Heisenberg dedicated himself to renouncement of and the futility of formulating a mental image of quantum processes, and even though 'spin' is often spoken of as if particles really do spin, most lecturers at least make a cursory mention that the particles are not actually spinning. Yet here we are having entanglement described as two different coloured socks, a la Bertlmann. And well into the 21st century millions of secondary school students still learn about the the Bohr atomic model without qualification. Isn't it about time we embrace quantum physics more fully.

I'm trying to imagine a 12 year old kid grasping plane waves. I think you have to make allowances for that.

I'm trying to imagine a 12 year old kid grasping plane waves. I think you have to make allowances for that.

You could start with a ream of blank paper....

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Isn't it about time we embrace quantum physics more fully.

The problem is that quantum physics doesn't lend itself to analogy.
Analogy is the act of basing something complicated on something simpler (and that 'something simpler' must be something which is intuitively understood). But quantum physics is already that 'something simpler'. There's just no analogy for it that we can intuitively grasp.

...which eventually led to the "shut up and calculate"-doctrine....which is as close as we can come to "embracing quantum physics"

There's a beautiful video of Richard Feynman running into this very problem and explaining that sometimes the 'why' doesn't work and you can't explain something more intuitively (in this case magnetism, but the same reasoning goes for quantum physics)
https://www.youtu...T2zI8lVA

Is this an example of an analogy: My home has 3 remotes for the TV. One is from the manufacturer of the TV. The 2nd and 3rd remotes are both provided by the local cable box company. All 3 of the remotes have an ON/OFF button that works the TV ON/OFF state. If I use remote 1 to turn ON a device the other two remotes know that if they are used it would be the same as if the 1st. remote had been used again and the device would turn OFF.

It seems about as simple as the socks that researcher wears, and my wife can understand that TV example, so I'd like to know if it is or isn't an example. Thanks.

@Bob: Im not sure the TV is a good analogy. The weird part about entanglement is having correlations (or anty correlations) of properties of objects which are not in contact. It's as if i had a red ball and a blue ball, i put them in two boxes where you cannot see them, and i give one to you and i keep the other one. If one of us opens the box, even millions of miles away, not only you find out what color ball you got, you instantly know what color the other person got.
The weirdness of quantum mechanics consists of the fact that the color of the balls, while in the boxes, is indeterminate, it's not red or blue, but a superposition of both. Only when one box is opened to look inside does the ball "become" red or blue, and you know what the other person got. And you know what the other person got instantly, so quicker than it would take for some information (i.e. light) to get from the other person to you.

Plato, Republic 588A-589B, spoke of Young's Light Experiment in another way. He addresses man's inner ability to reason with the resultant small and large. While the light experiment yields wave and particle. The contemporary perception achieved, yielding an entanglement theory from focusing on the atom of matter rather than the force as Plato focuses upon. Understood long ago of man's connection to the divine.