Jump to content

QM-relativity-Classical?


aguy2
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.