[quote=“HannesAlfven, post:42, topic:10659”]
There are different types of “knowing”, and they permit different varieties of activities. You can know how to do the math for QM, but you can’t necessarily translate that type of knowledge into an ability to judge other paradigms which strive to explain the same observations. That would also require a conceptual comprehension.[/quote]
Well, that depends. On a site linked earlier is a competing paradigm for a particular quantum effect. The point of this experiment is to demonstrate that a single photon cannot always be considered strictly as a point-like particle, because it would have to interfere with itself. QM gives a description of how this works, but this author sidesteps the issue by drawing waves in some diagrams, and particles in others. He does not explain how light can decide which form to take, or, worse, even seem to understand that’s the very crux of the issue. So, in this case, knowing QM makes it easy to see that this competing concept isn’t useful.
It’s a very simple idea: Why not simply draw these complex models out?
Graphs and lattices are used in many other similar endeavors.
Learning would be faster if the students could see the conceptual
structure of the theories under examination. Comments could simply
attach to this structure.
These ideas about new ways of doing comments on the web are interesting, and definitely worthy of experiment. I expect if the people who are familiar with these concepts make a web tool that uses them, and it’s successful, then others will begin to adopt it as well. It seems a bit excessive to hold it against the scientists who have not been researching these topics that they haven’t already developed this system.
