davidivad Posted November 24, 2014 Author Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) i will ask again. why is planck wrong and why do we still use it if that is the case. all other bull set aside where it belongs. theer is no point in adding all this other stuff as i am only concerned with the fact that we accept and use planck's constant. we can talk about cows or beer if you want but that deserves another topic. Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad 1
Strange Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 why is planck wrong In what way is Planck wrong? i am only concerned with the fact that we accept and use planck's constant. No one is going to argue with that.
davidivad Posted November 25, 2014 Author Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) what?... are you saying things are not quantized? this is my point. how do i make it more clear for you. this debate has been over for a long time. why argue it? your need to prove me wrong is silly. i dont know how else to say it. so now you agree with me as if i am arguing the opposite point. give me science, not gargon. .... .... things are quantized and that is why we use it. whats the point right... we know that is true.. good enough for me. "hey, pamala anderson is clearly female so planck is wrong. i told you what i was saying and you wanted to bring it beyond scope. i hope you niow realize what you are arguing against. Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad 1
Strange Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 things are quantized and that is why we use it. Yes, some things are quantised. We all agree with that. Maybe I misunderstood, but you appeared to be claiming that everything is quantised. That is clearly incorrect.
davidivad Posted November 25, 2014 Author Posted November 25, 2014 yes, even formulas are quantized. they contain quantities. i have not seen a real object that isnt quantized and you know this is true because everything has a wave function. seriously, do you understand what i am even saying at all? voltage is clearly measured in volts. you argued that i did not know this... this is not a real object. even volts are measured in increments. measure it without numbers. in order to measure anything you must use units... will you scapegoat again and say that not everything involves planck? e=hv what does this mean to you? 1
Strange Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 yes, even formulas are quantized. they contain quantities. That is not what "quantized" means. seriously, do you understand what i am even saying at all? I'm no longer sure. You seem to be using "quantized" in a non-standard way. voltage is clearly measured in volts. you argued that i did not know this... I simply pointed out that you incorrectly said "electron volts". even volts are measured in increments. That doesn't mean it is quantised; those increments can be as small as you want.
davidivad Posted November 25, 2014 Author Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization is that better for you ? i know specifics are important. i hoppe this helps. Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad
swansont Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Energy is quantized in bound systems, but that quantization comes from solving the Schrödinger equation and applying the boundary conditions. Unless you can show a similar derivation for time (or whatever value is in question) resulting in clearly quantized values, you can't make any kind claim to discrete values. 1
davidivad Posted November 25, 2014 Author Posted November 25, 2014 nonwetheless we must use quantities to do our math. my understanding is that we number the world around us. without quantizing we cannot count. theer has to be a base value in order for you to do math period. this is a consequence of nature we cannot deny. this is the way nature works. discrete values. without them we cannot even point a finger to say. 1
Strange Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) nonwetheless we must use quantities to do our math. Maths is continuous, not just discrete. this is the way nature works. discrete values. You have been shown multiple examples where nature does not use discrete values. Edited November 25, 2014 by Strange
davidivad Posted November 25, 2014 Author Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) show me a single analog number please! everything you have mentioned has to be calculated in units. no not everything has to do with planck, this is true. yet everything is measured in units which fits the wikipedia definition at least of q quantity. if you cant quantify it by giving it a number how do you calculate it at all? literally (and for a reason) you have to have a quantity to work with. what i am suggesting is actually a very simple idea and what the world is based upon (once again).... quantity. you cannot perform an operation without it. Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad 1
MigL Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 I guess there are no circles in your world davidivad. The ratio of a circumference to the radius is Pi ( sorry no LaTex ). What are the units of Pi ? Is it related to h ? Yet we can measure it. Use it in calculations. and very simply disprove your assertions. The fact that certain things are quantized doesn't require that EVERYTHING is quantized. And if that is your assertion you need to provide some evidence for your thinking. Anything other than 'this apple is red, all apples must be red'. We have QM on the one hand and GR on the other. Both work extremely well in their own domains, but they only slightly overlap. Perhaps a quantum gravity theory will demand quantization of space-time, but we don't have one yet, and wishful thinking on your part is not proof. Nor is the assertion that all we calculate is in discrete numbers ( see first paragraph ).
