- #1

- 5

- 0

## Main Question or Discussion Point

Basically the title. Take relativity it has the Lorenz factor 1/sqrt(1-(v/c^2)) and if v is not zero it's something that isn't accounted for in classical mechanics. Does that make classical mechanics wrong?

- Thread starter Albeaver
- Start date

- #1

- 5

- 0

Basically the title. Take relativity it has the Lorenz factor 1/sqrt(1-(v/c^2)) and if v is not zero it's something that isn't accounted for in classical mechanics. Does that make classical mechanics wrong?

- #2

Stephen Tashi

Science Advisor

- 7,124

- 1,301

- #3

jedishrfu

Mentor

- 11,707

- 5,292

This causes us to extend our theories to explain the discovered anomalies and predict new things. The guiding principle is that the new theories must in the limit of everyday experience predict the same outcomes as Classical Mechanics.

Relativity is a good example when we consider everyday velocities the v^2/c^2 term becomes zero and the equations reduce to classical ones.

- #4

- 8

- 0

In the classical physics the (v/c)^2 is usualy omited only, and this is a simplicity also, and that's all story.

- #5

- 362

- 26

Classical mechanics is correct up to and including the second order in v.

- #6

Nugatory

Mentor

- 12,708

- 5,298

- #7

- 8

- 0

But, and unfortunately for such improvised claims, the gamma is a simple classical thing, because easily derivable, for example using the light clock, which is a completely classical entity.

Classical mechanics is correct up to and including the second order in v.

- #8

jedishrfu

Mentor

- 11,707

- 5,292

Great essay from a great author and scientist.

- #9

Nugatory

Mentor

- 12,708

- 5,298

Sometimes the word "classical" is used to mean Newtonian/Galilean, so that relativity and QM are both non-classical. Other people prefer to treat SR as a classical theory because it is a logical extension of classical electrodynamics, and reserve "non-classical" for QM. You appear to be using the word in the latter sense while my2cts is using it in the former sense.But, and unfortunately for such improvised claims, the gamma is a simple classical thing, because easily derivable, for example using the light clock, which is a completely classical entity.

The historical accident that QM and relativity were both shaking up the comfortable Galilean/Newtonian world at the same time may have contributed to the conflicting uses of the word.

Please don't start an argument over this..... :)

- #10

Khashishi

Science Advisor

- 2,815

- 493

- #11

- 16,099

- 6,091

All of the bridges and skyscrapers ever built and all of the moon landing made so far are just two sets of examples of VAST number of things that show just how right classical physics is. As has been stated in the thread several times, it DOES fail under conditions that are outside normal human experience but that just makes it incomplete, not wrong.Basically the title. Take relativity it has the Lorenz factor 1/sqrt(1-(v/c^2)) and if v is not zero it's something that isn't accounted for in classical mechanics. Does that make classical mechanics wrong?

- #12

- 362

- 26

- #13

- 362

- 26

A horrible proof, yet a proof.

- Replies
- 142

- Views
- 8K

- Replies
- 43

- Views
- 6K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 2K