How to Misunderstand Physics

 On Metaphor and Misunderstanding
Why physics is misunderstood

Originally part of  Usenet post Re: Empirical Utility of Dualism Posted: Dec 2, 2005 11:01 PM . Wolf Kirchmeir said: [...]
The three types of quarks could've been called anything at all. The terminology was preceded by the mathematical models that confirmed and predicted observations. The theoreticians could have used Greek letters, like they did for the tau, the mu, etc. Or Egyptian letters (which IIRC was actually suggested.)

Hint: learn the math.

"Quark" is borrowed from Joyce's Finnegan's Wake. Joyce borrowed the word from the German, wherein it refers to a kind of cottage cheese.

Me, I'd've proposed "flush" and "skint"; "womble" and "gronk"; and "tvepji" and "bsanji".

But nobody asked me. :-(

[A response to this post implied that naming the flavours of quarks up/down, top/bottom would lead to a “more interesting understanding” than the terms I suggested. “Flavours” is of course another metaphor. My comment on that post follows:]

The terminology was chosen to be deliberately arbitrary. The intent was to avoid what was called "a more interesting understanding," since quarks of all three types simply aren't like anything we can understand. Only the mathematical models make true sense of the phenomena they refer to. Ordinary-language accounts are metaphors, and like all metaphors they obscure as much as they illuminate.

It's somewhat like reading music. Some people can "hear the music" when they read the score, others (like me) can more or less accurately sing or play it, but for many a written score is just so many black spots, and they can't even "follow the score" when they hear the music played. When it comes to the mathematics of sub-atomic physics, very few of us can even follow the score, let alone pick out the tune or hear the music just by looking at the score. The physicists, bless their hearts, try to make their theories understood, but what their well-intentioned attempts actually do is foster a great deal of misunderstanding.

Addendum 2015-06-02: I think the misunderstanding applies to the physicists, too. I don’t think it’s useful to say that photons are waves or particles. All we know is that in some situations, we can use wave equations to describe their behaviour, and in other situations we can use particle equations. To say that the “wave function collapses” I think merely means that the probabilities described by the wave function are replaced by certainties when we observe/measure the consequences of some interaction. To refer to entities that interact as some entities that exist in and of themselves apart from the interactions is I think a mistake. All we can ever know is the interactions.