Register to reply

Quantum mechanics...

by Cheman
Tags: mechanics, quantum
Share this thread:
Cheman
#1
Nov30-04, 01:18 PM
P: 236
I may be completely wrong but I'm slightly confued about this - is it true that we can apply quantum mechanics to a macromolecular scale, but can't apply classical to an atomic level? If so, why don't we use quantum mechanics to solve everything and abolish classical theory which is apparently "outdated"?

Thanks in advance.
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Physicists discuss quantum pigeonhole principle
First in-situ images of void collapse in explosives
The first supercomputer simulations of 'spin?orbit' forces between neutrons and protons in an atomic nucleus
TempusRex
#2
Nov30-04, 01:45 PM
P: 2
The reason that the mathematics of quantum mechanics isn't applied at the macroscopic level, is because the mathematics of it is extrodinarily complex. That mathematics is so complex, that quantum mechanics can't even be used (perfectly) for atoms above hydrogen. In other words, if you want to get to the moon, you aren't going to solve schrodinger's equation to do so, you are going to use Newton's laws.

But, in principle, if quantum mechanics were the theory of everything, then in principle it could be used to get you to the moon, except for the fact that someone using Newtons laws would have a far shorter computer program, for onboard computers.

All this having been said, quantum mechanics is not the last word on physics, because there are serious problems with the interpretation of the mathematics being used. Consider the quantum measurement problem, consider Schrodinger's cat, etc.
Tom Mattson
#3
Nov30-04, 03:44 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Tom Mattson's Avatar
P: 5,533
Also, quantum theory (as currently formulated) doesn't apply at every level. There currently is no complete and experimentally established quantum theory of gravity.

Also, as far as I know there is no quantum theoretic treatment of nonconservative forces. So we could not even solve a problem as humble as the inclined plane with dry friction. And even if we could, it would be impossibly complicated.

Cheman
#4
Nov30-04, 05:18 PM
P: 236
Quantum mechanics...

But surely, despite being more complecated, this way would be more "correct"? That is to say that if quantum is more "accurate" than classical theory, ie - applies to more situations (classical cant be for quantum), then it is a more correct aproach to deal with a question?
Tom Mattson
#5
Nov30-04, 05:51 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Tom Mattson's Avatar
P: 5,533
Quote Quote by Cheman
But surely, despite being more complecated, this way would be more "correct"?
In the case of gravitation, the answer at present is a defiinitive no. The classical field theory of General Relativity is far more correct in this domain than any existing quantum theory.
Gonzolo
#6
Nov30-04, 06:05 PM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by Cheman
But surely, despite being more complecated, this way would be more "correct"? That is to say that if quantum is more "accurate" than classical theory, ie - applies to more situations (classical cant be for quantum), then it is a more correct aproach to deal with a question?
When you do physics, you always use approximations when you can. Instead of using Pi, you use 3.14, instead of calculating every term in an infinite series, you calculate the first few. Similarly for quantum vs classical theories. Classical theory is a perfectly acceptable approximation to quantum theory when the problem allows it.
Cheman
#7
Dec4-04, 06:49 PM
P: 236
A lot of people say that classical theory is wrong - would you say this is the case? ie - let us take F=ma or F=dP/t; is our reasoning for why these should work wrong and are in fact just results of experiments appearing to work? Should we in fact be approaching these problems from a different angle? (eg - quantum theory) And in turn, i take it this would give us a different as to why eg 1N force accelerates and 1kg mass by 1 m/s2?
dextercioby
#8
Dec4-04, 07:21 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 11,893
Quote Quote by Cheman
A lot of people say that classical theory is wrong - would you say this is the case? ie - let us take F=ma or F=dP/t; is our reasoning for why these should work wrong and are in fact just results of experiments appearing to work? Should we in fact be approaching these problems from a different angle? (eg - quantum theory) And in turn, i take it this would give us a different as to why eg 1N force accelerates and 1kg mass by 1 m/s2?
1.You've posted the same arguments on another thread.
2.Those people who say that classical (newtonian) dynamics is wrong wre wrong themselves.A theory which gives results/makes predictions that are not falsified by physically possible experiments,but in turn cannot account for experimental facts within its domain of applicability is called "incomplete".Classical mechanics accounts for all experimental results within its domain of applicability and therefore is "complete" (i'd like to call it "closed wrt to itself").It is so,as it is a limit case for a more general theory called "classical/general relativity"and we've exhausted all possible experiments to test it(did we??).

Daniel.

PS.I'm not 100% sure my last phrase is correct.Brighter fellows are invited to contest it.
selfAdjoint
#9
Dec4-04, 07:44 PM
Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 8,147
If you have access to the magazine "Physics Today" you can read Frank Wilczek's enlightening essays on the subtleties of F = ma, which appeared in last month's and this month's issues, in the column "Reference Frame". There's another installment to come in next month's issue.
seratend
#10
Dec5-04, 04:02 AM
P: 318
Quote Quote by Tom Mattson

Also, as far as I know there is no quantum theoretic treatment of nonconservative forces. So we could not even solve a problem as humble as the inclined plane with dry friction. And even if we could, it would be impossibly complicated.
This aspect is treated within the decoherence program (study of the quantum damped oscillator, decoherence of an oscillator coupled to a bath of oscillators, etc ...).

Seratend.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Quantum physics vs. Quantum Mechanics Quantum Physics 27
What is quantum mechanics trying to tell us about the nature of Nature? Quantum tantrums by a non-conformist General Physics 0
Quantum physics vs. quantum mechanics Quantum Physics 3
Is Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Physics the same? Quantum Physics 28
Quantum Physics / Quantum Mechanics Quantum Physics 3