Are Newtonian Mechanics considered to be 'falsified'? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhat is the difference between Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics in a nutshell?Does Newton's law and Quantum mechanics also apply for the matter which is not dead?Quantum mechanics thresholdIn the Principle of Least Action, how does a particle know where it will be in the future?WHY are Newton's Laws true?Why are Newton's laws of motion considered the axioms of the mathematical system of Newtonian mechanics based on the Euclidian axiom system?Motivation or Proof of Mechanical PrinciplesWhy do people say that Hamilton's principle is all of classical mechanics? How to get Newton's third law?Classical Mechanics: Continuous or Discrete universe?Why exactly are singularities avoided or “deleted” in physics?
Can a flute soloist sit?
Do ℕ, mathbbN, BbbN, symbbN effectively differ, and is there a "canonical" specification of the naturals?
Am I ethically obligated to go into work on an off day if the reason is sudden?
Falsification in Math vs Science
Mathematics of imaging the black hole
What do I do when my TA workload is more than expected?
Why couldn't they take pictures of a closer black hole?
Word to describe a time interval
Kerning for subscripts of sigma?
Are spiders unable to hurt humans, especially very small spiders?
Can withdrawing asylum be illegal?
What is the most efficient way to store a numeric range?
Is Cinnamon a desktop environment or a window manager? (Or both?)
What is this sharp, curved notch on my knife for?
If I score a critical hit on an 18 or higher, what are my chances of getting a critical hit if I roll 3d20?
Short story: child made less intelligent and less attractive
Does adding complexity mean a more secure cipher?
Variable with quotation marks "$()"
Geography at the pixel level
What does もの mean in this sentence?
Why isn't the circumferential light around the M87 black hole's event horizon symmetric?
How can I save a vector layer to memory (or is there a reason QGIS doesn't allow this)?
Likelihood that a superbug or lethal virus could come from a landfill
How can I add encounters in the Lost Mine of Phandelver campaign without giving PCs too much XP?
Are Newtonian Mechanics considered to be 'falsified'?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhat is the difference between Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics in a nutshell?Does Newton's law and Quantum mechanics also apply for the matter which is not dead?Quantum mechanics thresholdIn the Principle of Least Action, how does a particle know where it will be in the future?WHY are Newton's Laws true?Why are Newton's laws of motion considered the axioms of the mathematical system of Newtonian mechanics based on the Euclidian axiom system?Motivation or Proof of Mechanical PrinciplesWhy do people say that Hamilton's principle is all of classical mechanics? How to get Newton's third law?Classical Mechanics: Continuous or Discrete universe?Why exactly are singularities avoided or “deleted” in physics?
$begingroup$
In the comments for this question a dispute around around the question of "Have Newtonian Mechanics been falsified?"
That's a bit of a vague question, so attempting to narrow it a bit:
Are any of Newton's three laws considered to be 'falsified theories' by any 'working physicists'? If so, what evidence do they have that they believe falsifies those three theories?
If the three laws are still unfalsified, are there any other concepts that form a part of "Newtonian Mechanics" that we consider to be falsified?
newtonian-mechanics models
edited 58 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
108k122001243
asked 1 hour ago
PodPod
1163
New contributor
Pod is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the comments for this question a dispute around around the question of "Have Newtonian Mechanics been falsified?"
That's a bit of a vague question, so attempting to narrow it a bit:
Are any of Newton's three laws considered to be 'falsified theories' by any 'working physicists'? If so, what evidence do they have that they believe falsifies those three theories?
If the three laws are still unfalsified, are there any other concepts that form a part of "Newtonian Mechanics" that we consider to be falsified?
newtonian-mechanics models
edited 58 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
108k122001243
asked 1 hour ago
PodPod
1163
New contributor
Pod is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Forget Popper. Popper was largely wrong, and is largely unhelpful.
$endgroup$
– EnergyNumbers
2 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the comments for this question a dispute around around the question of "Have Newtonian Mechanics been falsified?"
That's a bit of a vague question, so attempting to narrow it a bit:
Are any of Newton's three laws considered to be 'falsified theories' by any 'working physicists'? If so, what evidence do they have that they believe falsifies those three theories?
If the three laws are still unfalsified, are there any other concepts that form a part of "Newtonian Mechanics" that we consider to be falsified?
newtonian-mechanics models
edited 58 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
108k122001243
asked 1 hour ago
PodPod
1163
New contributor
Pod is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
In the comments for this question a dispute around around the question of "Have Newtonian Mechanics been falsified?"
