Is All Motion Discrete or Continuous in QM?

In summary, we were discussing how much weight it would take to stop the mechanism from rotating in this thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/weight-required-to-hang-straight-down-with-known-torque.1016470/#post-6646777
  • #1
erobz
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,410
1,401
We were discussing how much weight it would take to stop the mechanism from rotating in this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-down-with-known-torque.1016470/#post-6646777

I wondered if there were actually a range of weights that would stop it from rotating ## [ m, \infty ) ## because of the discrete nature of QM. But I realllllly don't know how things are modeled in QM.

I picture it as an electron jumping an orbit: The hanging mass receives a certain discrete amount of energy ( like latent energy) before it makes a discrete jump in space?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
erobz said:
I wondered if there were actually a range of weights that would stop it from rotating because of the discrete nature of QM.
The scenario you described in the other thread is classical, not quantum. There is no useful way to apply QM to it.
 
  • #3
PeterDonis said:
The scenario you described in the other thread is classical, not quantum. There is no useful way to apply QM to it.
Surely, I'm not the only person that is bothered by that? Everything in Classical Mechanics is just a collection of Quantum Mechanical things.
 
  • #4
erobz said:
Surely, I'm not the only person that is bothered by that?
As a matter of philosophy, perhaps. As a matter of physics, we use classical physics for macroscopic objects. That's because classical physics works for macroscopic objects: we don't observe them making "quantum jumps" or having quantum interference effects or any other quantum phenomena.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and vanhees71
  • #5
Well, if Classical Mechanics is about systems of Quantum Mechanical objects, then surely there is a point where the two are indistinguishable, ## 2, 3, 5, 100, ...10^9 ## objects? Where does "Quantum behavior" disappear?
 
  • #6
erobz said:
Well, if Classical Mechanics is about systems of Quantum Mechanical objects, then surely there is a point where the two are indistinguishable, ## 2, 3, 5, 100, ...10^9 ## objects? Where does "Quantum behavior" disappear?
Nobody has a theoretical answer to this. Experimentally it depends on which particular quantum behavior you are looking at. I think double slit experiments have shown interference with molecules consisting of hundreds of atoms. The Josephson effect I believe has been observed in SQUIDs consisting of something like a trillion atoms. But that's still many orders of magnitude smaller than macroscopic objects.

It's possible that as our experimental techniques become more sensitive, we will see quantum effects in macroscopic objects. Or we will discover some kind of new physics that shows a clear break point between quantum and classical behavior. Until we can test this experimentally, anything anyone says about this is speculation.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2, erobz and PeroK
  • #8
PeterDonis said:
As a matter of philosophy, perhaps. As a matter of physics, we use classical physics for macroscopic objects. That's because classical physics works for macroscopic objects: we don't observe them making "quantum jumps" or having quantum interference effects or any other quantum phenomena.
The only quantum phenomenon we observe is that the matter around us is stable, which is an important prerequisite for the applicability of classical physics ;-)).
 
  • Love
Likes Delta2
  • #9
erobz said:
Surely, I'm not the only person that is bothered by that? Everything in Classical Mechanics is just a collection of Quantum Mechanical things.
If you imagine a classical model of the atom, then you still have the same question: at what scale does an object stop being a collection of atoms moving frantically in thermodynamic equilibrium and transition to an object seeming at rest?
 
  • #10
PeroK said:
If you imagine a classical model of the atom, then you still have the same question: at what scale does an object stop being a collection of atoms moving frantically in thermodynamic equilibrium and transition to an object seeming at rest?

But the jiggling of the atoms in a classical model ( in a lattice system ) is none the less a quantum effect? Maybe your point is there are other transitional points between CM and QM that we arrive at before looking at the transition to systems of subatomic particles... that we commonly take for granted also? Systems of atoms jiggling would be the transition point I was thinking about. I realize that QM deals more with systems of subatomic particles.
 
  • #11
erobz said:
But the jiggling of the atoms in a classical model ( in a lattice system ) is none the less a quantum effect? Maybe your point is there are other transitional points between CM and QM that we arrive at before looking at the transition to systems of atoms, subatomic particles... that we commonly take for granted also?
My point was that, in general, the model of the object a whole and the model of the object in terms of its constituent parts may be dissimilar.

For example the rules for how an IT system works at the overall functional level, e.g. open a post, reply to a post, bear no relation to the rules of how things work at the hardware level. Not to mention at several intermediate software levels.

And, indeed, there is another dissociation between IT hardware functions and the underlying QM.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #12
PeroK said:
My point was that, in general, the model of the object a whole and the model of the object in terms of its constituent parts may be dissimilar.

