Is the Concept of a Continuous Real Line Contradicted by Quantum Physics?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter FallenApple
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Line
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the concept of a continuous real line in mathematics and the implications of quantum physics, particularly regarding the Planck length. Participants explore whether the notion of continuity is undermined by quantum mechanics, and how this might affect the foundations of mathematics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that real analysis demonstrates the completeness of the real line, suggesting that all gaps between rationals are filled and that it is perfectly continuous.
  • Others challenge the assertion that the Planck length is the smallest unit of space, asking for credible sources to support this claim.
  • One participant notes that mathematics is independent of physical realities, although its application may depend on those realities.
  • There is a discussion about the potential contradiction of using continuous mathematical functions to derive quantized physical properties, with references to the quantization of momentum and the periodic nature of wave functions.
  • Some participants express that misconceptions about the Planck length may arise from popular science literature, leading to confusion about its implications in quantum physics.
  • A participant provides an example of modeling a bouncing ball as an infinite geometric series, illustrating the distinction between mathematical models and physical reality, particularly in relation to the Planck length.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the Planck length for the continuity of the real line. Multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation of the Planck length and its relationship to mathematical continuity.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on interpretations of quantum mechanics and the definitions of continuity and quantization. The discussion reflects various assumptions about the relationship between mathematics and physical reality.

FallenApple
Messages
564
Reaction score
61
Real analysis shows that the real line is complete. All the gaps between the rationals are filled. It is perfectly continuous. Of course, all of this is based off of certain axioms that make it work mathematically.

Are those axioms now sound? According to quantum, the plank length is the smallest unit of space allowable in existence. So if the idea of continuity is flawed in reality, then the current state of much of mathematics is also on shaky grounds.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
FallenApple said:
According to quantum, the plank length is the smallest unit of space allowable in existence.
With kindness I challenge you to find a credible source that says/demonstrates that the Planck length is the smallest unit of space allowable in existence.

There is no experimental evidence of any smallest unit of space.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jtbell, vanhees71 and PeroK
FallenApple said:
Real analysis shows that the real line is complete. All the gaps between the rationals are filled. It is perfectly continuous. Of course, all of this is based off of certain axioms that make it work mathematically.

Are those axioms now sound? According to quantum, the plank length is the smallest unit of space allowable in existence. So if the idea of continuity is flawed in reality, then the current state of much of mathematics is also on shaky grounds.

This is about the 4th post in the last week where it's claimed that the Planck length is the "smallest unit of length". This is a misinterpretation. See.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/hand-wavy-discussion-planck-length/

Moreover, mathematics is in no way dependent on the physical realities of time and space! How you can apply mathematics may be dependent on that, but not mathematics itself.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
PeroK said:
This is about the 4th post in the last week where it's claimed that the Planck length is the "smallest unit of length". This is a misinterpretation. See.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/hand-wavy-discussion-planck-length/

Moreover, mathematics is in no way dependent on the physical realities of time and space! How you can apply mathematics may be dependent on that, but not mathematics itself.

ah touche.

I know that math is independent of physical reality. But at the same time, we are using that math to prove things about the real world. I was watching a lecture where the quantization of momentum was derived using the periodic property of the momentum wave function, which is a form of euler's formula. These are continuous trig functions. Then I thought that the plank length might also derived in a similar manner: using continuous sines and cosines. It would be problematic if continuous functions based off of continuous space is used to prove space is quantized; that would be a contradiction.

But after reading the link, I see that space isn't really quantized.
 
DennisN said:
With kindness I challenge you to find a credible source that says/demonstrates that the Planck length is the smallest unit of space allowable in existence.

There is no experimental evidence of any smallest unit of space.

Understood. I'm new to quantum. I believe my misconception came of popular science books and my knowledge of the discrete energies and momentums and thought plank length may be similar.
 
FallenApple said:
Understood. I'm new to quantum. I believe my misconception came of popular science books and my knowledge of the discrete energies and momentums and thought plank length may be similar.
Excellent :wink:. You are definitely not alone in thinking what you thought - it is quite easy to make that thought leap from Planck length to thinking of it as a smallest unit of space. Yet, I should add that there could be a smallest unit of space - but to test this is very, very hard, with our technological capabilities of today.
 
FallenApple said:
ah touche.

I know that math is independent of physical reality. But at the same time, we are using that math to prove things about the real world. I was watching a lecture where the quantization of momentum was derived using the periodic property of the momentum wave function, which is a form of euler's formula. These are continuous trig functions. Then I thought that the plank length might also derived in a similar manner: using continuous sines and cosines. It would be problematic if continuous functions based off of continuous space is used to prove space is quantized; that would be a contradiction.

But after reading the link, I see that space isn't really quantized.

There is a good, elementary example of the relationship between mathematics and physics in terms of a bouncing ball (there's a homework post about this at the moment). You can model a bouncing ball as an infinite geometric series of increasingly smaller bounces and, if you sum the infinite series you get a finite time at which the ball stops. In reality, of course, you do not have an infinite series of bounces and there comes a point where the mathematical bounces are so small that they are immeasurable, indistinguishable from the internal kinetic behaviour of the ball and, of course, smaller than the Planck length.

The mathematics stands up even though, in reality, you can never take the sum of an infinite series and there can only be in reality a finite number of bounces.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FallenApple

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K