That's a bit of a vague question, so attempting to narrow it a bit:
Are any of Newton's three laws considered to be 'falsified theories' by any 'working physicists'? If so, what evidence do they have that they believe falsifies those three theories?
If the three laws are still unfalsified, are there any other concepts that form a part of "Newtonian Mechanics" that we consider to be falsified?
newtonian-mechanics models
newtonian-mechanics models
edited 58 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
108k122001243
asked 1 hour ago
PodPod
1163
New contributor
Pod is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 58 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
108k122001243
asked 1 hour ago
PodPod
1163
New contributor
Pod is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 58 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
108k122001243
edited 58 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
108k122001243
edited 58 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
108k122001243
108k122001243
asked 1 hour ago
PodPod
1163
New contributor
Pod is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
PodPod
1163
asked 1 hour ago
PodPod
1163
1163
New contributor
Pod is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Pod is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Pod is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
Forget Popper. Popper was largely wrong, and is largely unhelpful.
$endgroup$
– EnergyNumbers
2 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Forget Popper. Popper was largely wrong, and is largely unhelpful.
$endgroup$
– EnergyNumbers
2 mins ago
$begingroup$
Forget Popper. Popper was largely wrong, and is largely unhelpful.
$endgroup$
– EnergyNumbers
2 mins ago
$begingroup$
Forget Popper. Popper was largely wrong, and is largely unhelpful.
$endgroup$
– EnergyNumbers
2 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
"Falsified" is more philosophical than scientific distinction.
Newton laws have been falsified somehow, but we still use them, since usually they are a good approximation, and are easier to use than relativity or quantum mechanics.
The "action at distance" of Newton potentials has been falsified (finite speed of light...) but again, we use it every day.
So, in practical terms, no, Newton laws are still not falsified, in the sense that are not totally discredited in the scientific community. Classical mechanics is still in the curriculum of all universities, in a form more or less identical that 200 years ago (Before Relativity, quantum mechanics, field theory).
Most concept in physics fit more in the category of "methods" rather than "paradigms", so can be used over and over again. And all current methods and laws fails and give "false" results, when used outside their range of applicability.
The typical example of "falsified" theory is the Ptolemaic system of Sun & planets rotating around the Earth. However, philosopher usually omits the facts that:
- Ptolemaic system was experimentally pretty good at calculating planet motions
- Most mathematical and experimental methods of the new Heliocentric paradigm are the same of the old Ptolemaic
So the falsification was more on the point of view, rather than in the methods.
answered 46 mins ago
pattapatta
25115
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One of the problems of Newton's laws is that they can't describe the precession of Mercury's orbit. Mercury doesn't behave as predicted by Newton's laws and general relativity does a better job.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury
answered 41 mins ago
JasperJasper
1,1741517
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Pod is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f472215%2fare-newtonian-mechanics-considered-to-be-falsified%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
"Falsified" is more philosophical than scientific distinction.
Newton laws have been falsified somehow, but we still use them, since usually they are a good approximation, and are easier to use than relativity or quantum mechanics.
The "action at distance" of Newton potentials has been falsified (finite speed of light...) but again, we use it every day.
So, in practical terms, no, Newton laws are still not falsified, in the sense that are not totally discredited in the scientific community. Classical mechanics is still in the curriculum of all universities, in a form more or less identical that 200 years ago (Before Relativity, quantum mechanics, field theory).
Most concept in physics fit more in the category of "methods" rather than "paradigms", so can be used over and over again. And all current methods and laws fails and give "false" results, when used outside their range of applicability.
The typical example of "falsified" theory is the Ptolemaic system of Sun & planets rotating around the Earth. However, philosopher usually omits the facts that:
- Ptolemaic system was experimentally pretty good at calculating planet motions
- Most mathematical and experimental methods of the new Heliocentric paradigm are the same of the old Ptolemaic
So the falsification was more on the point of view, rather than in the methods.
answered 46 mins ago
pattapatta
25115
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"Falsified" is more philosophical than scientific distinction.
Newton laws have been falsified somehow, but we still use them, since usually they are a good approximation, and are easier to use than relativity or quantum mechanics.
The "action at distance" of Newton potentials has been falsified (finite speed of light...) but again, we use it every day.
So, in practical terms, no, Newton laws are still not falsified, in the sense that are not totally discredited in the scientific community. Classical mechanics is still in the curriculum of all universities, in a form more or less identical that 200 years ago (Before Relativity, quantum mechanics, field theory).
