Do you believe in classical, Newton, mechanics?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the relationship between belief and acceptance in scientific theories, particularly Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics. Participants argue that science is based on observation and empirical evidence rather than belief, emphasizing that Newtonian mechanics is effective but limited in extreme cases. The conversation touches on the evolution of scientific understanding, including Einstein's contributions to gravity and the concept of gravitons in M-theory. There is a debate about the use of the word "believe" in scientific discourse, with some advocating for more precise language. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the complexity of scientific interpretation and the subjective nature of understanding in physics.
arivero
Gold Member
Messages
3,481
Reaction score
187
I wonder, is there out someone disbelieving quantum mechanics but accepting the concepts and statements of Newtonian mechanics? I would like to hear such standpoints.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Physics and science in general is based on observation and theories developed from these observations. Unlike religion, belief has nothing to do with it. Newtonian mechanics works most of the time and is very useful. However, there are extreme cases where it doesn't work. That is why physicists (Einstein, et al) needed other theories (quantum, relativity) to account for these situations.
 
Don't forget that Newton had no idea how gravity worked. It was not until einstein with his spacetime "web" or "grid" did anyone really understand how gravity worked.

And now...
M-theory says that there is a particle called a gravitron that is responsible for gravity.
 
Newtonian mechanics postulates the existence of instantaneus velocity and momentum, for an example.


(ah, the graviton idea was previous to M-theory)
 
The word believe does not effectively describe my attitude towards any scientific hypothesis or theory, period.
 
I vote to toss that graviton thingy, warped spacetime is much more pleasing.
Just thinking about all those particles flying between the planets ...
 
Locrian said:
The word believe does not effectively describe my attitude towards any scientific hypothesis or theory, period.
What about "Do you accept the axioms of...?", or perhaps
"After examination of the empirical evidence, I tend to agree/disagree with the postulates of...?"
 
Physics and science in general is based on observation and theories developed from these observations. Unlike religion, belief has nothing to do with it.

The word believe does not effectively describe my attitude towards any scientific hypothesis or theory, period.

Everyone has beliefs be they about science or anything else because no one knows anything with 100% certainty. The root of all creativity comes from beliefs and creativity has a lot to do with physics. Just lighten up people, you're not going to look illogical or like a zealot for using the word "believe."


Anyways I have my quarrels with all of them but I wouldn't really dismiss any of them as completely wrong.
 
I voted against Newton.
I even have a page on it here:
http://www.geocities.com/dedaNoe/aanm.htm
I cannot accesss my page. I don't know why is that. Geocities simply requires me to preregister??
unfortunately, nobody gives a damn.

Every Newton's law is only partial interpretation of the law of lever.
I just think Archimedes does physics better than Newton.
In fact Archimedes is the 1st ever physicist.
Despite that the lever is never mentioned in the educational process.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Entropy said:
Everyone has beliefs be they about science or anything else because no one knows anything with 100% certainty.
Hmm, nobody has a vocabulary coinciding 100%, in all the semantic flavourings, with other person. But does that imply that vocabulary, that each word, is a belief?
 
Back
Top