I have a problem with the knowledge of physics
More importantly, our interpretation of the universe.
How can we ever be sure that physics as we know it (Not classical mechanics) is actually what we think it is? How can we as animals ever understand the entire universe when we're limited to an environment that might not be the same elsewhere in the universe, and how does physics reconcile that fact?
Honestly something about classical mechanics seems very unintuitive. I wouldn't doubt it if there was something completely wrong about it
>>8193454
Could you elaborate on what exactly seems unintuitive about it?
>>8193459
>bowling ball and feather in a vacuum falling at the same time
>a puck rolling forever on frictionless ice
>centripetal acceleration going towards the center when you actually feel like you're going the other way
>no acceleration in the x direction
>a collision between a fly and truck applying the same force to each other
It seems like I'm constantly having to adjust my point of the view of the world and that's not rewarding to me
there is no such thing as the universe
>>8193466
let me fill you in. we don't really know a whole lot and our models are patchwork as fuck.
we use a shitload of approximation algorithms to brute force a "good enough" solution to just about everything. thermodynamics, fluids, celestial mechanics. you name it.
>>8193466
Maybe it's because I just finished grad school, but all those things make perfect sense in my mind.
The human mind is remarkably bad at predicting how physical systems evolve. Perfect example: a brachistochrone curve. It makes no sense. No matter you place an object on it, it will hit the bottom in the same amount of time. But it does.
wake up anon
wake
up
>>8193446
>How can we ever be sure that physics as we know it (Not classical mechanics) is actually what we think it is?
We can never be sure of anything.
And yet building a more accurate model is still important for understanding.
I know this is hard to comprehend, but some day you might get it.
That's sort of what I like about it. You get a result and say, "there's no way in hell that's right." But then you test it and it works.
Why the Lagrangian? Because it works. Why the Hamiltonian in the TISWE? Because it works. I too dislike that, but it isn't the best we can do. It's the best that can be done.