Bignose Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) show me a single analog number please! everything you have mentioned has to be calculated in units. no not everything has to do with planck, this is true. yet everything is measured in units which fits the wikipedia definition at least of q quantity. if you cant quantify it by giving it a number how do you calculate it at all? literally (and for a reason) you have to have a quantity to work with. what i am suggesting is actually a very simple idea and what the world is based upon (once again).... quantity. you cannot perform an operation without it. davidavid, quantized does not mean the same thing as quantifiable, or quantified. quantized means that every number is a multiple of some unit, or quanta. For example -- and I am going to make up a completely farcical example -- if a quanta of coolness was one Fonz, then every measurement of coolness would be a multiple of one Fonz. 10 Fonzies or 17 Fonzies would be valid, but there would be no such thing as 17.5 Fonzies. However, if there were no such thing as a quanta of coolness, but we still had a coolness meter, then 17.5 Fonzies would be meaningful, and quantified. So, if you are truly claiming that everything is quantized (and not just quantifiable), then you need to tell us what the 'Fonzie' of time, velocity, voltage, etc. all are. Not the unit that quantifies these measurements, but the quanta itself that all valid measurements must be a multiple thereof. MigL gave a good example of an number that cannot be quantized, [math]\pi[/math], because it is irrational. Another good one is [math]\sqrt{2}[/math], which is the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle with two legs of length 1. Edited November 25, 2014 by Bignose 1
davidivad Posted November 25, 2014 Author Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) you both agree that ratios are not actual numbers. i do too. it is a division operation. a quantity is different than an operation. pi is not 3.14 inches of course... therefore the number you use in conjunction with the ratio IS a real number and is quantized. i did not say every part of an expression is a quantity as there has to be some kind of operation or action performed. ... and what is the quantum of action? i knew h was important... also to note, you can create a custom function o do more than just create a circle. note that quantitiese still have to be used to show the operation. this passes on the ratio to a whole unit. how big is your circle if it is not quantized with a real number? you would have nothing more than a ratio. let me know when you get done writing down pi. Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad
elfmotat Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) I think you're just getting further confused. Let's say all the information about a system is contained in some time-dependent object, and call it the "state" Ψ(t). If time is discrete, then t1 → t2 → t3 → ..., and there are no values of t between tn-1 and tn. Which means the state of the system changes discretely: Ψ(t1) → Ψ(t2) → Ψ(t3) → ... The consequences of models like this have been worked out, and they fail for the reasons myself and others have mentioned. Quantum spacetime models are a bit different, where the coordinates of spacetime are assumed to be non-commutative: [xμ,xν] ≠ 0. Short answer is we don't know whether or not such models apply to our universe. Most models deal with the Planck scale, which is well beyond what we're currently (or likely ever to be) capable of probing directly. All known data is consistent with the notion that spacetime is continuous at the present. I'll mention one more thing: you've asked us to "prove you wrong" several times in this thread. That's not the way it works. You don't get to assume something is true just because you can't disprove it. That is, by definition, the exact opposite of science. You're the one making claims. The burden of proof is on you, not the other way around. Edited November 25, 2014 by elfmotat
