3 ms·

Standard physics isn't really up for question. Newtons Laws still apply in the general case. My teachers never pretended that quantum physics was a fully under

Standard physics isn't really up for question. Newtons Laws still apply in the general case. My teachers never pretended that quantum physics was a fully understood, concrete field. A lot of what they said was prefixed with "we don't really know if this is how it works, but this is the model".

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Newtons Laws still apply in the general case. No, they apply (or, rather, are reasonable approximations) in the specific case of objects that aren't too small, and that don't move too fast relative to each other, etc. That is, the common case, but not the general one.
- dbasedweeb 9y ago
  That sounds good, and is true, but comes with blistering caveats. First, the general case as he puts it, covers every macroscopic objects on and including Earth. It also covers microscopic objects until you reach particles, again on Earth, because of the energy scales involved. Everything from molecules to mammoths fit into this general case. If you charitably interpret “standard physics” [1] to include Relativistic and Quantum physics, then you cover everything in the universe that isn’t a black hole or less than or equal to 1.6x10^-45 meters, or at energies associated with the Planck epoch of the Big Bang. We’re talking about archaeology, which is notably unconcerned with black holes or anything with a detectable de Broglie wavelength. I think that if were not going to be pedantic, and accept that we’re talking about physics as applied to Classical objects like finger bones, he’s right and there is little debate to be had. It we want to be a little pedantic we can say that QM is just about the best tested theory ever, and the rounding error left to quibble over isn’t a factor here. If we want to be super pedantic we can point out that the “common” case on the scale of the universe is ultimately quantum-gravitational and therefore subject to physics that is not understood. Of course that majority is at distance scales we can’t access, or at energies or seem since the first second after the Big Bang. In that very very pedantic case you’re just as wrong as he is, but I think you’d rightly argue that it’s a pointless distinction in context. I’d agree with you. [1] Standard physics isn't really up for question. Newtons Laws still apply in the general case.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    The subject of, say, radio-isotopic dating in archaeology isn't a matter of classical effects on large objects. We're taking about sub-atomic effects over a period from many-generations up to geological time.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
You don't ascribe to Popperian/falsification science? What is your model - AFAIAA it wouldn't be regarded as science by almost all scientists currently working (according to studies on philosophy of science held by currently working scientists). All science is up for question, stuff that isn't questionable isn't science. What you state reminds me of the scientists in the 1900s saying all science had been discovered.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  We already know that Newtonian physics is wrong. It's just less wrong than its precursors. If you haven't already, you should read Asimov's essay: The Relativity of Wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm)

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Newtons Laws still apply in the general case. No, they apply (or, rather, are reasonable approximations) in the specific case of objects that aren't too small, and that don't move too fast relative to each other, etc. That is, the common case, but not the general one.

dbasedweeb 9y ago
That sounds good, and is true, but comes with blistering caveats. First, the general case as he puts it, covers every macroscopic objects on and including Earth. It also covers microscopic objects until you reach particles, again on Earth, because of the energy scales involved. Everything from molecules to mammoths fit into this general case. If you charitably interpret “standard physics” [1] to include Relativistic and Quantum physics, then you cover everything in the universe that isn’t a black hole or less than or equal to 1.6x10^-45 meters, or at energies associated with the Planck epoch of the Big Bang. We’re talking about archaeology, which is notably unconcerned with black holes or anything with a detectable de Broglie wavelength. I think that if were not going to be pedantic, and accept that we’re talking about physics as applied to Classical objects like finger bones, he’s right and there is little debate to be had. It we want to be a little pedantic we can say that QM is just about the best tested theory ever, and the rounding error left to quibble over isn’t a factor here. If we want to be super pedantic we can point out that the “common” case on the scale of the universe is ultimately quantum-gravitational and therefore subject to physics that is not understood. Of course that majority is at distance scales we can’t access, or at energies or seem since the first second after the Big Bang. In that very very pedantic case you’re just as wrong as he is, but I think you’d rightly argue that it’s a pointless distinction in context. I’d agree with you. [1] Standard physics isn't really up for question. Newtons Laws still apply in the general case.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  The subject of, say, radio-isotopic dating in archaeology isn't a matter of classical effects on large objects. We're taking about sub-atomic effects over a period from many-generations up to geological time.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

You don't ascribe to Popperian/falsification science? What is your model - AFAIAA it wouldn't be regarded as science by almost all scientists currently working (according to studies on philosophy of science held by currently working scientists). All science is up for question, stuff that isn't questionable isn't science. What you state reminds me of the scientists in the 1900s saying all science had been discovered.

toomanybeersies 9y ago
We already know that Newtonian physics is wrong. It's just less wrong than its precursors. If you haven't already, you should read Asimov's essay: The Relativity of Wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm)