Is there any theoretical way to have physics work not like quantum mechanics?

[Squippel]

I asked this in yahoo, and of the answers no one addressed what I was asking, so I added details to maybe help. First ever post on here, sorry if it's bad.

Is it theoretically possible to have energy transfers happen continuously instead of discretely? Does it lead to any problems?

I've read on a physics site that "Planck's problem -- and the problem of all other physicists at the time -- was that there was no theoretical reason why anything should occur in whole steps, rather than smoothly. There was no reason why anything should be "quantized."

So this implies most physicists thought that a continuous transfer of energy made theoretical sense. I'm not sure I agree with this, but am looking for what you have to say about it.

Additional Details
Okay, no one answered my question. Maybe I should be even more specific. Could continuous functions, like a polynomial, ever be represented in the real world? Is it possible to take it out of the abstract (mathematics) and into the real world (physics)? ie, nothing is quantized, infinite possible positions of particles, infinite possible intermediate points, infinite possible frequency of radiation... can this theoretically make sense?

 

[CJames]

Quantization comes from Einstein's photoelectric effect. Increase the intensity of the light and you keep getting more results, but continue to increase the frequency and you hit a wall where you can't get any more results.

This is because the light consists of distinct units of energy that can only be absorbed by a single electron at a time. Increase the intensity and you increase the number of units of energy, which means more electrons get ejected from their atoms. But increase the frequency and you only increase the amount of energy carried by each unit, which means you can't eject any more electrons than their are photons in the beam of light.

I certainly can't think of any other way to interpret this experiment than to think that light is divided into discrete units of energy, but if you can I'm sure it would revolutionize physics.

I think our current understanding of physics assumes that some things, like energy, are quantized. Other things, like space and time, are assumed not to (although they may be).

 

[xts]

Is it theoretically possible to have energy transfers happen continuously instead of discretely? Does it lead to any problems?

Theoretically it is possible, even more, we use it everyday: 19th-century physics works like you say and it is a perfectly suitable for all macroscopic purposes. If you make a mechanical analaysis of new car design, you assume the energy is transmitted from the engine as contionous transmission, rather than being quantizied.

But such approach contradict many observable phenomena, (historically) starting from photoelectric effect and spectra of elements, which become easily explainable if you accept the assumption that energy transfers are always quantizied.

 

[Pengwuino]

Theoretically it is possible, even more, we use it everyday: 19th-century physics works like you say and it is a perfectly suitable for all macroscopic purposes. If you make a mechanical analaysis of new car design, you assume the energy is transmitted from the engine as contionous transmission, rather than being quantizied.

But such approach contradict many observable phenomena, (historically) starting from photoelectric effect and spectra of elements, which become easily explainable if you accept the assumption that energy transfers are always quantizied.

Yup this basically should answer your question. It was only until we started having experiments that seemed to contract the idea of a 'continuous' universe that we actually needed the ideas behind quantum mechanics. There is nothing natural about things being quantized, it's simply how the world ended up being like.

 

[Squippel]

I'm sorry, I'm still not satisfied.

I'll break this down into a much simpler example. A particle travels from A to B in a line. In math, abstractly, there are an infinite number of points between A and B. It is not discrete, it is continuous. However, in the real world is it possible to transverse those infinite set of points?

I think it's not possible. I think it's not possible because the only way to cross the infinite set of points is to move an infinitesimal. How can you move an infinitesimal? If your answer is "you can't" then this is why physics is quantized. No infinitesimal energy transfers, no infinitesimal movement, no infinitesimal anything. Basically that also proves space of time are quantized. I think this is a simple idea, and I want my voice heard! God nabbit flabbit.

A point you may bring up:

"It's possible to have an infinite series converge to a real value, so it's possible to have a infinite set of intermediary points to travel across."

Yes, but this is only abstractly in mathematics. We don't actually make a computation adding an infinite amount of numbers. This is impossible. We have proofs showing that it converges to a value, not a showing of a "complete addition to infinity" (EDIT: as another example, we have proofs showing pi has inifinite digits, but the only way we know this is because of the proofs, and NOT because we computed pi infinitely... that is impossible). Mathematics can't always be represented in the real world. Imaginary numbers are a good example. Are they used in QM for calculations? Yes. But they don't actually have any sense in the real world... here have an imaginary number of apples.

