Newtonian Mecahnics work in the microscopic world as well as with high speeds.

Proton Head · November 14, 2004

Newtonian mechanics are perfectly applicable in relativistic and quantum worlds.

The only problems are that the quantities with which we define the state of matter constantly change as speed increases. This however in no way undermines Newtonian Mechanics - at every instant they work just fine, its just the quantities that have changed.

In the microscopic scale the only problem arises from the fact, that with Newtonian mechanics we are defining an arbitrary geometric shape from the continous universe and assigning it with strict quantities. This doesn't work in the microscopic world however as objects are not defined enough to be forced into strict geometric shapes. That is the sole reason why we are forced to use wave models and probability calculations. In other words the geometric object we defined at one point might at another point have dispersed, and its quantities changed at every instant.

The wave equations and probability equations are just a mathematical trick through which we handle the fact that the particles we have defined do not actually exist. The exact place and momentum of the electron cannot be defined due to the fact that there is no such particle as the electron. It is just something pulled together to easily define laws of physics, as we humans try to group things in our minds.

However Newtonian mechanics would work in the quantum world if we divided space into infinitesimally small points and defined quantities for each one.

The only problem is that there is no way to obtain physical data from such points.

So the conlusion has to be that the need of probability calculations and matter/wave dualism is just a consequence of the fact that our atomic/wave view of the world is flawed, a conspiracy to allow people preach metaphysical crap.

Atoms, Particles and waves are just imaginary objects, something defined from a world which cannot be defined. However in reality the world is really deterministic.

Get it?

[Tycho?] · November 17, 2004

Right, Newtonian mechanics work at relativistic speeds, except the quantities are always changing. So, it doesn't work, which is why we have relativity.

So the conlusion has to be that the need of probability calculations and matter/wave dualism is just a consequence of the fact that our atomic/wave view of the world is flawed, a conspiracy to allow people preach metaphysical crap.

I think a better conclusion would be that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Tycho?] · November 17, 2004

Right, Newtonian mechanics work at relativistic speeds, except the quantities are always changing. So, it doesn't work, which is why we have relativity.

So the conlusion has to be that the need of probability calculations and matter/wave dualism is just a consequence of the fact that our atomic/wave view of the world is flawed, a conspiracy to allow people preach metaphysical crap.

I think a better conclusion would be that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Proton Head · November 17, 2004

'']Right, Newtonian mechanics work at relativistic speeds, except the quantities are always changing. So, it doesn't work, which is why we have relativity.

Wrong. It works. Newtonian mechanics tells us how points with certain mathematical values behave in space. As even at high speeds the particles follow the exact same laws then it works. It's just us calculators who are defining wrong mathematical values to the particles, so we are not following the principles of Newtonian mechanics.

To make it clearer I have to add that I wasn't commenting on the usefulness of relativity, I'm just tired of how people view it as something grand.

'']I think a better conclusion would be that you have no idea what you are talking about.

That's a good conclusion. However if you arrive at such a conclusion that someone is wrong, then you by definition should know what's right, which I doubt you do since all you can say is that others are wrong.

All in all I think you misunderstood my point which was that I am tired of people drawing non-physical meanings out of the predicments of quantum mechanics, such as: The world is nondeterministic!...

...As these are only the result of a flawed view of the world, which arises from the fact that we have to divide the continuous world into imaginary parts and interact with them, in order to receive information out of it.

Proton Head · November 17, 2004

'']Right, Newtonian mechanics work at relativistic speeds, except the quantities are always changing. So, it doesn't work, which is why we have relativity.

Wrong. It works. Newtonian mechanics tells us how points with certain mathematical values behave in space. As even at high speeds the particles follow the exact same laws then it works. It's just us calculators who are defining wrong mathematical values to the particles, so we are not following the principles of Newtonian mechanics.

To make it clearer I have to add that I wasn't commenting on the usefulness of relativity, I'm just tired of how people view it as something grand.

'']I think a better conclusion would be that you have no idea what you are talking about.

That's a good conclusion. However if you arrive at such a conclusion that someone is wrong, then you by definition should know what's right, which I doubt you do since all you can say is that others are wrong.

All in all I think you misunderstood my point which was that I am tired of people drawing non-physical meanings out of the predicments of quantum mechanics, such as: The world is nondeterministic!...

...As these are only the result of a flawed view of the world, which arises from the fact that we have to divide the continuous world into imaginary parts and interact with them, in order to receive information out of it.

Sayonara · November 17, 2004

However if you arrive at such a conclusion that someone is wrong, then you by definition should know what's right

I know this is nothing to do with the thread as such, but the above simply does not follow.

Sayonara · November 17, 2004

However if you arrive at such a conclusion that someone is wrong, then you by definition should know what's right

I know this is nothing to do with the thread as such, but the above simply does not follow.

1veedo · November 17, 2004

There is a new model for Newtonian Mechanics. I'm not sure of the details but they added some variables, one new equation, and revised older equations. Something to do with relating all the equations to a function...I don’t remember.

The guys working on this theory claim that when applied to the standard big bang model, it eliminates the need for the unknown dark matter and, ironically, eliminates the need for left over energy from 0 state fluctuations.

I don’t know how well the theory works with the small though. And I wish I could remember the name of it too. It was like Revised New State Newtonian Mechanics or something. I’ll look it up later and feed some links from another hard drive after I get it installed.

