Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: concerned about politics
Well, having taught Physics to undergrads for a number of years, the answer is this: on the ordinary scale of things useful for a very large part of physics, chemistry, biology, weak gravity astonomy, telemetry, and almost all of engineering that isn't EE, Newtonian Mechanics works perfectly well. It is an amazingly accurate approximation; the conceptualization is much simpler, and the mathematics is an order of magnitude or so easier. On these scales, for these professions, there is no reason to teach quantum mechanics, so it is not taught except for those aspects particular to a given discipline.

I don't know what your local college is, but there is no mainstream Physicist who doesn't believe in QM. None.

108 posted on 08/24/2011 4:56:19 PM PDT by FredZarguna (The power of the greatest rock band of all time--now a crack legal team. Coming to ABC this fall!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]


To: FredZarguna
I don't know what your local college is, but there is no mainstream Physicist who doesn't believe in QM. None.

Really? Beside that one professor, at the beginning of almost every book I've read on the subject, there's always a quiet "debate" between the two sciences, as if there's some kind of scientific struggle going on behind the scenes.
I'm glad you told me that. I'm not a science major, but Quantum physics fascinates me. I'm thrilled to learn there is no more debate. It's an amazing science, but when I try to explain it to some one, the scientific jargon escapes me. (I'm not well versed in that at all.)

111 posted on 08/24/2011 5:04:10 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson