"Classical Physics Is Wrong" Fallacy - Comments

[Orodruin]

you are defining “classical limit” as meaning “that part of Newton’s theory which is approximately mathematically correct”

The aim of a theory in empirical science is not to be "mathematically correct" and it is unclear what you would even mean by something like that. What matters is if the theory makes correct predictions or not.

Also, "approximately" and "mathematically correct" would typically not be two words that mathematicians would like to string together in a sentence. That 2 = 2.000123 is not approximately mathematically correct, it is wrong.

 

[JohnNemo]

The aim of a theory in empirical science is not to be "mathematically correct" and it is unclear what you would even mean by something like that. What matters is if the theory makes correct predictions or not.
.

Yes, by mathematically correct I meant approximately correct predictions in terms of *measurement*. Not in the sense of getting your sums right!

Measurement is not all of Physics. There are also concepts. Newton’s predictions for the effects of gravity may be approximately correct in terms of measurement in certain circumstances, but GR regards his idea of gravity being a force as incorrect (in all circumstances).

 

[Dale]

Ultimately it is a happenstance.

No, it is not happenstance. It is a necessary condition for future theories to be considered valid. To be valid, both relativity and QM must unavoidably have a Newtonian limit. Not as a matter of coincidence but precisely because Newtonian physics has a large body of experimental validation.

If they did not have a Newtonian limit then they would have been immediately discarded. They would have been falsified by all of the experiments that validate Newtonian physics.

 

[JohnNemo]

No, it is not happenstance. It is a necessary condition for future theories to be considered valid. To be valid, both relativity and QM must unavoidably have a Newtonian limit. Not as a matter of coincidence but precisely because Newtonian physics has a large body of experimental validation.

If they did not have a Newtonian limit then they would have been immediately discarded. They would have been falsified by all of the experiments that validate Newtonian physics.

I think you are unconsciously using (as many people do) the words “Newtonian limit” to mean the whole of Newton’s theories. But it is only a subset of Newton which approximately corresponds to a subset of relativity. The boundary of the subset of Newton’s theory is a happenstance conditioned by the limits of the experimental opportunities he happened to have available to him.

 

[Dale]

I think you are unconsciously using (as many people do) the words “Newtonian limit” to mean the whole of Newton’s theories. But it is only a subset of Newton which approximately corresponds to a subset of relativity.

I am not sure what you mean. In the limit v<<c and weak gravity we recover Newton’s three laws and his law of gravitation. What more is there?

 

[JohnNemo]

I am not sure what you mean. In the limit v<<c and weak gravity we recover Newton’s three laws and his law of gravitation. What more is there?

Newton did not regard his theory as limited to v<<c and did not regard his theory as limited to weak gravity.

I’m just querying your use of the words “Newtonian limit”. This is a modern concept, not one that Newton recognised.

I think a lot of the controversy about whether Classical physics is “wrong” is caused by different people using the same words with different meanings.

One group means by Classical Physics “that part of (or those circumstances in which) Newton’s theory produces predictions which we now know to be still approximately correct” - this group is outraged by the idea that anyone should seem to write off Classical Physics as simply “wrong”

The other group means by Classical Physics “Newton’s theories taken as a whole” - this group can’t understand why the other group is so outraged by any suggestion that Newton’s theories may not be wholly correct.

Each group can be tempted to exaggerate its position in order to try to redress the balance!

 

[Dale]

’m just querying your use of the words “Newtonian limit”. This is a modern concept, not one that Newton recognised.

You are missing two points. The first and most important is that the Newtonian limit is not a feature of Newtonian mechanics; it is a feature of subsequent theories. The Newtonian limit does not belong to Newtonian mechanics; it belongs to relativity and it belongs to QM. If those two theories did not possesses a Newtonian limit then they would be wrong. The existence of a Newtonian limit for relativity and QM is not a necessary condition for Newtonian physics to be right; it is a necessary condition for QM and relativity to be right. It is certainly not happenstance since the founders of relativity and QM worked hard to include a Newtonian limit in their theories; they recognized the necessity.

