Quantum scale vs macro scale physics

[alt_f13]

I was wondering if it's possible that the laws that govern the quantum world are exactly the same as the laws that govern the world that we see.

 

I know that the conventional laws of physics are almost completely turned around at that size, but I find it hard to comprehend having two sets of rules for the same area of space.

 

It seems to me that physical formulae could be missing sections that take quantum mechanics into account, like a factor that shrinks exponentially as the size of the area you are describing increases.

 

 

Or perhaps I'm just asking for the universal formula .

[swansont]

QM solution reduce to classical ones when on a large enough scale. This is known as the correspondence principle.

[Meir Achuz]

When N in a bound state formula becomes large enough, the QM result can agree with the CM result. The Moon is in a QM state, but N is so large, we can't notice this discreteness. The use of a QM formalism called "coherent states" facilitate the classical look of high N quantum states. So QM does apply in the Macro world, but is usually unrecognizable. Superconductivity is an example of a macro QM state.

[alt_f13]

That is exactly what I was talking about, thanks. I just never got that far in physics.

[Dak]

you mean like a golfballs occelation shrinks at a lower rate than its mass, so that when you get to the size of an eletron the occelation is by far a more inportant factor than the mass, even though the occelation of a golf ball has virtually no baring on its behavior (whereas its mass does)?

[bascule]

String theory says the reason things behave differently at smaller scales is because the 5 (or 6) extra compactified dimensions string theory predicts have a substantially higher impact on particle behavior as you approach their size, which as yet hasn't been accurately estimated by the theory but you can think of it as approximately where QM behavior starts kicking in. Thanks to inflation 3 dimensions would up inordinately larger than the other 5/6, so on large scales their impact can be largely ignored, but on small scales they have a significant impact on particle behavior.

 

Of course, there's no direct evidence of their existence yet. Hopefully the LHC will do something to change that

[swansont]

you mean like a golfballs occelation shrinks at a lower rate than its mass, so that when you get to the size of an eletron the occelation is by far a more inportant factor than the mass, even though the occelation of a golf ball has virtually no baring on its behavior (whereas its mass does)?

 

Do you mean oscillation, as in the deBroglie wavelength?

[Dak]

sorry, im non-too great at phisics. i mean occilate as in wobble a la sine wave. ie eletrons wobble as they go along. golfballs also wobble, but relative to their size the wobble of the eletron is greater than the wobble of a golf ball.