**Ask a monkey a physics question thread**

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not sure about the dr/dt thing but it's not controversial that a force causes an acceleration. An inertial force will give the illusion of acceleration in a non-inertial FoR.

I don't think that's consistent, anymore.

When you were describing the "fictitious" forces as "inertial" forces, at least there was a consistent classification.
I think you lose that when you try to go the other way.

IDK what you're describing in an inertial reference frame that you'd consider an inertial force.

Wave functions are a mathematical description of reality, not a physical description. Even string theory isn't physical, the strings are waves not actual strings, it's just convenient for us to think of them as strings because we can visualise different wave geometries. The wave function doesn't tell us what the Planck scale looks like, just how it behaves.

What's actually happening is anyone's guess. We literally can't see it with light because to do so requires a photon with a wavelength shorter than the Planck length, and the energy of such a photon would create a black hole.

I gotta go to work, back later.

Well... it is a model, and not reality. That is important to keep in mind.

Nonetheless, the model makes excellent predictions, even on these scales. We absolutely can describe how atoms bond to each other to make molecules and crystals by understanding how those mathematical models interact with each other. Even given the fact that those actual equations are by and large unsolvable in the exact sense, and we have to make simplifications to get them into something that is close, but solvable. Which is just astounding. Amazing, even. Miraculous, I'd say.

So you're right that the model isn't the Truth, but what it can't describe isn't the *what*, it's the *how* things happen. It is remarkable at "what will happen" predictions, but silent on "why it do like that?" answers.


String theory is misnamed. It's not a theory, scientifically speaking, it's a hypothesis, or rather, a collection of hypotheses. Better still, it's a collection of inconsistent hypotheses which have not drawn 1 verifiable prediction in the many decades it's been mulled over by some allegedly very smart people.