24.8: Closing Remarks
selected template will load here
This action is not available.
This all goes back to our original statements about physics. The goal is to come up with rules that allow us to describe Nature. It’s nice when those rules make sense, but, unfortunately, that is not a requirement. It does appear that the rules that describe Nature do not make sense, at least not based on our common experience, living in a macroscopic world where speeds are much less than the speed of light. With Special Relativity, we introduced the modern framework for modeling dynamics. We have not introduced Quantum Mechanics, which describes how elementary particles behave.
Quantum Mechanics is even less intuitive than Special Relativity, as it implies that particles act as if they are in multiple places at the same time. Even worse, Quantum Mechanics requires us to abandon the concept of determinism that is critical in Classical Mechanics; in Quantum Mechanics, we can only ever determine probabilities. For example, we can only determine the probability that a particle will be at a particular location at a particular time, but we cannot use kinematics and dynamics to predict where it will be at some time based on the forces acting upon it.
If you decide to pursue further studies in physics, you will get to learn more about these theories, which are quite marvelous. It should not bother you that physics is not intuitive, as that is not the purpose. The exciting part of physics is that, even if Nature behaves in an exquisitely weird way, it does appear that this can all be described with a rather limited set of mathematical equations. One can argue that there is beauty in the fact that succinct mathematics can describe a large number of seemingly unrelated phenomena, as Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravity was able to describe both the motion of a falling apple and the orbit of the moon.