Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/13/05 

Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:43:26 GMT

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:52:40 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>
>
>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.

Quantum mechanics is necessary. Quantum postulates are not a
mechanics.

>> 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

Regards - Lester

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.math)
  • 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.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)