4 ms·

> > Maybe we should categorize sciences based on the spatial scale at which they operate. > That would not be very useful, because there is no boundary. Nothin

> > Maybe we should categorize sciences based on the spatial scale at which they operate. > That would not be very useful, because there is no boundary. Nothing in general relativity says "below this everything is Newtonian". As a matter of fact we need to consider relativistic effects in quantum chemistry calculations that involve some heavy elements, at length scales smaller than 0.1 nm. Similarly, they just gave a Nobel prize for work on "Quantum properties on a human scale". You are just saying "well ackshually". I dare you to build a cabinet using the Hamiltonian. I double-dog-dare you. > > For example, quantum scale, human scale and cosmic scales have their own physics, logic and causality. > That is not at all how these frameworks are built, and that is not the dominant epistemological approach. Again, 99.999% of all functional mechanics don't involve epistemology. > The mainstream view is that there is a theory of everything that exists but is unknown to us, and that our various theories are approximations of that theory under different assumptions. Oh! You're so close to seeing the point... There are multiple levels of approximation (at least two), and the one we all experience is Newtonian. Perhaps more accurately, our senses mostly believe pre-Newtonion approximations, which is why it took until Newton to realize how inaccurate they were. > Also, I don’t see how the logic is fundamentally different between e.g. quantum mechanics and general relativity. You're pretty radically moving the goalposts here. GP was talking about Newtonian mechanics, not Hamiltonian.

simiones 1y ago
> You are just saying "well ackshually". I dare you to build a cabinet using the Hamiltonian. I double-dog-dare you. The Hamiltoninan (and Lagrangian) are much more amenable to actual physical calculations, at least on a computer, than the Newtonian formulations of classical mechanics - but otherwise they are perfectly equivalent mathematically. I'm not sure where you'd need any kind of dynamical laws in the building of a cabinet, on the other hand. Are you trying to arrange for a system of inclined planes and pullies to slot the pieces into place? > Perhaps more accurately, our senses mostly believe pre-Newtonion approximations, which is why it took until Newton to realize how inaccurate they were. This is a bit of misnomer. Our senses and intuitions are in fact remarkably accurate for a certain range of values, and quite equivalent to what Newton's laws of motion say about these. To some extent, Newton "only" found a simple formalism to represent our existing intuitions. Our intuitions of course break down in other places, such as at very high speeds, or very high altitudes , where relativistic corrections start to become significant. QM however is a paradigm shift in how the world is described, and it is completely non-intuitive, even in regimes where its predictions are fully aligned with our intuitions and senses. You can use QM to compute the collision of two ideal balls on an ideal plane, and the results will exactly match your intuitions. But the computation and even the representation of the system will not, in any way.
kergonath 1y ago
> You are just saying "well ackshually". I dare you to build a cabinet using the Hamiltonian. I double-dog-dare you. We do that every day using things like finite elements. It’s just a different Hamiltonian that accounts for the fact that we simplify bunches of atoms into a continuum. > Again, 99.999% of all functional mechanics don't involve epistemology. Discussing the nature of scientific theories is epistemology. The parent’s point is epistemological in nature. > ! You're so close to seeing the point... There are multiple levels of approximation (at least two), and the one we all experience is Newtonian. You are off base. There are many, many approximations that may or may not overlap. It’s not just onion layers. > You're pretty radically moving the goalposts here. GP was talking about Newtonian mechanics, not Hamiltonian. GP was talking about different theories applying at different scales. Sorry, it may not have been clear in context but Hamiltonian here is not just the generalisation of Newtonian mechanics we learn about in 2nd year Physics. these theories (quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, and relativity) can be written using the Hamiltonian formalism.
BigTTYGothGF 1y ago
> the one we all experience is Newtonian The one we all experience is Aristotelian.

simiones 1y ago

> You are just saying "well ackshually". I dare you to build a cabinet using the Hamiltonian. I double-dog-dare you. The Hamiltoninan (and Lagrangian) are much more amenable to actual physical calculations, at least on a computer, than the Newtonian formulations of classical mechanics - but otherwise they are perfectly equivalent mathematically. I'm not sure where you'd need any kind of dynamical laws in the building of a cabinet, on the other hand. Are you trying to arrange for a system of inclined planes and pullies to slot the pieces into place? > Perhaps more accurately, our senses mostly believe pre-Newtonion approximations, which is why it took until Newton to realize how inaccurate they were. This is a bit of misnomer. Our senses and intuitions are in fact remarkably accurate for a certain range of values, and quite equivalent to what Newton's laws of motion say about these. To some extent, Newton "only" found a simple formalism to represent our existing intuitions. Our intuitions of course break down in other places, such as at very high speeds, or very high altitudes , where relativistic corrections start to become significant. QM however is a paradigm shift in how the world is described, and it is completely non-intuitive, even in regimes where its predictions are fully aligned with our intuitions and senses. You can use QM to compute the collision of two ideal balls on an ideal plane, and the results will exactly match your intuitions. But the computation and even the representation of the system will not, in any way.

kergonath 1y ago

> You are just saying "well ackshually". I dare you to build a cabinet using the Hamiltonian. I double-dog-dare you. We do that every day using things like finite elements. It’s just a different Hamiltonian that accounts for the fact that we simplify bunches of atoms into a continuum. > Again, 99.999% of all functional mechanics don't involve epistemology. Discussing the nature of scientific theories is epistemology. The parent’s point is epistemological in nature. > ! You're so close to seeing the point... There are multiple levels of approximation (at least two), and the one we all experience is Newtonian. You are off base. There are many, many approximations that may or may not overlap. It’s not just onion layers. > You're pretty radically moving the goalposts here. GP was talking about Newtonian mechanics, not Hamiltonian. GP was talking about different theories applying at different scales. Sorry, it may not have been clear in context but Hamiltonian here is not just the generalisation of Newtonian mechanics we learn about in 2nd year Physics. these theories (quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, and relativity) can be written using the Hamiltonian formalism.

BigTTYGothGF 1y ago

> the one we all experience is Newtonian The one we all experience is Aristotelian.