The second and much more minor point is that Newton is not the final authority on what Newtonian mechanics is. It is named after him because he started it, but its development continued long after him. He started it, not finished it. Many things that we recognize today as being parts of Newtonian mechanics were from the work of others, not Newton.

 

[JohnNemo]

You are missing two points. The first and most important is that the Newtonian limit is not a feature of Newtonian mechanics, it is a feature of subsequent theories. The Newtonian limit does not belong to Newtonian mechanics, it belongs to relativity and it belongs to QM. If those two theories did not possesses a Newtonian limit then they would be wrong. The existence of a Newtonian limit for relativity and QM is not a necessary condition for Newtonian physics to be right, it is a necessary condition for QM and relativity to be right. It is certainly not happenstance since the founders of relativity and QM worked hard to include a Newtonian limit in their theories since they recognized the necessity.

The second and much more minor point is that Newton is not the final authority on what Newtonian mechanics is. It is named after him because he started it, but its development continued long after him. He started it not finished it. Many things that we recognize today as being part of Newtonian mechanics was from the work of others, not Newton.

I agree with everything you say (except your first sentence!) and that is exactly my point. Most of the controversy arises because people are using the phrases “Newtonian Mechanics” and “Classical Physics” with different understood meanings without declaring what definition they are using.

 

[bhobba]

-"Classical physics is used in an overwhelming majority of situations in our lives." so what? do examples prove that a theory is correct?

No it doesn't - nothing can prove any theory correct and classical mechanics is no exception. All theories are just provisional.

But I think before forming an opinion you need to read Landau - Mechanics.

It is based on the principle of least action which must be true if QM is true providing you are dealing with the regime such that close paths cancel - only stationary paths do not cancel - they reinforce - this is from Feynman's path integral approach which is logically equivalent to usual QM. In Landau, assuming just that and symmetry you basically get classical mechanics. Does that make classical mechanics correct - of course not - but if its wrong then we have a rot in QM and that would be very revolutionary indeed. In fact we have reason to believe QM at levels we can currently reach would be unlikely to be wrong:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0401062.pdf

Again QM is just provisional, like any theory - but what Weinberg's paper shows is if it is wrong there is something basically wrong with some very fundamental things - so fundamental it should have been picked up by now - but doubt is one of the essential basics of science so one never knows - more likely though if its wrong its at levels we can't currently reach.

Thsnks
Bill

 

[ZapperZ]

Exactly, but I’m not sure this point comes out clearly in your article. To say that

1. Newton was wrong (about a lot of things)

is not incompatible with saying that

2. It just so happens that within certain limits (which limits we now are aware of and he wasn’t) parts of his theory are mathematically correct to a very good approximation and very useful in fields of engineering.

"not incompatible" means "compatible"?

If that is so, then I do NOT see those two as being compatible. To say that Newton's laws are wrong, and then to turn around and use it, is an inconsistent act.

To say that it is accurate over a certain limit, and then to turn around and use it within those limits, is NOT an inconsistent act.

Unfortunately, this is now semantics. But this is not how people who have asked this on this forum think, because they are under the impression that we should NOT be using Newton's laws, under ANY limits, because it has been shown to be "wrong" by QM and SR/GR. THAT is the argument that I'm countering against.

Zz.

 

[JohnNemo]

Unfortunately, this is now semantics. But this is not how people who have asked this on this forum think, because they are under the impression that we should NOT be using Newton's laws, under ANY limits, because it has been shown to be "wrong" by QM and SR/GR. THAT is the argument that I'm countering against.

Zz.

I think you make that point very well here:

"Moral of the Story

Classical physics WORKS for our ordinary situation, so it HAS to be valid at some level.

