Is time discrete? (split from time does not have a speed)

[elfmotat]

you do not use a fixed location in space but the relations of the objects in your experiment.

 

What does this have to do with anything being discrete?

 

 

discrete... packages...

1,2,3...

math is not analog

 

Do you know what a function is? Do you know what calculus is? Do you know what the real numbers are? How can you say that these are anything discrete?

[swansont]

i am unsure as to any constraints beyond granularity.

whithout it however, electrons would not stay in orbit.

 

Electrons are in a bound system with quantized energy levels, and these are time independent states. So: where does time enter into it, specifically granularity of time?

 

to say that time is not a quantizable structure is to say you do not agree with quantum mechanics

is this true?

 

No, it's not true. From where did you obtain such an idea?

 

quantum mechanics must now be thrown out the window.

dang!

 

On what basis do you make this assertion?

[ydoaPs]

whithout it however, electrons would not stay in orbit.

Well, I guess it's a good thing that electrons don't orbit in the first place.

 

to say that time is not a quantizable structure is to say you do not agree with quantum mechanics

is this true?

No. In fact, discrete spacetimes must have variations in the speed of light over cosmological scales. These predicted variations are well within the range of sensitivity of our equipment and this is something that has been tested. Spacetime is not discrete.

 

h is the number that works because it is true.

Yep, it's a proportionality constant. It's also worth pointing out that h alone doesn't make photon energy discrete.

This is just nonsense philosophy.

That's just an insult to nonsense philosophy.

[davidivad]

not sure if i can manage so many questions at once from different directions.

we are really arguing a silly point.

if any of us had the answer wed have the nobel prize...

[Strange]

if any of us had the answer wed have the nobel prize...

 

So stop claiming that you have the answer.

[davidivad]

for now i will at least answer the number thing as it is very important.

if you can count to ten you just used discrete units.

 

So stop claiming that you have the answer.

i believe there is a name for that.

lol where did i say i had an answer to what?

Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad

[Strange]

for now i will at least answer the number thing as it is very important.

if you can count to ten you just used discrete units.

 

But you can divide that number line into infinitely many pieces.

 

Just because you can use integers doesn't mean you have to use integers.

[davidivad]

this is absolutely true.

however if you do not use multiples of the constant then what do you get?

can you have half an object?

Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad

[Strange]

however if you do not use multiples of the constant then what do you get?

can you have half an object?

 

It depends what the object is. You can have half an apple. You can have half a Planck unit.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Strange

[davidivad]

then is half a unit real?

Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad

[Strange]

then is half a unit real?

 

What, you mean like half a mile, half a millimetre or half a Planck length? All equally real.

[davidivad]

guys, my only point is to show that things happen in observable units.

this is clearly supported by quantum mechanics and is used in such a way.

yes you can count how you like because it is your decision.

but the fact remains that it is acceptable to use plack to figure such things out which is based on discrete packets.

if you go below the macroscopic scale and look, what do you see? everything being shared with discretion.

 

What, you mean like half a mile, half a millimetre or half a Planck length? All equally real.

so half an electron is real...

i will return to my undrug statement that interaction happens at c.

this is because everything is a wave.

Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad

[Strange]

guys, my only point is to show that things happen in observable units.

 

Some do and (as far as we can tell) some don't.

 

 

so half an electron is real...

 

That isn't what you asked. Clearly you can't have half an electron, because they are quanta.

[davidivad]

all things happen in discrete units be it volts or feet or any real thing we put there.

fact is that at the subatomic scale things happen at specific values which are incremental.

yes, you can split up a wave mathmatically but can it be real?

no.

it happens in increments people...

[Strange]

all things happen in discrete units be it volts or feet or any real thing we put there.

 

Voltage is not quantised. It is continuous. Just because we measure it in units of volts doesn't mean you cant have a continuous range of voltages.

 

 

fact is that at the subatomic scale things happen at specific values which are incremental.

 

It doesn't matter how often you repeat this, it still isn't true of all things.

[davidivad]

guys, i accept our current theory becaues nobody has proven somthing better.

the current model uses increments of plancks. we all use it.

if you feel that my claim that everything happens in discrete packages, then i set this at quantum mwechanic's knees.

if you use h in calculating things, your math clearly supports my claim.

show me an analog calculation.

 

ps

better use a string

i propose a comprimise.

i propose that since we must first have one object in order to count, that anything else is inconsequential and will have no REAL bearing upon us.

with one, we solve the problem of infinity and at the same time allow it. you can count forever...

einstein is preserved this way as well as quantum mechanics.

can you understand whare i am coming from?

Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad

[Strange]

guys, i accept our current theory

 

Then why do you keep disagreeing with it and making stuff up?

if you use h in calculating things, your math clearly supports my claim.

show me an analog calculation.

 

Again, you are the one making counter-factual claims. It is up to you to support it.

 

But...

One of the first things that made Planck realise that electromagnetic radiation is quantised was the black body spectrum. This is continuous (analog, as you put it) and the equation includes Planck's constant. So Planck himself proves you wrong:

[math]\displaystyle I(\nu,T) =\frac{ 2 h\nu^{3}}{c^2}\frac{1}{ e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT}}-1}[/math]

 

 

i propose a comprimise.

 

What is the point of a compromise, when you are wrong.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Strange

[davidivad]

what specifically am i making up.

i am simply supporting the idea that things are quantised.

as per h

i did not tell anyone to use h.

if i havent made my point clear, i am suggesting that everything is quantized. this is the point i am trying to argue.

anything else you are percieving is a read between the lines.

we all know that doesnt work per quantum theory.

Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad

[Strange]

if i havent made my point clear, i am suggesting that everything is quantized. this is the point i am trying to argue.

 

That is very clear. But there is no evidence to support that claim. And it contradicts general relativity. Therefore you are making it up.

[davidivad]

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?

Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad

[Strange]

are you saying things are not quantized?

 

Some things are. Other things are not.

[davidivad]

can you give me the name of an object in the real world that does not fit the term quantized?

how do you obtain a value without it.

it is used as a constant.

plancks constant...

Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad

[Strange]

can you give me the name of an object in the real world that does not fit the term quantized?

 

Time. Space. Black body spectrum. Voltage. Velocity. Frequency. Energy. Just to name a few examples from this thread....

[davidivad]

voltage is in electron volts,

velocity is a multibody problem unless you are working with a wave which uses planck

energy is quantized do you deny this?

lol, black body spectrum... planck...

Edited November 24, 2014 by davidivad

[Strange]

voltage is in electron volts,

 

Electron volts is a measure of energy, not voltage.

 

Voltage is measured in volts. And, of course, it is not quantised at the level of units of 1 volt.

 

 

velocity is a multibody problem

 

You only need two bodies to define (relative) velocity. But how is that relevant to the fact that velocity is not discrete.

 

 

energy is quantized do you deny this?

 

Yes. There are some cases where energy is quantised, but they are in the minority.

 

 

lol, black body spectrum... planck...

 

I assume you think that is funny because it proves you wrong?