2006-02-04: Classical/Relative/Quantum Physics

[Robert]

Our next chat session is scheduled for this coming Saturday, February 4th, at 3:00pm Central Standard Time (CST) or GMT-6.

The topic is ...

Classical/Relative/Quantum Physics
What's the Difference?

This topic was suggested by dleviwing in the Suggestions thread. One of the problems with finding a unified theory is that we have some good theories but they only apply and are accurate and useful in specific contexts. For example, classical physics applies to the molecular level and above while quantum physics applies more in the sub-atomic realm. Relative physics might be considered more applicable on the cosmic scale. I may even be wrong, and so might you, so this gives us an opportunity to explore these different realms and applications of these areas of physics.

Timezone Information
You can use the timezone converter to convert to your local time. Once there, enter the day and time as specified above, then select US/Central in the "From Time Zone" column and your own location in the "To Time Zone" column, then click Convert. Be sure and unclick the "Use Current Date/Time" option. This will give you the time of the chat meeting in your own local time.

Some other areas:

Texas, U.S. - Saturday, 3:00pm
California, U.S. - Saturday, 1:00pm
India - Sunday, 1:30am
London - Saturday, 9:00pm
Madrid, Spain - Saturday, 10:00pm
Melbourne, Australia - Sunday, 6:00am
New Zealand - Sunday, 8:00am
Sweden - Saturday, 10:00pm
Canada, Eastern - Saturday, 4:00pm
Pakistan - Sunday, 1:00am

Chatroom Update
No update to the chatroom software although I did increase Carly's brain patterns by 70%.

Next Chat
I'm considering alternating the hard science / traditional science topics with less-traditional science / philosophical topics. I have the next topic in mind, but I won't announce until the Sunday following this chat.

Let's meet in the Flash Chatroom. Hope to see you there! It's optional, but you're encouraged to select the appropriate option in the poll so we know who's coming.

Now, let's get the pre-chat started!

[michellemfry]

Let's look at this from a very wide scope and then focus in whatever we please from there. So there exists a different type of physics depending on the size of the things involved. And there is no unification. Isn't that just telling us that the small, the very small, is protected from the very large in a miraculous and marvelous way? I thought it was a great thing that physics may have formed in that way.
I find it analogous to looking at a painting with great details vs something large and uninteresting. The fine tuning of the universe. It's a beautiful piece.

[Guille]

I'll be there for sure. An important thing I should note is that relativity and QM are much more similar than any with clasical physics. The two were developed in this century, and they share the principle of dependency, whiles clasical physics is exact. About the size they deel with, being analogous to music (in honor to Mozart) we can say QM is a small sonata, clasical physics a concerto, and relativity a whol sinfony.

[dleviwing]

In the academic field of theoretical physics, classical physics is considered old fashion and out of date, yet in the many industrial sciences of application, research and development, it is the major discipline and accounts for over 95% of all applications and R&D work. QM comes in at a distant second.

[harmonygirl]

This is a great idea for a chat. I have long thought that the way to understand the difference is to understand that our view of macro is misleading. Observable phenomena are illusory to the extent that they contradict QM. I'm hoping to attend.

[Guille]

This is a great idea for a chat. I have long thought that the way to understand the difference is to understand that our view of macro is misleading. Observable phenomena are illusory to the extent that they contradict QM. I'm hoping to attend.

Denfencing QM doesn't make it any good. Just as however good the members of a party are, if the theory they defend is no good, there is no future. If there is phenomena that contradicts QM, the later is wrong, not vice versa. And the illusion is QM then. Anyway, this defence of QM is base don Einstein's view that the facts should be change dto fix the theory, not vice versa.

[David Maes]

In the academic field of theoretical physics, classical physics is considered old fashion and out of date, yet in the many industrial sciences of application, research and development, it is the major discipline and accounts for over 95% of all applications and R&D work. QM comes in at a distant second.

I more cherish this belief that classical physics delivers us a more realistic view on reality than QM.

[David Maes]

I more cherish this belief that classical physics delivers us a more realistic view on reality than QM.

I think everything is objective and also; when the 'whole world' has the same opinion about something, then they are always right and absolute objective, even if there is one who claims the world is not right.



oh man I'm smart, I must be a genius.

[David Maes]

oh man I'm smart, I must be a genius.

Noone answered this?? Come on guys, you all know this statement is false.
You didn't think this to be arrogant?

Dangerous title... too high title and too less potential (certainly when it would fall into the hands of the wrong person like me).

(Don't want to get confronted with too high expectations.)

[mkirkpatrick]

Should prove to be an interesting debate,I shall endevour to be there.I think there are valid points in both,it is keeping thegolden nuggets,and throwing away
the dross,which is which?


kindregards michael.