The point i was trying to make was that to understand the debate in todays world of science, way more than a basic understanding is needed. Even something as entrenched and successful as the theory of evolution is difficult to explain or understand.

Science prior to Einstein was basic, and so a basic understanding sufficed.


Conceptually the phone may not have changed, but the ability to discover it has become more difficult was my point. I don't see many 1940 era phones these days, and taking apart a digital cordless phone and looking at the chipset is not going to tell you anything about how a phone works. (even the concept has not changed much).

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Are you serious ? The basics are always accessible, of any science. Do you want the basics of quantum physics in three easy to follow steps ?

Not true. Try reading Newton's Principia or even Euclid's Elements in their entirety. Relativity is structurally completely analogous to Newton's mechanics. the difference is a paradigm shift, which simply has to be accepted rather than understood.

One doesn't need a linear accelerator to understand QP anymore than one needs to take a phone apart to understand those. One can read, no ?

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

The basics of any science can be found in any popular book on the subject. Absolutely. But the difference is that a basic understanding of science prior to non-classical physics was easily developed in ones day to day interactions with the physical world. Which sufficed for that contemporary world. No longer though.

Interacting with the physical world today does not give you an understanding of quantum physics or relativity, and it does not give you an understanding of the global self-regulating climate system. (which was so hard for climate scientists to accept for years that they ostracized James Lovelock from the scientific community for pursuing such 'radical' ideas, that are now taught in earth systems courses at universities and colleges).



Im talking more about the shift from classical to non-classical physics. Einstein was able to develop an understanding of the photon, which led directly to quantum duality. Isn't that where things get freeky?

Sure. But that is still not the point im trying to make. All im saying is that there was a time when things were intuitive, and if you took them apart and looked at the analog parts and how they function together, you could develop a hands on conceptual understanding of the gadget. In the past this may have piqued a life long passion for how things work. Those days are gone.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Evolution is not very difficult to understand, it just isn't taught. My 13 year old son has a very good grasp of it, but he didn't learn it in school!

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

True, but so what ? Their subject is not the extremely limited subset of the universe that the pathetically meagre human senses can perceive, but the whole set. And the way to that is not through experience and perception but through learning. And if some people are not prepared to do that, then that's intellectual laziness. If one never tries, how would one know whether it's too difficult ? Because someone else who has never tried it, says so ?

Freaky ? Not really.
I think the main problem is that the vulgarizing press uses classical concepts to explain non-classical concepts. Take the so-called wave-particle duality. In the popular press (in which I include the vulgarizing science books) the photon is presented a a Magical Shapeshifter that is a wave here and now, and is a particle there and then. But such presentation only obfuscates things.

The photon is a thingy that shares some properties with waves and shares some other properties with particles, that's all. It is merely convenient to think of a wave when examining some specific properties of the photon and it's merely convenient to think of a particle when examining some other specific properties of a photon. But a photon never IS a wave and never IS a particle. The analogies that are used to explain it get in the way of understanding instead of vice versa.

The 'thingy' I used in the previous paragraph is a problem. There is a word I could correctly use there, viz. 'quantum', but then the 'jargon' argument would pop up again. The new words that are used are deemed too sophisticated and using the old, classical, ones lead to confusion.

Therefore, let's start from scratch to explain the basics of quantum physics and the photon:

Step 1:
When you slice a diamond with a knife, what do you get ? Two smaller pieces of diamond? Correct. Now, what happens if you keep slicing up the remaining pieces ? Can you get ever smaller pieces of diamond ? The answer is no. There comes a point that you are left with a single unit of diamond, that can no longer be divided while still having the properties of diamond. We call this 'thingy' an atom of diamond. Matter is thus not infinitely divisible.

Step 2:
What about energy ?
'T is a bit more difficult to go slicing up energy so what one did was examining the properties of energy under the assumption that is a continuous stream. But the calculations one made under that assumption turned out to give results that didn't correspond to what one observed in reality. So that assumption had to go. Now, let's assume that, like matter, energy also has a point at which it can no longer be divided without losing its properties and calculate from there. Result : perfect agreement between the theory and the observations. Cool, we got it right this time. Now we'll call this tiniest bit of energy a 'quantum' for ease. Difficult word ? Ok, let's also call it an 'energybit' as in titbit.

Step 3:
What does an energybit look like ?
Well, we can't see it, so let's look at what properties it has. After calculations and experiments, one gets a list of properties A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J. Ok, but what does it look like ? Well, the properties D, E, and I are the same properties D, E, and I that a wave has, so for those, and JUST for those, think of a wave and properties A, B, and J are the same properties A, B, and J a particle has so for those properties, and JUST for those, think of a particle.
Ok, but what about properties C and G ? Well, those are new, and only an energybit has them, so you'll just have to learn about them and accept them.

There you have it, the essence of QP. Now, was this so difficult ?
'Quantum' is no more counter-intuitive than 'atom' is. But 'atom' doesn't give people the shivers because they were taught about them. It's a household name. 'Quantum' would also be if QP was in the general curriculum.

See above. Many things that are taught without issue now, were originally also counter-intuitive. It's obvious this can be overcome. I understand how a star functions, not because I took one apart, but because I learned it.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder