23 ms·
The main issue is that quantum mechanics and {special | general} relativity are non-intuitive. Any classical analogy is a leaky abstraction at best. There are
by mrfox321 5y ago
The main issue is that quantum mechanics and {special | general} relativity are non-intuitive. Any classical analogy is a leaky abstraction at best.
There are communicators who can pierce through this effectively. However, they tend to be researchers who do not have the time to spend writing pop-sci articles.
- marbu 5y agoYou are right about quantum mechanics and general relativity, which requires more advanced math, and it's hard to create good and useful analogies without it. That said, if you can handle basic high school math, you don't need any leaky abstractions for special relativity: explain experiment with speed of light measurement and it's consequences, then explain thought experiment about the light clock and mathematically derive time dilatation out of it.
- enkid 5y agoSpecial relativity may not require a lot of math, but it's results are still very unintuitive.
- lanstin 5y agoAnd sadly quantum mechanics is the simple and obvious version of quantum field theory, which is what the standard model is. Electron energies around a proton in the atom are one thing, but particles as fields and renormalization kill. Tho Feynman wrote a non maths book on QED.