The above is the biggest bunch of bs I have possibly ever read.
There is bias when a site even chooses to print an article on a certain subject. Objectivity and politics should not even be mentioned in the same sentence. You try to paint yourself as some sort of judge in this area is laughable.
No you can chalk it up to Newtonian mechanics being much simpler than schrodinger's wave equation but being unable to explain quantum behavior which is expressed as probabilities which schrodinger's equations can explain.
I've already said that. Anyway, I'm out.
oh noes! ad hominemfest is just so compelling! Really.
What?
All any physics does is model observations to a mathematical form. And then use the math to predict other behavior if possible. Occam's razor should not even be mentioned in your spewing above as it tries to narrow choices. Probability is used in Quantum Mechanics automatically making it more appropriate as reasonable IMO.
And you bringing this bs in the middle of a political argument makes me think you are slightly to severely autistic (looky, I'm fuzzy, I covered a range of possibilities, get it, get it?, see I'm clever)
Leave the last sentence out of my post out and then reread it then. Maybe you can look past something you use so often.
Newtonian mechanics applied to behavior with many variables thrown in can be incredibly ugly and very, very difficult mathematically yet still be fairly accurate. Quantum mechanics is applied to the most fundamental behavior on the level of the small. You have a textbook way of comparing them. Not a working application explanation. It can all be difficult as it made up by ape brains.
We should all apologize to this site for this .
Last edited by pgardn; 07-23-2016 at 09:26 PM.
Gee, pgardn, sounds like you know what you're talking about. You wouldn't happen to have some education in physics, would you? Something that goes beyond having a conversation about quantum physics with a guy once?
Last edited by vy65; 07-23-2016 at 09:52 PM.
Crayola, pedobear, sophist piece of (my personal favorite).
Why does Fuzzy suck so bad at insults?
What are you talking about?
Quantum behavior cannot be explained by classical mechanics. Instead a more complicated mechanics is required. I make no value judgement. I'm not demeaning Newton's work particularly Principia which was ground breaking. It still invalidates occam's razor as a proof.
My explanation is in the context of the argument we were having in another thread. You want me to talk about it allegorically or something?
Keep on nitpicking though. It's kinda funny.
PS Infinitesimal calculus is not 'difficult' particularly when compared to the matrices you have to use to model space for quantum calculations. That is kinda the whole point of the nit being picked.
And I'm glad you like it. Self realization is important.
My job requires I know more biology and chemistry, with a bit of physics.
I took the dreaded quantum mechanics and try to forget it as much as possible.
I do need to know stuff, but am not comfortable talking down to people on a basketball site which is really why most of us are here when we are bored and going to sleep. So I thought.
I need the season to start.
Sounds like you have an interesting job. In any event, thanks for checking assholes.
You kinda ask for it don't you think.
PS
All this can be incredibly difficult or incredibly easy. I can make it easy by just laughing at your PS by merely stating that people modeling what we perceive to be natural behavior will never end and actually could get "easier" as long as humans are around. You throwing out crap to impress people when there will be so much more (that might be less) after you and I are long gone... I find this funny.
And of course Newtonian mechanics does not explain the most fundamental behavior. Jesus h Christ he did not know about more fundamental particles. We did not even know much about the most basic biological creatures.
Last edited by pgardn; 07-23-2016 at 10:31 PM.
I'm not trying to impress you. I'm trying to demonstrate how Occam's razor is not a proof. Your going cavalier for Newton's honor is amusing though. Thoe windmills need defeating.
Newtons honor... I could not care less. This is not a frkn contest.
Do you not understand math modeling of natural behavior? Newton dealt with large objects, yes? Just how the is he going to assign an electron a wave function? Do you have any clue how science works? You are a product of your times, just like in so many other human endeavors. You think Einstein was some time traveler? He was not the only person thinking about time and space as malleable and taking light speed as constant. There is no secret that many people were thinking about time as we started to try and coordinate travel properly in his day. Do you not get this?
Even after Newton people took some of his ideas and created the idea of energy/work. Around what time? steam engines etc...
Einstein would be shocked at some of the consequences OTHER people would come up with from his ideas.
And you take this to mean I am playing cavalier with Newton? Wtf?
Really... Wtf?
11:15
you keep me up for this drivel...
Christ.
Again I'm not criticizing Newton. He was avante garde for his time. Nonetheless, classical mechanics is much simpler than quantum mechanics. This is not a value judgment; it's a statement of fact.
The argument is regarding Occam's razor which states that the simplest explanation is the best. In the case of physics that is not the case. Caught up yet?
Quit that . You said I was playing cavalier with Newton. So you rephrase it to mean you are not criticizing Newton. Why do you pull this ?
Caught up yet? Seriously...
You really think I don't get it.
From what I can tell you are one of the people who walks into a room and yells "physics, calculus, quantum mechanics" just because a majority of people don't find these things interesting or were taught poorly in the first place. I think I could take 90% of the people on this board and take them slowly though science starting with physics and work up to some biological phenomena. I think I could get them to understand why biological systems only use very discrete energy levels to sense the world around them thus giving them a feel for how little we can understand without physical analogy. They would understand more than you in your quantum world. Because you happen to be concentrating on that right now hardly makes you an expert in anything useful. This would be more like an idiot savant stemming off one specific area of human endeavor.
And Just because one goes through a subject quickly or slowly does not necessarily indicate how profoundly they understand. You can use your Hibbert fields to impress people with a way to more usefully express wave functions, But the physical reality of what all this means is much more important. One can easily illustrate how a good algebra background makes slightly complex calculus doable, but the central idea of limits are not appreciated in differentiation or integration as it applies to some physical reality. This is the real beauty. Not getting a hard on for some very specific part of math that allows you to do other math.
I bet I could give find a version of a first year physics in HS as given by the new introductary AP1 exam and you would fail to make a good score. (A colleague told me it was more difficult than the calculus based physics because it dealt with ideas with much less math and more with concepts; his son was not one of the 4% nationwide who got a 5) Probably because you have not done it in a while. And this would make you stupid? Because it covers Newtonian mechanics and you are way, way beyond that.
So maybe I go and intensely study topology and come back and insult people on a basketball board. That would make me feel so good.
Enough already. I hope the majority of the board just skips all this drivel, I would.
Last edited by pgardn; 07-24-2016 at 09:42 AM.
Well that was a big waste of time.
I got to the first stupid characterization and quit reading. You still haven't caught up.
was this claim ever made, though?
You are so disingenuous it's amazing. No one ever claimed you were denigrating Newton in any way. You are attempting to redirect and it's painfully obvious. I'm playing cavalier with Newton, this is what you stated and it's just wordy garbage.
Occams razor gets rid of extraneous postulates rather than simplify. In QM we do exactly this using probability. Just because the methods of understanding are difficult does not mean Occam's razor has somehow been bypassed. The elegance is the idea of a range of possible states, that is in itself not extraneous or bringing in unnecessary information.
You read some thought somewhere on the Internet and attempt to distort. What a piece of work. And then you claim I need to catch up. You know this is BS. If you understand anything about science you must know this.
yeah by Crayola in another thread.
Now you're building strawmen. How droll. And you still haven't caught up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