 

[Bill_K]

I'm sorry, I'm still not satisfied.

Apparently you won't be satisfied unless we agree with you. Nevertheless, present physical theory assumes that space is continuous and evolution takes place one infinitesimal step at a time. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that systems are quantized.

[Imaginary numbers] don't actually have any sense in the real world... here have an imaginary number of apples.

Complex numbers are an essential ingredient in the quantum world, they're not just an artificially added convenience. Complex-valued probability amplitudes are necessary to produce interference.

 

[CJames]

Well, as I said, the question of whether or not space or time is continuous or consists of discrete units is an open one. I would say that an object doesn't have to move an infinite number of infinitesimals to get from 0 to 4 meters, it just has to move four meters, because that's how I interpret the math.

 

[HallsofIvy]

If you have ever taken a course in Calculus, you should be aware of Zeno's paradoxes- essentially what you are arguing- and how Calculus handles them.

Frankly it sounds like you really do not know very much about what physics and mathematics are. The theory of infinite series does, in fact, tell you how to sum an infinite series.

 

[Squippel]

No, it's clear that no one here knows what I'm saying. I might have to just make a youtube video or something.

 

[Squippel]

A particle travels from A to B in a line. In math, abstractly, there are an infinite number of points between A and B. It is not discrete, it is continuous. However, in the real world is it possible to transverse those infinite set of points?

What is you answer to this, and just this question. Your straight answer.

 

[Squippel]

You can't move an infinitesimal in the same way you can't reach infinity. Why is this hard to grasp?

 

[CJames]

A particle travels from A to B in a line. In math, abstractly, there are an infinite number of points between A and B. It is not discrete, it is continuous. However, in the real world is it possible to transverse those infinite set of points?

What is you answer to this, and just this question. Your straight answer.

There is no straight answer to this question. All we know is that an object can move from point A to point B. We can use calculus to describe that motion in a way that hasn't broken down so far. Some day an experiment may demonstrate that space is not continuous. Or that might never happen.

 

[DaveC426913]

You can't move an infinitesimal in the same way you can't reach infinity. Why is this hard to grasp?

It isn't hard to grasp. That doesn't make your conclusion correct.

It is possible to cross an infinite number of infinitesimal dsitances in a finite time.

Seriously, have you read up on Zeno's paradoxes?

 

[qsa]

see this thread for more info on space-time, discrete vs continuous

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511265

also

http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2011.1

 

[agentredlum]

A particle travels from A to B in a line. In math, abstractly, there are an infinite number of points between A and B. It is not discrete, it is continuous. However, in the real world is it possible to transverse those infinite set of points?

What is you answer to this, and just this question. Your straight answer.

Definitely not possible if you stop at every point along the way. Definitely not possible if you stop at every OTHER point along the way. If dx-->0 then 2dx, 3dx, 4dx...ndx-->0 as long as n is not infinity.

If you want to get from point A to point B DON'T STOP keep moving. Your continuous speed will determine how long it takes. As you consider more and more points between A and B the dx becomes smaller, no question, however if your speed is non-zero then the dt also becomes smaller, no question.

So even if the points are infinite in number between A and B dx and dt both go to zero so it takes less and less time to travel the smaller and smaller distance.

IMHO In the real world it is possible to transverse those infinite set of points.

Does this particle you speak of have any length, width, or height? If it does then it would cover an infinite number of abstract mathematical points by simply existing. That is a non-intuitive idea. You can cover infinity just by being there.

 

[qsa]

IMHO In the real world it is possible to transverse those infinite set of points.

that is exactly the point, we don't know what is the real world at small distances. different theories look at it in different ways. that is why I provided the links, the issue is much more complicated than a simple analogy. it is not only about particle movement(which inherently not well defined) it is also about how energy is defined and all kind of host processes that are involved like running couplings, masses and so on. also if you read some chris Isham, although complicated, but hopefully you will get some idea of what is involved.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Isham

 

[Squippel]

It is possible to cross an infinite number of infinitesimal dsitances in a finite time.