davidivad Posted November 25, 2014 Author Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) Posted by elfmotat on Today, 12:37 AM in Speculations I think you're just getting further confused. Let's say all the information about a system is contained in some time-dependent object, and call it the "state" Ψ(t). If time is discrete, then t1 → t2 → t3 → ..., and there are no values of t between tn-1 and tn. Which means the state of the system changes discretely: Ψ(t1) → Ψ(t2) → Ψ(t3) → ... The consequences of models like this have been worked out, and they fail for the reasons myself and others have mentioned. Quantum spacetime models are a bit different, where the coordinates of spacetime are assumed to be non-commutative: [xμ,xν] ≠ 0. Short answer is we don't know whether or not such models apply to our universe. Most models deal with the Planck scale, which is well beyond what we're currently (or likely ever to be) capable of probing directly. All known data is consistent with the notion that spacetime is continuous at the present. I'll mention one more thing: you've asked us to "prove you wrong" several times in this thread. That's not the way it works. You don't get to assume something is true just because you can't disprove it. That is, by definition, the exact opposite of science. You're the one making claims. The burden of proof is on you, not the other way around. #838890 Is time discrete? (split from time does not have a speed) Posted by davidivad on Yesterday, 06:10 PM in Speculations davidivad, on 24 Nov 2014 - 5:17 PM, said: what?... are you saying things are not quantized? this is my point. how do i make it more clear for you. this debate has been over for a long time. why argue it? your need to prove me wrong is silly. i dont know how else to say it. so now you agree with me as if i am arguing the opposite point. give me science, not gargon. .... .... things are quantized and that is why we use it. whats the point right... we know that is true.. good enough for me. "hey, pamala anderson is clearly female so planck is wrong. i told you what i was saying and you wanted to bring it beyond scope. i hope you niow realize what you are arguing against. this is a search of "prove * wrong" in this thread. i hope i am clear enough with my logic. sorry, i know well that anything real can be counted. it can therefore be quantized. if you do not have at least one of something you have nothing at all. fact; every single THING can be quantized. action is clearly quantized too. it is the time it takes the speed of light to travel the planck length. the originan question to this thread was does time have a speed. it is calculated as the speed of light across planck length. Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad 1
elfmotat Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 your need to prove me wrong is silly. i dont know how else to say it. so now you agree with me as if i am arguing the opposite point. give me science, not gargon. This is just absurd. I haven't once tried to "prove you wrong," for the reasons I explained. You're pulling stuff from an orifice and proclaiming it as truth with no reasoning or evidence. That's anti-science. I've tried to be as clear on this as possible. If you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (or make no effort to), then I don't see how this conversation can be productive. If I've used any jargon that you don't understand then look up the word, or ask for clarification. things are quantized and that is why we use it. whats the point right... we know that is true.. good enough for me. Just because some quantities are quantized it does not mean that every quantity must be quantized. Multiple people have pointed this out, and you've ignored it every time. "hey, pamala anderson is clearly female so planck is wrong. i told you what i was saying and you wanted to bring it beyond scope. i hope you niow realize what you are arguing against. I have no idea how Pamela Anderson relates to this topic. You've told me what you're saying, and I'm telling you that your claims are unfounded. this is a search of "prove * wrong" in this thread. Did you even bother to try to understand my point in my previous post? That's not the way science works. i hope i am clear enough with my logic. It's clear enough to be recognized as being clearly flawed, at least. sorry, i know well that anything real can be counted. it can therefore be quantized. if you do not have at least one of something you have nothing at all. fact; every single THING can be quantized. action is clearly quantized too. it is the time it takes the speed of light to travel the planck length. the originan question to this thread was does time have a speed. it is calculated as the speed of light across planck length. Repeating the same lines over and over does not make what you say true. You're making unfounded claims. We've had four pages of this now, and not once have you exercised any reflection on your position. You don't even care about what we're telling you. It's counter-productive and a waste of our time.
