# Concepts in physics that would astound a 17th century person **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 11, 2014, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846 "2014-04-11T03:16:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2014, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/21 "2014-04-13T07:46:46Z")
There’s plenty of modern physics that’s pretty astounding to a modern person. Would relativity really be that much more unbelievable to a 17th century individual than a 21st century one? Or quantum mechanics? Now granted, a modern person has access to a lot of math that a 17th century person doesn’t, and maybe among the more educated classes we’re more OK with some of these notions just because we’ve always been exposed to them. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2014, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/22 "2014-04-13T11:00:34Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2014, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/23 "2014-04-13T12:12:03Z")
What buddy said. Quantum mechanics continually astounds me, and I’ve seen some of the math, and I was born here. ---
**Author:** ![blue\_infinity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blue_infinity/32/2817_2.png) [@blue\_infinity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blue_infinity)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2014, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/24 "2014-04-13T14:52:54Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > Plagues and illnesses caused by tiny creatures too small to see? HA! What nonsense!! Actually van Leeuwenhoek discovered the ‘tiny creatures’ in the 1670’s. Germ theory - in a primitive form - was developed soon after. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/25 "2014-04-13T17:30:00Z")
> [@blue\_infinity](#): > > Actually van Leeuwenhoek discovered the ‘tiny creatures’ in the 1670’s. Germ theory - in a primitive form - was developed soon after. But how many people, even scientist\*, accepted it at the time? It’s more accurate to say that a Germ Hypothesis was proposed, but it was not accepted as a Theory (i.e., something that has been proven scientifically and is generally accepted as the best explanation we have) until much later. \*Inasmuch as there can be said to have been scientists at that time. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2014, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/26 "2014-04-13T18:01:40Z")
> [@buddy431](#): > > There’s plenty of modern physics that’s pretty astounding to a modern person. Would relativity really be that much more unbelievable to a 17th century individual than a 21st century one? Or quantum mechanics? > > Now granted, a modern person has access to a lot of math that a 17th century person doesn’t, and maybe among the more educated classes we’re more OK with some of these notions just because we’ve always been exposed to them. Don’t overestimate the math background needed to understand modern physics. Sure, you need some pretty sophisticated math to do work in those areas, but not to understand them. If you look at the history of modern mathematics, you’ll see that it was usually a couple hundreds years ahead of applications in physics (except in the case of Calculus where it was developed to understand Gravity, an aspect of physics). I was often astounded when I was studying physics in college by how old the math was that were using. ---
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/27 "2014-04-13T18:15:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Don’t overestimate the math background needed to understand modern physics. Sure, you need some pretty sophisticated math to do work in those areas, but not to understand them. If you look at the history of modern mathematics, you’ll see that it was usually a couple hundreds years ahead of applications in physics (except in the case of Calculus where it was developed to understand Gravity, an aspect of physics). I was often astounded when I was studying physics in college by how old the math was that were using. A couple hundred years, sure. I’m thinking of, say Lagrangian mechanics and linear algebra, which I would say are pretty fundamental to how quantum mechanics is usually taught at even the introductory level (or Hamiltonian mechanics, same difference). These are 18th century inventions, certainly not available to even the smartest people of the 17th century. I guess you could still talk about the uncertainty principle, particle/wave duality, etc., but there’s not a good way to make sense of it, other than just saying “this is true,believe us” Edit: Of course, those aren’t really understood by the vast majority of people today, which was sort of my original point. For most 17th and 21st century people, physics is pretty darn astounding. It’s only among the smartest and most educated that any meaningful differences in understanding would arise from a 400 year difference. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/28 "2014-04-13T18:36:47Z")
> [@buddy431](#): > > A couple hundred years, sure. I’m thinking of, say Lagrangian mechanics and linear algebra, which I would say are pretty fundamental to how quantum mechanics is usually taught at even the introductory level (or Hamiltonian mechanics, same difference). These are 18th century inventions, certainly not available to even the smartest people of the 17th century. I guess you could still talk about the uncertainty principle, particle/wave duality, etc., but there’s not a good way to make sense of it, other than just saying “this is true,believe us” > > Edit: Of course, those aren’t really understood by the vast majority of people today, which was sort of my original point. For most 17th and 21st century people, physics is pretty darn astounding. It’s only among the smartest and most educated that any meaningful differences in understanding would arise from a 400 year difference. Hamiltonian Mechanics is a formalization of physics (as was Lagrangian mechanics, earlier), not a field of mathematics (maybe you know this, but I wasn’t sure). Both were developed for Classical Mechanics and later used for QM. But you don’t need to understand them in order to understand Q.M. The average person today never studies physics, and probably can’t even do algebra, but you can get an understanding of it without a lot of math. The same would have been true 300 or 400 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/29 "2014-04-13T19:05:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Hamiltonian Mechanics is a formalization of physics (as was Lagrangian mechanics, earlier), not a field of mathematics (maybe you know this, but I wasn’t sure). Both were developed for Classical Mechanics and later used for QM. But you don’t need to understand them in order to understand Q.M. The average person today never studies physics, and probably can’t even do algebra, but you can get an understanding of it without a lot of math. The same would have been true 300 or 400 years ago. I don’t really think we’re disagreeing. I think that quantum mechanics is just as astounding to the 21st century Joe the Plumber as it would have been to the 17th century John the peasant. Now, at least Joe has heard of QM, and black holes, and relativity, but it’s still pretty nuts compared to what he intuitively believes about the world. I do think