Classical physics has been shown to be derivable from SR and QM under special conditions that apply to our ordinary situation.

Any theory MUST have the ability to show that it merges to the classical description when applied to ordinary situation."

For each of the three points you are careful to stress the limits ("at some level", "our ordinary situation", "to ordinary situation")

But the start of your article is, I think, more polemical and you are exaggerating to redress the opposite extreme of how you perceive "people who have asked on this forum think"

 

[Dale]

I agree with everything you say (except your first sentence!) and that is exactly my point.

I am glad that we now agree. Although if you agree with my first paragraph then I cannot see how you could claim that it is “happenstance”

 

[ZapperZ]

But the start of your article is, I think, more polemical and you are exaggerating to redress the opposite extreme of how you perceive "people who have asked on this forum think"

And like I said, that is now a matter of semantics and personal preference. I stated that based on many years of observations of members here in this forum when we repeatedly dealt with such topics.
Zz.

 

[JohnNemo]

I am glad that we now agree. Although if you agree with my first paragraph then I cannot see how you could claim that it is “happenstance”

Like a lot of things in this thread it has to be read in context but basically what I was saying was that the fact that Newton's theories (as originally proposed by Newton) make predictions which are approximately accurate only up to a certain limit is a "happenstance". It is not part of the theory (as initially proposed by Newton) that the theory is only intended to apply up to a certain limit.

 

[bhobba]

The second and much more minor point is that Newton is not the final authority on what Newtonian mechanics is. It is named after him because he started it, but its development continued long after him. He started it, not finished it. Many things that we recognize today as being parts of Newtonian mechanics were from the work of others, not Newton.

Indeed - Dirac had an interesting view on this (we don't discuss philosophy here but I can't resist - Kuhn - watch out):
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.485.9188&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dale]

It is not part of the theory (as initially proposed by Newton) that the theory is only intended to apply up to a certain limit.

Of course not, the Newtonian limit is part of relativity and QM, not part of Newtonian mechanics. I have read the context and your statements repeatedly show this misunderstanding.

 

[JohnNemo]

Of course not, the Newtonian limit is part of relativity and QM, not part of Newtonian mechanics. I have read the context and your statements repeatedly show this misunderstanding.

Anyway. I am glad we are now agreed!

 

[Dale]

To say that Newton's laws are wrong, and then to turn around and use it, is an inconsistent act.

To say that it is accurate over a certain limit, and then to turn around and use it within those limits, is NOT an inconsistent act.

Particularly well said.

 

[bhobba]

But the curvature isn't "real" in some philosophical sense - there is an unobservable flat background.

This is bit off topic but I think it interesting enough to mention. That is Steve Carlip's view (look him up if you don't know him). I have been reacquainting myself with GR recently since I find as a mentor I answer more of these queries. Anyway if you don't know Lovelock's theorem you might find it sheds light on this.

Thanks
Bill

 

[PeterDonis]

That is Steve Carlip's view

Can you give a particular reference? I've read a fair number of Carlip's papers and I'm not sure I've seen him expound the "unobservable flat background" view.

 

[bhobba]

Can you give a particular reference? I've read a fair number of Carlip's papers and I'm not sure I've seen him expound the "unobservable flat background" view.

It was from when I posted a lot on sci.physics.relativity. He posted quite a bit until it became infested with too many cranks, but mentioned a few times it was an essentially undecidable philosophical question whether space-time was curved or was flat and simply acted like it was curved.

I must say that was at least 10 years ago so may have changed his mind. I do know he is a very approachable guy and I don't think he would mind anyone asking him what his current view is. Mine is he is correct - and until he mentioned it, it never even occurred to me - it was sort of a revelation..

Thanks
Bill

 

[PeterDonis]

He posted quite a bit until it became invested with too many cranks, but mentioned a few times it was a an essentially undecidable philosophical question whether space-time was curved or was flat and simply acted like it was curved.

