[Herring]

Yeah honest, and he could also be wrong. What's wrong with a wave picture like disturbances in the air or water? It's not perfect, not by a long shot, but all you need is something useful.

To an extent I agree with the blog author when he says these analogies tend to 'supplant reality.' Of course their entire aim is "to pretend that science is not mysterious". Math is the only language for understanding these concepts but relating them to the human experience helps (many people, probably most) in understanding. It's not our fault that he's never studied physics & prefers to read the cliffsnotes versions.

[khafra]

In the book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman," he talks about needing a concrete example of any abstract system he was taking a new look at; this would help him intuit problems or inconsistencies faster than he could work them out precisely on paper.

I think this kind of concrete example is qualitatively different from an analogy or other way of visualizing the full system. The former helps more in specific circumstances, while the latter gives a warm, happy, and likely incorrect feeling of understanding.

[william-newman]

I think the EM field properties are somewhat peculiar even before you get to experimental results that force you to quantize the field. Granted, the EM field is not so weird that understanding the general properties of more tangible waves isn't helpful. E.g., I learned a lot from the ripple tank experiments and demonstrations in my high school physics classes, demonstrating properties like diffraction and the tendency not to scatter from too-small obstacles. That kind of stuff applies nicely to EM waves. But that general familiarity with waviness didn't prepare me for things like relativistic invariance. And historically, I'm in good company there: various sharp 19th century physicists were misled about EM by pursuing the analogy with the more tangible waves they were familiar with.