5 ms·
Unfortunately in my experience people aren't fond of the more correct explanation, which is that entities on the atomic scale don't behave in ways directly anal
by katmannthree 7y ago
Unfortunately in my experience people aren't fond of the more correct explanation, which is that entities on the atomic scale don't behave in ways directly analogous to anything humans are intuitively familiar with.
- pasquinelli 7y agoPeople aren't fond of that explanation because it isn't an explanation. "Why do some stars make loop-de-loops as they traverse the sky?" "Because entities on the celestial scale don't behave in ways directly analogous to anything humans are intuitively familiar with." "Oh..."
- juped 7y agoWell... they don't, unless those humans are differential geometers.
- RangerScience 7y ago....Or play enough KSP.
- juped 7y agoKSP doesn't simulate GR
- RangerScience 7y ago:crosses fingers for KSP 2: Sure. But, AFAIK, newtonian physics covers most of the behavior of the planets; that GR affects the timing rather than the paths. Or am I substantially wrong?
- katmannthree 7y agoDoes it not strike you as a rather peculiar viewpoint that everything that exists should be easily understandable by untrained humans? That's quite a thing to expect from the universe. It's not just "not an explanation", it's declaring that there _is no_ correct and easily understandable mathfree explanation or analogy. The only way you can properly understand things like this is within the context of the experimental measurements we've made and the mathematical models we've developed as a result. There's no way to explain these to a five year old in a way that's not significantly incorrect (unless perhaps they happen to be uncommonly good at linear algebra) . The current layperson explanation is so significantly incorrect that I think it's actually detrimental. Photons aren't "particles" like marbles, and they're not also "waves" like you see on the ocean. They're sure as hell not both at the same time in some sort of religiously inspired "don't question it" union. What they are are entities, abstract things that we can create and play with and measure. We can make somewhat complicated mathematical models to predict certain aspects of their (and similar entity's) behavior. They at times exhibit behavior one would expect from a particle. In other cases they exhibit behavior one would expect from a wave. They're neither though, they're their own thing that behave by their own rules. That's it.
- RangerScience 7y agoDon't forget, kiddos! You're made of star stuff ...and that star stuff is made of math... and that math is not just any math, it's probability math.
- 2zcon 7y agoBut we're not intuitively familiar with what happens when those stars get really big and start being black holes and exhibiting relativity. Fortunately, like waves, we can manage the maths.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago> People aren't fond of that explanation because it isn't an explanation. It absolutely is an explanation. The explanation is not just "they don't behave as neutonian macro objects" - that's the a beginning of it. The explanation itself comes after when physicists describe in exact ways how these quantum objects behave, explained so specifically that it can be calculated upon with specific equations. The fact that those explanations don't fit in your current set of intuitions about world and objects in it is more of a "you-problem", not "physics-problem". The universe has no obligation to make sense to you, it is more of your job to create those new intuitions in your mind and those new models of the world. While the physicists have provided you with all the needed tools, it is still up to you to build them into your mind.
- brutt 7y agoQuantum physics can be explained in single picture. I did it (in Ukrainian): https://www.facebook.com/groups/194031297610629/permalink/1030959753917775/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/194031297610629/permalink/10... . It's easy to explain.