Seriously, have you read up on Zeno's paradoxes?

Yes, I know what Zeno's paradox is. The fallacy everyone makes is that mathematical operations always represent what is possible. You cannot compute the answer to Zeno's paradox. You only can use proofs to show that an infinite set of lengths can add to a real number. That is not the same thing. I want to stress that. No one has ever added an infinite string of halfs to get the answer 1. This problem is analogous to moving to the next smallest unit.

Does this particle you speak of have any length, width, or height? If it does then it would cover an infinite number of abstract mathematical points by simply existing. That is a non-intuitive idea. You can cover infinity just by being there.

Exactly... abstract points. Now, please list out all the points this particle is located at. You can't do it, it's not possible to list the points. Now move the particle slightly over to the "infinitith digit". Again, not possible.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, I know what Zeno's paradox is. The fallacy everyone makes is that mathematical operations always represent what is possible.

Fallacy? But we can get from point A to point B.

So, we have an observation 'cover the infinite infinitesimal gaps from A to B', and we have a mathematical solution for it (calculus).

What exactly is the problem here? Sounds like you're tilting at windmills.

You cannot compute the answer to Zeno's paradox. You only can use proofs to show that an infinite set of lengths can add to a real number. That is not the same thing. I want to stress that.


No one has ever added an infinite string ofo halfs to get the answer 1. This problem is analogous to moving to the next smallest unit.

Exactly... abstract points. Now, please list out all the points this particle is located at. You can't do it, it's not possible to list the points. Now move the particle slightly over to the "infinitith digit". Again, not possible.

This is silly.

You're making a problem where there is none. You want to set constraints on how to calculate it or do it, and then claim it can't be done. (Well duh.)

The answer to how to do it is to do it. Move it from a to b. It moves though all intervening points. You claiming they're "abstract" does not mean we didn;t pass through them. They're real.

The answer to how to calculate it is to use calculus, which is the math we use when dealing with infinitesimals and limits.

 

[Dale]

Theoretically it is possible, even more, we use it everyday: 19th-century physics works like you say and it is a perfectly suitable for all macroscopic purposes.

This is a good point.

To the OP. There are two ways that a theory can be discarded, one is that it is not logically consistent with itself and the other is that it is not consistent with experiment. When you ask if something is "theoretically possible" you are asking if it is logically consistent with itself, regardless of any experimental evidence.

Classical mechanics is logically self-consistent. So the idea that energy transfer could be continuous rather than discrete is theoretically possible. However, there is plenty of experimental evidence to the contrary.

Also, your subsequent posts on quantized space are not really relevant to your OP on quantized energy. Current theories have quantized energy, but not quantized space, so they are completely separate questions.

 

[Naty1]

"Is there any theoretical way to have physics work not like quantum mechanics?"

Let's hope so because neither QM nor GR works everywhere...so we need something new, like quantum gravity, so we can understand singularities like the big bang and the center of black holes.

 

[Squippel]

You're making a problem where there is none. You want to set constraints on how to calculate it or do it, and then claim it can't be done. (Well duh.)

The answer to how to do it is to do it. Move it from a to b. It moves though all intervening points. You claiming they're "abstract" does not mean we didn;t pass through them. They're real.

The answer to how to calculate it is to use calculus, which is the math we use when dealing with infinitesimals and limits.

The process of calculating an answer is not the same thing as getting the answer. There's no proof or reroute or shortcut to get an answer of "the next instant" problem when there is one for proving infinite series converging or that pi has infinitely many digits.

You fundamentally don't understand what I'm saying. You cannot pass through the abstract points. Using calculus calculates at an instantaneous time. I'm going to ask you to use Calculus the slope at instant A. Now calculate the next instant. You can't do that! When is the next instant? You cannot do this. The question is unanswerable.

Also, your subsequent posts on quantized space are not really relevant to your OP on quantized energy. Current theories have quantized energy, but not quantized space, so they are completely separate questions.

