3 ms·

I'm not thinking of anything as formal as that, more in terms of trying to get a handle on the difference between the words in ordinary language. Metaphors, an

I'm not thinking of anything as formal as that, more in terms of trying to get a handle on the difference between the words in ordinary language. Metaphors, analogies and models often help us understand things, but they can mislead unless they are, to a reasonable degree, models of the thing we we are trying to understand. The physicist Matt Strassler calls the latter 'phibs', and has written a recently-published book motivated by one in particular, an attempt to explain the relevance of the Higgs field. https://profmattstrassler.com/2024/04/16/why-the-higgs-field-is-nothing-like-molasses-soup-or-a-crowd/ https://profmattstrassler.com/2024/04/16/why-the-higgs-field...

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Yes, this is good article showing the downsides of analogies. Thank You. Interesting that while critiquing the common analogy, it did suggest another one. I wonder if the problem isn't analogies, it is just finding 'good ones'. "As an analogue, consider air pressure (which is itself an example of an ordinary field.) Air is a substance; it is made of molecules, and has density and weight. But air’s pressure is not a thing; it is a property of air, , and is not itself a substance. Pressure has no density or weight, and is not made from anything. It just tells you what the molecules of air are doing. The Higgs field is much more like air pressure than it is like air itself. It simply is not a substance, despite what the phib suggests."