Attempts to promote theories which have been superseded

[JohnNemo]

In the forum guidelines
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/

it states that

'Generally, in the forums we do not allow the following... Attempts to promote or resuscitate theories that have been discredited or superseded (e.g. Lorentz ether theory); this does not exclude discussion of those theories in a purely historical context'

However there is a forum entitled Classical Mechanics in which Newtonian mechanics is discussed as if it is true (i.e. not purely in a historical context). What is the rationale for this special treatment of Classical Mechanics given that Classical Mechanics was discredited/superseded about 100 years ago at about the same time as Lorentz ether theory?

 

[Drakkith]

However there is a forum entitled Classical Mechanics in which Newtonian mechanics is discussed as if it is true (i.e. not purely in a historical context). What is the rationale for this special treatment of Classical Mechanics given that Classical Mechanics was discredited/superseded about 100 years ago at about the same time as Lorentz ether theory?

Classical mechanics was not discredited or superseded as far as I know. Newtonian gravity has been superseded, but since it's so overwhelmingly simpler than General Relativity and accurate enough for almost all purposes, we still teach and use it. The same is true for classical electromagnetism, which is much simpler than its quantum counterpart and accurate enough for everyday use.

Theories like Lorentz Ether Theory are not widely used and often aren't as simple or as accurate as the theories we actually use, so we don't discuss them except in historical contexts.

 

[dlgoff]

The rules also say:

Acceptable Sources:
Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks ...

As far as I know, Newtonian gravity and classical electromagnetism are still taught in undergrad college courses from standard textbooks.

 

[Ibix]

As far as I know, Newtonian gravity and classical electromagnetism are still taught in undergrad college courses from standard textbooks.

They're also incredibly useful, even if you want to think of them as approximations to relativity and/or quantum. In a huge range of circumstances you sacrifice a ridiculously tiny bit of precision for vastly simpler maths.

The same is not true of things like the Lorentz ether. Its results are indistinguishable from relativity, and its maths is identical. It just adds philosophical baggage.

 

[PeterDonis]

Classical Mechanics was discredited/superseded about 100 years ago

No, it wasn't. It was extended--more comprehensive theories (general relativity and quantum mechanics) were developed, and classical mechanics was shown to be a valid approximation to those theories under appropriate conditions. That is not true of, e.g., Lorentz ether theory.

 

[Nugatory]

What is the rationale for this special treatment of Classical Mechanics given that Classical Mechanics was discredited/superseded about 100 years ago at about the same time as Lorentz ether theory?

There's a popular perception, to some extent fed by popular but historically wrong descriptions of Einstein "revolutionizing" or "overthrowing the foundations" of classical physics, that classical physics has been discredited or superseded. It hasn't. A solid understanding of Newtonian mechanics is the essential base on which modern physics is built - this is why the first year of an undergraduate physics major is devoted to classical physics, with special relativity taught as a natural extension.

 

[PeroK]

What is the rationale for this special treatment of Classical Mechanics given that Classical Mechanics was discredited/superseded about 100 years ago at about the same time as Lorentz ether theory?

You can't design an aircraft, for example, using QM and GR. You need classical mechanics.

 

[ZapperZ]

However there is a forum entitled Classical Mechanics in which Newtonian mechanics is discussed as if it is true (i.e. not purely in a historical context). What is the rationale for this special treatment of Classical Mechanics given that Classical Mechanics was discredited/superseded about 100 years ago at about the same time as Lorentz ether theory?

You'd better run out of whatever building you're in, because it is built based on the classical mechanics of Newton's laws. And try not to go over any bridges either.

Zz.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

You'd better run out of whatever building you're in, because it is built based on the classical mechanics of Newton's laws. And try not to go over any bridges either.

Zz.

Perfect way to close this out!