For example the rules for how an IT system works at the overall functional level, e.g. open a post, reply to a post, bear no relation to the rules of how things work at the hardware level. Not to mention at several intermediate software levels.

And, indeed, there is another dissociation between IT hardware functions and the underlying QM.
Thats fine, they work well given within their focus, but the lack of continuity could be an artifact of an incomplete understanding. I think that is why some are searching for a "Theory of Everything" that covers the small and the tall?
 
  • #13
erobz said:
Thats fine, they work well given within their focus, but the lack of continuity could be an artifact of an incomplete understanding. I think that is why some are searching for a "Theory of Everything" that covers the small and the tall?
You're never going to explain an IT functional specification in terms of QM. The "theory of everything" will not be a theory of everything in the sense that you imply. There's a joke about this in the TV series The Big Bang Theory. Sheldon thinks that because he is an expert in fundamental physics he knows everything. But, he doesn't know how to drive a car.

That's fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of human knowledge. The "theory of everything" in elementary physics will not tell you how to drive a car, or explain Python syntax, for example.
 
  • #14
erobz said:
But the jiggling of the atoms in a classical model ( in a lattice system ) is none the less a quantum effect?
No, it is classical. We have very small objects, namely atoms, with non-zero mechanical energy (sum of kinetic and potential energy) in a potential well. They jiggle.
 
  • #15
PeroK said:
The "theory of everything" will not be a theory of everything in the sense that you imply.
The sense that I got for a "Theory of Everything" was that physicist were after a new framework that encompassed GR and QM, with classical mechanics as simplification in between. I wasn't thinking about Information Theory ( but I'm not sure why it should be thought of as special, but then again I don't even really know what it is).
 
  • #16
Nugatory said:
No, it is classical. We have very small objects, namely atoms, with non-zero mechanical energy (sum of kinetic and potential energy) in a potential well. They jiggle.
So temperature is not a part of QM?

EDIT:
What I mean is temperature is not a quantum mechanical in nature?
 
Last edited:
  • #17
erobz said:
So temperature is not a part of QM?

EDIT:
What I mean is temperature is not a quantum mechanical in nature?
It is, but you asked about the classical model.
 
  • #18
erobz said:
So temperature is not a part of QM?

EDIT:
What I mean is temperature is not a quantum mechanical in nature?
It is, but there is more to temperature than just the jiggling of atoms.
 
  • Like
Likes DrChinese and berkeman
  • #19
Nugatory said:
It is, but there is more to temperature than just the jiggling of atoms.

Gotta' love B-level threads... :smile:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Delta2 and DrChinese
  • #20
Nugatory said:
It is, but there is more to temperature than just the jiggling of atoms.
Can you elaborate a bit please?
 
  • Like
Likes erobz

1. What is the difference between discrete and continuous motion in quantum mechanics?

Discrete motion refers to motion that occurs in distinct, separate steps or intervals. Continuous motion, on the other hand, occurs without any breaks or interruptions. In quantum mechanics, the concept of discrete motion is related to the quantization of energy levels, while continuous motion is associated with the wave-like behavior of particles.

2. Is all motion in quantum mechanics discrete or continuous?

In quantum mechanics, both discrete and continuous motion can occur. The behavior of a particle is determined by its wave function, which can exhibit both discrete and continuous characteristics. For example, the energy levels of an electron in an atom are discrete, but the position of the electron can be described by a continuous probability distribution.

3. How does the uncertainty principle relate to the discreteness of motion in quantum mechanics?

The uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to simultaneously know the exact position and momentum of a particle. This is because the act of measuring one property affects the other. In quantum mechanics, this means that the discrete energy levels of a particle cannot be known with absolute certainty, as the act of measuring its energy will affect its position and vice versa.

4. Can a particle exhibit both discrete and continuous motion at the same time?

Yes, a particle in quantum mechanics can exhibit both discrete and continuous motion simultaneously. This is because the wave function of a particle can have both discrete energy levels and a continuous probability distribution. The behavior of a particle is determined by the specific conditions and interactions it experiences.

5. How does the concept of superposition relate to the discreteness of motion in quantum mechanics?

In quantum mechanics, superposition refers to the ability of a particle to exist in multiple states or positions at the same time. This means that a particle can exhibit both discrete and continuous motion simultaneously, as it can exist in multiple energy levels and positions simultaneously. Superposition is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics and plays a crucial role in understanding the discreteness of motion in this field.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
959
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
69
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
19K
Back
Top