that Stephen Hawking is much better able to understand modern physics than Newton would have been, for the reasons I mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/30 "2014-04-13T19:34:47Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > The very concept of atoms, molecules, and how chemical reactions work would be baffling to a 17th century person. Heck, most elements we take for granted – such as oxygen – weren’t even “discovered” until the 18/1900’s. While the typical man-in-the-street would be befuddled and surprised by all this, it is amazing how sophisticated the ideas as far back as the 5th & 4th centuries BCE were. Democritus, aka the “Laughing Philosopher", is credited with being the father of atomic theory. He is considered perhaps the most “scientific” of the early philosophers. The ideas of Democritus and his contemporaries on matter, substance and void foreshadow much of our modern understanding of physics and chemistry. [For example…](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/) > [@](#): > > The atomists held that there are two fundamentally different kinds of realities composing the natural world, atoms and void. Atoms, from the Greek adjective atomos or atomon, ‘indivisible,’ are infinite in number and various in size and shape, and perfectly solid, with no internal gaps. They move about in an infinite void, repelling one another when they collide or combining into clusters by means of tiny hooks and barbs on their surfaces, which become entangled. Other than changing place, they are unchangeable, ungenerated and indestructible. All changes in the visible objects of the world of appearance are brought about by relocations of these atoms: in Aristotelian terms, the atomists reduce all change to change of place. Macroscopic objects in the world that we experience are really clusters of these atoms; changes in the objects we see—qualitative changes or growth, say—are caused by rearrangements or additions to the atoms composing them. While the atoms are eternal, the objects compounded out of them are not. ‘by convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void’ - Democritus ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/31 "2014-04-13T19:37:27Z")
> [@buddy431](#): > > I think that quantum mechanics is just as astounding to the 21st century Joe the Plumber as it would have been to the 17th century John the peasant. Agreed – and the reason why Fundies haven’t demanded such things should be banned from the school curriculum is probably because such concepts fly right over their collective heads…unlike evolution, and (someday) gravity. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/32 "2014-04-13T20:39:50Z")
Why should 17th century people be any different than 21st century people? We’re not talking about cavemen here, we’re talking about people just as smart as we are. They would be ‘astounded’ by plenty of things, just like people today are. In fact, I think Isaac Newton would be better equipped to understand most modern technologies than is the average citizen of today. How many people can explain how a television or a computer works? The only thing ‘modern’ people have going for them is that they grew up in an era of rapid technological change, so nothing surprises them. Of course people have their prejudices. Getting Newton to accept that Alchemy wasn’t real or to renounce his faith in God might be quite a stretch. But the same is true of people today. But if he became truly convinced that you were from the future and were accurately describing technology of the future, his response would likely be fascination and a desire to study - not fear or abject disbelief. As a scientist, he would just want proof. You’d have to show him the math, or teach him the math. You’d have to explain the prerequisite chain of technology and scientific understanding. But he’d have no problem ‘getting’ it. And hey, he already knows calculus… Take a guy like Newton, put him in a modern university setting for five years or so, and he’d probably become a contributing member of the scientific establishment. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/33 "2014-04-13T20:47:13Z")
Yeah, just because you live with something every day doesn’t mean you understand it. But let’s keep in mind that in the 1600s they were still burning witches at the stake. The average 17th century person is more likely to ascribe something to magic or demons that to natural causes compared to his 21st century descendants. It might be hard to disabuse them of those beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/34 "2014-04-14T14:38:11Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Show them a working television, then try to explain the photoelectric effect. What would be harder to explain is why we use such an invention for watching Kardashians. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/35 "2014-04-14T16:46:35Z")
“In my pocket I have a device capable of retrieving almost any fact about the world. I use it mostly to watch videos of cats.” ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Q](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/898d66/32.png) [@Johnny\_Q](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Q)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/36 "2014-04-14T23:07:21Z")
The idea of meteors. Wasn’t it taken as a scientific fact around that time that “rocks do not fall from the sky”? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Q](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/898d66/32.png) [@Johnny\_Q](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Q)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/37 "2014-04-14T23:10:02Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > What would be harder to explain is why we use such an invention for watching Kardashians. Introduce them to _Star Trek_ and show them how much more fun it is to watch Cardassians instead. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/38 "2014-04-15T08:25:43Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > The universe was once smaller than an atom. Many of these statements astound me, and I only go back to 1945. ---
**Author:** ![fishbite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee59a6/32.png) [@fishbite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fishbite)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/39 "2014-04-19T16:02:25Z")
Quantum tunnelling. Heh, I just wanted to say that. No I find that fascinating. And Quantum entanglement just seems ridiculous. Discoveries down at the quantum level are the most astounding. As it leads to the suggestion the universe came from nothing … From nothing! The real eye-popper for me lately: there are no particles. Particles, as we call them, are actually excitations of quantum fields. And the Higgs field? Oh it only gives particles, or whatever they are, mass as they swim thru it! Whew! ---
**Author:** ![fishbite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee59a6/32.png) [@fishbite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fishbite)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/40 "2014-04-19T16:08:55Z")
I imagine they would also be astounded to know the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate and the possible consequences of that. Ie, the de Sitter universe. The big empty. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846.md?page=3)