1veedo · November 17, 2004

There is a new model for Newtonian Mechanics. I'm not sure of the details but they added some variables, one new equation, and revised older equations. Something to do with relating all the equations to a function...I don’t remember.

The guys working on this theory claim that when applied to the standard big bang model, it eliminates the need for the unknown dark matter and, ironically, eliminates the need for left over energy from 0 state fluctuations.

I don’t know how well the theory works with the small though. And I wish I could remember the name of it too. It was like Revised New State Newtonian Mechanics or something. I’ll look it up later and feed some links from another hard drive after I get it installed.

1veedo · November 17, 2004

Aha: [Relativistic] Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). I dotn know much about the theory but here’re some links:

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0204/0204521.pdf

1veedo · November 17, 2004

Aha: [Relativistic] Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). I dotn know much about the theory but here’re some links:

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0204/0204521.pdf

[Tycho?] · November 17, 2004

I know this is nothing to do with the thread as such, but the above simply does not follow.

Yeah. I can say that the statement "the big bang came about because of a large sheep burping" is wrong. This does not mean that I know what caused the big bang.

[Tycho?] · November 17, 2004

I know this is nothing to do with the thread as such, but the above simply does not follow.

Yeah. I can say that the statement "the big bang came about because of a large sheep burping" is wrong. This does not mean that I know what caused the big bang.

1veedo · November 17, 2004

Dont argue about who is right; instead, argue about what is right.

I think a better conclusion would be that you have no idea what you are talking about.

That's not what I call constructive criticism.

1veedo · November 17, 2004

Dont argue about who is right; instead, argue about what is right.

I think a better conclusion would be that you have no idea what you are talking about.

That's not what I call constructive criticism.

[Tycho?] · November 17, 2004

Meh. He said:

"So the conlusion has to be that the need of probability calculations and matter/wave dualism is just a consequence of the fact that our atomic/wave view of the world is flawed, a conspiracy to allow people preach metaphysical crap."

My critisism was not constructive, but then neither was his comment. I have a low tolerance for this sort of thing, sorry.

[Tycho?] · November 17, 2004

Meh. He said:

"So the conlusion has to be that the need of probability calculations and matter/wave dualism is just a consequence of the fact that our atomic/wave view of the world is flawed, a conspiracy to allow people preach metaphysical crap."

My critisism was not constructive, but then neither was his comment. I have a low tolerance for this sort of thing, sorry.

VendingMenace · November 18, 2004

All in all I think you misunderstood my point which was that I am tired of people drawing non-physical meanings out of the predicments of quantum mechanics' date=' such as: The world is nondeterministic!...

...As these are only the result of a flawed view of the world, which arises from the fact that we have to divide the continuous world into imaginary parts and interact with them, in order to receive information out of it.[/quote']

yay! I'll bite. Show me how the world is deterministic. No hand waving about a flawed view. Please support your position.

I think we can all agree to hear this guy's arguments (provided he gives us any). Yeah?

VendingMenace · November 18, 2004

All in all I think you misunderstood my point which was that I am tired of people drawing non-physical meanings out of the predicments of quantum mechanics' date=' such as: The world is nondeterministic!...

...As these are only the result of a flawed view of the world, which arises from the fact that we have to divide the continuous world into imaginary parts and interact with them, in order to receive information out of it.[/quote']

yay! I'll bite. Show me how the world is deterministic. No hand waving about a flawed view. Please support your position.

I think we can all agree to hear this guy's arguments (provided he gives us any). Yeah?

Proton Head · November 18, 2004

yay! I'll bite. Show me how the world is deterministic. No hand waving about a flawed view. Please support your position.

I think we can all agree to hear this guy's arguments (provided he gives us any). Yeah?

I can't show whether or not the world is deterministic, but that's my point, nobody can show it.

What I'm complaining about is that many people nowadays make claims that the world is nondeterministic based on what is derived out of the quantum theory. Let's take the uncertainty principle for example. In reality there is no uncertainty. There is the interaction of the universe. The uncertainty only arises once a third party (humans) tries to make claims about the change in the universe.

Do you realize what physics is about? It's about giving arbitralily divided parts of the universe, measurable by our devices, mathematical quantities whose change follows the rules of mathematics (numbers).

Probability calculation on the other hand is only a trick which is used with large masses of events, to predict the outcome of a situation even when the prerequisites are unknown.

All this quantum quantum is just the outcome of the fact that we have arbitrarily divided the world, something which really cannot be done as is coming clearly evident now that we are trying to define smaller and smaller objects.

Why can't we define the exact place and state of the electron? The answer is quite simple. Because there's no electron. It's a particle we came up with after some observations and now it's in use as it is found helpfull. The universe is continuous.

Even though such methods help advance our capability of building even greater machines, its plain dumb about trying to draw the type of conclusions about it that some people are doing.

Any methods to try and accurately define the universe from the inside will fail, as it's intervening. Inside objects (humans) are forced to use division methods.

In order to make accurate claims, one would have to have as his scientific measurement device another universe, an excact copy of ours, only a small deal ahead of our time. The scientist's equation would have to be the whole universe, not some part of it and a line following rules of number groups.

Proton Head · November 18, 2004