Posted:

**Jan 06, 2019 6:25 pm**Macdoc wrote:Thanks I can usually visualize processes without having the underlying math.

Had a good discussion on another forum about the important of visuals in explaining concepts - he was absolutely fixed on "you must have the math" and the visuals were immaterial and several of us disagreed.

After all it was thought experiments that led Einstein and THEN he did the math to prove it. I figure you need the math to use a concept but necessarily to understand one.

ie images or even animated illustrations of processes in a nuclear plant are very useful and understandable but the math exceedingly complex.

So I can visualize what's going on in balloon or star without being to quantitize it....if that makes sense.

I find some of the animated explanations of physical principles fascinating and in particular complex systems like AGW/Atomosphere processes benefit understanding more than

Net Radiation = Q* = total in - total out

The essay describes how, initially, Maxwell tried to describe EM radiation in 'familiar' terms that required a medium for EM transmission. This idea had to be abandoned when the constancy of the speed of transmission was observed to be constant. The correct understanding requires the mathematics of fields that were relatively new to Maxwell but well known by the time Einstein was working.

Similarly, the development of QM as described in the essay required an abandonment of the tenets of local realism and the adoption of more abstract ideas underlying any measurement outcomes.

The essay points to our future understanding of, say, quantum gravity, where again new methods will undoubtedly be required and developed. They may be stringy ideas or combinatorics or a mixture of both or something other but the idea that human intuition will clear the path is probably no longer true.

I have no problem with your discussion of stellar interiors using EM theory but I think it should be in a more specialised topic that this. Just saying.