As someone familiar with electrical impedance, I don't like this article. It's trying too hard to sound smart.

fps-hero an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I just find this an interesting comment. Having an electrical engineers education, there is this interesting repetition of formula which is unmistakable.

First you learn the physical equations, mostly applied to sound interestingly. Then at some point you learn about transmission line theory and maximum power transfer theory. Lastly, you get introduced to Maxwells equations, and how they produce the phenomena you’ve been learning about for years.

Unfortunately that is where my learning stopped, and I never got an answer to how quantum theory resolves with Maxwells equations, and how it interacts with standard model and special/general relativity.

Honestly I’d love an explanation of the standard model that wasn’t covered with mystery and math. It makes the idea of understanding particle physics impossible.

	▲	azath92 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Unfortunately, in my experience the more advanced/nuanced/complete of an explanation of physical phenomenon you want, the more math heavy and abstract the "real answer" becomes. Quantum Electrodynamics is some beefy stuff, the math is gnarly, and it is built on an increasing pyramid of mathematical reasoning and intuition as well as the steps of physical reasoning and intuition that you mention. Remembering my graduate physics days im astounded that i was able to understand it, and am unable to really follow it now, as that higher math has gotten preeeety rusty. Feynman diagrams are the attempt to loop back around and represent this field without all the math, but my experience was you have to have done the math first otherwise they are just so much arcane heiroglyphs. the wikipedia illustrates this well, where you can see a relatively clear diagram and corresponding equation, but i recall whole pages of a notebook to get one _line_ of an equation down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#Feynma... I say all of this not to suggest a clear explanation is impossible, but it sure wouldn't be easy. Love to see it though.

▲

1970-01-01 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's just the transformer example does not sit correctly inside the EE domain definition of impede. Once you understand that word is not locked up to the EE domain, everything is fine (except in the EE world of course).

	▲	knollimar 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The first three examples they use are filters. The abstraction of impedance matching should be to "tune things to make them more efficient in their usability". Their examples don't sit with impedance matching to me. They're all conversions or filters. The first thing was either not usable or they purely chopped off a part, not pointed it in the right direction. In fact, the examples more or less all sit in a group in which impedance matching does not belong Edit: the car transmission I'll give since there's a power vs speed decision that needs to be coupled

▲

rvz 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Just read this article as well and thought the same. Quite a bit disappointed.