Ah, ok. Yes, from a philosophical point of view, I agree the question is undecidable. The spacetime curvature interpretation of GR is, strictly speaking, an interpretation, not a claim about "how things really are". It just happens to be a very, very useful interpretation, so much so that physicists routinely talk about it as if it were a fact.

 

[Dale]

It just happens to be a very, very useful interpretation, so much so that physicists routinely talk about it as if it were a fact.

That is indeed a problem. In the Newtonian limit of GR, for example, the Christoffel symbols naturally become the force of gravity. So although we speak of gravity in GR as not being a force, in fact there is a mathematical quantity in GR that does serve that role and can be interpreted as a force. Choosing to not interpret that way is a matter of philosophy and can be discarded as needed. But that common (and useful) philosophical interpretation probably serves to exacerbate the “Newtonian physics is wrong” impression.

 

[bhobba]

Ah, ok. Yes, from a philosophical point of view, I agree the question is undecidable. The spacetime curvature interpretation of GR is, strictly speaking, an interpretation, not a claim about "how things really are". It just happens to be a very, very useful interpretation, so much so that physicists routinely talk about it as if it were a fact.

For what it's worth I am with Feynman who thinks the geometrical interpretation is marvelous - it's hard to think its not actually true - but strictly speaking like the difference between SR and LET you can't really prove it. I have read his lectures on gravitation and he starts with flat space-time and spin 2 particles. You still get the EFE's but if space-time actually curved is not so clear.

Later I discovered Lovelock's Theorem that put it more in context for me. Thinking of the metric as a field or it's natural geometrical interpretation doesn't make any difference - the theorem says you get the same result - but strangely only in 4 dimensions which is rather interesting.

Thabks
Bill

 

[PeterDonis]

You can make prediction of the consequences of a particular spacetime geometry and then measure those consequences

No, you can make a prediction of the consequences of particular solutions of particular equations, and then compare the predictions with measurement. But the equations don't have labels on them that say "these equations describe a spacetime geometry". Spacetime geometry, as I said in a previous post, is an interpretation of the equations. You don't need an interpretation to make predictions and compare them with measurements. Interpretation is a conceptual crutch for us humans, because we don't naturally think in equations, so we need some kind of story to tell about what the equations "mean". But the "spacetime geometry" story is not the only story you can tell about the equations of GR.

 

[Peter Morgan]

No-one responded to this comment on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/groups/2204629320/permalink/10156235771439321/?comment_id=10156240941494321), so I'll make it here also and make a few additional comments to reflect the discussion above, "Not only is classical physics not wrong, it is more capable than generally understood. If we present classical mechanics as a commutative algebra of operators together with a noncommutative algebra of transformations constructed using the Poisson bracket, all acting on a Hilbert space in a Koopman-von Neumann formalism, a random field CM can even be equivalent to a QFT if there is a natural complex structure (which there is in the case of electromagnetism, provided by the Hodge dual)."

This obviously leads in a slightly different direction than either ZapperZ's article or the comments above. Seeing one concern expressed in the comments above, I'll also note that I take not only the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms to be part of "Newtonian physics", but also Liouvillean probability densities over phase space and the Koopman-von Neumann formalism, and the extensions into issues of analysis (random fields, say, citing my own preference because they they can be made to parallel quantum fields so closely, but there are other stochastic approaches) that are required to discuss probability densities in field theory cases.

A further comment, about special relativity: the wave equation, the Klein-Gordon equation, and any differential equation that is Lorentz invariant, fit into the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, Liouvillean, and Koopman-von Neumann formalisms well enough, so there's not any necessity to consider a limit as the speed of light is much larger than characteristic velocities. Just solve the equations.

I should be open about this comment being part of an effort to get more good mathematical physicists to look at and send me comments on https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.06711. The math there has been stable for many months, but the abstract and introduction do not discuss the relationship between random fields and quantum fields as clearly as I would like (nor as clearly as those people who have looked at the paper would like). I am now very close to submitting to a journal, so if you decide to have a look please be quick! I will be happy to send a copy of the paper as I currently have it to anyone who expresses interest.

