4 ms·

No, not all analogies of physics are oversimplifications, only those that leave out parts that are essential to the discussion. If you leave out the properties

by Ma8ee 2y ago

No, not all analogies of physics are oversimplifications, only those that leave out parts that are essential to the discussion. If you leave out the properties that are special about entangled systems from the analogy, it can't shed any light on entangled systems.

ben_w 2y ago
> only those that leave out parts that are essential to the discussion. I have yet to see a single physics analogy that covers every single aspect of the physics without being misleading. If the maths is easy enough to follow without needing an analogy, you just get the maths.
- Ma8ee 2y ago
  They don’t have to cover every single aspect, only those that are relevant to the discussion. The analogy with water in tubes for electricity is not an oversimplification when you explain relationships between voltage and current in a resistance. It only becomes an oversimplification when you try to explain, say, electromagnets.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Water tubes thus cannot explain AC skin effect, inductance.
    - Ma8ee 2y ago
      Which isn’t relevant to the discussion in the example.
unwise-exe 2y ago
The only way to not leave out critical details is to just learn the math behind it. The problem with doing this is that getting an extra graduate degree is a lot of work.
- throwaway_4179 2y ago
  You certainly don't need a grad degree to understand the math behind entanglement or basic QM!
  - ben_w 2y ago
    "Just" partial differential equations of complex fields for Schrodinger; the fourier transform to shift between, what was it, momentum and position?; matricies and/or quaternions for the Bloch sphere; bra-ket notation; and the Hermitian, Hamiltonian, and Laplacian operators. Of these, the only one I did in my double maths A-level was matricies and partial differential equations of single dimensional real functions, and the absolute basics of what complex numbers are. Seems like it needs a degree to me, having tried to teach myself using brilliant.org

by Ma8ee 2y ago

ben_w 2y ago

> only those that leave out parts that are essential to the discussion. I have yet to see a single physics analogy that covers every single aspect of the physics without being misleading. If the maths is easy enough to follow without needing an analogy, you just get the maths.

Ma8ee 2y ago
They don’t have to cover every single aspect, only those that are relevant to the discussion. The analogy with water in tubes for electricity is not an oversimplification when you explain relationships between voltage and current in a resistance. It only becomes an oversimplification when you try to explain, say, electromagnets.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Water tubes thus cannot explain AC skin effect, inductance.
  - Ma8ee 2y ago
    Which isn’t relevant to the discussion in the example.

unwise-exe 2y ago

The only way to not leave out critical details is to just learn the math behind it. The problem with doing this is that getting an extra graduate degree is a lot of work.

throwaway_4179 2y ago
You certainly don't need a grad degree to understand the math behind entanglement or basic QM!
- ben_w 2y ago
  "Just" partial differential equations of complex fields for Schrodinger; the fourier transform to shift between, what was it, momentum and position?; matricies and/or quaternions for the Bloch sphere; bra-ket notation; and the Hermitian, Hamiltonian, and Laplacian operators. Of these, the only one I did in my double maths A-level was matricies and partial differential equations of single dimensional real functions, and the absolute basics of what complex numbers are. Seems like it needs a degree to me, having tried to teach myself using brilliant.org