This 'thread starter' should probably be in the 'Speculation Forum', but nonetheless here goes:

 

Just because 'classical mechanics' by-in-large represents the 'earliest' of our competing explainations of the physical world does not necessarily mean that it is the least valid. Might not QM reasonably discribe the world of the very small, classical mechanics the most macro, with relativity occupying a connective position 'relative' to each?

 

aguy2

I thought Relativity was the discussion of Macro, Classical mechanics the micro (relatively), and QM the sub-atomic

I thought Relativity was the discussion of Macro, Classical mechanics the micro (relatively), and QM the sub-atomic

 

The biggest macro structures in the visible universe appear to be interacting groups of galaxtic clusters and their actions might be best explained in 'classical' terms akin to 'turbulence' in an ideal liquid.

 

aguy2

Very generally speaking: Classical is large and slow, QM is small, SR is fast. GR is gravity.

Very generally speaking: Classical is large and slow, QM is small, SR is fast. GR is gravity.

 

Might I say that QM is small/fast and SR relates it to large/slow?

 

aguy2

Might I say that QM is small/fast and SR relates it to large/slow?

 

aguy2

 

 

SR is speed dependent and requires fastness (lorentz transforms all have v/c factors)

 

A fast morving electron will be effected by SR and QM, a "stationary" electron will be effected by QM...

A fast morving electron will be effected by SR and QM' date=' a "stationary" electron will be effected by QM...[/quote']

 

Aren't the QM oscillations(?) of a 'rest state' electron very small, yet very rapid?

 

aguy2

Aren't the QM oscillations(?) of a 'rest state' electron very small' date=' yet very rapid?

 

aguy2[/quote']

 

 

No, not generally. And things like Bose-Einstein condensate are very much a QM phenomenon, and those are at nK temperatures, i.e. very slow.

Just because 'classical mechanics' by-in-large represents the 'earliest' of our competing explainations of the physical world does not necessarily mean that it is the least valid.

 

Who ever said it was the least valid??? Certainly not NASA scientists, who have use Classical mechanics to figure out how to best build space shuttles. It's still, by far, the best theory on large scales... I don't think anyone is denying that.

Who ever said it was the least valid??? Certainly not NASA scientists, who have use Classical mechanics to figure out how to best build space shuttles. It's still, by far, the best theory on large scales... I don't think anyone is denying that.

 

I agree with you. I was speculating that the generalized 'lay' perspective is usually 'newer is better'.

 

aguy2