 

[GTrax]

Reading these posts makes me wonder how "wrong" some "outdated" approximation has to be, to cease to be useful.

I mean this not only in the day-to-day practical sense, but also in contributing to the wonderful human sense of pattern recognition and making those insight connections to come up with a whole new theory or concept that incrementally relegates the "old" into being an approximation. The new is built on the scaffold of the old - even if one ends up junking the entire scaffold!

Putting aside the Newtonian vs Einsteinian comparison, consider something older by Tycho Brahe. Apparently impressed by the mathematical benefits of a Copernican heliocentric system, but unable to imagine a "huge heavy sluggish Earth" moving at speed, he came up with a geoheliocentric model that was accurate. Tycho was obsessed with accuracy, and gathered the best measurements of the time.

Yes yes - we get it that Kepler, Newton, and others had a later different, and simpler, insight, and that they got there much on the back of Tycho's data, but Tycho could predict with the best of them! He could say when an eclipse would happen, or say when and where a planet would be would be when occulting a star. In his own mind, and among those who depended on his data, Tycho had a right to believe his model was the way celestial bodies really moved!

Take away Tycho, and his "wrong" model, and you take away one of the "shoulders" Newton and others would stand upon to see further.
Even now, however well we think we know where celestial bodies are, and how they move, they had better not be too far from where Tycho thought they should be! We now have a wonderful Quantum Mechanical description of the way things are, an absurdly abstract non-intuitive fairy story of the charmed and strange and sticky that agrees with experiment to enough decimal places to be impressively compelling.

Perhaps in the fine tradition of Maxwell (adding an unmeasured "displacement current" to make the equations come out right), because it seemed the right thing to do, the way things are need to be described with some sort of model that agrees with experiments. It is when we postulate mathematical fictions (however useful), we need to keep a watch on whether they are more than a calculation aid!

 

[ZapperZ]

But as I've said earlier, it is no longer that common that an older theory is discarded wholesale. This is because many of our older ideas are actually valid within the realm that they are applicable.

It was certainly more common with ideas from the 19th Century, where our methods of detection and awareness of our world are significantly less developed. The old idea of Caloric Theory is one clear example, where one of the first attempts at formalizing our understanding of thermodynamics has been basically discarded.

Interestingly enough, with QM and the idea of quantized lattice vibrations (phonons), the old concept of "corpuscular heat" of Caloric Theory is not totally crazy when applied to thermodynamics in solids.

Zz.

 

[GTrax]

Interestingly enough, with QM and the idea of quantized lattice vibrations (phonons), the old concept of "corpuscular heat" of Caloric Theory is not totally crazy when applied to thermodynamics in solids.

I love this! There was imagination to "Caloric".

Even so - I am cautious about taking this too far. The mental magic that allowed many to countenance a "negative weight" concept in the cause of "phlogiston" is one model where it's subsequent usefulness in practical calculation and prediction, is pretty much trashed by the manifest evidence of a new element, and a much more useful concept!

When I say "Classical Physics is not wrong", I do not mean any and every disproved notion. Within the accuracy by which we can usually verify our experiences, I mean the whole of classical physics "laws" that have never seen a single exception. It has to be an exception glaring and obvious, so that humans can recognize that it might belong in the same bin as phlogiston.

To know that something else might be going on, one needs to go to exceptional precision, and even then get used to the idea that there is a built-in uncertainty that messes with how well one can determine other values involved.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I prefer to consider theories as "useful" or "not useful" for given applications rather than "right" (true) or "wrong". A theory is useful if it makes predictions that are sufficiently accurate for my purpose.