They are the same question. Continuous process are either possible or they aren't. Solving that problem shows whether it is or isn't possible to have non-discrete transfers of anything. Space, energy, time, anything.

 

[Dale]

Continuous process are either possible or they aren't.

They are both theoretically possible and they are consistent with all known experimental evidence.

 

[Squippel]

They are both theoretically possible and they are consistent with all known experimental evidence.

What experimental evidence shows that continuous processes are real? Everyone brings up classical mechanics as if it's relevant. It only appears that way, but appearance doesn't matter if zoomed in 10^-9 meters.

 

[Dale]

What experimental evidence shows that continuous processes are real?

All of it. If you disagree, please cite any piece of experimental evidence that you believe is inconsistent with continuous processes.

 

[Maui]

What exactly is continuous motion and is there evidence that it happens in continuous fashion, as opposed to dicrete?

 

[Maui]

Fallacy? But we can get from point A to point B.

So, we have an observation 'cover the infinite infinitesimal gaps from A to B', and we have a mathematical solution for it (calculus).

What exactly is the problem here? Sounds like you're tilting at windmills.

Observation/description hardly counts as adequate explanation(even if it's utilized into a rigged mathematical framework). Fact of the matter is, motion is assumed(and observed as you say), not understood or explained.

To the OP - it's unreasonable to ask a philosophical question and expect to get anything but philosophical feedback.

 

[DaveC426913]

To the OP - it's unreasonable to ask a philosophical question and expect to get anything but philosophical feedback.

That is actually an excellent point. This is not a quantum physics question at all; it is a philosophical question.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Is it theoretically possible to have energy transfers happen continuously instead of discretely? Does it lead to any problems?

Energy is only quantized in bound systems like an electron bound to a nucleus. A free particle can carry any amount of energy and so energy can be transferred to it continuously. As for tracking a particle through various points in space, this is a no no. If you find out where it is, then because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, you lose track of its momentum and so cannot say where it will turn up next time you look for it. The idea is that you can only speak of what you can measure and since you can't measure a trajectory, you can't speak of it either.

 

[agentredlum]

that is exactly the point, we don't know what is the real world at small distances. different theories look at it in different ways. that is why I provided the links, the issue is much more complicated than a simple analogy. it is not only about particle movement(which inherently not well defined) it is also about how energy is defined and all kind of host processes that are involved like running couplings, masses and so on. also if you read some chris Isham, although complicated, but hopefully you will get some idea of what is involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Isham

IMHO I don't think you need Quantum Mechanics to explain whether movement is possible or not but let's consider for the moment the notion of quantizing time and space. If time and space is not quantized then you have the 'apparent' paradox posed first by Zeno and now here by the poster. This was solved hundreds of years ago using math only, no physics.

Suppose space and time are quantized, then you replace a solved paradox with an unsolved paradox, how do you move by jumping? Where are you in-between jumps? Hyperspace?

Quantization of time and space leads to a greater absurdity than continuity of time and space as far as the POSSIBILITY of movement is concerned. That is all i am interested in, i don't care abour energy, magnetic fields, spin, etc. For now, all i am discussing is the possibility of movement.

 

[agentredlum]

The process of calculating an answer is not the same thing as getting the answer. There's no proof or reroute or shortcut to get an answer of "the next instant" problem when there is one for proving infinite series converging or that pi has infinitely many digits.

You fundamentally don't understand what I'm saying. You cannot pass through the abstract points. Using calculus calculates at an instantaneous time. I'm going to ask you to use Calculus the slope at instant A. Now calculate the next instant. You can't do that! When is the next instant? You cannot do this. The question is unanswerable.
They are the same question. Continuous process are either possible or they aren't. Solving that problem shows whether it is or isn't possible to have non-discrete transfers of anything. Space, energy, time, anything.

I would like to adress your second paragraph at this time t, also at time t-dt and t+dt. I am not saying you are wrong, but IMHO getting close to t is not the same as being exactly at t. My point is...i think we can calculate the next instant as long as we describe what the next instant is.

I think your question is simillar to the following analogy.

