[j1vms]

The role of this "era" may be in reformulating quantum physics and, separately, general relativity in new ways that make the ideas more accessible to more people, and earlier in their lives. The goal could be to make of modern physics... the new classical physics. That is, we start to let go the crutches we still teach because it is thought that day-to-day life is more readily explained by Newtonian physics. We are now in era where most advances (e.g. smartphones among them) could not exist in their present form without modern physics.

Once more people accept the concepts of modern physics as a way of life (perhaps intuitively?), we will be in fertile territory for any potential new revolution in physics.

[gus_massa]

These theories have a very precise mathematical formulation and very weird unintuitive consequences. If you try to teach them without math, you only keep the weird unintuitive part and it's more unintelligible.

For quantum mechanics you have to know eigenvalues and eigenvectors. This is studies in the first years of the university in a technical career. I'm not sure if it can be teach much earlier.

For Special Relativity you have to know Minkowsky spaces. It's not so difficult, it can be moved to the first years of the university.

For General Relativity you have to know curved spaces. It's not imposible to learn, but you can get a Ph.D. in Math or Physics without studding curved spaces.

[whatshisface]

Linear algebra (with diagonalization not just using gauss-jordan) could be pushed back to highschool for motivated students, and is in some countries. The coordinate system aspect of special relativity (the origin of time dilation and most of its "weird effects") only requires algebra. General relativity requires the full mechanisms of differential geometry but advances in things like differential forms are pushing this back to the undergraduate level. Overall I would say that it could be done but you would have to leave the unmotivated students behind.

[shuspect]

We can keep math, but switch to better theories, with plausible explanations.

A kind of Pilot Wave can explain quantum weirdness to layman people with ease.

We can ditch theory relativity and calculate speeds relatively to CMB, which is much easier to understand.

We can ditch Big Bang theory and, instead, accept that light is not immortal, because it ages with time. IMHO, Dipole Repeller and Shapley Attractor are much more attractive and easier to explain than Big Bang.

[phkahler]

One problem is that physicists are not interested in lowering the bar to understanding advanced theories. Some say it's all fairly simple once you spend a decade learning some very advanced math. The art of teaching is in making the material more accessible, and at that I dont think much progress has been made.

[whatshisface]

>physicists are not interested in lowering the bar to understanding advanced theories

That is not true, geometric algebra is an example of a recent pedagogic improvement that is getting a lot of attention. The problem is that physics will never be easy enough for someone who is not prepared to think deeply, because it is one of the few areas where truly new ideas can be found. Virtually every area of learning involves repackaging concepts we have all known from childhood (people's motivations, stories, colors, that kind of thing) in specific ways. Major exceptions are physical tasks like learning to sew or play an insturment, and "esoteric" subjects like math and physics. In all of those cases you cannot learn by casually reading because the neurons in your brain are simply not prepared for it.

[shuspect]

I'm trying to explain quantum physics using single photo[0] (in Ukrainian, but you will get it). It has good adoption among regular people. It based on real physical experiment, just labels are added. BUT scientist are insane when they see it. They argue that quantum physics cannot be explained using picture, because the only true way to explain quantum physics is using mathematics.

[0]: https://scontent.fiev21-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/79956387_10...

[konschubert]

Also, let’s agree on a consistent interpretation of quantum theory.

As long as we keep teaching the reckless hand-waving that is the Kopenhagen interpretation, we will keep confusing clear-thinking students.

[russdill]

The historical attitude has been, "it doesn't matter, shut up and calculate". There's been quite a bit of push recently to try and nail down exactly what QM means rather than just what it calculates (See: Sean Carroll, etc)