ajb Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 As already mentioned, if you are going to quantise time then you should also quantise space. There are several classes of models that do this directly, for example discrete space-times, noncommutative geometry following Connes, noncommutative geometry via C*-algebras, noncommutative geometry via noncommutative coordinate rings and so on. When you include fields over these 'spaces' the theories that you build will not be Lorentz invariant as again already mentioned. The attitude to take is that this does not matter as long as that violation of the Lorentz symmetry is small enough not to upset the well tested physics of QFT as it is usually understood. There are also models that quantise space-time more indirectly, for example string theory suggests that space-time may be noncommutative in the presence of a non-zero B-field. 2
davidivad Posted November 25, 2014 Author Posted November 25, 2014 the most basic unit of time is the planck time. this is calculated by the amout of tim it takes for the speed of light to travel one planck length. we cannot even measure change at this scale. however we accept it as such. it IS the smallest unit we have of time and is calculated with c. 1
Strange Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) show me a single analog number please! That is meaningless. But note that the real numbers are "analog" or continuous, in that they can be used to represent any value at all (not just quantized values). And many (perhaps most) things can be expressed as real values. For example, energy and voltage, to give just two examples that you have ignored previously. If voltage were quantized, as you claim, then there would only be voltages of 1V, 2V, 3V, 4V, etc. This is obviously not true. Therefore your claim that everything is quantized is, one again, wrong. what i am suggesting is actually a very simple idea and what the world is based upon (once again).... quantity. That is not what you have suggested so far. You have said everything is quantized, which is very different. Quantity is not the same as quantized. you both agree that ratios are not actual numbers. No one said that. Of course ratios are numbers. Even things like pi and root 2, which are not rations, are numbers. (But cannot be quantized) sorry, i know well that anything real can be counted. it can therefore be quantized. To be counted is to quantified not quantized. Edited November 25, 2014 by Strange
davidivad Posted November 25, 2014 Author Posted November 25, 2014 it is meaningless because numbers are quantized and not analog. there is no special meaning for quantized. it means what it implies. that is why it is used. ajb, i see your point. as you show, there are several ways to do this. you prove that it is useful to quantize both. i agree with this even if i think spacetime is an effect. it is useful. 1
ajb Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 it is meaningless because numbers are quantized and not analog. there is no special meaning for quantized. it means what it implies. that is why it is used. I guess this boils down to some definitions and topology. Given the standard topology on the real line then the real numbers are continuous. That is between any two numbers you can always find another one. In fact you an find infinitely many. If you give the real numbers the discrete topology then it is discrete and this is probabily what you mean by quantised. You take every number as 'an isolated point'. you prove that it is useful to quantize both. Given that special and general relativity 'mix up' space and time it is natural to think that if we can apply some quantisation to time then we must do the same with space. It would seem very unnatural to treat the two differently. 1
davidivad Posted November 25, 2014 Author Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) I guess this boils down to some definitions and topology. Given the standard topology on the real line then the real numbers are continuous. That is between any two numbers you can always find another one. In fact you an find infinitely many. If you give the real numbers the discrete topology then it is discrete and this is probabily what you mean by quantised. You take every number as 'an isolated point'. Given that special and general relativity 'mix up' space and time it is natural to think that if we can apply some quantisation to time then we must do the same with space. It would seem very unnatural to treat the two differently. yes, im talking about discrete units. i realize that you can spit a unit into infinity forever on a number line. my point, i guess, is that real objects come in discrete quantities. you can have three and a half cows on a farm but then is it really useful in such circumstances? these guys are counting three and a half cows at the farm. i might have answered the lawrence question if i had gotten a shot but got divebombed before i could respond. so i just tried to get as much as i could without writing my own paper. i have no issues with relativity as the two should get married some day. (i think i said this once before). this obviously ruffles feathers.lol especially considering the one thing i did not answer. lawrence invariance fact is none of us have a truly acceptable answer for that. we only have new ideas. therefore i retain my stance on the fact that quantum mechanics is the best bet until then. remember guys, i am only saying that real things have to be countable to be real. this is not a far stretch for some. thier argument: three and a half cows is real. my argument: whats the point in counting three and a half cows if you need whole cows to produce? ... moo Edited November 25, 2014 by davidivad 1
Strange Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) it is meaningless because numbers are quantized and not analog. No. It is meaningless because you said a single analog number. A single number obviously has a single value and therefore is not, in itself analog. my point, i guess, is that real objects come in discrete quantities. you can have three and a half cows on a farm but then is it really useful in such circumstances? So you are changing your argument, now? You started by claiming that everything was quantized (time, space, voltage, energy). Now it is just cows and other "real objects"? Even then, I'm not sure I agree. I often see half a pig or a 100th of a cow in the butchers shop. But you will never see half an electron. So electrons are quantized but animals aren't. i have no issues with relativity as the two should get married some day. (i think i said this once before). this obviously ruffles feathers. That doesn't ruffle any feathers. I doubt anyone would disagree. therefore i retain my stance on the fact that quantum mechanics is the best bet until then. No one is disagreeing with that, either. remember guys, i am only saying that real things have to be countable to be real. That is not what you said. thier argument: three and a half cows is real. No one has said that. That is not just a straw-man argument, it is grossly dishonest. Edited November 25, 2014 by Strange
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now