The case for embracing complexity
When people say, "Explain it in simple terms or you don't understand it," they often mean, “Explain it in terms that I understand so I don't feel like an idiot. I'd rather blame you for not explaining it in a way I could grasp than face the fact that I may not currently have the background or acumen to understand it.”
Math formulas are one of the simplest ways to explain something accurately, but understanding them often requires years of arduous work.
If someone asked, "How does magnetism work? How is it related to electricity?" and you wrote down some coupled differential equations of Maxwell, most would stare blankly back at you.
If instead, you pull a Neil deGrasse Tyson and take out a rubber band, explaining it in terms of that, you'll be applauded as brilliant. However, the astute person would just ask, "Okay, but why does the rubber band work like that?" This is something Feynman himself pointed out to a journalist.
In other words, you can explain something in simple terms, but those simple terms themselves require instruction and training to comprehend.
I've written about the trade-off between succinctness, accuracy, and "simplicity" before here, but something I didn't mention was the following:
We're told to embrace the unknown, but at the same time, some people become upset when a speaker can't simplify certain extremely abstract concepts. Shouldn't we embrace complexity and stop demanding simplicity at every level?
To me, that's adjacent to embracing the unknown. A demand for simplicity is tantamount to a demand for certainty.
- Curt Jaimungal
Do your thing, Curt. Your style is why I’m here. If you’re ever at a loss for some content, do an explanatory video for some of the more difficult concepts.
Curt: The most difficult physics to explain in simple terms is Quantum Mechanics. The best I found is one sentence in a book by Bohr paraphrasing Einstein's model of a photon, I quote here: "If a semi-reflecting mirror is placed in the way of a photon, leaving two possibilities for its direction of propagaion, the photon may either be recorded on one, and only one, of two photographic plates situated at great distances in the two directions in question, or else we may, by replacing the plates by mirrors, observe effects exhibiting an interference between the two reflected wave-trains." Take careful note that this is a contradiction that requires giving up any visualizable model (Bohr says so). Many have tried to explain QM; they all end with acts of desperation like "many worlds."
When confronted with describing a seemingly paradoxical concept, the best way is to go back to the experiments, and describe in terms of detector clicks. Most everyone will describe in terms of "photons" and usually they do not even understand that quote I gave. The way to explain QM is to understand that it is NOT understandable and to show evidence of its replacement. In other words, confusion will abound if one embraces a paradoxical model, the way most everyone does (for QM), and declaring that paradoxical model as true nature. It is best to, at least, first describe the paradox the way Einstein (via Bohr) did. I describe new experiments that test the first half of the photon model in a better way than done previously, and read the opposite answer. A threshold model works and quantization fails. No paradox. So please, do not describe complexity in terms of theory; describe observations and experimental setup. And please, describe the assumptions behind the experimental strategy. I see over and over, photon assumptions leading to photons. For QM, I made it easy. I am easy to find. Hope to hear from you.