What gets me is that physicists only get so far with these assumptions and generalizations… typically no further than homework problems and undergraduate laboratories. The real physics — the real scientific discoveries — are made when the assumptions break down. In plasma this occurs when particles aren’t “collisionless” or “thermalized” causing important “negligibles” or “non-linearities” in the math to become relevant. IE: You can’t use a Gaussian and all the related math because the plasma does not have a temperature, per se. Or maybe it has three temperatures. Not only does the math suddenly become stupendously difficult, but often you can’t use conventional math at all (thus my specialty: computerized simulation of individual plasma particles).

I just don’t understand why any economist that wants to act like a physicist and mathify their field hasn’t figured out that physicists are far beyond using math, often times. The physics is where the math doesn’t work anymore, so we often have to simulate each particle as an individual to see what is going on. Sound familiar?

When I read Mises and Hayek I keep thinking of quantum mechanics and my own field in simulation, and wondering how anyone could imagine things being any other way.