# 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:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2014, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/41 "2014-04-19T17:39:34Z")
I think quantum mechanics astounds people of the 20th and 21st century as well. That shit is _nuts_. ---
**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 19, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/42 "2014-04-19T17:59:17Z")
> [@fishbite](#): > > 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! The difficulty we have with QM is that we are studying phenomena for which we have little, if any, observational experience. We call them elementary "particles’, but of course the are not little balls of stuff, as if someone took a baseball and shrunk it to that level. It’s not even correct to say that they are excitation of quantum fields-- physics is a human construct that we use to understand the natural world. Those constructs can be very useful in making predictions, but they should not be confused with the actual world, itself. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2014, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/43 "2014-04-20T15:18:05Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > Birds don’t have fixed wings. Airplanes don’t flap. Neither do birds, when they are soaring. Paper airplanes were probably invented shortly after paper became available as an outgrowth of origami and other paper folding hobbies around 400BC. Or you can build a stronger airframe and attach a powerplant, like Archytas did about the same time, getting 200m out of it. > [@magellan01](#): > > How about just a Vietnam-era sniper’s rifle? What would be astounding about that? About the only technology they didn’t have to make one in 1650 was–maybe–a chemical that went bang when you struck it for the primer. Otherwise, they had telescopes and rifling and fine metalworking skills. Give one to a metalworker and he’d have it reverse-engineered in no time, and a beautiful working model with engraving and inlaid gold shortly after that. The M14 needed more flash, anyway. > [@panache45](#): > > Many of these statements astound me, and I only go back to 1945. I recently read a story from 1951 in which a fellow from 1900 used a time machine to go to 1950 and back. He couldn’t sell a story about the world of 1950 because the editor couldn’t believe that the young people of his day could become the leaders of that future without going insane from all the changes. But if the future comes in real time, in dribs and drabs, and if you don’t think about it too much it’s easy. I use “in my day,” but mostly because I’m impressed with how cool this future is. ---
**Author:** ![fishbite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee59a6/32.png) [@fishbite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fishbite)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/44 "2014-04-21T07:44:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The difficulty we have with QM is that we are studying phenomena for which we have little, if any, observational experience. We call them elementary "particles’, but of course the are not little balls of stuff, as if someone took a baseball and shrunk it to that level. It’s not even correct to say that they are excitation of quantum fields-- physics is a human construct that we use to understand the natural world. Those constructs can be very useful in making predictions, but they should not be confused with the actual world, itself. Well they have observational experience in the experiments they conduct using the particle colliders. Everybody is familiar with the pictures of darting lines from particle detectors which detect high-energy particles … Many experiments, many observations. They make predictions, yes, but then they confirm them. A number of quantum-related predictions have been confirmed. I get what you’re asking, I think: is it still far from the essence of reality, is the gap still tremendous, and are we crippled by having only five senses, say? Even so, particle physicists are observing the actual world as it appears to them and their instruments, there is no other way. One can only push forward. Currently observation experience is limited by the capabilities of the collider … ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/45 "2014-04-21T17:48:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think a lot of the above examples would simply “not compute”. The age and scale of the universe would be difficult enough to grasp, never mind the number of molecules in a drop of water. How about just a Vietnam-era sniper’s rifle? Or that we can send something up in the sky, have it orbit the earth, then return? There’s a science fiction novel (series, really) that you might get a kick out of - _1632_, by Eric Flint. It’s about a small coal mining town in Western Virginia around the end of the 20th century that, thanks to the inscrutable machinations of a super advanced alien race, finds itself teleported into the middle of Germany during the 30 Years War. One of the main characters is a high school cheerleader and trophy winning hunter, who becomes a celebrated hero when she shoots the teeth out of [Count Tilly](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_t%27Serclaes,_Count_of_Tilly)’s head from across the battlefield. ---
**Author:** ![Daylate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@Daylate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daylate)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/46 "2014-04-21T18:09:15Z")
> [@](#): > > …becomes a celebrated hero when she shoots the teeth out of Count Tilly’s head from across the battlefield. Sorry to be nitpicking, but I think the one she shot was a nasty guy named Wallenstien. Count Tilly was done in during a battle with Gustavus Adolph’s army. BTW, _ **1632** _ is probably the best time travel novel I’ve ever read. ---