Most concept in physics fit more in the category of "methods" rather than "paradigms", so can be used over and over again. And all current methods and laws fails and give "false" results, when used outside their range of applicability.
The typical example of "falsified" theory is the Ptolemaic system of Sun & planets rotating around the Earth. However, philosopher usually omits the facts that:
- Ptolemaic system was experimentally pretty good at calculating planet motions
- Most mathematical and experimental methods of the new Heliocentric paradigm are the same of the old Ptolemaic
So the falsification was more on the point of view, rather than in the methods.
answered 46 mins ago
pattapatta
25115
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"Falsified" is more philosophical than scientific distinction.
Newton laws have been falsified somehow, but we still use them, since usually they are a good approximation, and are easier to use than relativity or quantum mechanics.
The "action at distance" of Newton potentials has been falsified (finite speed of light...) but again, we use it every day.
So, in practical terms, no, Newton laws are still not falsified, in the sense that are not totally discredited in the scientific community. Classical mechanics is still in the curriculum of all universities, in a form more or less identical that 200 years ago (Before Relativity, quantum mechanics, field theory).
Most concept in physics fit more in the category of "methods" rather than "paradigms", so can be used over and over again. And all current methods and laws fails and give "false" results, when used outside their range of applicability.
The typical example of "falsified" theory is the Ptolemaic system of Sun & planets rotating around the Earth. However, philosopher usually omits the facts that:
- Ptolemaic system was experimentally pretty good at calculating planet motions
- Most mathematical and experimental methods of the new Heliocentric paradigm are the same of the old Ptolemaic
So the falsification was more on the point of view, rather than in the methods.
answered 46 mins ago
pattapatta
25115
$endgroup$
"Falsified" is more philosophical than scientific distinction.
Newton laws have been falsified somehow, but we still use them, since usually they are a good approximation, and are easier to use than relativity or quantum mechanics.
The "action at distance" of Newton potentials has been falsified (finite speed of light...) but again, we use it every day.
So, in practical terms, no, Newton laws are still not falsified, in the sense that are not totally discredited in the scientific community. Classical mechanics is still in the curriculum of all universities, in a form more or less identical that 200 years ago (Before Relativity, quantum mechanics, field theory).
Most concept in physics fit more in the category of "methods" rather than "paradigms", so can be used over and over again. And all current methods and laws fails and give "false" results, when used outside their range of applicability.
The typical example of "falsified" theory is the Ptolemaic system of Sun & planets rotating around the Earth. However, philosopher usually omits the facts that:
- Ptolemaic system was experimentally pretty good at calculating planet motions
- Most mathematical and experimental methods of the new Heliocentric paradigm are the same of the old Ptolemaic
So the falsification was more on the point of view, rather than in the methods.
answered 46 mins ago
pattapatta
25115
edited 32 mins ago
answered 46 mins ago
pattapatta
25115
answered 46 mins ago
pattapatta
25115
answered 46 mins ago
pattapatta
25115
25115
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One of the problems of Newton's laws is that they can't describe the precession of Mercury's orbit. Mercury doesn't behave as predicted by Newton's laws and general relativity does a better job.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury
answered 41 mins ago
JasperJasper
1,1741517
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One of the problems of Newton's laws is that they can't describe the precession of Mercury's orbit. Mercury doesn't behave as predicted by Newton's laws and general relativity does a better job.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury
answered 41 mins ago
JasperJasper
1,1741517
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One of the problems of Newton's laws is that they can't describe the precession of Mercury's orbit. Mercury doesn't behave as predicted by Newton's laws and general relativity does a better job.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury
answered 41 mins ago
JasperJasper
1,1741517
$endgroup$
One of the problems of Newton's laws is that they can't describe the precession of Mercury's orbit. Mercury doesn't behave as predicted by Newton's laws and general relativity does a better job.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury
answered 41 mins ago
JasperJasper
1,1741517
answered 41 mins ago
JasperJasper
1,1741517
answered 41 mins ago
JasperJasper
1,1741517
answered 41 mins ago
JasperJasper
1,1741517
1,1741517
add a comment |
add a comment |
Pod is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Pod is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Pod is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Pod is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f472215%2fare-newtonian-mechanics-considered-to-be-falsified%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Forget Popper. Popper was largely wrong, and is largely unhelpful.
$endgroup$
– EnergyNumbers
2 mins ago