[Waterluvian]

Everyone should be required to sign up for a year of being followed around by an inquisitive child who will pockmark the landscape of their knowledge with exploratory boreholes.

I have multiple environment and science degrees and feel generally knowledgeable and my oldest will put on his best Feynman face and be entirely unsatisfied when I offer and explain “Rayleigh scattering.”

I love it. I love it so much. I love how curious he is. I love how there is so much to not know. I would hate to know it all because I love exploring it with him.

[c-flow]

On a somewhat related point, a lifestyle blogger & parent had coined the "fourth question" theory of sorts a few years ago - that, the fourth follow-up question a young child asks generally requires the parent to attempt to explain the meaning of existence, universe, and the like. I have also found this to be true.

[bonesss]

I love it. Where else can I give a jumbled mostly-ok explanation of the standard model and cosmology until the other persons brain turns off from overstuffed-boredom and not get fact checked?

[pif]

> the meaning of existence, universe, and the like

And the child will be too young to accept 42 as a satisfactory answer...

[wanderingmind]

100 percent can relate on the relentless curiosity of a child. I was dumbfounded yesterday by this question -> if cars go at high speed, and breaks stop it suddenly, how come the friction doesn't generate enough heat to start a spark?

[My_Name]

They generate enough energy to, I mean have you seen racing brake discs?

It's just that the energy is spread out over a larger area (brake discs/pads as opposed to a tiny spark) that is also constantly being cooled by air movement, so the energy in any one point is not enough to ignite any of the materials involved. It's why they used to put asbestos in the brake pads, but they now use ceramics and other heat-resistant materials.

Also, engineering.

[Terr_]

I'd approach it by looking at the definition of a "spark", and the things we can change to avoid tripping that definition.

For a visual spark, it has to be something thrown off which is the right size, material, and a temperature to glow visibly to the human eye under normal light.

For a spark that starts a fire, it has to be something thrown off which has a certain temperature by the time it lands or travels to some other surface.

In both cases, hot very fine particles will cool quickly just by hitting the ambient air. If the underlying surface (e.g. brake disk) gets glowy-hot, we wouldn't call that a spark--it's too big, and fixed.

[LIMEVINCE]

They actually might spark if the materials of the brakes weren't purposefully chosen to avoid a mini firework show when you suddenly brake.

Oof, the guy who went into the definition of sparks actually makes me realize this question branches off into so many different rabbitholes.

[samuell]

I think it is simply designed that way.

In my experience sparks are generally generated when quite small metal surfaces get in contact at high speeds, meaning they can generate a lot of friction in a very small point, and thus not have enough braking effect despite the local friction in one small point (think rail wheels squeeking in curves).

Brakes OTOH are designed to spread out the friction on a somewhat larger area, which allows more material to take up the friction and the heat, and spread it around.

I know brakes can get extremely hot too though, and after a really hard braking you might have to worry about deformed brakes sometimes.

Race cars tend to have really large breaks (and brake pads) for this reason.

[anamax]

Car brakes can get hot enough to start a fire (wood, paper, maybe even gasoline - see race cars) but a spark is a hot piece of material that is large enough so it can keep its heat for a while.

Brakes generate very fine dust that cools off almost immediately.

[ColdStream]

The concentration of energy is vital. Sort of like how if you fire a gun it will only push the person back a few centimeters but that energy condensed into a very small spot and fly through a car.

[rawgabbit]

I would answer that heat is a form of energy. A horse pulling a carriage a 1000 yards requires more energy than pulling 30 yards.

When a car slams on the brakes the distance is too short to generate enough heat to deform. I would also suspect the treads would partially melt and deform before it catches on fire.

[KunYuan]

My kid is like this too. They love asking questions, and one answer usually leads straight to another. Sometimes it feels endless.

[rramadass]

Here are a couple of ways you can nurture it - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49081436

[ErroneousBosh]

Well, they do - you can get brakes red hot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUnEeiZK7bY

And, if you let the pads wear down too far so they're metal on metal they absolutely will spark.

How cool are those rally cars though?

[Razengan]

It's ironic that AI today may give curious kids answers quicker if not better than asking humans or searching the web did.

[dd8601fn]

Why not. May as well get those last edge cases of child rearing that haven’t already been outsourced.

Only kidding. Kinda.

[testbjjl]

May being the operative word, for now anyway for certain.

[testbjjl]

Brake pads?

[xelxebar]

Has anyone here found ways to actively cultivate this kind relentless curiosity within themselves?

People sometimes describe me that way when I start asking unbridled questions. Personally, I find that I can activate this mode when trying to connect answers to some sense of life meaning and the myriad ways that unfolds. Many on the receiving end find the experience frustrating, though.

I think we get used to repeatable patterns more than develop comprehensive understanding. The former feels like accomplishment, while the later feels like perpetual confusion, IME.

[rramadass]

> Has anyone here found ways to actively cultivate this kind relentless curiosity within themselves?

Yes; As a great fan of detective fiction specifically Poe(Dupin/Legrand) and Doyle(Holmes), I call it the "Sherlock Holmes - Dr. Watson method of interactive problem-solving" ;-)

Watson only sees the obvious, does not understand their meaning/causes/effects and starts asking questions. Holmes uses that to establish indisputable facts/evidence, reason analytically from effects to causes (i.e. the usual detective trope) or synthetically from the present to the future (i.e. prediction). Both authors in their stories often elaborate on methods of reasoning, which provide insights that can be adapted to problem-solving in general.

This is the scientific method in action viz. Observe, Measure, Hypothesize (and Model), Test, Draw Conclusions and finally, Iterate over all of the above to refine the hypothesis and minimize error.

Finally, the classic The Chemical History of a Candle by Michael Faraday is an excellent source to teach oneself/others/students/children on how to think scientifically in depth about anything - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chemical_History_of_a_Cand...

Modern version of the book(free) and accompanying video lectures on Youtube - https://engineerguy.com/faraday/ and https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0INsTTU1k2UCpOfRuMDR...

[pif]

> pockmark the landscape of their knowledge with exploratory boreholes

I've got a PhD in particle Physics. I develop the geometry module of machine tools.

I got lost when an auntie tried to explain crochet to me.

[rramadass]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49081761

[Jonovono]

Reminds me of this comedy set https://youtu.be/Tf17rFDjMZw?si=QRyLMlfuKhavUnE7

[protocolture]

I remember my dad getting a lamp, and some coffee cups and using them to explain day/night to me. Thats the energy I want to bring for my own kiddos questions.