3 ms·
It's up to theoretization, feels like classical physics happens due to fermions forming large spatial structures like molecules. It doesn't work as well for bos
by GoblinSlayer 2y ago
It's up to theoretization, feels like classical physics happens due to fermions forming large spatial structures like molecules. It doesn't work as well for bosons: electromagnetic wave is as much as they can muster, and AFAIK it doesn't experience self-decoherence and is just a bunch of photons that happen to fly nearby. So without molecules there would be no classical physics, other things being equal.
>So there is no real conflict between our most immediate perceptions and the theory, because the effects of the theory are just too small for us to perceive.
Roger Penrose couldn't wrap his head around presentistic special relativity, Lorentz synchronism specifically, cf Andromeda paradox.
- tsimionescu 2y agoI don't understand your first paragraph at all, so I can't answer it. For the observation on Roger Penrose, you've missed my point. Sure, the consequences of special relativity are highly unintuitive if you try to think about them. But it doesn't contradict any day to day observations you directly make with your senses: it accurately predicts the exact numbers your intuition (or Newtonian mechanics) would predict for day to day phenomena. The problems only appear for phenomena that you can't observe easily, like spaceships moving at significant fractions of the speed of light. I've never been on one of these, so it's not surprising that it might behave differently to what I would expect. In contrast, the Schrodinger equation predicts that if I throw a ball, it will end up in many different locations at once. This is obviously wrong. So, you need to introduce another postulates (the Born rule, and the concept of a measurement, or at least the concept of an environment) for QM to not be in stark conflict with our day to day experience.