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

  • Thread starter Squippel
  • Start date
  • #26
706
2
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.
 
  • #27
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,547
2,024
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.
 
  • #28
918
16
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.
 
  • #29
460
0
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 lets 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.:smile:
 
  • #30
460
0
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...:smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #31
4
0
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...:smile:
"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.
 
  • #32
460
0
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.:smile:

http://math.feld.cvut.cz/mt/txtb/4/txe3ba4s.htm
 
  • #33
4
0
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 continous 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.
 
  • #34
460
0
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. :smile:

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.
 
  • #35
28,712
4,985
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Evo
Mentor
23,103
2,448
Closed pending moderation.
 

Related Threads for: Is there any theoretical way to have physics work not like quantum mechanics?

Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
694
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
93
Views
7K
Top