Is measurable physics based on three things?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JMS61
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measurable Physics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "measurable physics" and whether it can be defined by three specific parameters: mass, frequency, and linear velocity. Participants explore the implications of these parameters in both classical and quantum mechanics, as well as the role of black holes in the context of measurement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that measurable physics is based on mass, frequency, and linear velocity, with linear velocity defined between zero velocity and light speed.
  • Another participant questions the concept of 'measurable' physics and introduces the idea of 'nonmeasurable' physics.
  • Some participants argue that classical physics involves mass, acceleration, distance, and time as key components of measurement.
  • A viewpoint from quantum mechanics is presented, stating that any Hermitian operator applied to a state corresponds to a measurable quantity, but the number of independent measurable quantities is limited by the dimensionality of the state vector.
  • There is a claim that anything passing through a black hole ceases to be measurable physics, raising questions about the implications of black holes on measurement.
  • One participant elaborates on the relationship between measurable physics and black holes, suggesting that measurable physics may lie between different linear velocity ranges, and that black holes challenge current understanding of measurement.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the definition of the environment and the study of its results are two parts of physics, linking this to the concept of measurable reality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definition and implications of measurable physics, particularly regarding the role of black holes and the parameters that define measurement. There is no consensus on the nature of measurable versus nonmeasurable physics.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions of measurable quantities and the implications of black holes on measurement. The discussion also highlights dependencies on theoretical models and assumptions that are not fully articulated.

JMS61
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Is measurable physics based on three things? Mass, the frequency of that mass, and the linear velocity that we consider measurable creation?

Linear velocity is defined as something that is moving between some version of zero velocity (a hard black hole, Stephen Hawking's math) and light speed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is 'measurable' physics, and does that mean there is also 'nonmeasurable' physics?
 
Well, I haven't the faintest clue what you're trying to get at with your second statement (black holes have zero velocity?), but you're completely missing E&M, among other things.
 
Mass, acceleration, distance, and time: is all a big part of classical physics and measurement.
 
We will wait for the OP to come back and post further clarification/explanation, or else this thread is nothing but noise.

Zz.
 
From perspective of Quantum Mechanics, any Hermitian operator you can apply to a state corresponds to a measurable quantity. So there are infinitely many measurable quantities you may wish to consider. However, you can only have a limited number of independent measurable quantities, as you can only have a limited number of independent Hermitian matrices. Unfortunately, that still doesn't completely answer the question, because this number depends on dimensionality of the state vector, and you basically end up saying that you can have as many measurable quantities as you provide for in your model. Whether or not all of these make sense with classical notions of measurable quantities again depends on the model.

In Classical Mechanics, a state of a point mass can be described by its position and momentum. So a mechanical system can be entirely described by a density distribution in 6-dimensional space called Phase Space. Hope that helps.
 
Andy Resnick said:
What is 'measurable' physics, and does that mean there is also 'nonmeasurable' physics?

Everything that goes through a "black hole" Andy, ceases to be measurable physics.
 
cjl said:
Well, I haven't the faintest clue what you're trying to get at with your second statement (black holes have zero velocity?), but you're completely missing E&M, among other things.

Everything that goes through a "black hole" has no memory, which is impossible.
 
K^2 said:
From perspective of Quantum Mechanics, any Hermitian operator you can apply to a state corresponds to a measurable quantity. So there are infinitely many measurable quantities you may wish to consider. However, you can only have a limited number of independent measurable quantities, as you can only have a limited number of independent Hermitian matrices. Unfortunately, that still doesn't completely answer the question, because this number depends on dimensionality of the state vector, and you basically end up saying that you can have as many measurable quantities as you provide for in your model. Whether or not all of these make sense with classical notions of measurable quantities again depends on the model.

In Classical Mechanics, a state of a point mass can be described by its position and momentum. So a mechanical system can be entirely described by a density distribution in 6-dimensional space called Phase Space. Hope that helps.

It does help. Stephen Hawking's "black hole" math creates the possibility that measurable physics lies between two other "linear velocity ranges". Which is actually sort of impossible according to today's physics. And that we can only measure what is within our "linear velocity range". There are two parts to physics, one is defining the environment and the other is studying the results of that environment. Modern physics is studying the results of that environment which seems to include at least two linear velocity ranges and maybe a third, all interacting to create a measurable reality (measurable environment). You go through a "black hole" you are not going to come out in our measurable velocity range. Stephen Hawking's black hole math supports that, which is why he got into trouble with the physics community or at least a vocal part of it. Stephen Hawking's defined the result of tunneling out of our measurable velocity range into a slower velocity range. And it could be said that the "big bang" is evidence that something was accelerated from a lower velocity rang into our velocity range and that that event resulted in what we consider a measurable reality.

So far everything seems to boil do to vibrational frequency, particle mass (and its spin), and linear velocity range.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 190 ·
7
Replies
190
Views
17K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
7K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K