3 ms·
Actually yes, that's how nature "works", at certains scales and regimes of applicability. Likewise quantum mechanics also tells us something fundamental about h
by andrepd 6y ago
Actually yes, that's how nature "works", at certains scales and regimes of applicability. Likewise quantum mechanics also tells us something fundamental about how nature works, again at certain regimes of applicability. It's still not a theory of everything, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
- GoblinSlayer 6y agoWhat scale? Quantum mechanics has no limit on scale, e.g. delayed choice experiment has galactic scale.
- andrepd 6y agoIt certainly has. It's no theory of everything, therefore it has limits. For example not explaining gravity.
- mqrs 6y agoNewtonian physics is only coincidentally correct. It’s not “wrong” in the sense that the math isn’t sound or that experiments aren’t reproducible within earth, but it’s not the correct model for what really happens in physical phenomenon regardless of scale.
- andrepd 6y agoWhat? It's not "coincidentally" correct, and yes, it absolutely is a correct model for phenomena at a certain scale (in fact, for the vast majority of phenomena in engineering disciplines for instance).
- mqrs 6y agoIt's really not a correct model even at the scale of the phenomena for which it is correct, that's why it can't explain what's beyond its scale, nor can anyone draw a line to clearly define the boundaries of the scale in which it is correct. I'm afraid I don't have a more profound argument than that. The math of Newtonian physics merely coincides with what's actually going on in reality, but what's actually going on in reality is as explained by Einsteinian physics. We're only keeping Newtonian physics around because it's close enough as an approximation of natural phenomenon and therefore it is pragmatic, but pragmatic does not mean correct and it remains an estimation nonetheless. It's not the correct model of what's actually going on.