But the fact is, there were many occasions in my undergraduate (and graduate) education where the wrongness of the prevailing theory (inability to accurately predict an experimental result) was used to justify development of a new theory, and often classical physice was the prevailing theory portrayed as wrong in the circumstances described.

2. Classical physics has been shown to be derivable from SR and QM under special conditions that apply to our ordinary situation.

3. Any theory MUST have the ability to show that it merges to the classical description when applied to ordinary situation.

4. This can only be shown mathematically. It cannot be shown convincingly via hand-waving or qualitative arguments. It is the equivalent mathematical form that shows that one theory can derive the other.

The discussion leading to eqns 6 and 7 (and eqns 6 and 7 themselves) breaks down in the case of chaotic classical motion, and it is still something of a mystery how QM gives rise to chaotic classical motion in the limiting case. Some specific cases from atomic physics have received a lot of attention:

V = -1/r + B^2(x^2 + y^2)/8 (Model for hydrogen atom in a magnetic field)
V = -1/r + (Z - 1) exp(-ar) + Fz (Model for an alkali atom in an electric field)

I've published several papers studying the above two Hamiltonians, and I assure you there is no mathematical description showing how the classical solution of the Hamiltonian arises from the quantum solution in cases where the parameters give rise to strongly chaotic motion in the classical solution. Numerous other authors have reached the same conclusion in studying these problems.

I look at the epistemological question in physics analogous to the germ theory of disease in biology. Just as history gave rise to more and more diseases where the germ theory was not applicable, history gave rise to more and more cases where classical physics was not applicable. It is really a matter of definition whether one says "the germ theory of disease is wrong" or "here are the list of known cases where the germ theory of disease is known not to apply." Given that at one time, classical physics was throught to be universal, the position that it is wrong is defensible. But at some point the debate is silly, and it is more reasonable to address theories based on their usefulness rather than on their truth.

Euclidean geometry is similar. Before Einstein, it was widely held to be an exact and universal description of the physical world. Now we know that is not true. But it sure is useful and an exceedingly accurate approximation for most purposes.

 

[ZapperZ]

I prefer to consider theories as "useful" or "not useful" for given applications rather than "right" (true) or "wrong". A theory is useful if it makes predictions that are sufficiently accurate for my purpose.

You will notice that I tend to use the word "valid", rather than right, true, etc... But at some point, this becomes a matter of semantics, i.e. what exactly does one mean when one say "right" or "wrong". One doesn't usually use something, or do something, that is wrong. For classical mechanics, we use it a lot!

But the fact is, there were many occasions in my undergraduate (and graduate) education where the wrongness of the prevailing theory (inability to accurately predict an experimental result) was used to justify development of a new theory, and often classical physice was the prevailing theory portrayed as wrong in the circumstances described.

But are they "wrong" or simply not applicable or not accurate enough after a certain point? Your electronics use Ohm's Law, but I can show you a lot of circumstances where it doesn't work because the assumptions that Ohm's Law were derived from are no longer applicable. So is it wrong, or is it simply that it isn't meant to be used in that situation?

The discussion leading to eqns 6 and 7 (and eqns 6 and 7 themselves) breaks down in the case of chaotic classical motion, and it is still something of a mystery how QM gives rise to chaotic classical motion in the limiting case.

The article is not claiming that it has solved the classical-quantum boundaries. Far from it. Mesoscopic scale physics is still a very active area of research, and the classical-quantum "transition" (I'm using the pedestrian definition of this word) is still unknown. And I can go all day talking about emergent phenomena that can't be simply derived from all the basic interactions (superconductivity). However, there are still indication that one can get back the classical picture under certain circumstances. This is a piece of information that is not known by many members here who often made the claim that classical physics is wrong. Any physics student is aware of the derivation that I did in the article. It isn't news. It IS news to many who are not aware of such connection when they think that we shouldn't use classical physics anymore when it has been superseded by QM/SR/GR.

THAT is the main purpose of the article.

Zz.

