Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Matter is not continuous and yet we don’t need atoms to predict how a metal sheet will bend.

At sufficient detail atomic structure has a huge impact on how a metal sheet bends. Metallurgy seriously investigates at this level.

Hand waving details is fine when discussing with friends, it’s not a sound foundation for serious academic research.

Also, the degree to which the weather is unpredictable 2+ weeks out is somewhat overblown. It generally snows in DC several days a year yet the odds it snows in DC 2 weeks from now is essentially zero not ~4/365. Similarly you can more accurately predict thunderstorms than a pure guess 2 months from now. We may call it climate, but a physical model of earths tilt, prevailing winds, CO2, etc is better than just historic data.



> Hand waving details is fine when discussing with friends, it’s not a sound foundation for serious academic research.

It's how physics worked for hundreds of years. Make a handwavy model, find out it works on some cases but breaks down on others, then make a slightly less handwavy model the next time.

Metallurgy considering atomic structure is a very new concept, and was not needed for the first millenias of metalworking.

The issue with economics is not handwaving, is that models are hard to test due to systems not being well isolated.


The history of physics is the exact opposite of what you say. Models were subject to considerable criticism and refinement on theoretical, philosophical, and aesthetic grounds. Newton did not discover universal gravitation because Kepler's laws broke down. Maxwell did not discover his correction because Ampère's laws broke down. Einstein did not discover relativity because Newtonian mechanics broke down. Investigation proceeded along different lines altogether and was accompanied by a degree of scrutiny not to be characterized as 'handwavy'.


> At sufficient detail atomic structure has a huge impact on how a metal sheet bends. Metallurgy seriously investigates at this level.

I know, it’s my job. But as much as we like to obsess about the mechanisms for dislocations climbing and solute interactions, nobody cares when they are designing an aircraft. They have macroscopic laws they put in their finite elements code. These are perfectly adequate to describe most known modes of failures of industrial alloys. Nobody is going to model all the atoms in a macroscopic widget, ever. It’s beyond pointless.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: