Whizzing Through Wormholes (Ep. 2)
Travelling to the other end of the universe—with the help of analogies
Bear with me for a paragraph or two.
The existence of wormholes is possible based on the general theory of relativity. Wormholes are tunnels in the fabric of the four-dimensional space-time continuum that connect different points in space and time. They would enable very rapid travel across distant parts of the universe.
Now, let's add a bit more to that explanation.
Let's imagine a sheet of paper. The surface of the paper represents the universe. To travel from one part of the universe to another, you'd need to move on the paper's surface. But now, imagine that you loosely fold the paper. You pierce a hole through the two paper layers. This hole connects two parts of the paper's surface. You can now get from one part of the paper to the other by going through this hole instead of crossing the entire paper's surface.
Analogies • Many technical concepts are difficult to imagine and visualise. In the first paragraph about wormholes, you're dealing with four-dimensional space-time. This makes it hard to picture.
In technical subjects, many abstract concepts are just as hard to imagine. We try to understand and follow the definitions and detail. But this is equivalent to moving around a room with your eyes closed. You're missing one of the senses.
This is where analogies help, like the sheet of paper analogy for wormholes described in the second paragraph above.
I often classify my narration efforts when writing technical articles into three categories. The first of these is "narration through analogies" †. Analogies are one of the most powerful tools to help explain abstract concepts. But they're just as important as an aid to recall the information in the future.
† The other two are "narration through story-framing" and "narration through technical detail". I'll talk about all three often in Breaking the Rules.
Seeing the analogy • A good analogy helps the reader visualise the abstract concepts, how these concepts behave, and how they interact with each other. It's not easy to understand what a "tunnel in the fabric of the four-dimensional space-time continuum" is. But we can all imagine a hole in a folded sheet of paper. It's the equivalent of "opening your eyes" when making your way across a room. It's not just that you have more information. It's a different kind of information—more visual.
The visual aspect is important. You can show an image of the analogy in your article. But I prefer not to do so. Instead, I describe the analogy clearly and in sufficient detail and let the reader create their own mental image of the analogy. The reader needs to process what they read and construct the mental image. A ready-made image may shortcut some of these learning processes.
As the cliché goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words". But I like to break the rules, as you may know. So I will claim that "a picture that you create yourself, in your head, is worth a thousand pictures."
[Note to self: look for any research about visual cortex activity when we see images compared to when we imagine them, and how this links to understanding and recall of information.]
Good analogies are good. But there are bad analogies, too. It's not easy to come up with a good analogy since there are strict requirements to adhere to. The analogy must represent an everyday object or situation that most of your audience knows well. Otherwise, you're replacing a concept that's hard to understand with another scenario that's equally difficult to visualise. You also need a good correspondence between the analogy and the abstract concept you wish to represent. A poorly crafted analogy can do more harm than good.
I've got plenty of examples of bad analogies—mostly ones I came up with myself on the way to finding good ones! I'll write about these soon. But I want to focus on a good-analogy example for the rest of this post.
Variables and boxes • I'll take an example from computer programming, which is what most of my own technical articles are about. A fundamental concept that many beginners find challenging is the idea of a variable. A variable references some information in a computer program. For example:
the_substack = "Breaking the Rules"The variable the_substack is a reference to the group of words "Breaking the Rules". Why do we need another name for "Breaking the Rules"? Can't we just use the words "Breaking the Rules" whenever we need them? There's a good reason why we need variables, but these are the sort of questions that can confuse a beginner.
I can tell you, as I did earlier, that a variable is a reference for some information in your computer program. And that may make sense. Or it may not.
But now, I want you the picture the following. Imagine a small cardboard box. You can place a sheet of paper with the words "Breaking the Rules" inside the box. You also stick a label on the box's exterior and write the_substack on it. You place the box on a shelf with the label facing outwards. Now, when someone uses the name the_substack, you can fetch the box with that label and get what's inside the box. In this example, the words "Breaking the Rules" are in the box.
The concept of a labelled box on a shelf with something inside is an image that's familiar to everyone. This analogy works well because it meets the two criteria:
It describes an everyday scenario that everyone understands without too much mental effort.
There's a great fit between the components of the analogy and the concepts it represents:
The role of the variable name as a reference is associated with the role of the label on the box.
A box is something we use to store things. This is a close match to the role of a variable in a program.
The information we need access to in the program is akin to the contents of the box.
Both criteria are essential when crafting an analogy.
Afterword • Breaking the Rules exists to allow me to verbalise my thoughts about narrative technical writing. The act of writing these short posts is a key step to help me organise my ideas and think about them more explicitly than I otherwise would.
But I hope it's a place to have conversations with others interested in this topic. So, I'm opening the Chat area on Substack for Breaking the Rules, where I hope you can tell me where you disagree with me. Or perhaps, where you agree, too!
If you've read anything I've written, you know I love a good analogy! But I really appreciate this: " describe the analogy clearly and in sufficient detail and let the reader create their own mental image of the analogy. The reader needs to process what they read and construct the mental image. A ready-made image may shortcut some of these learning processes."
I also recall the first time I heard the wormhole/paper fold analogy. I knew right away that it wasn't exactly right, but it made wrapping my mind around the concept much easier, and allowed for much more nuanced understanding to develop over time.
As you can guess, I’ll be writing again about analogies on this substack! The concept that analogies are never perfect and will “break” at some point if you dive too deep is one I’ll explore further.