 

[HAYAO]

In my view, I say that any major scientific development is a generalization procedure (in a very loose sense).

I don't know much instances where a theory was completely denied from the core. This is obvious because science is based on observation and experiment that is reproducible. Even geocentrism is not "wrong". Purely in terms of orbits, it is simply a matter of where the origin is defined to (the Earth or the Sun). Of course, we know that heliocentrism was right in light of new experimental evidence, but it still encompasses what was developed in geocentrism. If we understand heliocentrism (how the stars and planets move), then we can also understand geocentrism (how the sky looks like from a planet).

Similarly, classical physics is a specialized case/formulation of quantum mechanics. They are not "wrong". Non-relativistic quantum mechanics is a specialized case of QFT. They are not "wrong" (although I understand that QFT is still essentially QM and not precisely a good analogy).

If there is any new theory in physics, then they are going to encompass what has already been developed but more generalized, and can be used to explain more than we used to. It won't "deny" anything.Great article. I cannot agree more.

 

[diPoleMoment]

What difference does it make if you get the old theory from an upper limit or any other arbitrary direction? My point was that SR is considering space and time as completely different things comparing to old mechanics. This does not make any sense. If I say that the assumptions are: time is relative and space is Riemaniann and you say: time is absolute and space is euclidian, how can we be talking about the same theory?No, you are wrong. What I said was that the assumptions are different! If you look at how we treat all the experiments and particles / waves in quantum world, we see that space, time, energy and whatever are all different from what we knew from classical mechanics, which means, we cannot start to say that there exists a derivation from one to another, as they were talking, ever, about the same thing. Again, if you start with different assumptions how can you end up with theories converging at a limit that has been chosen to find a connection between them?

I am not saying that Newtonian Mechanics is wrong. this has nothing to do with being right or wrong. I'm talking about how do we explain an theory evolution without wanting to find convergencies that were created just to make understanding easier.

I agree with Orodruin with more knowledge, the parameters for the theory of Physics have changed. Now since Newtonian physics work and more detail is known, then retro fitting more defined parameters to the limited parameters makes sense to me. I would say doing this would ensure if the more defined parameters cannot be canceled out to fit within the limited parameters, then the new theory cannot really encompass the basics of physics. This theory then would mean it represents another reality. Which I know is all relative. However if elements on Earth can be found in space, then when chemistry is brought in the picture, physics in space have to relate to what happens on Earth. With that said, retrofitting quantum equations to fit Newtonian physics will ensure that with more parameters added that the idea has a sound basis to be built upon.

Now the theory of assumptions can be a matter of discussion, but I feel if quantum can explain mechanical in mathematical form then assumptions have to be reevaluated within the confines that mechanical theory works. So I love this article.

 

[Ziang]

I agree with the author. However, he wrote, "...if there are more general and more accurate theories beyond QM, SR/GR, ...".
Physicists say that SR expressions have been verified with accelerators. So, if there is any theory that gives a different expression, then it will not get along with results from the accelerators. This means that there is no way for a more accurate theory exists.

 

[ZapperZ]

I agree with the author. However, he wrote, "...if there are more general and more accurate theories beyond QM, SR/GR, ...".
Physicists say that SR expressions have been verified with accelerators. So, if there is any theory that gives a different expression, then it will not get along with results from the accelerators. This means that there is no way for a more accurate theory exists.

I think you missed the point, and you also seem to be unaware of the history of physics.

We ALWAYS come up with more comprehensive and more accurate theories. That has always been the pattern, and there's nothing to say that this will stop. The issue of unifying general relativity within the QM/QFT picture is one such problem we have right now. So if there is a more encompassing theory, then this new theory will have to have, at some limit, the SAME form as SR/GR, because of the successes of SR/GR already. It is why I showed the mathematical derivation and showed how the mathematical form matches classical description in some limit.

Please look again at the original post and the MAIN POINT of that post, because it appears that you didn't get that story.

Zz.