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

[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 address 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.