|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 9, 2010 17:11:12 GMT 1
Why is there a total disagreement between classical physics and quantum mechanics?
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 9, 2010 18:18:10 GMT 1
Because classical physics is WRONG, and has been shown to be wrong by experiment.
Whereas quantum physics agree with experiment, hence it had better disagree with classical physics at some point, else we do have a problem.
Classical physics and quantum physics just say very different things about what the universe is actually like, and how objects actually behave.
And experiment only agree with one of these, and it is the quantum one.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 9, 2010 18:39:54 GMT 1
Because classical physics is WRONG, and has been shown to be wrong by experiment. Does this mean Einstein was wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 10, 2010 13:50:55 GMT 1
Yes, inasmuch as we need a quantum theory of gravity.
But DOESN'T mean that such a theory won't look like relativity in the classical limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 10, 2010 14:46:15 GMT 1
If Classical Physics are WRONG, then in all probability, so is quantum physcic , indeed I would go further and place a bet that as currently enunciated they ARE wrong, else why would Feynman say that if you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, then you have got it all wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 10, 2010 15:58:02 GMT 1
If Classical Physics are WRONG, then in all probability, so is quantum physcic , indeed I would go further and place a bet that as currently enunciated they ARE wrong, else why would Feynman say that if you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, then you have got it all wrong? I believe there are a number of physicists who think that 'hidden variables' can explain the strange results of QM and hope that at some point they will be discovered. They cannot accept the probabilistic nature of QM. |
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Sept 12, 2010 21:58:28 GMT 1
Why is there a total disagreement between classical physics and quantum mechanics? In the case of large scale phenomena, they usually agree. So it is only partial disagreement. But it is an interesting question. It seems that subatomic particles play by different rules to normal sized objects. When classical physics was developed, they had not discovered fundamental particles. |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 21, 2010 15:59:11 GMT 1
Except tests of Bells inequality put severe restrictions on that,s ince they show that something has to give, either locality, or counterfactual definiteness (CFD). And since CFd means the existence of the property of an object before (or without) it being measured, then if you want to keep that, you instead have to accept non-locality.
The point is, we CAN'T go back to a cosy classical world, where objects had definite properties, whether we measured them or not, and things only depended on their local surroundings. One or both of these is just plain wrong. Take yer pick.
|
|
