Outdated vs. Essential: A List of Superceded Theories in Physics

[fanieh]

Please give list of superceded theories in which the classical version is outdated and where the classical version is still required, for example:

In going from Newtonian gravity to General Relativity, we can do away with Newtonian gravity and use only General Relativity...

In the atom, we can bypass directly Bohr version of the atom and go directly to quantum mechanics...

But in classical electromagnetic field, we can't eliminate it and go directly to quantum field theory because we still need the Maxwell equation in knowing the full behavior of light. But not in General Relativity where we don't need the Newtonian equation.. and not in quantum mechanics where we don't need to know the Bohr model of the atom. So please give other examples as I'd like to have idea how to distinguish theories that can be superceded and those that are still required. Thank you.

 

[Nugatory]

The entire premise of this thread is misdirected. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm Is a good starting point.

 

[fanieh]

The entire premise of this thread is misdirected. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm Is a good starting point.

If you have other articles.. please share it.. I think what is superceded is the coordinates?

In Maxwell Equation and EM wave, we don't replace them with QFT.. but only use QFT in the smallest section of the wave or the photons...
But in Newtonian space.. we replaced it with Minkowski and GR...
In Bohr Atom.. we replaced it with QM and maybe related to coordinates too...

so maybe what's superceded are the coordinates? What do you think other fellows here?

 

[fresh_42]

so maybe what's superceded are the coordinates?

As I see it, physics is all about coordinates. You may call it rest frame or geodesic or even eigenstates. In the end they all are coordinates in some way. So the only thing which definitely didn't change are coordinates, which is quite natural as it means to measure something. I like Asimov's statement very much, as e.g. although I know that I communicate around the entire globe here on PF and need satellites to do so, I usually can live well with a flat Earth model for everyday business. Furthermore it contradicts to some extend the way sciences are developed, because in science we either have hypothesis which are falsified like the ether model or the four elements model, or valid theories with respect to certain conditions and expansions of them for different conditions. It's Newton's understanding of forces and a flat earth, aka a local chart, that keeps me on the road while driving. GR and curvature would really complicate the entire set-up.

 

[mfb]

We don't need the Maxwell equations. They are just convenient in many places. Same with Newtonian gravity. We don't need it, but we don't construct buildings based on general relativity because that would be way more complicated than necessary.

The Standard Model (based on QFT) and General Relativity are the only fundamental laws of physics we have, everything else can in principle be derived from them.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The entire premise of this thread is misdirected. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm Is a good starting point.

I liked this quote from the link:
"John, when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
It strikes me that the Less Scientific the commentator, the More definite they tend to be in condemnation of scientific thought. You have to be in a position to 'understand' a theory to almost the same level as its inventor (and most of the earlier theories) if you want to make a valid comment about it. Only then can you have an idea about its limitations.
People are just not humble enough these days, about the body of knowledge that exists about the World around us. They would rather get their Science from Hollywood and scientific opinions from journalists.