**Author:** ![fishbite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee59a6/32.png) [@fishbite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fishbite)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/47 "2014-04-21T20:38:46Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > There’s a science fiction novel (series, really) that you might get a kick out of - _1632_, by Eric Flint. It’s about a small coal mining town in Western Virginia around the end of the 20th century that, thanks to the inscrutable machinations of a super advanced alien race, finds itself teleported into the middle of Germany during the 30 Years War. One of the main characters is a high school cheerleader and trophy winning hunter, who becomes a celebrated hero when she shoots the teeth out of [Count Tilly](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_t%27Serclaes,_Count_of_Tilly)’s head from across the battlefield. Kind of the opposite of that would be somebody goes back in time and tries explaining to the ancients how an electric motor works and so on. They burn him at the stake! ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2014, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/48 "2014-04-22T09:02:14Z")
> [@fishbite](#): > > Kind of the opposite of that would be somebody goes back in time and tries explaining to the ancients how an electric motor works and so on. They burn him at the stake! Yeah, but that’s because those lone travellers don’t have the full backing of a bunch of West Virginia coal miners. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2014, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/49 "2014-04-22T20:07:59Z")
I think one needs to distinguish between modern physics concepts that would astound for their novelty (e.g. the atomic theory of matter) and those which would contradict a deeply held principle (e.g. quantum mechanics or relativity). The former are certainly wondrous, but IMO the latter are the ones that would really surprise. QM–as many have pointed out in this thread–is astonishing even to 21st century people–and we’ve had some 100 years to understand and explain it! Moreover, it violates a deeply held principle of the modern age prior to 1900: [Determinism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism), or the idea that absolute, perfect knowledge could explain everything. If I had to choose, QM would get my vote for most astounding to a 17th century mind. ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/50 "2014-04-22T20:29:28Z")
The transmission of EM waves through a vacuum still puzzles ME. I imagine folks in the 17th century would have trouble believing it. Nuclear power: putting two pieces of material together generates continuous heat. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2014, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846/51 "2014-04-22T22:14:09Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > The universe was once smaller than an atom Nitpick: the **observable** universe was once smaller than an atom. Of course, you’d have to cover the size of the universe and the size of an atom first, and good luck with that! [According to Brian Greene, if the universe is infinitely big now, it was at the Big Bang as well. But a lot more dense then!] > [@buddha\_david](#): > > Heck, most elements we take for granted – such as oxygen – weren’t even “discovered” until the 18/1900’s. There IS no such thing as oxygen, just dephlogistcated air! > [@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… True, but when thermodynamics was shaping up, physicists at the time grumbled about being forced to learn this obscure “matrix math”. No doubt some complained about Calculus back in Newton’s time, too! (There’s a fairly rare case of the math being invented to handle the physics. Usually the math does come long before the application.) > [@buddha\_david](#): > > 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. I can only imagine the absolute ridicule that physicists would be exposed to with their **ludicrous** concepts, if only it seemed to contradict Scripture. Fortunately, it doesn’t, at least, not directly enough to hit the fundy radar. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 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. > … > 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. I think the OP’s question is especially interesting if we amend it to “What would astound Newton?” I suspect he’d be able to understand a lot more of it (assuming he trusted the source) than many of us, myself especially. No doubt he’d want to know the experimental details. > [@Punoqllads](#): > > “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.” LOL. No kidding! > [@fishbite](#): > > Quantum tunnelling. Yeah, me too. I mean, what’s really up widdat? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concepts-in-physics-that-would-astound-a-17th-century-person/685846.md?page=2)