Pentcho Valev wrote:

Let me quote from a site Dirk Vdm has just provided:

"Sooner or later, the reign of Einstein, like the reign of Newton
before him, will come to an end. An upheaval in the world of physics
that will overthrow our notions of basic reality is inevitable, most
scientists believe, and currently a horse race is underway between a
handful of theories competing to be the successor to the throne."

It seems that relativity will become, sooner or later, "obsolete".

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Let me quote from a site Dirk Vdm has just provided:

"Sooner or later, the reign of Einstein, like the reign of Newton
before him, will come to an end. An upheaval in the world of physics
that will overthrow our notions of basic reality is inevitable, most
scientists believe, and currently a horse race is underway between a
handful of theories competing to be the successor to the throne."

It seems that relativity will become, sooner or later, "obsolete".

Of course. The point is that NOTHING that you have posted has made
it obsolete. Your postings just indicate that you don't understand
relativity.

John Anderson

Bernardz:
In article ,
says...
Bernardz:

Tend to agree. You only use QM in certain conditions whereas
thermodynamics appears to be relevant everywhere.

Quantum mechanics _is_ mechanics. In fact, it's the best
mechanics we have. It applies to anything - it's just overlkill
when newtonian mechanics is adequate to solve a problem.



My understanding is that in many problems QM gives many possible answers
making it useless whereas SR for the same problem gives one answer,

Huh? Quantum mechanics is what people use to design semiconductors,
lasers and a multitude of other things you probably take for granted.
If quantum mechanics seems useless, it's only because you have no idea
how most of things you use on a daily basis function.

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
Bernardz:

Tend to agree. You only use QM in certain conditions whereas
thermodynamics appears to be relevant everywhere.

Quantum mechanics _is_ mechanics. In fact, it's the best
mechanics we have. It applies to anything - it's just overlkill
when newtonian mechanics is adequate to solve a problem.

I know you're referring to the correspondence principle when you say
"Quantum mechanics _is_ mechanics," but how do you define "mechanics"?

Patrick

In article ,
says...
Bernardz:
In article ,
says...
Bernardz:

Tend to agree. You only use QM in certain conditions whereas
thermodynamics appears to be relevant everywhere.

Quantum mechanics _is_ mechanics. In fact, it's the best
mechanics we have. It applies to anything - it's just overlkill
when newtonian mechanics is adequate to solve a problem.



My understanding is that in many problems QM gives many possible answers
making it useless whereas SR for the same problem gives one answer,

Huh? Quantum mechanics is what people use to design semiconductors,
lasers and a multitude of other things you probably take for granted.
If quantum mechanics seems useless, it's only because you have no idea
how most of things you use on a daily basis function.



Oh its certainly useful and works in many situations.

--
History records those that write what happened.

Observations of Bernard - No 60

(Pentcho Valev) wrote in message . com...
Let me quote from a site Dirk Vdm has just provided:

"Sooner or later, the reign of Einstein, like the reign of Newton
before him, will come to an end. An upheaval in the world of physics
that will overthrow our notions of basic reality is inevitable, most
scientists believe, and currently a horse race is underway between a
handful of theories competing to be the successor to the throne."

It seems that relativity will become, sooner or later, "obsolete".
Thermodynamics has already entered that stage:

«In the eyes of many modern physicists, the theory has acquired a
somewhat dubious status. They regard classical thermodynamics as a
relic from a bygone era? Indeed, the view that thermodynamics is
obsolète is so common that many physicists use the phrase ?Second Law
of Thermodynamics' to denote some counterpart of this law in the
kinetic theory of gases or in statistical mechanics»

I must have missed something. Which of the laws of classical
thermodynamics no longer works to properly design refrigerators?

Patrick

Patrick Reany:

Why do you compulsively alter subject lines?

(Bilge) wrote in message
e-al.net...
Bernardz:

Tend to agree. You only use QM in certain conditions whereas
thermodynamics appears to be relevant everywhere.

Quantum mechanics _is_ mechanics. In fact, it's the best
mechanics we have. It applies to anything - it's just overlkill
when newtonian mechanics is adequate to solve a problem.

I know you're referring to the correspondence principle when you say
"Quantum mechanics _is_ mechanics," but how do you define "mechanics"?

Patrick

Bernardz:
In article ,
says...
Bernardz:
In article ,
says...
Bernardz:

Tend to agree. You only use QM in certain conditions whereas
thermodynamics appears to be relevant everywhere.

Quantum mechanics _is_ mechanics. In fact, it's the best
mechanics we have. It applies to anything - it's just overlkill
when newtonian mechanics is adequate to solve a problem.



My understanding is that in many problems QM gives many possible answers
making it useless whereas SR for the same problem gives one answer,

Huh? Quantum mechanics is what people use to design semiconductors,
lasers and a multitude of other things you probably take for granted.
If quantum mechanics seems useless, it's only because you have no idea
how most of things you use on a daily basis function.



Oh its certainly useful and works in many situations.

Name a situation in which it doesn't work.

Bernardz:
Oh its [QM] certainly useful and works in many situations.

Bilge:
Name a situation in which it doesn't work.

I'm afraid that you deliberately overtax him. -
I recall a guy named Popper who told that a theory must be falsifiable.
According to that, quantum mechanics is no theory at all. Because it
has been designed according to special observations, and uses lots
of unseen quantities. It may be a makeshift, which is legitimate
for the real success in the semiconductor industry.
In order to understand the world, GR might be on the right track.
Even the direct unification of GR with EM lets see particle numbers.
To Bernardz:
Look at http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/

Ulrich

ueb:
Bernardz:
Oh its [QM] certainly useful and works in many situations.

Bilge:
Name a situation in which it doesn't work.

I'm afraid that you deliberately overtax him. -
I recall a guy named Popper who told that a theory must be falsifiable.
According to that, quantum mechanics is no theory at all. Because it
has been designed according to special observations, and uses lots
of unseen quantities. It may be a makeshift, which is legitimate
for the real success in the semiconductor industry.
In order to understand the world, GR might be on the right track.
Even the direct unification of GR with EM lets see particle numbers.

On the contrary, what quantum mechanics says about things which are
unobservable, is that they don't exist. I have no idea how you arrived
at the opposite conclusion, given the fact that a commutator like
[p,x] = -i\hbar explicitly tells you that exact values of p and x
don't exist simultaneously.