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.
All three examples you gave have problems or inconsistencies and this is why they are not used. You are being downvoted because you are suggesting teaching formalisms that are known to be insufficient simply because they fulfill your personal criteria of intuitiveness.
We have no perfect theory to explain everything, so it's just tradeoff, exchange of one set of inconsistencies for another set of inconsistencies, but with better intuition. I'm doing it here, in my country.
The problem with current theories is that I understand them when I reading them. It's like piece of complex code or book with complex but boring text, like phonebook. I can follow it, when I read it, but I cannot reproduce it when book is closed.
Can we teach a phonebook to kids? Yep. Is it useful? Nope.
Recently, I did "quantum physics in one picture" experiment. Results are very good: lots of reposts, comments, interest in topic.
But it is not a tradeoff in the cases you picked, rather one set of formalisms has drastically more inconsistencies than the other. E.g. pilot waves: you gain having real numbers (which I personally see little value in) and you gain having a more mechanistic intuitive source of the interference (which is indeed interesting). However describing multiple interacting entangled particles becomes incredibly difficult, describing annihilation and second quantization which is needed for the quantum behavior of fields is not completely done yet, and (what I consider the most substantial problem) you can not work with finite level systems (i.e. anything but a spinless particle in a box is very difficult to describe by pilot wave theory).
In short, pilot waves were a worthwhile avenue of research, but we have seen they are incredibly cumbersome or even insufficient in many quantum mechanics problems.
Yep. Pilot Wave theory is underdeveloped theory, but it helps to develop intuition. Walking droplets are even better for that. IMHO, it's better to use QM to solve QM problems in science, but use walking droplets and Pilot Wave Theory to develop intuition for others. Walking droplets are easy to demonstrate. Double slit experiment can be reproduced in school lab. This way, quantum physics can be taught in school for children of age 12+, so they will be ready to solve much more complex problems when they will be PhD.
Entanglement is hard problem for PWT. Photos of entangled photons[0] are intriguing, because they look similar to behavior of walking droplets in some experiments (see dotwave.org feed). I hope, someone will be able to reproduce entanglement in macro. Currently, my top priority is to reproduce Stern–Gerlach experiment in macro (I suspect that interference between external field and particle wave creates channel, which guides particle into spot, but it better to see it once). Second priority is creation of "photons" in macro. Entanglement will be third. IMHO, all of them require microgravity to reproduce in 3D.
With some caveats, I happily agree with the angle from this last comment! I agree PWT is a great way to get people hooked on quantum science, even if I consider it as a dead end for fixing the inconsistencies we have (semi-personal semi-professional opinion).
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.
Electromagnetism is a U(1) gauge theory. If you take the accompanying classical geometry at face value, there's hidden state at each point in space, like some sort of dial. The absolute position of the dial is irrelevant, but the gauge potential tells you how the dial turns as you move from place to place. The electromagnetic field strength is something called curvature of the corresponding 'connection'. The mathematics are a bit involved, but morally speaking, I would say it tells you how the turning of the dial varies across space.
So, EM field describes strength of EM force in every point of mathematical model. Nature of EM force is unknown. Right?
Let's talk about nature of EM force.
Analogy: look at a typical tropical cyclone. It rotates. Is it rotating because a unknown property of an air molecule? No. It rotates because our planet rotates, while air molecules are just trying to keep their positions. I.e. it's rotation of planet + inertia of molecules.
Is it possible that EM force is happens because our local space is moving trough global space by non-linear trajectory, so it just non-linear trajectory of local space + inertia of rotating and vibrating particles?
My point exactly - fields are real, they are not merely mathematical models. (It's just that some words acquire a more precise meaning, being formalized as part of a model, and while it's true that models may contain an additional "scaffolding" that has no analogue in reality, field is not one of those.)
Field is mathematical abstraction, used in mathematical model, to represent a physical thing.
Physical things are real. Mathematical abstractions are not. OpenGL is not real too, but it looks very real and accurately predicts reality. In OpenGL, field is array, e.g. "float[][][] field;".
I’m literally describing creating more flow lines which would cause an exponential growth in acceleration measured without really exceeding certain values.
Don’t understand the downvoted when I asked for more information and said my maths are probably wrong.
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.