How Can We Accurately Predict the Moon's Position Despite Quantum Uncertainty?

[Holocene]

If we cannot know with absolute certainty the speed or position of a sub-atomic particle, how is it that we can calculate with great certainty the speed and position of say the moon, which is of course ultimately comprised of these same sub-atomic particles?

Is classical mechanics still considered "correct" when dealing with the macroscopic, but must be abandoned at the atomic level?

If so, is there not some sort of paradox?

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

You describe one of the main problems in current science, creating a formula to describe both the the microscopic world and macro world. HUP only applies to things like electrons which are micro. Clearly, there is no uncertainty in predicting the moon's orbit to a high degree, but still not a perfect degree of course.

 

[sir-pinski]

First of all, it's completely understandable to feel overwhelmed when trying to understand complex concepts in physics. Physics is a vast and constantly evolving field, and it's natural to have questions and uncertainties. That being said, let's try to address your concerns.

The uncertainty principle, one of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics, states that it is impossible to know both the exact position and velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time. This is due to the wave-like nature of particles at the quantum level, which makes it impossible to determine their position and velocity simultaneously. However, this principle does not apply to macroscopic objects like the moon, which are made up of an incredibly large number of particles.

When dealing with macroscopic objects, classical mechanics is still considered to be a valid and accurate description of their behavior. This is because at the macroscopic level, the effects of quantum mechanics are negligible and can be ignored. So, while we cannot know the exact position and velocity of individual particles, we can still accurately predict and calculate the behavior of larger objects like the moon using classical mechanics.

It's important to note that this is not a paradox, but rather a limitation of our current understanding and theories. Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are both valid and useful in their respective domains. As our understanding of physics continues to evolve, we may eventually find a unified theory that can explain both the macroscopic and microscopic worlds. But for now, we can still make accurate predictions and calculations using classical mechanics for macroscopic objects and quantum mechanics for subatomic particles.

I hope this helps clarify your doubts. It's important to keep asking questions and seeking understanding in physics, as it is a fascinating and constantly evolving field.