“I think physicists have done a poor job explaining that what they do is model building. The models are not reality.”
I’m not a physicist although I’ve had training in the subject and I’m inclined to agree with you. It seems to me there are at least three issues here; the first is many physicists just aren’t good at drawing analogies or describing what they’re trying to explain; few, say, have Feynman's talent. The second is they aren’t good at pitching their explanation at the right level (to the recipient’s level of knowledge)—they don’t judge the recipient’s level of knowledge well before they answer. And third is that they’ve a level of impatience when it comes to such explanations—that is they’re out of their comfort zone in that they cannot use their usual jargon as they would do with other physicists who talk at their level. (I've seen comments to the effect that 'that cannot be explained, you just have to believe the math' — then they don't bother to actually provide the equation or its reference because it's a text-based web page (not that dissimilar to the explanation of the eqn in the video.)
However, it’s not fair to single out physicists alone, this problem often occurs when there’s a disparity of understanding between professionals and others.
For example, I’ve experienced the problem here on HN in both directions (that is when I’m replying to a post where I have greater knowledge than the recipient and vice versa). Let’s say we have a physics topic that’s somewhat tricky to explain such as the Aharonov–Bohm effect and I ask a professional physicist who works in the area a general question that to me may be a complex matter but which is a trite one for him/her then the moment he/she gets a whiff of understanding that I’m not at his/her level of understanding—or that I’m not using the proper vernacular then one either doesn't get a reply or alternatively only a short nonchalant one that doesn't answer my question. This isn’t always the case but it often is—in my example the reply may be along the lines 'you’d better get a better understanding of potentials before you tackle that problem.'
In the reverse situation when I’m providing an explanation then I’ll often go to considerable lengths to provide a simple explanation but this is not easy as it takes considerable time (especially so if the reply is comparatively short, succinct AND easy to understand). I don’t often succeed and as a result my comments are often too long, tedious and boring thus few people bother to read them. Essentially, one needs to learn how to best answer questions where there's no really good, simple or obvious analogy and I, like many others, don't claim great expertise in doing so.
This poor communication amongst technical processionals is a serious problem. One only has to take a glance at the scientific and technical literature to see the problem. Frankly, I’ve often seen papers on topics that I’m competent in that I struggle to read as the language is so strained and obtuse, it’s as if the writers are deliberately going out of their way to sound erudite—but in reality what they’ve written is essentially gobbledygook until the paper has been read and reread multiple times over. This should not be necessary.
Moreover, the same problem arises when it comes to math equations. Often there’s an assumption that readers are fully cognizant with the mathematical treatment of the subject and thus writers often leave out intermediate stages that would make the understanding easier or they don’t provide proper explanations and or legends where the symbols are adequately defined, and so on. Again, this smacks of trying to prove how smart they are, but in the end it doesn't do justice to their cause.
It seems to me the only way around this problem is to include some communications training in their courses. Incidentally, I don’t think the ‘math problem’ is quite as bad as Hossenfelder makes out (although it is a problem). Most people who are going to ask physicists questions on advanced topics actually do have a reasonable amount of math training behind them, so physicists need to keep the math simple as is possible and spend a little time leading questioners through the tricky bits.
On the whole I think Sabine Hossenfelder does a truly excellent job at explaining physics (from my experience of watching her on YouTube), especially so given that she’s doing so in her second language English (if my German were as good as her excellent English then I’d be very pleased). If I have any criticism of her talks then it’s that she pitches her topics lower than I’d like, similarly she uses almost no math in her explanations (but then, I can’t complain, she’s primarily not aiming her talks at people like me).
I’m not a physicist although I’ve had training in the subject and I’m inclined to agree with you. It seems to me there are at least three issues here; the first is many physicists just aren’t good at drawing analogies or describing what they’re trying to explain; few, say, have Feynman's talent. The second is they aren’t good at pitching their explanation at the right level (to the recipient’s level of knowledge)—they don’t judge the recipient’s level of knowledge well before they answer. And third is that they’ve a level of impatience when it comes to such explanations—that is they’re out of their comfort zone in that they cannot use their usual jargon as they would do with other physicists who talk at their level. (I've seen comments to the effect that 'that cannot be explained, you just have to believe the math' — then they don't bother to actually provide the equation or its reference because it's a text-based web page (not that dissimilar to the explanation of the eqn in the video.)
However, it’s not fair to single out physicists alone, this problem often occurs when there’s a disparity of understanding between professionals and others.
For example, I’ve experienced the problem here on HN in both directions (that is when I’m replying to a post where I have greater knowledge than the recipient and vice versa). Let’s say we have a physics topic that’s somewhat tricky to explain such as the Aharonov–Bohm effect and I ask a professional physicist who works in the area a general question that to me may be a complex matter but which is a trite one for him/her then the moment he/she gets a whiff of understanding that I’m not at his/her level of understanding—or that I’m not using the proper vernacular then one either doesn't get a reply or alternatively only a short nonchalant one that doesn't answer my question. This isn’t always the case but it often is—in my example the reply may be along the lines 'you’d better get a better understanding of potentials before you tackle that problem.'
In the reverse situation when I’m providing an explanation then I’ll often go to considerable lengths to provide a simple explanation but this is not easy as it takes considerable time (especially so if the reply is comparatively short, succinct AND easy to understand). I don’t often succeed and as a result my comments are often too long, tedious and boring thus few people bother to read them. Essentially, one needs to learn how to best answer questions where there's no really good, simple or obvious analogy and I, like many others, don't claim great expertise in doing so.
This poor communication amongst technical processionals is a serious problem. One only has to take a glance at the scientific and technical literature to see the problem. Frankly, I’ve often seen papers on topics that I’m competent in that I struggle to read as the language is so strained and obtuse, it’s as if the writers are deliberately going out of their way to sound erudite—but in reality what they’ve written is essentially gobbledygook until the paper has been read and reread multiple times over. This should not be necessary.
Moreover, the same problem arises when it comes to math equations. Often there’s an assumption that readers are fully cognizant with the mathematical treatment of the subject and thus writers often leave out intermediate stages that would make the understanding easier or they don’t provide proper explanations and or legends where the symbols are adequately defined, and so on. Again, this smacks of trying to prove how smart they are, but in the end it doesn't do justice to their cause.
It seems to me the only way around this problem is to include some communications training in their courses. Incidentally, I don’t think the ‘math problem’ is quite as bad as Hossenfelder makes out (although it is a problem). Most people who are going to ask physicists questions on advanced topics actually do have a reasonable amount of math training behind them, so physicists need to keep the math simple as is possible and spend a little time leading questioners through the tricky bits.
On the whole I think Sabine Hossenfelder does a truly excellent job at explaining physics (from my experience of watching her on YouTube), especially so given that she’s doing so in her second language English (if my German were as good as her excellent English then I’d be very pleased). If I have any criticism of her talks then it’s that she pitches her topics lower than I’d like, similarly she uses almost no math in her explanations (but then, I can’t complain, she’s primarily not aiming her talks at people like me).