over to general relativity, and the idea that the speed of light, in vacuo, is constant in all reference frames. The only "thing" we have seen that is constant in all reference frames is the zero from which we measure... therefore, this "no-thing" must be the speed of light.
A secondary proof that can be used is the "Hubble expansion" of the galaxies.
5) Emergency... call the parametrics!
We all know, from base observation, that the speed of light is not zero. So, rather than assign an arbitrary value based on the names of some long-deceased scientist, let's put it in terms of a parametric equation, which bounds a concept between 0 and 1. We know the speed of light isn't zero, and it is the fastest thing we see, so therefore, it must be "1", in "natural units."
But, in parametrics, you cannot go over "1", so if "1" is no-thing, where is some-thing? Must be in the direction of zero, which makes common sense because we see everything as moving slower than the speed of light.
At this point, we now have a "stage" which is the speed of light (motion), using displacements downward from the speed of light (1-x speed range) that create "things" (other motions). Time to connect it up with more accurate terms.
6) Warp speed
We've already demonstrated that the stage is the "speed of light" -- a speed, more commonly known as "motion." We also demonstrated that the stuff in the Universe is the same stuff as the stage, therefore all "things" must also be "motions", and that the relationship between the spatial dimensions and the temporal dimensions must be one analogous to "speed" -- a reciprocal relationship between space and time.
In this brief outline, I have shown a process that takes commonly-understood concepts, and derives uncommon concepts, such as a universe of motion, instead of matter. This is the deductive process to get to the basis of the Reciprocal System--the idea of a universe of motion, where motion has two inverse aspects of space and time.
This is where I would stop a beginning tutorial, or take a break in a lecture, because it is a lot to digest. The next step would depend on the audience. Metaphysical audiences would be more interested in working towards the cosmic sector -- the conjugate of the material universe (the metaphysical). Physics students would prefer to see how one can derive atoms and particles, and their interactions.
Anyway, I thought I'd throw this out there as an example. Gopi... might want to outline what you want to do in the PPT presentation, first, before putting all the effort in to creating it. I think everyone here would both benefit, and could also contribute, to such an outline.