You pick a point and ask us to show you the NEXT POINT to the left or to the right.

No one can do that! Don't let anybody convince you otherwise, this is an impossible request.
Not only is it impossible to list all the points as you say, it is impossible to list the next point! So what does one conclude? That it is impossible to list ANY points? IMHO that does not appear to be true.

Now (dt=0) I think it is interesting to ask WHY is that impossible...

 

[Squippel]

That is actually an excellent point. This is not a quantum physics question at all; it is a philosophical question.

I agree to an extent. Though line between physics and philosophy is blurring, and has been blurring for quite some time. I don't think this is quite a philosophical question, it is more of a logic problem. Logistics is a branch of philosophy of course, but it's a not subjective branch.

I would like to adress your second paragraph at this time t, also at time t-dt and t+dt. I am not saying you are wrong, but IMHO getting close to t is not the same as being exactly at t. My point is...i think we can calculate the next instant as long as we describe what the next instant is.

I think your question is simillar to the following analogy.

You pick a point and ask us to show you the NEXT POINT to the left or to the right.

No one can do that! Don't let anybody convince you otherwise, this is an impossible request.
Not only is it impossible to list all the points as you say, it is impossible to list the next point! So what does one conclude? That it is impossible to list ANY points? IMHO that does not appear to be true.

Now (dt=0) I think it is interesting to ask WHY is that impossible...

"As long as we describe what the next instant is." In a continuous function, the next instant question is unanswerable. In a quantized system or discrete function (I guess functions aren't discrete, but you get what I'm saying i.e. discrete values of x), the question makes sense. This is why I think all physics is quantized, because it can't be any other way.

 

[agentredlum]

Have you heard of the Dirichlet function? It is defined EVERYWHERE but continuous NOWHERE.

Here is a link but i also encourage you to look at other links too. I find this function fascinating.

http://math.feld.cvut.cz/mt/txtb/4/txe3ba4s.htm

 

[Squippel]

All of it. If you disagree, please cite any piece of experimental evidence that you believe is inconsistent with continuous processes.

None of it is. The idea of a quanta and quantum mechanics is that energy is transferred in packets. That's the whole foundation of quantum physics.

What exactly is continuous motion and is there evidence that it happens in continuous fashion, as opposed to dicrete?

I'm saying the phrase "continuous motion" is an oxymoron. It's unachievable because a spacing or increment must be made, making is discrete. And it cannot be a infinitesimal length for the reasons stated in all my other posts in this thread.

 

[agentredlum]

I agree to an extent. Though line between physics and philosophy is blurring, and has been blurring for quite some time. I don't think this is quite a philosophical question, it is more of a logic problem. Logistics is a branch of philosophy of course, but it's a not subjective branch.
"As long as we describe what the next instant is." In a continuous function, the next instant question is unanswerable. In a quantized system or discrete function (I guess functions aren't discrete, but you get what I'm saying i.e. discrete values of x), the question makes sense. This is why I think all physics is quantized, because it can't be any other way.

All right, now don't you see another paradox? You have avoided an infinite number of abstract points, covered by the Planck Length, by jumping over them. Essentially you have turned the representation of the real numbers into integers only. Your unit is the Planck Length (plays the role of 1) and every other 'integer' in this system is a multiple of the Planck Length (your unit) You now only allow movement from one integer to another without going through any of the abstract points in between.

Well, this system has some advantages. I think your original wish was to avoid going through abstract points. Now there are no abstract points, every point in this system has a well defined position.

At what cost? Is it worth it?

IMHO you have replaced an 'apparent' paradox with a serious paradox.

You didn't like going through every abstract point in-between A and B so your solution is do not go through ANY abstract point between A and B.

 

[Dale]

The idea of a quanta and quantum mechanics is that energy is transferred in packets. That's the whole foundation of quantum physics.

So what? According to you continuous processes are either possible or they aren't, including time and space. You set the criteria, not me. And according to your criteria all experimental data are consistent with continuous processes, specifically time and space. Energy is sometimes quantized, but space and time are not, even in QM.

 

[Evo]

Closed pending moderation.