Isn't that always the problem with QM? Plus there's no intuitive simplified model to explain and most analogies are so off the mark they do more harm than good. The only way to understand QM is via the math which makes it seem like hocus-pocus to most people.
The old "atoms as mini solar systems" model was easy to explain to anyone. Atom as a sun, electrons orbit around it. Yes that leaves a lot out but it is "enough" that average people can kinda understand the point of it.
Gravity and General relativity can be explained as a big rubber sheet with a heavy bowling ball in the middle. A normal person can begin to understand that spacetime has curvature. If you think about it that's something of a miracle - being able to explain something so complex so simply.
I know of nothing like that for quantum mechanics.
Simplified models and analogies give a learner a useful start of a mental model for the theory. Yes their mental model is wrong but it is useful enough. Similar to the Poverty of Stimulus principle when children learn language: learning starts with relatively shallow and sometimes inaccurate input.
Isn't that always the problem with QM? Plus there's no intuitive simplified model to explain and most analogies are so off the mark they do more harm than good. The only way to understand QM is via the math which makes it seem like hocus-pocus to most people.
The old "atoms as mini solar systems" model was easy to explain to anyone. Atom as a sun, electrons orbit around it. Yes that leaves a lot out but it is "enough" that average people can kinda understand the point of it.
Gravity and General relativity can be explained as a big rubber sheet with a heavy bowling ball in the middle. A normal person can begin to understand that spacetime has curvature. If you think about it that's something of a miracle - being able to explain something so complex so simply.
I know of nothing like that for quantum mechanics.
Simplified models and analogies give a learner a useful start of a mental model for the theory. Yes their mental model is wrong but it is useful enough. Similar to the Poverty of Stimulus principle when children learn language: learning starts with relatively shallow and sometimes inaccurate input.