Things like this in theoretical physics, cosmology, quantum physics, etc. aren't really supposed to "click," are they? My impression is that you just learn the math and the predictions made by the mathematical models, then learn about the observations we've made that fit that model's predictions, and that's really it. "Click" implies to me that you can achieve some sort of "intuitive" grasp of these concepts, perhaps in terms of more familiar everyday phenomena, which from what I've heard isn't the case even for the experts in these fields.
(Theoretical physicist, working in a different area)
"Intuitive" means two different things in this context. One is that, over time, theoreticians certainly gain a lot of intuition about how the relevant math works. That's no substitute for doing the work, but it does cut down on the number of mistakes you make, you often have a decent sense of what's definitely not going to work, etc.
The other meaning is what people usually imply - that some combination of analogies with everyday phenomena finally "clicks" and you "understand" the physics all of a sudden. That's just nonsense. Past the natural limits of our everyday intuitions (which are very narrow indeed, consider how something as trivial as terminal velocity is often unintuitive to students in basic mechanics) physics is applied math, everything else is a crude approximation at best.
Thanks for the insight. I was just going off of what I’ve heard, and it sounds like you mostly agree.
I will say that what can become intuitive to us (in your second sense) can certainly change over time, at least after generations. Netwton’s first law must not have been intuitive, mostly because of the ubiquity of friction in everyday life, but I think it is fairly intuitive now for people with a solid basic science education. Maybe more advanced concepts will get more intuitive over the generations, as science concepts get taught at younger ages.
