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»

This is a quotation from the nice paper

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/

One can see in the paper why thermodynamics is "obsolete" - the burden
of contradictions and confusions is really unbearable. Relativity is a
bit younger than thermodynamics but it seems to me it will enter the
same stage soon. One thing is sure - relativists will occupy leading
positions in any new development.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
om...
Let me quote from a site Dirk Vdm has just provided:

Are you Peter Brown in disguise?

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message om...
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.

What do you think the phrase
"the reign of Newton has come to and end"
means?
Can you write something meaningful about that in let's say
between 50 and 150 words?

Dirk Vdm

On Sun, 30 May 2004 02:52:47 -0700, 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".
Thermodynamics has already entered that stage:

Oh dear. Why didn't my parents call me Nostradamus. Yet another
"Relativity is dead" thread...


Ho hum


«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»

Not in any physics textbook I've seen...

This is a quotation from the nice paper

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/

One can see in the paper why thermodynamics is "obsolete" - the burden
of contradictions and confusions is really unbearable. Relativity is a
bit younger than thermodynamics but it seems to me it will enter the
same stage soon. One thing is sure - relativists will occupy leading
positions in any new development.

Thrilling. Let me know when you've actually shown where relativity and
thermodynamics actually go wrong.

Pentcho Valev

(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»

This is a quotation from the nice paper

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/

My analytical mechanics instructor told me that he expected classical
thermo to outlive QM.

Patrick

In article ,
says...
(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»

This is a quotation from the nice paper

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/

My analytical mechanics instructor told me that he expected classical
thermo to outlive QM.

Patrick


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

--
History records those that write what happened.

Observations of Bernard - No 60

Patrick Reany wrote:

My analytical mechanics instructor told me that he expected classical
thermo to outlive QM.

This person is a lot more smart than it seems.
People, who take SR/GR as obsolete, overlook the simple fact
that the geometric basics of GR do even *not* imply fundamental
determinism.
(Who does not understand that, may read
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/ )

Ulrich

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.

Bilge wrote:
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.

The reason is similar as I told you in another thread about string
theory. QM is no fundamental but an adapted theory. (Better a
conglomeration of adapted theories)

Ulrich

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,

--
History records those that write what happened.

Observations of Bernard - No 60