Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 03/13/05 

Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:52:40 -0500

Albert Wagner wrote:

>
> I would also appreciate an agreement on just what QM consists of.

For a brief definition of quantum theory see:

See http://www.answers.com/topic/quantum-theory

> I have noticed that you and others have quietly and surrupticiously
> appropriated much of classical physics into QM and thereby mislead the
> public as to just what QM is.

Do not coflate your confusion and ignorance with being misled. Your
problem is that you do not know too much about physics.

? I suspect that many of the benefits that
> you attribute to QM are in fact more properly attributed to classical
> physics.

You are quite mistaken. Quantum physics is postively necessary to
describe and predict large classes of phenomena.

> And by classical I don't mean something that stopped being
> developed with Newton. By classical physics I mean physics updated with
> all to date experiments,

Classical mechanics cannot account for many phenomena. Kinetic molecular
theory based on classical principles does not predict specific heats of
many substances correctly, for example. Classical radiation theory does
not describe black body radiation. In fact quantum theory started with
Planck's description of black body radiation wherein energy comes in
discrete lumps, rather than in continuous quantities.

but lacking any recourse to quantum mumbo-jumbo

Quatnum mumbo jumbo is how the world works. It is deterministic
mechanics based on the notion of continous energy that is the mumbo
jumbo. Classical machanics fails completely in many areas. It cannot
explan atomic spectra, specific heat or the photoelectric effect (for
example). Classical mechanics also fails for systems particles which
move with speeds nearly the speed of light relative to an inertial frame
of reference.

Classical mechanics started with Newton but did not finish with Newton.
Other formulations were found based on energy rather than force. See
LaGrange, Hamilton, Jacobi for their formulations. The Lagrangian and
Hamiltonian form of mechanics can derive the laws and symmetries by
solving variation problems on special functionals. The Langrangian is
one such example. Please refer to -The Variational Principles of
Mechanics- by Cornelius Lanczos. It is interesting to note that several
of the mathematical structures and techniques originating in the most
general formulation of classical mechanics also show up in quantum
theory. For example Poisonn brackets. For a fine review of how mechanics
developed and generalized you might want to read -Foundations of
Physics- by Lindsay and Morgenau, chapter 3.

> about probability clouds and dead cats.

Sorry about that. The correct laws of physics are probabalistic, not
deterministic. Classical mechanics did not cease to be the fundemental
description of nature because of changing fashions. It ceased because
its predictions were wrong. Classical mechanics has been thoroughly
falsified in many domains of application. There is just no way of making
it work right, even with ad hoc tire patches. Even so, in applications
where velocities are small and the scale of size is large enough
classical mechanics is still quite useful and the mathematics is as good
as it ever was. For example, the physics of laminar and turbulent fluid
flows as found in aerodynamics is classical in its formulation. Also the
physics of elastic continua is classical in its formulation.

Bob Kolker

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... For a brief definition of quantum theory see: ... problem is that you do not know too much about physics. ... Classical mechanics cannot account for many phenomena. ... flows as found in aerodynamics is classical in its formulation. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... For a brief definition of quantum theory see: ... problem is that you do not know too much about physics. ... Classical mechanics cannot account for many phenomena. ... flows as found in aerodynamics is classical in its formulation. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >problem is that you do not know too much about physics. ... Quantum physics is postively necessary to ... >Classical mechanics cannot account for many phenomena. ... >flows as found in aerodynamics is classical in its formulation. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >problem is that you do not know too much about physics. ... Quantum physics is postively necessary to ... >Classical mechanics cannot account for many phenomena. ... >flows as found in aerodynamics is classical in its formulation. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >problem is that you do not know too much about physics. ... Quantum physics is postively necessary to ... >Classical mechanics cannot account for many phenomena. ... >flows as found in aerodynamics is classical in its formulation. ...
    (sci.math)