I am aware that  our tools to describe and understand the various physical scenarios are models and not to  be substituted (confused with?) what we are imagining them to describe.

 

That said, these models can be separated (perhaps) into macro models (classical) and micro models (quantum mechanics)

 

I understand there is overlap in the models and that  the atomic scenario ,for example  is described with the help of Special Relativity.

 

So ,with those strong caveats ,is there any sense in which we can say that the realities described by the micro models have any sort of hierarchical  precedence over those described by macro models?

 

To get metaphorical (and wishy washy) ,is there something  like an arrow of time that connects the physical "micro realm" and our every day "macro world" ?

 

I was told before that "micro world" and "macro world" are unhelpful descriptions  ,so perhaps that undercuts my  question (which should perhaps really  be in the philosophy forum,I suppose)

This is not central to your point, but would we really describe a logical structure as a hierarchy that only had two levels and two components?

46 minutes ago, Area54 said:

This is not central to your point, but would we really describe a logical structure as a hierarchy that only had two levels and two components?

Yes ,I see that(even in terms of the meaning/usage  of the word ,that is not what a hierarchy is.I am not sure what one might call a hierarchy with just top and bottom.

 

But since quantum and classical  phenomena do interact (occupy the same space in various -even all?- scenarios) then perhaps  my description was not as black and white as I ,probably mistakenly  made it.

 

I have to keep drawing attention to the obvious fact that my understanding of what I am asking about is extremely basic  and pop sci.......

 

I half see where you are heading with your OP. My observation was more one of semantics than science. Hopefully someone with more understanding of this field than you or I will provide an answer.

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

I half see where you are heading with your OP. My observation was more one of semantics than science. Hopefully someone with more understanding of this field than you or I will provide an answer.

Well,to rephrase it  in a practical sense ; when  researchers are trying to formulate a successful theory for quantum gravity  might it be the parts of the theory already "locked up " in quantum theory  that  are more likely to survive than GR?

If quantum theory theory is refined can it perhaps subsume  the  areas of application of GR whilst the  opposite cannot be said?  No matter how far GR is refined it can never perhaps explain phenomena that are now or will later be accounted for by "quantum theories" ? 

 

Is that what you thought I was trying to say?

Yes, that's broadly what I thought you were aiming for. This attempt is clearer.

Like you my (very limited) grasp of quantum theory is based largely on pop science, with a scattering of the real thing from 1st year undergraduate physics and chemistry.

34 minutes ago, geordief said:

Well,to rephrase it  in a practical sense ; when  researchers are trying to formulate a successful theory for quantum gravity  might it be the parts of the theory already "locked up " in quantum theory  that  are more likely to survive than GR?

Any new theory has to be consistent with what's already known. That's what is "locked up". The equations of relativity converge with those of Newtonian physics when you are moving slowly, and gravity is weak. That will have to be true of any quantum theory of gravity. The only new part is for when you are near the Planck scale.

"Reality" plays no part in any of this.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Any new theory has to be consistent with what's already known. That's what is "locked up". The equations of relativity converge with those of Newtonian physics when you are moving slowly, and gravity is weak. That will have to be true of any quantum theory of gravity. The only new part is for when you are near the Planck scale.

"Reality" plays no part in any of this.

I thought I avoided struggling with "Reality" ,although  the title to the OP is very bad ,